20201201 Late Correspondence1
From:Teresa Takaoka
Sent:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:48 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
Attachments:2020-12-1 - Californians Letter to City Council.pdf
From: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:47 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
From: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> On Behalf Of matt@caforhomes.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 4:24 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley
<david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com; Elena Gerli
<egerli@awattorneys.com>; 'Nickless, Greg@HCD' <Greg.Nickless@hcd.ca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
To the City Council:
Please see the attached correspondence regarding Public Hearing Item 1 being considered at your upcoming meeting.
TO STAFF: In light of the length of the letter, we are not asking that the letter be read into the record. Instead, we ask
that you read this statement:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non‐profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s
housing crisis. You have been provided with a letter we submitted as part of our work monitoring local compliance with
California’s laws regarding accessory dwelling units. Our letter follows up on our recent correspondence regarding the
City’s draft ADU ordinance. Our detailed concerns about the City’s draft ordinance are explained in our prior
correspondence.
Tonight, we wish instead to highlight a recent development in ADU law that impacts the City’s ordinance. In September,
the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued revised Guidelines on the ADU laws. The
Guidelines confirm that the City’s ordinance does not comply with subdivision (e)(1) of Government Code Section
65852.2. Yesterday, we reached out to HCD and received confirmation that the City’s plan to apply geographic
restrictions to subdivision (e)(1) ADUS is unlawful. The email from HCD is attached to our letter.
And you don’t have to take our or HCD’s word for it. Cities across California are properly complying with this
rule. Critically, the City of Palos Verdes Estates—after which the City has modeled aspects of its ordinance—long ago
recognized that the law requires cities to exempt subdivision (e)(1) ADUs from geographic restrictions. In PVE,
subdivision (e)(1) ADUs proceed as over‐the‐counter building permits with no local restrictions whatsoever. 1
2
If the City moves forward with the ordinance as drafted, it risks referral to the Attorney General. It also risks litigation by
homeowners and nonprofit organizations under the state ADU laws and the Housing Accountability Act. Litigation under
the Housing Accountability Act carries harsh penalties and mandatory fee‐shifting. For the purposes of Government
Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this comment constitutes our comments submitted in connection with all ADU applications
received between January 1, 2020 and the date that HCD issues a final approval of a new ADU ordinance adopted by the
City.
We urge you to direct staff to discuss the issues raised in our correspondence with staff at HCD, and to bring you a
revised, compliant ordinance.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
--
Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
matt@caforhomes.org
Tel: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through
impact litigation and other legal tools.
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
December 1, 2020
VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Email: john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov; eric.alegria@rpvca.gov; david.bradley@rpvca.gov;
ken.dyda@rpvca.gov; barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov; cc@rpvca.gov
RE: December 1, 2020 City Council Meeting, Public Hearing Item 1
To the City Council:
This letter follows up on our extensive prior correspondence, which provided detailed
feedback on the City’s draft ordinance regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs). You will again
consider the ordinance at your December 1, 2020 meeting.
In our November 17 letter, we highlighted a conflict between the City’s draft ordinance
and the law regarding ADUs that must be permitted under subdivision (e)(1) of Government Code
Section 65852.2, as articulated in the September 2020 Guidelines issued by the state Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD). These Guidelines have the force of law. Gov.
Code § 65852.2(i).
In the staff report before you and a separate letter to us, the City Attorney expressed
disagreement with our interpretation of the law. This disagreement appears to reflect a
fundamental misunderstanding of our correspondence. Our concern is not with the City’s
treatment of all ADUs or ADUs within residential versus non-residential zones. Instead, we are
specifically addressing ADUs that fall into the low-impact categories enumerated in
subdivision (e)(1), including interior conversions and small detached ADUs. These ADUs must
be permitted without applying any local development standards, including geographic restrictions.
To address the City Attorney’s comments, we reached out to get an answer direct from the
source. Here is what HCD staff said:
[L]ocal agencies (cities and counties) must allow ADUs, as noted in Gov. Code
Section 65852.2(e)(1), regardless of local development standards, including
geographic restrictions. Geographic restrictions may not be applied where an
ADU is proposed to be created under subdivision (e) of ADU statute.
November 30, 2020 Nickless Email (enclosed).
December 1, 2020
Page 2
Cities across California are properly complying with this rule. Critically, the City of Palos
Verdes Estates—after which the City has modeled aspects of its ordinance—long ago recognized
that the law requires cities to exempt subdivision (e)(1) ADUs from geographic restrictions. Here
is that city’s permitting pathway chart, which provides a simple visual explanation of the law and
identifies the subdivision (e)(1) ADUs as “Building Permit Only” ADUs:
HCD will ultimately weigh whether the City’s ordinance complies with state law, and it is
empowered to refer the City to the Attorney General if it determines that the City is in violation of
the law. Gov. Code § 65852.2(h). For that reason, it would be highly imprudent for the City to
pass this ordinance in its current form. At a minimum, the City Council should direct staff to
discuss these issues with staff at HCD—something we have been asking the City to do for months.
Beyond referral to the Attorney General, if the City adopts the ordinance in its current form,
it opens the City to the very serious risk of litigation by homeowners and non-profit organizations
like Californians for Homeownership. In addition to violating the state ADU laws, every time the
City enforces its unlawful ADU policies, that will constitute a separate violation of the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5. Violation of the HAA carries
serious penalties. Our organization is entitled to automatic standing and automatic fee shifting
provisions under the HAA. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this
letter constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with all ADU applications
December 1, 2020
Page 3
received between January 1, 2020 and the date that the Department of Housing and Community
Development issues its final approval of a new ADU ordinance adopted by the City.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian, City Manager (by email to aram@rpvca.gov)
Ken Rukavina, Comm. Dev. Director (by email to krukavina@rpvca.gov)
Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner (by email to amys@rpvca.gov)
William W. Wynder, Esq., City Attorney (by email to wwynder@awattorneys.com)
Elena Q. Gerli, Esq., Attorney to the Comm. (by email to egerli@awattorneys.com)
California Department of Housing and Community Development
Greg Nickless, Housing Policy Analyst (by email to greg.nickless@hcd.ca.gov)
ATTACHMENT
1
Matthew Gelfand
From:Nickless, Greg@HCD <Greg.Nickless@hcd.ca.gov>
Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 12:37 PM
To:matt@caforhomes.org
Subject:RE: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
Matt-
This is to confirm that local agencies (cities and counties) must allow ADUs, as noted in Gov. Code Section 65852.2(e)(1),
regardless of local development standards, including geographic restrictions. Geographic restrictions may not be applied
where an ADU is proposed to be created under subdivision (e) of ADU statute.
-Greg
From:Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org>On Behalf Of matt@caforhomes.org
Sent:Monday, November 30, 2020 11:34 AM
To:Nickless, Greg@HCD <Greg.Nickless@hcd.ca.gov>
Cc:'Ken Rukavina' <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; 'Amy Seeraty' <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com;
egerli@awattorneys.com
Subject:RE: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
Dear Mr. Nickless:
Two weeks ago, we sent the attached letter to the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In our letter, we
explained that cities must permit ADUs that fall into the categories in Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1) on any
qualifying lot, regardless of geographic restrictions a city might set for other kinds of ADUs based on issues like public
safety. We cited HCD’s guidance, which is clear on this subject. We noted that the City’s draft ordinance is unlawfully
restrictive because it does not exclude the subdivision (e)(1) ADUs from the City’s geographic restrictions on ADUs. The
draft ordinance would unlawfully subject subdivision (e)(1) ADUs to a conditional use permit process on many lots in the
City.
Tomorrow, the City Council will consider the first reading of the ADU ordinance. The staff report being presented to the
City Council insists that we have misinterpreted HCD’s guidance, and that the City may lawfully place geographic
restrictions on subdivision (e)(1) ADUs. The staff report is available at:
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&event_id=1678&meta_id=88332 [rpv.granicus.com]
Can you please reply with confirmation that cities must allow the categories of ADUs identified in Government Code
Section 65852.2(e)(1) regardless of geographic restrictions?
Greg Nickless
Housing Policy Specialist
Housing & Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 | Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916.274.6244
2
All the best,
Matthew Gelfand
From:Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org>
Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:00 PM
To:john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov;eric.alegria@rpvca.gov;david.bradley@rpvca.gov;ken.dyda@rpvca.gov;
barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov;cc@rpvca.gov
Cc:'Ken Rukavina' <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; 'Amy Seeraty' <AmyS@rpvca.gov>;wwynder@awattorneys.com;
egerli@awattorneys.com; 'Nickless, Greg@HCD' <Greg.Nickless@hcd.ca.gov>
Subject:Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
To the City Council:
Please see the attached correspondence regarding Public Hearing Item 1 being considered at your upcoming meeting.
TO STAFF: In light of the length of the letter, we are not asking that the letter be read into the record. Instead, we ask
that you read this statement: “Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using
legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. You have been provided with a letter we submitted as part of our work
monitoring local compliance with California’s laws regarding accessory dwelling units. Our letter follows up on our
recent correspondence regarding the City’s draft ADU ordinance. Our detailed concerns about the City’s d raft ordinance
are explained our prior correspondence. Tonight, we wish instead to highlight a recent development in ADU law that
impacts the City’s ordinance. In September, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
issued revised guidance on the ADU laws. The Guidelines are attached with our letter, and they have the force of
law. The Guidelines confirm the positions taken in our prior letters. Most critically, they confirm that the City’s
ordinance does not comply with subdivision (e)(1) of Government Code Section 65852.2. Your time and hard work are
valuable. We urge you to continue this item and to direct staff to conduct a bottom-to-top reassessment of the draft
ordinance based on the HCD Guidelines. As part of that process, staff should also consult with the HCD, including
sharing the draft ordinance with HCD staff. Thank you for your consideration.”
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
--
Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
matt@caforhomes.org
Tel: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through
impact litigation and other legal tools.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DECEMBER 1, 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.
c
1
4
5
Description of Material
Revised Minutes for October 20, 2020
Response Letter from City Attorney Wynder to Mathew Gelfand
(Californians for Homeownership); Email exchange between Community
Development Director Rukavina and Jessica Leeds
Email exchanges between City Manager Mihranian and: Bill Schurmer;
Don Bell; Sylvia Macia; Bill and Marty Foster; Herb Stark; Lynne and
Gene Dewey; Mickey Rodich
Emails from: Don Bell; Gene Dewey; James Hevener
Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Mickey Rodich;
Email from James Hevener (see Item 4)
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, November 30, 2020**.
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20201201 additions revisions to agenda.docx
CALL TO ORDER:
DRAFT
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2020
A Regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council was called to order by
Mayor Cruikshank at 7:06P.M. Hesse Park, McTaggart Hall, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard and via teleconference using the Zoom platform notice having been given
with affidavit thereto on file.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Bradley, Dyda, Ferraro, Alegria, and Mayor Cruikshank
ABSENT: None.
Also present were Ara Mihranian, City Manager; William W. Wynder, City Attorney, and
Teresa Takaoka, Deputy City Clerk.
Also present were Ara Mihranian, City Manager; Karina Banales, Deputy City Manager;
William W. Wynder, City Attorney; Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance; Ken Rukavina,
Director of Community Development; Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks;
Lukasz Buchwald, Information Technology Manager; and Teresa Takaoka, Deputy City
Clerk.
Also present was Captain James Powers, Lomita Station, Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Benjamin Steiglitz.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Cruikshank and the City Council recognized the Allen Family, the Corr Family,
the Yamada family, and Linda Reid.
RECYCLE AND EMERGENCY PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS KIT DRAWING:
Mayor Cruikshank announced the Recycle Winners for the October 6, 2020, City
Council meeting: Jerry Cheng and Mr & Mrs Walch. He indicated that all winners
receive a check for $250 and urged everyone to participate in the City's Recycling
Program. He noted that in addition to winning the Recycler Drawing, the two individuals
also won a Personal Emergency Preparedness Kit from the City valued at $60.00.
C.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria moved, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro, to approve the
agenda as presented.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Dyda, Ferraro, Alegria, and Mayor Cruikshank
None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
The following member of the public addressed the City Council: Alexa Ryan-Shirley.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:
City Manager Mihranian announced the following: Breast Cancer Awareness Month;
Virtual Coffee; Upcoming Elections and Vote centers; The Great Shake Out; Virtual
Prepared Peninsula; Recreation & Parks Halloween Activities; Happy Birthday to
Councilman Dyda.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that late correspondence was distributed and there
was one request to speak on item G.
Councilmember Bradley requested to pull Item F.
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria moved, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro to approve the
Consent Calendar with items F to be heard at the end of Regular Business and item G
to be heard immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Dyda, Ferraro, Alegria, and Mayor Cruikshank
None
ABSENT: None
A. Motion to Waive Full Reading
Adopted a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting
with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all Council Members
after the reading of the title.
B. Approval of Minutes (Takaoka)
Approved the Minutes of the September 15, 2020, Regular Meeting.
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 2 of 8
C. Registers of Demands (Amundson)
Adopted Resolution No. 2020-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE
PAID (Check date 9/18/20); and, Adopted Resolution No. 2020-57, A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM
WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID (Check date 10/02/20).
D. Consideration and possible action to adopt Ordinance No. 638 amending
Sections 17.76.020(C) (Noncommercial Amateur Radio Antennas) and (D)
(Noncommercial Amateur Radio Antenna Permit) of Chapter 17.76
(Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) to update the regulations and review
procedures for noncommercial amateur radio antennas (Case No. PLCA2020-
0003). (Yoon)
Adopted Ordinance No. 638, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES AMENDING SECTIONS 17.76.020(C) (NONCOMMERCIAL AMATEUR
RADIO ANTENNAS) AND (D) (NONCOMMERCIAL AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA
PERMIT) OF CHAPTER 17.76 (MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS AND STANDARDS)
OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE
TO UPDATE THE REGULATIONS AND REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR
NONCOMMERCIAL AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS.
E. Consideration and possible action to adopt Ordinance No. 639 amending
Section 13.06.030 (Charges Levied) of Chapter 13.06 (Sewer Service Charges -
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District) of Title 13 (Public Services) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code relating to sewer service charges for the
Abalone Cove Sewer System. (O'Neill)
Adopted Ordinance No. 639, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES AMENDING SECTION 13.06.030 OF CHAPTER 13.06 (SEWER SERVICE
CHARGES-ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT) OF TITLE 13
(PUBLIC SERVICES) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGES.
F. Consideration and possible action to adopt a resolution opposing Proposition
15, the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020.
(Villalpando)
This item was removed for separate consideration.
G. Consideration and possible action to update the City's Residential Guidelines
to Underground Utilities. (O'Neill)
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 3 of 8
This item was removed for separate consideration.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) PULLED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
G. Consideration and possible action to update the City's Residential Guidelines
to Underground Utilities. (O'Neill)
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that this item was pulled earlier this evening by
Councilmember Bradley, and there was one request to speak.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Dale Spiegel.
Councilmember Bradley moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Alegria to continue
this item to the meeting of November 4, 2020.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Dyda, Ferraro, Alegria and Mayor Cruikshank
None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
None.
REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. Consideration and possible action regarding the City Council-adopted
directives to address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. (Waters)
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that late correspondence was distributed and there
were thirty-three requests to speak.
Directory Linder, Administrative Analyst/ Open Space Manager Lozano and Senior
Administration Analyst Waters presented a staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Mickey Radich;
Nour Haddad; Ruth Alves; Chad Dime; MachikoYasuka; Linda Varner; Kim Lindsey;
Barry Rodveller; Donna Hulbert; Don Douthwright; Andrew Ely; Terry Scott; Bharati
Singh; Schenley Co; Dian Hatch; Miriam Varend; Kathy Edgerton; AI Edgerton;
Pamela Nathan; Louis Smolensky; Gregory MacDonald; Jane Affonso; Patrick
Wilson; Julie Winter; Stacy Steene; Machika Thaker; Xana Hermosillo; Daniel
Melling; Robinett Gant; Irene Riedl; Bryce Lowe White; Robert Moore; Kristen
Zaleski.
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 4 of 8
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria moved, seconded by Councilmember Bradley to proceed with
Staff Recommendations for Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which was Approved (5-0) with the
addition of Councilmember Dyda's request to require staff to prepare the necessary
change order for the entry gate installation.
Councilmember Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Cruikshank to proceed with Staff
Recommendation No.4 which, was approved (4-1 with Mayor Pro Tern Alegria voting
no) establishing Preserve hours as 7am to 7pm including adjustments to the closing
hour 4x per year such that the park's closing hours would remain open based on the
longest daylight hour of each quarter.
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria moved, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro to proceed with
Staff Recommendation No.5, which was approved (4-1 with Councilmember Bradley
voting no) with the addition of a report back to Council on a proposed or needed plan
for enforcement in the Preserve
Councilmember Bradleymoved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Alegria to proceed with
Staff Recommendation No.6, which was approved (5-0) with adding language "other
areas as deemed appropriate by Staff'.
Councilmember Bradley moved, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro to proceed with
Staff Recommendation No.7, which was deferred (5-0) until after holistic parking
study.
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria moved, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro to proceed with
Staff Recommendation No.8, which was approved (5-0) with the addition that the
current drop off-zone be expanded from one car length to three car lengths.
Additionally, Council directed (5-0) that Staff (1) consider beautifying the trails in the
Civic Center area; (2) provide a parking fee analysis of possible charges and penalties
for violations; (3) work with the PVPLC to determine capacity on the trails, and to
report back to the Council on December 15, 2020; and, (8) Adopted Resolution No.
2020-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES PROHIBITING THE STOPPING, PARKING, OR STANDING OF
VEHICLES ON CRENSHAW BOULEVARD ALONG AN APPROXIMATELY 390
FOOT SECTION OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF CRENSHAW BLVD. FROM
APPROXIMATELY RATTLESNAKE TRAILHEAD TO PARK PLACE FOR 60 DAYS
UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria motioned to extend the meeting to 11:30 P.M. Without
objection, Mayor Cruikshank so ordered.
2. Consideration and possible action to receive and file a presentation from
Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding recent heat-related power
outages. (Villalpando)
Deputy City Clerk reported that there were no request to speak.
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 5 of 8
Mayor Cruikshank moved to waive report give a brief presentation.
Southern California Edison representatives Vic Nol and Connie Turner presented a
PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro: Receive and file a
presentation by Southern California Edison (SCE) regarding recent heat-related
power outages.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Dyda, Ferraro, Alegria and Mayor Cruikshank
None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Cruikshank called for a brief recess at 11:11 P.M. The meeting reconvened at
11:18 P.M.
Mayor Cruikshank recused himself at 11:11 P.M.
3. Consideration and possible action to receive status report on relocating
certain utility poles at 3867 Crest Road. (Rukavina)
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that late correspondence was distributed and there
were ten requests to speak.
Councilmember Bradley motioned to extend the meeting to midnight, without
objection Mayor Pro Tern Alegria so ordered.
Community Development Director Rukavina presented a staff report and PowerPoint
presentation.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
The following members of the public addressed the City Council: Giovanni
Funiciello; Tina Funiciello; Dale Spiegel; Sharon Jang; Naomi Foust; Tracy Beecher;
Kathy Campbell; Jocelyn Foust; Larry Lewellyn; Donna Lewllyn.
Councilmember Bradley moved to extend meeting to 12:45 A.M without objection,
Mayor Pro Tern Alegria so ordered.
Councilmember Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Alegria to continue
this matter to the City Council meeting of November 4, 2020, and to have the
applicant provide costs to the HOA to possible negotiate an agreement between the
two parties.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 6 of 8
AYES:
NOES:
Bradley, Dyda, Ferraro, Alegria and Mayor Cruikshank
None
ABSENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) PULLED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER:
F. Consideration and possible action to adopt a resolution opposing
Proposition 15, the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act
of 2020. (Villalpando)
Mayor Cruikshank rejoined the meeting at 1:00 A.M.
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that this item was pulled earlier this evening by
Councilmember Bradley, and there were no requests to speak.
Councilmember Bradley moved to extend meeting to 1:04 A.M. Without objection,
Mayor Cruikshank so ordered.
Mayor Cruikshank moved to waive the staff report.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Councilmember Bradley moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Alegria to not take a
position on Prop 15.
The motion failed passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Bradley and Alegria
Ferraro, Dyda, and Mayor Cruikshank
None
Councilmember Ferraro moved, seconded by Mayor Cruikshank to: Adopt
Resolution No. 2020-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING PROPOSITION 15,
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES FUNDING ACT OF
2020, IN THE NOVEMBER 3, 2020 ELECTION
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Dyda, Ferraro, and Mayor Cruikshank
Bradley and Alegria
None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None.
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 7 of 8
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Councilmember Bradley reported on his attendance on his tour in City Halls' bunker
and Point Vicente Coast Guard tour.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:03 A.M., Mayor Cruikshank adjourned this meeting.
Attest:
/s/ Emily Colborn
City Clerk
/s/ John Cruikshank
Mayor
DRAFT City Council Minutes
October 20, 2020
Page 8 of 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 9:12AM
CityCierk
FW : Californians for Home Ownership
683941_2.pdf
From: William Wynder <wwynder@awattorneys.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org>; greg.nickless@hcd.ca.gov
Cc: John Cruikshank <John .Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina
<krukavina@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca .gov>; Ara
Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Elena Gerli <egerli@awattorneys.com>; William
Ash <wash@awattorneys.com>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Californians for Home Ownership
Counsel -please see our attached response to your November 17, 2020 letter to the City
Council.
William W. Wynder I Equity Partner
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP I 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475, El Segundo, CA 90245-4916
Tel : (310) 527 -6660 I Dir: (310) 527-6667 I Fax: (310) 532 -7395 I Cell: (714) 313 -7366 I wwynder@awattorneys .com I
awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
1 /
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY
November 30 , 2020
SENT VIAL E-MAIL admin@caforhomes.org ONLY
Matthew Gelfand , Esq.
Californians for Homeownership
525 South Virgil A venue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(31 0) 527-6667
Subject: Californians for Homeownership November 17, 2020 Letter
Counsel:
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo , CA 90245
p (31 0) 527-6660
F (31 0) 532-7395
AWATTORNEYS.COM
We are the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City and our office
have appreciated the input you have provided throughout the process of drafting the City 's
proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") Ordinance. While the City included its response to
your November 17 , 2020 letter in the staff report provided to the City Council in its consideration
ofthe possible first reading of the ADU ordinance , we deem it important that the City 's position
on the issues raised in your letter be set forth herein.
In your most recent communication to the City , dated November 17 , 2020 , you argue that,
pursuant to Government Code § 65852.2(e)(l), ADUs which are built solely within an existing
structure may not be subject to any local development standards. Further, you argue that the City 's
geographic restriction(s) may not apply to such ADUs built in residential zones. These positions ,
if accepted, would have the legal effect of subverting the very basis for such geographic restrictions
included in State law, especially when such geographic restrictions are based on fire safety , as are
included the staff draft ADU Ordinance.
We note that State law expressly affords a city the legal authority to impose geographic
restrictions "based on ... the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety."
(Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(l)(A).) The staff draft ADU Ordinance would require that ADU
development in the City 's various "Very High Fire Severity Zone(s)" be subject to approval
through the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") when the property in question does not
have two means of vehicular access. Such a procedure will allow for the ministerial approval of
ADU s in the City , while also ensuring that such development occurs consistent with the heightened
fire safety requirements of any "Very High Fire Severity Zone( s ). "
The Department of Housing and Community Development 's ("HCD 's") Accessory
Dwelling Unit Handbook, issued in September of 2020 , supports the staffs ' approach . HCD
explains that local agencies may limit ADU development to certain portions of the City due to
public safety factors , and that "examples of public safety include severe fire hazard areas." The
Handbook goes on to provide that "local governments may develop alternative procedures ,
01203 .0005 /683941.2
November 30, 2020
Page2
standards, or special conditions with mitigations for allowing ADU s in areas with potential health
and safety concerns. (Gov. Code,§ 65852.2, subd. (e))"
The City has chosen to require a CUP for ADUs constructed within its "Very High Fire
Severity Zone( s ). " Moreover the designation of the existence of a "Very High Fire Severity Zone"
is not a made by the City, but is rather a designation made by the State which comes with a statutory
obligation to prioritize fire safety. Your letter interprets HCD's guidance to only allow cities to
impose geographic restrictions on ADUs developed in non-residential areas . With that
characterization we must respectfully disagree.
Each of the public safety concerns listed in the State statute as the basis for a geographical
restriction are most relevant to residential areas. This is undoubtedly true for fire safety, where
the fire threat from an ADU is only truly relevant in a residential zone. A reading of HCD's
guidance which only allowed the City to consider a "Very High Fire Severity Zone" when an ADU
is being built within a non-commercial zone is inconsistent with the public policy behind both the
State's statutes on ADUs and its statutory designation of a "Very High Fire Severity Zone."
Accordingly, the Office ofthe City Attorney is ofthe considered opinion that the proposed
ADU Ordinance is supported by the guidance provided by HCD and consistent with the intent of
State law.
copies:
01203 .0005 /683941.2
Very truly yours ,
tva~~ U)~~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
(via e-mail only)
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian,
City Manager
Ken Rukavina,
Director of Community Development
Elena Q. Gerli , Esq .,
Assistant City Attorney
Greg Nickless,
Housing Policy Analyst@ greg.nickless@hcd.ca.gov
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Ken Rukavina
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:24PM
jessica
Subject:
Ara Mihranian; Octavia Silva; CC; CityCierk
RE: ADU City Council Meeting Dec. 1, 2020
ORD 472 (Fire Map).pdf Attachments:
Dear Jessica,
Thank you for sharing your concerns. The proposed revisions to Chapters 17.10 and 17.96 are in response to significant
changes to housing laws as a result of recent state housing bills, effectively voiding much of the City's existing ordinance
with respect to accessory dwellings, which have been allowed in the City, but with more stringent zoning requirements
than the state now allows. For this reason, City Council initiated the code amendments last February. You raised many
issues and I'll attempt to clarify why the City Council is considering the proposed amendments. Again, this ordinance
update is in response to newly enacted state laws.
1. Minimum Lot Size: The City cannot impose a minimum lot size per Gov. Code,§ 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i).
2. Setbacks: State codes stipulates minimum setbacks for ADUs of 4 feet on side and rear yards, but no minimum
setback for front yards (Gov. Code,§ 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(vii)); however, the City is proposing a bit greater
setback of 5 feet to be in line with Fire Department access requirements and a 25' front setback for aesthetics.
3. Parking: Various Gov. Code§ 65852 govern parking as follows:
• Allows for one unenclosed or enclosed space per ADU. However, no additional parking is required
when:
o ADU is within :V2 mile walking distance of public transit
o ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure
o When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit
• Stipulates no replacement parking is required for primary residence garage converted to ADU
The proposed ordinance requires:
• one onsite (enclosed not required) space per ADU; and
• onsite replacement parking (again enclosed not required) when a garage for a primary residence is
converted to an ADU or JADU. This is to strike a balance between state requirements and a desire to
maintain egress and emergency vehicle access.
4. Traffic: Traffic was considered in the context of fire safety. The proposed ordinance requires that applicants for
ADUs on streets that do not have two direct means of access in the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to apply for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which will allow the planning commission to consider access in their findings.
5. The High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is the entire City except for the small area east of Western Avenue in the
vicinity of Toscanini Drive. See attached map.
I hope that this answers your specific questions. Please know that our City Council is as frustrated by the erosion of local
control as you are, which is affecting all cities in the state, not just RPV. The proposed ordinance is as tight as it can be
1 /
to be in line with state requirements, and attempts to regulate ADUs to the state minimums in an effort to control ADUs
as much as possible.
Regards, Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
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: jessica <jessboop@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:54PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Subject: ADU City Council Meeting Dec. 1, 2020
Dear Mayor, City Council members, Octavia Silva, Ken Rukavina, and Ara Mihranian,
I do not see any correspondence for this item; is no one concerned or interested?
I am concerned!! Very concerned!! In your proposed ordinance I do not see a minimum lot size for an ADU. How can
that be? We have set back limits on dwellings; what now? Do we change the set back limits to allow accessory units? Did
I miss that? Are we to look like postage stamp lots to allow these ADU units everywhere?
There doesn't seem to be a requirement for enclosed parking with an ADU!
Do you want us to look like a parking lot? Or a used car lot? Or single family dwellings to look like an apartment building
without covered parking?
This proposal degrades our beautiful communities. We must care sufficiently now or suffer the consequences down the
road. Once this is passed, it is too late! Our beautiful communities will look like any other community; over run with too
much building, too many cars, too much traffic, and serious safety issues.
Have you thought about the traffic situation? Sometimes now we are already grid locked; one lane in and one lane out!
If there is construction, an emergency vehicle and/or an accident, we are land locked. Wait until the next 26 homes go
into the Trump Development and the 700+ homes on Western Avenue, one might just as well quarantine because you
won't be able to go anywhere .. to a doctors appointment, pick up a prescription, pop into the grocery, all will take
forever!
What is being done to our beautiful open space (is there such a thing?) in Rancho Palos Verdes?
Where in RPV is "A Very High Fire Hazard Zone?" I need a map. Please forward a map.
2
I believe this is being ramrodded to pass since the State must be pushing this! I hope you all care more about Rancho
Palos Verdes then to allow these loose requirements to pass. Be stronger .. protect our community from all this
overgrowth.
I believe we should not be so accommodating. People will not want to buy homes here; the value of our properties will
drop! Then what? People will not want to live here! You won't be able to sell what you have!
Please reconsider. Please get stronger on this. I am not opposed to additional housing. Let RPV buy a piece of land and
build affordable homes/apartments, etc. near transportation.
I like my neighbors, however, I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND ALL MY TIME WITH THEM OR THEIR ADU'S AND I WILL HAVE
TO, AS THEY WILL BE ALMOST IN MY YARD! Already I have a neighbor who has converted their garage to an office and
now, instead of parking in the garage, they stack up their cars outside. What next?
Do you live here? Please consider the future in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Look back .. the open fields, the Farms, the beautiful rolling hills; almost all gone .. gone to development! Think very
seriously about this!!!!
Thank you for your consideration,
Jessica Leeds
818 399-2408
3
ORDINANCE NO. 472
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DESIGNATING VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD
SEVERITY ZONES, AMENDING THE 2007 CALIFORNIA
FIRE CODE, AND AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 8 of Title 8 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is
hereby amended by adding new Section 8.08.060 thereto to read as follows:
"Section 8.08.060. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. The City Council
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby designates Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones, as recommended by the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection and the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, as designated on the map
entitled Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which are on file in the City's Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement Department."
Section 2. The map entitled Fire Hazard Severity Zone are hereby attached to
this Ordinance as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance
may have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance does not authorize
construction and, in fact, imposes greater restrictions on certain development in order to
protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The Ordinance is therefore exempt
from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for
R6876-0001\1056250vl.doc
1-1
any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 472 passed first reading on May 20, 2008, was duly and regularly adopted
by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on June 3, 2008, and that
the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz and Mayor Stern
None
None
None ~
R6876-0001 \1 056250vl.doc
Ordinance No. 472
Page 2 of 2
1-2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That at all times herein mentioned, she was and now is the appointed City Clerk
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes;
That on June 18, 2008, she caused to be posted the following document
entitled: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Ordinance No. 472, AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DESIGNATING VERY HIGH FIRE
HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES, AMENDING THE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE,
AND AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE, a copy of which is attached hereto, in the following locations:
City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Hesse Park
29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes
Ladera Linda Community Center
32201 Forrestal Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a true and correct affidavit
of posting. ~~~
City Clerk
W:\FORMS\Form 150 -Affidavit of Posting Ordinance No. 472.doc
1-4
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12 :35 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020 -Item #4
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:30 PM
To: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>; Martha
Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Billy Foster <bfos@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; Yossef Aelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Jack Fleming
<jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Sylvia Macia <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com>;
R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020-Item #4
Hi Bill,
I hope this message finds you well.
The City Council is in receipt of your email, and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as
part of the late correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding moving forward with the Ladera
Linda Park project while the City is addressing increased visitation throughout the City .
You raise legitimate concerns that , as you may know, the City is addressing. The Ladera Linda
project is intended to primarily serve the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the City's
amenities. Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an
additional year while Staff processes the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and CEQA (environmental)
documents with the Planning Commission. The duly noticed public hearing with the Planning
Commission is tentatively scheduled for January 2021. Once a decision is rendered by the Planning
Commission, it will be presented to the City Council for consideration . The preparation of the
construction drawings will only proceed if directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively
scheduled to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations in March/April 2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with Johnson Favaro , any project
design revisions and refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input,
can be drawn and presented to the public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure
the appropriate changes are made to the drawings for public review . All work on construction
drawings was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by the City Council at a
public meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public
will be informed, if and when that happens . The CUP/CEQA process is required for this project per
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and will provide you and the public an opportunity to
express your concerns for consideration by the Planning Commission.
1
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hes itate to contact me with
any fo ll ow-up questions.
As an FYI, I a lso sent others copied on th is email a simi lar response th is morning, so I apologize for
the repeated words.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544 -5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca .gov
www.rpvca.gov
Jl Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 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: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com >
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:24PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com >; Martha
Foster <martycrna@gmail.com >; Billy Foster <bfos@cox .net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; Diane Mills <dianebmil ls@gmail.com >; Yossef Aelony <y .aelony@cox.net>; Jack Fleming
<jjfleming2000@yahoo.com >; Sylvia Macia <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com >; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com >;
R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox .net>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox .net> <vlacoS@cox.net >
Subject: Re: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020 -Item #4
Dear Council Members,
I will preface my brief remarks by stating that I was originally an advocate of refitting the existing Ladera Linda site as It
stands.
That being said, I feel even more strongly that this option should be on the table, I visit this because , during the Covid 19
stand down, I have witnessed the result of social media , and how it affects the congestion on our Peninsula . Everywhere I
2
go, be it driving or hiking, I see more and more folks descending into where we all live . Opening up an additional attraction
(the Ladera Linda Park Plan) no longer seems to be a viable option ; in fact, it is the last thing we should be considering ..
Plus, is it good business to pour millions into a project that we could s pend a fraction to achieve practically the same
result? Especially in these uncertain times. Don't through good money after bad .
I summarize with one other strong advantage of a refitting plan ; the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods,
your primary stake holders.
Regards,
Bill Schurmer
32468 Searaven Dr
RPV .
O n S un day, Novemb er 29, 202 0 , 4:13:5 1 PM PS T , Mi c key Ro di c h <m ickeyrodich@gmail.com > wrote:
C ity staff has re-started t hei r intent io ns to proceed with bu il d ing a new Ladera Lin da Park . T he
proj ect w as stopped by C ity Manager Ara Mihran ian last year beca use he fo un d t hat t he staff neve r
obta in ed a Co nd it iona l Use Perm it (CUP ) or a Comm uni ty Env iro n menta l Q ua li ty Assessme nt
(CEQA) stud ies for t hi s project. No w , st aff wi s hes to comp lete t he des ig n and prod uce th e
cons tructi o n dra win gs for t he ne w Ladera Linda Park so that t hey ca n be sent o ut for b id . Staff
is pus hin g t hi s th ro ug h q ui ck ly .
WE all must send an email to "cc@rpvca.gov " today telling them that we do not approve of
this project and w ish for it to be completely stopped and a more reasonable design like Hesse
Park should be built for Ladera Linda. Please ask your friends to also send an email
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:34 PM
CityCierk
FW: CC Meeting December 1, 2020 Agenda item 4
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:32 PM
To: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: CC Meeting December 1, 2020 Agenda item 4
Hi Don,
I hope this message finds you well.
The City Council is in receipt ofyour email, and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as part of the late
correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the Ladera Linda Park project design.
The Ladera Linda project is intended to primarily serve the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the City's
amenities. Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an additional year while
Staff processes the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and CEQA (environmental) documents with the Planning Commission.
The duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for January 2021. Once a decision
is rendered by the Planning Commission, it will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The preparation of
the construction drawings will only proceed if directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendations in March/April2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with Johnson Favaro, any project design revisions and
refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input, can be drawn and presented to the
public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure the appropriate changes are made to the drawings for
public review. All work on construction drawings was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by
the City Council at a public meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public
will be informed, if and when that happens. The CUP/CEQA process is required for this project per the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code and will provide you and the public an opportunity to express your concerns for consideration by
the Planning Commission.
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up
questions.
As an FYI, I also sent others copied on this email a similar response this morning, so I apologize for the repeated words.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
1
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www. rpvca .gov
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: Monday, November 30, 2020 2:48PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: CC Meeting December 1, 2020 Agenda item 4
Dear City Council Members
The Local Community including the Ladera Linda HOA has attempted since 2015 to have this project stopped. What R&P
is attempting to promote is a concept that has been rejected by local residents. Why is money continuing to be burned
on a design that is incompatible with both site as well as utilization?
Please listen to the residents who will be impacted. Reject the Amendment and order the project ended.
Don Bell
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12 :18 PM
CityCierk
FW : Please STOP the staff's proposed new Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park process and
CANCEL it....
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:10 PM
To: Sylvia Macia <sylmac4040@yahoo.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Please STOP the staff's proposed new Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park process and CANCEL it ....
Good afternoon Sylvia,
The City Council is in receipt of your email, and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as
part of the late correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the design of the Ladera Linda Park
project.
Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an additional
year while Staff processes the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and CEQA (environmental) documents
with the Planning Commission. The duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission is
tentatively scheduled for January 2021. Once a decision is rendered by the Planning Commission, it
will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The preparation of the construction drawings
will only proceed if directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider
the Planning Commission's recommendations in March/April 2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with Johnson Favaro, any project
design revisions and refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input,
can be drawn and presented to the public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure
the appropriate changes are made to the drawings for public review. All work on construction
drawings was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by the City Council at a
public meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public
will be informed, if and when that happens. The CUP/CEQA process is required for this project per
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and will provide you and the public an opportunity to
express your concerns for consideration by the Planning Commission.
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hesitate to contact me with
any follow-up questions.
As an FYI, I also sent Mickey Rodich a similar response this morning.
Best,
Ara
1
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Pa los Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca .gov
www.rpvca .gov
~ 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 rec ipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Sylvia Maciel <sylmac4040@yahoo .com >
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 8:17PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Please STOP the staff's proposed new Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park process and CANCEL it ....
Unless you keep it more low key as the nearby residents have continuously requested and I or in the Hesse Park
spirit of design.
I am a resident and a vote and I oppose the staffs version of this project and understand that there is also the
issue of some approvals that have not been received yet.
What is the rush on the part of the staff? Why are resident's views not being incorporated in the decision
making process? Why is the Council not listening to the resident 's who are the ones who voted them into
office? Not the staff who are hired to carry out the desires of the residents, not the other way around!
Yours,
Sylvia Macia
"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it ". Aristotle
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:18 PM
CityCierk
FW: Item four
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:12 PM
To: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Item four
Hi Marty,
I hope this message finds you well.
The City Council is in receipt of your email, and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as part of the late
correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the size of the Ladera Linda Park project.
Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an additional year while Staff
processes the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and CEQA (environmental) documents with the Planning Commission. The
duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for January 2021. Once a decision is
rendered by the Planning Commission, it will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The preparation of the
construction drawings will only proceed if directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendations in March/ April 2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with Johnson Favaro, any project design revisions and
refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input, can be drawn and presented to the
public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure the appropriate changes are made to the drawings for
public review. All work on construction drawings was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by
the City Council at a public meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public
will be informed, if and when that happens. The CUP/CEQA process is required for this project per the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code and will provide you and the public an opportunity to express your concerns for consideration by
the Planning Commission.
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up
questions.
As an FYI, I also sent Mickey Radich a similar response this morning.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
1 If.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www. rpvca .gov
IZl 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: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:17AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Item four
Please do not approve this amendment.
The design and size of the proposed building is incompatible with the wishes of the surrounding communities who will
be most affected by the building and its subsequent use.
Many thanks
Bill and Marty Foster
LLHOA residents
Sent from my iPad
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Herb,
Ara Mihranian
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:18 PM
Herb Stark; CityCierk
cc
RE: City Council Meeting December 1, 2020
I hope this message finds you well.
The City Council is in receipt of your email, and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as
part of the late correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the size of the Ladera Linda Park
project and the amount spent to date on the Johnson Favaro contract.
I understand the concerns you are expressing, and want to provide some clarification for everyone's
benefit.
Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an additional
year while Staff processes the Conditional Use Permit and CEQA documents with the Planning
Commission. The duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled
for January 2021 . Once a decision is rendered by the Planning Commission, it will be presented to
the City Council for consideration . The preparation of the construction drawings will only proceed if
directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendations in March/April 2021 .
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one -year) with Johnson Favaro, any projects
revisions and refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input, can be
drawn and presented to the public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure the
appropriate changes are made to the drawings for public review. All work on construction drawings
was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by the City Council at a public
meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public will be
informed, if and when that happens. The CUP/CEQA process is required for this project per the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and will provide you and the public an opportunity to express
your concerns for consideration by the Planning Commission
As for the budget, as of today, the City has paid approximately $260,000 to Johnson Favaro for
professional design services. Of this amount, approximately $72,000 was paid in FY18/19 and
$188,000 paid in FY19/20, the last invoice was paid on December 13, 2019. An invoice was recently
submitted to the City for approximately $3,000 associated with work on the CUP/CEQA that is
currently being processed and will raise the total amount spent to approximately $263,000 .
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hesitate to contact me with
any follow-up questions .
As an FYI , I also sent Mickey Rodich a similar response this morning.
Best,
Ara
1
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
J"J 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: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 10:46 AM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting December 1, 2020
Regular Business Item 4 Ladera Linda
I am speaking against the approval of an amendment extending the architectural and engineering design
services to Johnson Favaro for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Project.
On December 18, 2020 the City Council approved an amended to the contract which included a $14,740
increase to the Agreement for additional services related to completing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
entitlement process and an environmental review (CEQA) process.
The City Council should reject the amendment for the following reasons:
1. The present design is not compatible with the neighborhood and should be rejected.
2. There is no mention in the staff report of how much of the $14,740 funding remains nor how much
of the CUP and the CEQA process has been completed and if there is sufficient funds available to
complete the process without using the funding available from the construction drawings.
2
Herb Stark
31 0-541-6646
3
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:05 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Laceration Linda Park
-----Original Message-----
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:05 PM
To: Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Laceration Linda Park
Good morning Gene,
The City Council is in receipt of your email and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as part of the late
correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns with completing the appropriate environmental review prior to
proceeding with the project.
Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an additional year while Staff
processes the Conditional Use Permit and CEQA (environmental) documents with the Planning Commission. The duly
noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for January 2021. Once a decision is
rendered by the Planning Commission, it will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The preparation of the
construction drawings will only proceed if directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendations in March/April2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with Johnson Favaro, any project design revisions and
refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input, can be drawn and presented to the
public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure the appropriate changes are made to the drawings for
public review. All work on construction drawings was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by
the City Council at a public meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public
will be informed, if and when that happens.
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up
questions.
As an FYI, I also sent Mickey Radich a similar response this morning.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
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: Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 6:08 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Laceration Linda Park
Staff,
Please consider completing the proper environmental studies before proceeding with the Ladera Linda Park plan. We
think this project is to big and should be reconfigured on the scale of Hess Park.
Thank you,
Lynne and Gene Dewey
Ladera Linda resident
Sent from my iPad
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:56 AM
CityCierk
FW: Mickey's email For City Council Meeting Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2020-Item #4
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:49 AM
To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Mickey's email For City Council Meeting Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2020-Item #4
Good morning Mickey,
The City Council is in receipt of your email and a hard copy will be provided to them this evening as
part of the late correspondence packet.
I understand the concerns you are expressing, and want to provide some clarification for everyone's
benefit.
Tonight's agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard for an additional
year while Staff processes the Conditional Use Permit and CEQA documents with the Planning
Commission. The duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled
for January 2021. Once a decision is rendered by the Planning Commission , it will be presented to
the City Council for consideration . The preparation of the construction drawings will only proceed if
directed by the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendations in March/April 2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with Johnson Favaro, any projects
revisions and refinements requested by the Planning Commission in response to public input, can be
drawn and presented to the public and Planning Commission. This is important to make sure the
appropriate changes are made to the drawings for public review. All work on construction drawings
was stopped almost a year ago and will not resume unless directed by the City Council at a public
meeting after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this, and the public will be
informed, if and when that happens.
As for the budget, as of today, the City has paid approximately $260,000 to Johnson Favaro for
professional design services. Of this amount, approximately $72,000 was paid in FY18/19 and
$188,000 paid in FY19/20, the last invoice was paid on December 13, 2019 . An invoice was recently
submitted to the City for approximately $3,000 associated with work on the CUP/CEQA that is
currently being processed and will raise the total amount spent to approximately $263 ,000.
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not hesitate to contact me with
any follow-up questions.
Best,
Ara
1
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Pa los Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca .gov
.Jl Do you rea ll y 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: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 4:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject : Mickey's email For City Council Meeting Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2020-Item #4
I do not approve of this amendment to extend the Architectural and Engineering design services to Johnson
Ferraro for the new Ladera Linda Park.
It seems like staff is rushing to get this approved as soon as possible so that they can get bids to start the
construction of a park that is not in our residents best interests. This design is not compatible with our
neighborhood.
Nowhere in this report does anyone mention how much money Johnson Feraro has spent from the over
$500,000 contract. I ask the City Council to not approve this amendment, and to stop all work on this project
and to cancel it.
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:33 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Dec.1 ,2020 -Item #4
Late corr
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:19 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; yaelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Bill Shurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; CC
<CC@rpvca .gov>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>; Martha Foster
<martycrna@gmail.com>; Bill Foster <bfos@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Sylvia
Macia <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>;
Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net> <vlaco5@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Council Meeting Dec .1,2020 -Item #4
Dear Ara,
Respectfully, I feel! should note that using the communication link you recommend reveals nothing about the R&P Item
5 grant request. For that matter it also does not reflect Item 4. Is this because R&P is continuing to attempt to slide this
project through and spend more money with the most interested parties (shroud be the subscribers in the
notifications system) not being notified?
This is sort of like the very late Agenda Item 5 addition just under the wire to make it "legal".
I personally think this shows R&P personnel incapable of managing a project that would be acceptable to the local
resident population who sincerely care about their quality of life. Why is something that should be extremely welcome
as a neighborhood improvement so unwanted?
Don Bell
On Dec 1, 2020, at 1:27PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov > wrote:
Mr. Aelony and others,
May I suggest, if you haven't already, signing up to receive electronic notifications for
the Ladera Linda Project.
This is an excellent way to stay up-to-date on the project's process.
You subscribe at the following link:
http://www.rpvca .gov/list.aspx
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
1
City Manager
<image001.jpg>
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
.!; 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: yaelony <y.aelony@cox .net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:04 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov >
Cc: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com >; CC <CC@rpvca .gov >; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Gary
Randall <grapecon@cox .net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno .com >; Martha Foster
<martycrna@gmail.com >; Billy Foster <bfos@cox .net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com >; Jack Fleming
<iifleming2000@yahoo.com >; Sylvia Macia <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com >; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com >; gene dewey <rgdewey@cox.net >; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net >
<vlacoS@cox .net >
Subject: Re: Council Meeting Dec .1,2020-Item #4
DEAR ARA,
I was preparing a letter to the city council in support of the comments made by Bill Schurmer & others
and am pleased to read your letter below.
I will continue to follow the process as you outlined it below as we go into 2021.
Sincerely,
Yo Aelony,
HOA Board Member, Ladera Lina
On Dec 1, 2020, at 12:30, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov > wrote:
Hi Bill,
I hope this message finds you well.
2
The City Council is in receipt of your email, and a hard copy will be
provided to them this evening as part of the late correspondence packet.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding moving
forward with the Ladera Linda Park project while the City is addressing
increased visitation throughout the City .
You raise legitimate concerns that, as you may know, the City is
addressing. The Ladera Linda project is intended to primarily serve the
surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the City's amenities. Tonight's
agenda item is intended to keep the designer (Johnson Favaro) onboard
for an additional year while Staff processes the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) and CEQA (environmental) documents with the Planning
Commission. The duly noticed public hearing with the Planning
Commission is tentatively scheduled for January 2021. Once a decision is
rendered by the Planning Commission, it will be presented to the City
Council for consideration. The preparation of the construction drawings
will only proceed if directed by the City Council. The City Council is
tentatively scheduled to consider the Planning Commission's
recommendations in March/April 2021.
By extending the service agreement (recommended for one-year) with
Johnson Favaro, any project design revisions and refinements requested
by the Planning Commission in response to public input, can be drawn
and presented to the public and Planning Commission. This is important to
make sure the appropriate changes are made to the drawings for public
review . All work on construction drawings was stopped almost a year ago
and will not resume unless directed by the City Council at a public meeting
after the CUP/CEQA process has been completed. I assure you of this,
and the public will be informed, if and when that happens. The CUP/CEQA
process is required for this project per the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code and will provide you and the public an opportunity to express your
concerns for consideration by the Planning Commission.
I hope this information helps put your concerns in perspective, and do not
hesitate to contact me with any follow-up questions.
As an FYI, I also sent others copied on this email a similar response this
morning, so I apologize for the repeated words.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
<image001.jpg>
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
3
3 1 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca .gov
Jl Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 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: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo .com >
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:24PM
To: CC <CC@rp vca.gov >
Cc: Don Bell <dwbrpv@gma i l.com >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com >; Martha Foster <martycrna@gmail.com >; Billy Foster
<bfos@cox .net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
<mickeyrod ich@gmail.com >; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com >; Yossef Aelony
<y.aelony@cox.net >; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo .com >; Sylvia Macia
<llhoacommoutreach@yahoo .com >; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com >; R. Gene
Dewey <rgdewey@cox .net>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net > <v lacoS@cox.net >
Subject: Re: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020-Item #4
Dear Council Members,
I will preface my brief remarks by stating that I was originally an advocate of refitting the
existing Ladera Linda site as It stands.
That being said, I feel even more strongly that this option should be on the table, I visit
this because, during the Covid 19 stand down, I have witnessed the result of social
media, and how it affects the congestion on our Peninsula. Everywhere I go, be it driving
or hiking, I see more and more folks descending into where we all live. Opening up an
additional attraction (the Ladera Linda Park Plan) no longer seems to be a viable option;
in fact, it is the last thing we should be considering .. Plus, is it good business to pour
millions into a project that we could spend a fraction to achieve practically the same
result? Especially in these uncertain times. Don't through good money after bad .
I summarize with one other strong advantage of a refitting plan; the compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhoods, your primary stake holders.
Regards,
Bill Schurmer
32468 Searaven Dr
RPV.
On Sunday, November 29, 2020, 4:13:51 PM PST, Mickey Radich
<m ickeyrodich@gmail.com > wrote :
City staff has re-started their intentions to proceed with building a new
Ladera Linda Park. The project was stopped by City Manager Ara
4
Mihranian last year because he found that the staff never obtained a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or a Community Environmental Quality
Assessment (CEQA) studies for this project. Now, staff wishes to
complete the design and produce the construction drawings for the new
Ladera Linda Park so that they can be sent out for bid. Staff is pushing
this through quickly.
WE all must send an email to "cc@rpvca.gov " today telling them
that we do not approve of this project and wish for it to be
completely stopped and a more reasonable design like Hesse Park
should be built for Ladera Linda. Please ask your friends to also
send an email
5
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10 :00 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020-Item #4
Late carr
From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 9:57AM
To: 'Bill Schurmer' <sbschurm@yahoo .com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Don Bell' <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; 'Gary Randall' <grapecon@cox.net>; 'Herb Stark' <stearman@juno.com>; 'Martha
Foster' <martycrna@gmail.com>; 'Billy Foster' <bfos@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; 'Diane Mills' <dianebmills@gmail.com>; 'Yossef Aelony' <y.aelony@cox.net>; 'Jack
Fleming' <jjfleming2000@yahoo .com>; 'Sylvia Macia' <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com>; 'Judy Hildebrand'
<judbabe@aol.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020-Item #4
Great co m me nt Bi ll.
Ge ne
From: Bill Schurmer [mailto:sbschurm@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:24PM
To:CC
Cc: Don Bell; Gary Randall; Herb Stark; Martha Foster; Billy Foster; Mickey Radich; Diane Mills; Yossef Aelony; Jack
Fleming; Sylvia Macia; Judy Hildebrand; R. Gene Dewey; Jessica Vlaco
Subject: Re: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020-Item #4
Dear Council Member.,
I will prefacull'Pf blief remarks by slaHng 11'1al I was original~ an a!Nocale ol refitting !he exif.ling Ladera linda de aa ll 1larnls.
Thai being said, I fee l evan more atrongtv !hal !his option should be on th e tabla, I villn lhis because, duringtheCovld 19 1tand down, I havew~ne ued the rnun oi $0Cia l madia, and how~ affectslhecongastion on our Penln1ula. Everywtlfue I go, be it driving or hllclng ,l see more and more folks des.cending Into where we an iva. Opening up an
add~lonal attroclion (!he Ladera Linda Park Plan) no longer seems to be a viable option; In feel, ~is the lasllhlng we thould be considering .. Plus,lt ~ 1100d buslnns to pour m ~roons Into 11 pro)ecllha1 we could spend a fraction to u hlewe practie<IUy the same r asu~? Especially In lh ese uncertain times. Oon'l l hrough good money afler bad.
I summarize with one other strong advantage of a rerming pian: the eompat ibil~y with the su rrounding neighborhoods, your primary slake holders.
Re-gards.
BiiSchurmer
32~Searaven Dr
RPV
On Sunday, November29, 2020, 4:13:51 PM PST. Mickey Rod ich <rnickevrodich@gma~.com> wrole:
City staff has re -started their intentions to proceed with building a new Ladera Linda Park. The
project was stopped by City Manager Ara Mihranian last year because he found that the staff never
obtained a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or a Community Environmental Quality Assessment
(C EQA) studies for this project. Now, staff wishes to complete the design and produce the
construction drawings for the new Ladera Linda Park so that they can be sent out for bid. Staff
is pushing this through quickly.
WE all must send an email to "cc@rpvca.gov" today telling them that we do not approve of
this project and wish for it to be completely stopped and a more reasonable design like Hesse
Park should be built for Ladera Linda. Please ask your friends to also send an email
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Members of the City Council
James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:48 AM
CityCierk
City Council Meeting 12/01/20 -Items 4 & 5 Ladera Linda Park Project
I am the Vice President of the Mediterrania HOA (MHOA) and Cubmaster of Pack 955 (Mira Catalina). On behalf of my
family of 5 and those in the MHOA and Pack 955, I am expressing my support for approval of Item 4 (2"d Amendment of
Professional Services Agreement with Johnson Favaro (JF) for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan) and Item 5 (Resolution
Authorizing the Submittal of Grant to obtain funds for the paths, walkways and landscaping associated with the Ladera
Linda Park Master Plan Project).
My family and many others have supported the Master Plan for many years and are glad to see the process moving
forward again. The current timeline, with the potential to break ground in late 2021 or 2022, may end up as a blessing
given the current restrictions on gatherings.
Once the COVID restrictions are lifted, the City will need to do all it can to support our citizens getting out of their homes
to enjoy both the outdoor spaces at the Park and also to meet face to face. objectives in the proposed Community
Center (with multi-purpose meeting and classrooms). The current Master Plan meets these objective while also
adhering to the "less is more" approach to planning and respect for our semi-rural oasis.
Both of the current Agenda Items should not be in debate.
Item 4 appears to be little more than an extension of time for JF to complete the work that already was approved by the
Council in December 2018 and again in December 2019. The bulk of the money already was authorized and budgeted
and the modest additional cost does not significantly increase the over-all cost of the project. These additional costs
appear directly attributable to the CUP/CEQA process, which was not part of the original scope.
Item 5 is a great opportunity for the City to obtain partial funding for the Park. It is my understanding that this grant
program is time sensitive and it is important to take advantage of all avenues for funding. I want to commend City Staff
for their efforts to seek out these opportunities.
The Park Project Has Been Widely Supported and The Council Cannot Please Everyone Completely. This process began
in 2013-7 years ago and there has been extensive input from residents over the years. The current buildings received
an "F" grade in 2013 and doing nothing is simply not an option. The current planned building is much less than half of
the current footprint of the buildings and comparable (or less?) than Hesse Park. Those who have supported the Park
have tried to work from a consensus-based approach and the two design Firms (and the City Council) have agreed to
many accommodations to address the legitimate concerns of the residents who live closest to the Park including noise,
viewshed, and security. But the bottom line is that any Park involves people who will visit the Park and use the facilities,
and there will be some impact on the adjacent landowners. To eliminate all the impacts would be to eliminate the Park
and that is not fair to the rest of the residents who live in the area. This is not just a neighborhood Clubhouse for the
Ladera Linda HOA. While it most certainly should and will be of use to Ladera Linda residents, it also is the only facility
serving residents in the Southwestern part of the City and the current Plan strikes a reasonable balance between the
larger community and the adjacent landowners.
1
The Current Process Should Give Opportunities for Tweaking of the Design. Based on prior discussions with City Staff
and JF it is my understand that reasonable modifications to design elements can be addressed as part ofthe CUP
process and the final design process.
Thank you for consideration of this matter.
Jim Hevener
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Hi Mickey,
Ara Mihranian
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:57 PM
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC
Herb Stark; CityCierk
RE : City Council Meeting 12/01/20 -Item #5
High
I appreciate the concerns you point out in your email regarding the Prop 68 grant item on tonight's
agenda.
You are correct, according to the resolution authorizing the City to submit a grant application to the
State, Section 7 identifies some of the grant terms which is summarized in the Staff Report. It also
states that the grant terms are to the "extent practicable." However, this agenda item does not
commit the City to accept the grant money nor the terms that may come with the grant funding. It
authorizes the City to submit an application requesting grant funds (see the resolution header
language).
If the City is awarded the grant, at that time, an agreement with the State (OGALS) will be presented
to the City Council at a public meeting to consider the terms of the grant. If the City Council finds that
the terms of the grant do not align with the project objectives or vision, it can be rejected. This would
be similar to the grant for the bicycle lanes you mentioned below. I am pointing this out because at
this time we do not know what the specific grant terms are and whether restrictions need to be
recorded against the property.
I also want to clarify that this item was not added to the agenda the day before the meeting . It was
part of the agenda and staff report posted the evening of Tuesday, November 24.
An agenda was posted yesterday regarding a special closed session item tonight on matters related
to COVID-19 and the latest health department orders.
Your email and this response will be included in the late correspondence packet.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C ITY OF
1 s
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
J"J 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: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting 12/01/20 -Item #5
Item #5 is dangerous. It is asking our City Council to approve something that can have serious repercussions
for our City in the future. Placing this Agenda item on the Agenda the day before a City Council meeting is
suspect. Plus the urgency; we have a deadline of December 31st to apply for this Grant. If the City Council
approves this measure, they are committing our City and the new Ladera Linda Park to conditions and
restrictions that can't be changed.
Section #7 in the report lists 6 conditions (and there could be more) that are part of this Grant. Condition 'D'
states "Identifying and implementing improvements to existing programs to increase visitation and access by
diverse populations, etc". At the present time City Council and staff are working on ways to reduce our Social
Media presence on the internet, to reduce the problems at Del Cerro, and at the save time you will now
advertise on Social Media to increase visitation to Ladera Linda Park. This does not make sense. Is RPV using
Grants to build the Preserve entrance gates at Del Cerro. If so, I wonder if it has "conditions and restrictions"?
Over a year ago staff resurrected an old project that had a $700,000 Grant to provide a 3 foot bicycle lane plus
a 3 foot buffer lane on a portion of PVDS between the landslide and Forrestal Drive and no one mentioned the
"conditions and restrictions" attached to that Grant. I asked the question and the answer was surprising. The
City Council decided to not pursue the $700,000 project because ofthe "conditions and restrictions".
By accepting this $203,964 Grant towards an roughly estimated $10 to $12 million project, you have
committed to advertise to increase visitation to Ladera Linda Park . We are paying a huge price for such a small
percentage of the overall cost, which is still unknown.This does not make sense. Why are we looking for this
$203,964 Grant now, when this project is not even finalized.
The only good thing about this Item is that for the first time it lists some of the "conditions and restrictions"
that are associated with the Grant being considered. I have asked many times, in front of our City Council to
have staff include the "conditions and restrictions" associated with each Grant that you consider and this is
the first time it happened.
One of our present City Council members, has commented in the past, that our staff has a practice, and pays
a consultant, to look for Grants and then they come up with projects to fit that Grant description, even ifthe
project was not initiated by the City Council. We should not operate that way. It should be that the City
Council initiates and then approves that project. Then the staff can look for a Grant, but again what are the
"conditions and restrictions". Another answer often given by staff when questioned is "Grants are a bargain
because we only have to pay for 10% of it". It also comes down to "Needs vs Wants".
2
I also feel that Parks and Rec. should not be the Department to award RFP's. That's almost a conflict of
interest/ They should be handled by the Public Works Department.
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 30, 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, December 1, 2020 City Council meeting:
Item No.
H
1
2
3
4
5
Description of Material
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and
Sunshine; Email from Sunshine
Email from Jessica Leeds
Email from Sunshine (see Item H)
Email exchange between Deputy Director of Community Development
Silva and Sunshine; Emails from Sunshine (see Item H)
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and
Sunshine (see Item H); Emails from: Sunshine (see Item H); Bill
Schurmer; Don Bell; Bill and Marty Foster; Mickey Radich; Lynne and
Gene Dewey; Sylvia Macia; Herb Stark
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and
Sunshine (see Item H); Emails from: Sunshine (also, see Item H); Herb
Stark
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20201201 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From :
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Matt,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, November 30, 2020 3:44 PM
Matt Waters
CC; CityCierk
Re: City Council , December 1, 2020 Items H, 4 and 5. Trailheads
I have read what you are recommending . What I am questioning is why you have not considered
how each of recommendations could accomplish a whole lot more infrastructure enhancement for the
same cost.
It is what is missing from each of these recommendations which cannot be adequately addressed
during a City Council Meeting. I addressed my email to you and copied Council with the hope that
you would read it, answer my questions and contact me for more information so that you could be
prepared to help Council make lemonade out of these lemons.
That is in the "downside of doing nothing". Should the Council approve your Recommendations as
written, how much public input will be permitted to "flesh-out" the details of each Contact Officer's
communications with the Consultants? Oops, sorry. you don't answer questions .... S 310-377 -8761
In a message dated 11/30/2020 2:15 :05 PM Pacific Standard Time, MattW@rpvca.gov writes:
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.
1
Take Care,
Matt
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 5:12PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca .gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <C ityCierk@rpvca .gov>; Mickey Rodich
<mickeyrodich@gmail .com> <m ickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Subject: City Council, December 1, 2020 Items H, 4 and 5. Trailheads
Hi Matt,
You have three separate Items on the Council's December 1 Agenda which avoid rather than
contribute toward a "holistic" so lution 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 simp le 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
within 90 days after the Wildlife Agency Permits are received by the City the same, similar or not yet
even drafted?
2
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 310-377-8761
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, November 30, 2020 12:40 PM
CC; CityCierk
RPV CC Dec. 1, 2020 missing Trailhead opportunities
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
The Preserve Public Use Master Plan does not replace the Parks Master Plan and Trails Network
Plan until the City Council gets to designate that it does. Apparently, Council needs to more clearly
define "holistic solutions" if you want Staff to produce what I think you meant.
I never received a reply to my request for advice on how to present comments on a topic that relates
to multiple items on one Agenda. For whatever reason, the Testimony I composed to be read under
Non-Agenda Items did not get read. Your direction to Staff to look into balancing the parking needs
at the various Reserves is a waste of time and good money as long as you continue to fund poorly
thought out Recommendations like Items like H, 4 and 5.
Each of them are presented as somewhat urgent and have some face value. Like the TNP Update
Contract, these are missing the coordinated planning work which should have been done years ago.
Actually, it has been done and Staff has been given the authority to pretend that it never happened.
The following Memo is as relevant now as it was in 2008, even more so since so much infrastructure
has not been maintained. Matt Waters was the Staff Liaison for the 2003 thru 2005 Open Space
Planning and Rec.& Parks Task Force. Just because the City Council did not Adopt the work product
shouldn't mean that Matt doesn't remember the hours of public input which led to a balanced
recommendation for the future of the City's parks and trails.
Items H, 4 and 5, plus Item 2 and 3, independently Recommend spending more money without
describing what we expect to get for it in the way of integrating the PV Preserve into our public-
amenities infrastructure. Give Staff a couple of weeks to add some thought and facts into their
Recommendations .
. . . Sunshine, RPV
July 7, 2008
1
MEMO from Sunshine.
TO: RPV Council and PVPLC.
RE: Definition of a "trailhead".
Early on in the PUMP Committee's work, there were discussions of what amenities should be at
trailheads. I just noticed that the new educational brochure for the Portuguese Bend Reserve
identifies most but not all locations where a trail crosses into the Reserve as a "Trailhead". This is
inaccurate and misleading.
The one most important element of a public trailhead is public parking. Then comes informational
signage, seating (a 14 to 18 inch tall rock with a flat top will do), access to potable water and then
restrooms. A really good trailhead provides access to two trails each leading to another trailhead or
to a trail loop. No trail user group should be limited to going out and back on the same trail.
Notice that of the eight "trailheads" marked on the map, not one of them has as many as two of the
above listed five amenities in close proximity with each other. The Portuguese Bend Reserve
appears to have become an island with one ferry stop. This is not what we donors had in mind.
Joel Rojas has asked me to provide a prioritized list of trails to be considered in the next Capital
Improvement Program. My list will only include sites that are not within the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. I can only hope that the NCCP process will eventually get things right in the reserves.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 30, 2020 4:51 PM
CityCierk
FW: ADU City Council Meeting Dec. 1, 2020
From: jessica <jessboop@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:54PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Subject: ADU City Council Meeting Dec. 1, 2020
Dear Mayor, City Council members, Octavia Silva, Ken Rukavina, and Ara Mihranian,
I do not see any correspondence for this item; is no one concerned or interested?
I am concerned!! Very concerned!! In your proposed ordinance I do not see a minimum lot size for an ADU. How can
that be? We have set back limits on dwellings; what now? Do we change the set back limits to allow accessory units? Did
I miss that? Are we to look like postage stamp lots to allow these ADU units everywhere?
There doesn't seem to be a requirement for enclosed parking with an ADU!
Do you want us to look like a parking lot? Or a used car lot? Or single family dwellings to look like an apartment building
without covered parking?
This proposal degrades our beautiful communities. We must care sufficiently now or suffer the consequences down the
road. Once this is passed, it is too late! Our beautiful communities will look like any other community; over run with too
much building, too many cars, too much traffic, and serious safety issues.
Have you thought about the traffic situation? Sometimes now we are already grid locked; one lane in and one lane out!
If there is construction, an emergency vehicle and/or an accident, we are land locked. Wait until the next 26 homes go
into the Trump Development and the 700+ homes on Western Avenue, one might just as well quarantine because you
won't be able to go anywhere .. to a doctors appointment, pick up a prescription, pop into the grocery, all will take
forever!
What is being done to our beautiful open space (is there such a thing?) in Rancho Palos Verdes?
Where in RPV is "A Very High Fire Hazard Zone?" I need a map. Please forward a map.
I believe this is being ramrodded to pass since the State must be pushing this! I hope you all care more about Rancho
Palos Verdes then to allow these loose requirements to pass. Be stronger .. protect our community from all this
overgrowth.
I believe we should not be so accommodating. People will not want to buy homes here; the value of our properties will
drop! Then what? People will not want to live here! You won't be able to sell what you have!
1 /
Please reconsider. Please get stronger on this. I am not opposed to additional housing. Let RPV buy a piece of land and
build affordable homes/apartments, etc. near transportation.
I like my neighbors, however, I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND ALL MY TIME WITH THEM OR THEIR ADU'S AND I WILL HAVE
TO, AS THEY WILL BE ALMOST IN MY YARD! Already I have a neighbor who has converted their garage to an office and
now, instead of parking in the garage, they stack up their cars outside. What next?
Do you live here? Please consider the future in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Look back .. the open fields, the Farms, the beautiful rolling hills; almost all gone .. gone to development! Think very
seriously about this!!!!
Thank you for your consideration,
Jessica Leeds
818 399-2408
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, November 30, 2020 10:43 AM
Octavia Silva
Jesse Villalpando; Katie Lozano; CC; CityCierk
CC December 4, 2020 Agenda Item 3. Re: Reaching out to the LA County Fire
Department
TNX, Octavia. I'll try and track them down on behalf of the Council's Emergency Preparedness
Action Item 4 and the Rec.& Parks Department's TNP Update Project.
... S
In a message dated 11/30/2020 10:29:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, OctavioS@rpvca.gov writes:
Hi Sunshine,
I received your phone message, but unfortunately, I'm not able to call you back. I'm working remote at the
moment.
If you don't mind I can try and answer your questions via email. We currently do not have a Fire Safety Review
process or a contact with the fire department to conduct Fire Safety Reviews.
When the Planning Division receives a development proposal, we recommend that the applicant contact the
local LA County Fire Department office to present plan information for review. I believe the local offices are in
the City of El Segundo.
I hope this answers you question. Please feel free to email me.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
1 3.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www. rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca .gov
(31 0) 544-5234
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 Halt 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.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 30, 2020 3:26 PM
CityCierk
FW: Council Meeting Dec.1 ,2020 -Item #4
From: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:24PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>; Martha
Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Billy Foster <bfos@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; Yossef Aelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Jack Fleming
<jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Sylvia Macia <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com>;
R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Council Meeting Dec.1,2020-Item #4
Dear Council Members,
I will preface my brief remarks by stating that I was originally an advocate of refitting the existing Ladera Linda site as It
stands.
That being said, I feel even more strongly that this option should be on the table, I visit this because, during the Covid 19
stand down, I have witnessed the result of social media, and how it affects the congestion on our Peninsula. Everywhere I
go, be it driving or hiking, I see more and more folks descending into where we all live. Opening up an additional attraction
(the Ladera Linda Park Plan) no longer seems to be a viable option; in fact, it is the last thing we should be considering ..
Plus, is it good business to pour millions into a project that we could spend a fraction to achieve practically the same
result? Especially in these uncertain times. Don't through good money after bad.
I summarize with one other strong advantage of a refitting plan; the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods,
your primary stake holders.
Regards,
Bill Schurmer
32468 Searaven Dr
RPV.
On Sunday, November 29, 2020,4:13:51 PM PST, Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> wrote:
City staff has re-started their intentions to proceed with building a new Ladera Linda Park. The
project was stopped by City Manager Ara Mihranian last year because he found that the staff never
obtained a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or a Community Environmental Quality Assessment
(CEQA) studies for this project. Now, staff wishes to complete the design and produce the
construction drawings for the new Ladera Linda Park so that they can be sent out for bid. Staff
is pushing this through quickly.
1 ~-
WE all must send an email to "cc@rpvca.gov" today telling them that we do not approve of
this project and wish for it to be completely stopped and a more reasonable design like Hesse
Park should be built for Ladera Linda. Please ask your friends to also send an email
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:50 PM
CityCierk
FW: CC Meeting December 1, 2020 Agenda item 4
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 2:48 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: CC Meeting December 1, 2020 Agenda item 4
Dear City Council Members
The Local Community including the Ladera Linda HOA has attempted since 2015 to have this project stopped. What R&P
is attempting to promote is a concept that has been rejected by local residents. Why is money continuing to be burned
on a design that is incompatible with both site as well as utilization?
Please listen to the residents who will be impacted. Reject the Amendment and order the project ended.
Don Bell
1 Lf.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 30, 2020 9:35 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Item four
Late carr
-----Original Message-----
From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:17AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Item four
Please do not approve this amendment.
The design and size of the proposed building is incompatible with the wishes of the surrounding communities who will
be most affected by the building and its subsequent use.
Many thanks
Bill and Marty Foster
LLHOA residents
Sent from my iPad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 30, 2020 8:14AM
CityCierk
FW: Mickey's email For City Council Meeting Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2020-Item #4
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 4:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Mickey's email For City Council Meeting Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2020-Item #4
I do not approve of this amendment to extend the Architectural and Engineering design services to Johnson
Ferraro for the new Ladera Linda Park.
It seems like staff is rushing to get this approved as soon as possible so that they can get bids to start the
construction of a park that is not in our residents best interests. This design is not compatible with our
neighborhood.
Nowhere in this report does anyone mention how much money Johnson Feraro has spent from the over
$500,000 contract. I ask the City Council to not approve this amendment, and to stop all work on this project
and to cancel it.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 30, 2020 8:13AM
CityCierk
FW: Laceration Linda Park
From: Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 6:08PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Laceration Linda Park
Staff,
Please consider completing the proper environmental studies before proceeding with the Ladera Linda Park plan. We
think this project is to big and should be reconfigured on the scale of Hess Park.
Thank you,
Lynne and Gene Dewey
Ladera Linda resident
Sent from my iPad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, November 30, 2020 8:13 AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Please STOP the staff's proposed new Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park process and
CANCEL it....
Late Carr
From: Sylvia Macia <sylmac4040@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 8:17PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Please STOP the staff's proposed new Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park process and CANCEL it.. ..
Unless you keep it more low key as the nearby residents have continuously requested and I or in the Hesse Park
spirit of design.
I am a resident and a vote and I oppose the staff's version of this project and understand that there is also the
issue of some approvals that have not been received yet.
What is the rush on the part of the staff? Why are resident's views not being incorporated in the decision
making process? Why is the Council not listening to the resident's who are the ones who voted them into
office? Not the staff who are hired to carry out the desires of the residents, not the other way around!
Yours ,
Sylvia Macia
"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it". Aristotle
1 Lf .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com >
Saturday, November 28, 2020 10:46 AM
CityCierk; Ara Mihranian
cc
Subject: City Council Meeting December 1, 2020
Regular Business Item 4 Ladera Linda
I am speaking against the approval of an amendment extending the architectural and engineering design
services to Johnson Favaro for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Project.
On December 18, 2020 the City Council approved an amended to the contract which included a $14,740
increase to the Agreement for additional services related to completing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
entitlement process and an environmental review (CEQA) process.
The City Council should reject the amendment for the following reasons:
1. The present design is not compatible with the neighborhood and should be rejected.
2. There is no mention in the staff report of how much of the $14,740 funding remains nor how much
of the CUP and the CEQA process has been completed and if there is sufficient funds available to
complete the process without using the funding available from the construction drawings.
Herb Stark
31 0-541-6646
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:42 PM
Matt Waters; CC; CityCierk
Correction. Re: Ladera Linda Master Plan Update* Dec 1 Item 5
Late notice equals late response. Why no notice to the other Listserv categories like Trails,
Equestrian and PV Preserve? Ladera Linda is not an island. The Grant Application Writer has a
whole year? Is Item H going to define the meets and bounds of "Gateway Park" as a
RECREATIONAL-PASSIVE Land Use? Have we time to consider other places where our "parkland"
could use some "outdoor site improvements"? I sure wish we had a Citizen Advisory Committee to
kick this sort of thing around before the Staff time is consumed in writing such a specific Resolution.
The Trails Network Plan directs Staff to... Cultivate citizen participation relating to trail
development and activities. Staff has stopped doing that. Please remind them by not moving
approval of their "unvetted" Recommendations.
TNX. . .. Sunshine, RPV.
In a message dated 11/30/2020 11:53:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, listserv@civicplus.com writes:
View this in your browser
Click here to access the 12-1-2020 City Council Agenda.
Please click on item #5 to access the following Ladera Linda Master Plan-related item.
Consideration and possible action to apply for Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Funds for
outdoor site improvements at Ladera Linda Park. (Waters) (1 0 mins)
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2020-_, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION WITH CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND RECREATION FOR PROPOSITION 68 PER CAPITA GRANT FUNDS TO
CONSTRUCT PATHS, WALKWAYS, LANDSCAPING, AND PARK AMENITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER PLAN
PROJECT; and, 2) Authorize Blais & Associates to prepare the grant application, on
behalf of the City, for outdoor site improvement at Ladera Linda Park at a cost not to
exceed $3,780.
This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. If you do not wish to
continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website
at:
http://www. rpvca.gov/list.aspx
1 5.
Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization
without your explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Ladera Linda Park Master Plan on
www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com >
Monday, November 30, 2020 2:35 PM
CC; CityCierk
DECEMBER 1, 2020 City Council Meeting REGULAR BUSINESS Item 5
This Item should be rejected by the City Council. What is staff thinking? Once again Cory Linder is showing his true
colors. For years we have been saying that his vision is not consistent with the residents. What he is trying to do is
commit the city to promote Ladera Linda as a regional park. This would commit the City to active outreach throughout
the county through social media.
This is exactly what the City Council told him not to do. Putting this on the agenda at the last minute is just another
attempt to get it by the residents.
lnessence, if accepted, would leverage a $1.6 million grant for a $12 million Ladera Linda project to force conditions on
the city that the residents have been fighting since the project first started in 2015.
What is the cost of all these added requirements?
This request should be rejected.
Section 7: (PRC §80001(b)(8)(A-G)) To the extent practicable, as identified in the "Presidential Memorandum--
Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks, National Forests, and Other Public Lands and Waters," dated
January 12, 2017, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will consider a range of actions that include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(A) Conducting active outreach to diverse populations, particularly minority, low income, and disabled populations and
tribal communities, to increase awareness A-1 within those communities and the public generally about specific
programs and opportunities.
(B) Mentoring new environmental, outdoor recreation, and conservation leaders to increase diverse representation
across these areas.
(C) Creating new partnerships with state, local, tribal, private, and nonprofit organizations to expand access for diverse
populations.
(D) Identifying and implementing improvements to existing programs to increase visitation and access by diverse
populations, particularly minority, low-income, and disabled populations and tribal communities.
(E) Expanding the use of multilingual and culturally appropriate materials in public communications and educational
strategies, including through social media strategies, as appropriate, that target diverse populations.
(F) Developing or expanding coordinated efforts to promote youth engagement and empowerment, including fostering
new partnerships with diversity-serving and youth-serving organizations, urban areas, and programs.
(G) Identifying possible staff liaisons to diverse populations.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda
310-541-6646
1 5 •