20210720 Late CorrespondenceWARNING -PUBLIC SAFETY HAZZARD -FALLING TREE -SUMMERLAND STREET
If you use Summerland Street to travel between San Pedro and Palos Verdes/Miraleste you are
putting yourself and those who ride with you in danger. There is a tree located at the intersection
of Summerland and Malgren Ave that is on the verge of toppling over. Anyone driving, walking,
biking or just crossing this intersection is literally putting their lives in jeopardy.
By guesstimates this tree weighs over 5 tons and stands taller than a six story building. It is tilting
towards the street at a 10 to 12 degree angle (see pictures) and it is inching its way towards the
street day by day, The pines needles are brown in color and this tree is evidently dead -the same
can be said of the root system which is probably deteriorating as well. It also sits on a sloping
incline which will also hasten it's fall. When it topples over it will slice into the telephone/power
lines across the street which will cause another set of potentially dangerous issues such as
downed power lines, downed telephone poles and more than likely a power blackout. The
likelihood of this tree smashing into one of the hundreds and hundreds of cars that use
Summerland is highly probable as when this tree falls it will do so suddenly and without warning.
The city has discussed blocking off this intersection as a temporary solution to minimize the loss
of life.
If you have any concerns, you can contact the city at:
Rancho Palos Verdes -Department of Public Works
(310) 544-5252
AO~NOA lffiM : Pu eu.;c, Cer1 nH~
RECEIVED FROM:
_hkl,.J.5_ __ £.-:L~L.::;J!~O.e.,,.'T...___-==-
AND MAD E PART OF .THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: '1 I a.o I r9 I
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
1
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 20, 2021
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
_____________________________________________________________________
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight’s meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email from Cynthia Woo
2 Additional information from City’s Geologist Mike Phipps with Cotton
Shires & Associates; Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian
and Mickey Rodich; Emails from: Deborah Berg; Bob Locke; Marty
Foster; Lenée Bilski
5 Emails from: Jasmine Ralat; Thelma Chin; Kristine Watson; Starr
Nagdev
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 19, 2021**.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210615 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Subject: FW : Oceanfront Estates Residential Permit Parking Plan
From: C.Woo<cwoo@live .com >
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:01 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Oceanfront Estates Residential Permit Parking Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I would like to comment as a private citizen on the proposed permit parking plan for Oceanfront Estates . I
have often parked at the end of Pacifica Del Mar on weekdays in order to access Vicente Bluffs Reserve (to
walk the scenic trails and to perform volunteer restoration work). There has always been ample street parking,
the area has been quiet, and people have been polite. Perhaps the situation is different on weekends.
I would be interested to see parking statistics by day and by blocks of time throughout the day. It seems that
permit parking, if any, should apply only during periods of very high use. A blanket 24x7 permit plan would
impede public access-for both non-RPV residents and RPV residents who live outside of the neighborhood.
Such an around-the-clock permit plan seems premature without the availability of supporting usage statistics.
Thank you for taking the time to read through my comments.
Cynthia Woo
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence
Robert Nemeth
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:19 PM
CityClerk
FW : FW: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021 -0012 -Impact to Landslide area
From: Mike Phipps <mphipps@cottonshires.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 202112:13 PM
To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Christopher Dean <cdean@cottonshires .com>; John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov>; Robert Nemeth
<rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; Matt Janousek <mjanousek@cottonshires .com>
Subject: Re: FW: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012 -Impact to Landslide area
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palo s Verdes.
Ken and Robert,
The area of the tree is located within the Klondike Canyon Landslide, and near the head of the Beach Club
Landslide, both of which are in Landslide Moratorium Zone 4 . As we have discussed on similar matters, the tree canopy
represents several tons of weight. Removal of that weight is beneficial because it reduces the driving force of the
landslide mass. The tree is within a pretty large landslide (Klondike Cyn Landslide) that is interpreted to be over 200 feet
deep, and the mass of this tree relative to the mass of the landslide is therefore extremely small. So in reality we are
talking about something that is a quite small, if not infinitesimal, benefit to the overall stability of the landslide. IF the
tree is removed, it should be cut flush with the ground and the root system left intact. That is the best course of
action. If for some reason the tree root ball and root system needs to be removed, the ground disturbance created by
such activity could result in the adjacent slope needing to be regraded. Root removal activity increases the risk of
creating a surficial stability/erosion problem for the local slope next to the tree. Other than that, I do not see anything
that would suggest the tree removal could be detrimental to the stability of the landslide or the slope adjacent to the
property (Berg) at the end of the cul-de-sac .
I want to mention, with regard to the actual property line location in the vicinity of the tree, the images from GIS appear
to be off (i.e ., the garage at 4353 PVDS, as well as the rooflines of adjacent houses, are nearly sitting on or extending
beyond the property lines). Other improvements on that lot closest to the tree extend beyond the property line shown,
especially in the back yard of 4353 PVDS. Furthermore it appears that this property owner has landscaped the area
where the tree is (lawn) and appears to be irrigating it. That said, I've looked at the recorded tract map and perhaps the
relatively level building pad at 4353 PVDS extends beyond the P/L and the tree is located in that extended pad area. I'm
not sure if it is worthwhile, but has anyone taken an additional step to physically survey in the P/L and confirm that this
tree is actually on City property?
That is my input, please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Mike
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote:
1
Hi Mike or Chris,
Please see below. Can you please opine on the impacts of removing the subject pine tree (see attached staff report)
would have or not have on the slide? I know what your answer will be but we'll need some talking points if asked at
the City Council hearing next week.
Thanks, Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
t:i'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.
. . .
DOWNLOAD 'tit.:,--.:, ~ j
Avoilobl• in th• App Stor• ond Googl• Ploy
G[T IT UN
t' • Google Play
2
From: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com >
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 202110:01 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Cc: John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca.gov >; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca .gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov >; Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com >
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012 -Impact to Landslide area
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
The Pine Tree in question is located in Zone 4, of the City's Geologist map, the same zone in
which I reside, namely at 4353 PVD South, adjacent the tree. Many houses in the Seaview
neighborhood are potentially impacted by the slide. I personally have noted a large,
subsurface crack which traverses from the top of the slope at Admirable Drive, directly to the
Pine Tree from the North, along the hinge point of the slope, passes underneath the pine tree
then continues into the street then into larger PVD South. In the middle of the PVD South cu I-
de-sac is a survey point which is routinely monitored by the City's Geotechnical
consultants. In my assessment as a Registered Civil Engineer, it is important to consider that
the removal of this tree could have impact on the slide zone, but more specifically, the slope
adjacent our property. The question remains, what consideration has been given to the
preservation of the slope occupied by this pine tree and the issues related to Zone 4?
Sincerely,
Thomas Berg, P.E., QSD
3
Michael B. Phipps, PG, CEG
Principal Engineering Geologist
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
699 Hampshire Road, Suite 101
Thousand Oaks, California 91361
805.370.8710, ext. 12 (office)
805.807.9001 (cell)
Web: www.cottonshires.com
4
Subject: FW : Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item# 1 -Tree
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:49 PM
To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Amanda Wong <kiwi esg@hotmail.com >; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com >; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com >; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com >; Elliot Levy
<elliotlevy@gmail.com >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net >; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com >; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo .com >; Jessica Vlaco <v1aco5@cox.net >; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com >; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Scott Mills <smills300@gmail.com >; Yossef Aelony
<Y.aelony@cox.net>; SUNSHINE <SunshineRPV@aol.com >; Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com >
Subject: RE: Council Meeting, 07/20/21-Item# 1-Tree
Hi Mickey,
The City Tree case on the City Council's agenda tonight was initiated by residents on Admirable who
are seeking to restore their view .
Staff's assessment and determination is based on the View Ordinance voted by the residents as part
of Prop M in 1989.
As for Ladera Linda, according to the landscape plan as shown below, the following vegetation
including trees will remain:
1
The City trees located along Forrestal Drive are proposed to be trimmed in response to requests from
residents wanting to restore their views.
In both cases, the City is responding to resident requests to restore views pursuant to the City's View
Ordinance.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
2
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
310-544-5202 (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.
0 --· ,. ---• -. -
~ ··----
: ---A<v a iloblr I n the-A p p Sto re and G ooolC!' Ploy
GET IT ON
~-• Google Play
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Amanda Wong <kiwi esq@hotmail.com >; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo .com >; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com >; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com >; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com >; Elliot Levy
<elliotlevy@gmail.com >; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net >; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox .net>; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com >; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com >; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net>; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com >; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com >; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >; Scott Mills
<smills300@gmail.com >; Yossef Aelony <Y.aelony@cox .net>; SUNSHINE <SunshineRPV@aol.com >; Sharon Yarber
<momofyago@gmail.com >
Subject: Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item# 1 -Tree
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
It seems to me that our City is waging a war on trees . The tree in question at the end of Seaview, that the
city wishes to remove, is only the beginning of their campaign.
For the new Lad era Linda park, our Ladera Linda HOA wished to leave the existing trees along Fo r restal Drive
as a noise buffer to our neighbors along Forrestal Drive . However, the City plans to de-nude the full 11 acres of
trees, ground cover and shrubs and replace them with all new shrubbery.
3
I don't think our City listens to its residents anymore. They have a different agenda. Why hasn't the Land
Conservancy spoken on this issue? Or the Sierra Club?
4
From :
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com >
Tuesday , July 20, 2021 4 :16 PM
Enyssa Momoli; Ken Rukavina; Ram zi Awwad ; Cory Linder
CC; CityClerk; Robert Nemeth
Appeal of a City Tree (CTRP Case No . 2021-0012)
Spare Gateway Path Pine.pdf
CAUTION : This email originated from outsid e of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Power point not going through .
Please see pdf attached.
From: Deborah Berg
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 20214:11 PM
To: EnyssaM@rpvca.gov
Subject : Appeal of a City Tree (CTRP Case No . 2021 -0012)
Please see attached for Appellant Berg for tonight's Council meeting.
Having trouble getting the file to you.
Deborah Berg
310 739-5710 direct
The Gateway Path Pine
Appeal of a City Tree Review (CTRP Case No. 2021-0012)
Deborah and Tom Berg
Appellants
Why Appeal?
• To resolve view issues amicably as good
neighbors
• Seeking balance as described in the
purpose of the ordinance
• 50% of our neighbors don't have view
lots; they have right to vistas too.
• The pine is a visual landmark of the
Seaview Community.
• It is the central element of a pocket park
Gateway to the City's public trails.
• What would become of the pathway
and the pocket park if the tree were
removed?
Background
• 20 years ago, we moved into the house adjacent the pine tree in question
• The Cul-de-sac was a mess of weeds, rocks, bare dirt, and the pine.
• Dust, fire and safety were real concerns.
• Long before your time on the City Council,
• No work was ever done in the cul-de-sac by the City.
• It was unclear who was responsible for the pine.
• My husband began cleaning up the space, having the pine laced and
trimmed annually, not just for us, but for the entire neighborhood
Background
• March 2021, we received the annual letter from our neighbor at 4332
Admirable Drive, asking us to trim the pine.
• We had already ordered the work -informed the Applicant this would be
done end of March.
• This pattern has occurred for 20 years.
• In addition to the pine , we annually trim the acacias at the back of the
property and outside the fence line in the utility easement and clean out
the underbrush to the Fire Department's satisfaction, even though most of
the acacias are outside our property.
• We had no idea a view assessment was requested until notified by Mr.
Nemeth's letter. As we were out of town when the letter came, we were
grateful Mr. Nemeth reached by ema il.
The Process
For view assessment of foliage on private
property, the applicant must show:
Evidence of adequate early neighbor
consultation shall consist of each applicant
filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit Application" with the
City prior to the submittal of a formal View
Restoration Permit Application.
• For 20 years, none of us knew the tree
was City property.
• We understand the tree was previously
owned by an absentee owner.
• The City acquired the tree more
recently.
• We appreciate this opportunity to come
before to discuss the future of the tree.
We are Asking
• How can we spare the beautiful landmark tree, the
Gateway Path Pine
• Please take the time to:
• consider the impacts of removal
• explore the alternatives
•develop a comprehensive plan and,
•engage the community in neighborhood
decisions
Response to Staff Report
• Staff cites 12.08.030
• that the Public Works
department will maintain and
remove trees .... except for
watering and fertilizing.
• And what if the tree is not
maintained by the City as this
pine was not?
• Section 12.08.040 and 12.08.050
only prohibit planting or removal,
cutting down, or in any way
impairing the natural growth of any
tree ... on city property.
• There is no apparent prohibition of
taking care of a tree.
Response to Staff Report
• The report states there a re no
official trails or paths nearby
for hikers or bicycle riders to
access the tree's shade.
• There is, in fact, a significant
social trail that safely leads
pedestrians and bikers to the
public ROW.
• The City's map shows that
area is considered part of the
Green Gateway.
• The pine is shown in the coast
vision plan as Gateway Park.
Response to Staff Report
• Significant view impairment
seems to be highly subjective
• Photo from Redfin showing view
from 4324 Admirable used for
recent sale and purchase.
• The Pine tree does not seem to
be impairing the view
• Inspiration Point, probably the
most prominent feature of the
view, is fully visible.
Response to Staff Report
The City and Contractor Arborist
• States that trimming the tree
would kill it.
• Does not recommend replacement
• Why?
From the report itself, "The City's code strives
to trim and maintain healthy City trees, but the
code is clear that in cases where tree removal
is the only option to eliminate the significant
view impairment, the tree should be r emoved
with reQlacement.
The internet is replete with examples of
trees that have survived trimming
• V-shape, topping
• Raising the Canopy
Please further investigate these options.
If the tree must be removed possible
replacements should be considered
• Crape myrtle?
• There are many slow growing, dwarf
varieties that would complement
the slope
Balance
• The view restoration guidelines, the City ordinances, and the City website
address the balance necessary to make sure all the residents of the community
are considered. We applaud this vision.
• City's Municipal Code as Section 17,02040, View Preservation and Restoration
Ordinance
"The hillsides of the City constitute a limited natural resource in their scenic value
to all residents of and visitors to the City. The hillsides provide potential vista points
and view lots. The City's General Plan recognizes these natural resources and calls
for their Qrotection .
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare
of the public ..... by balancing the rights of the residential property owner[s] ... "
Balance
The shade of the tree attracts artists and horse riders.
Q) u
C
0
0
Ci)
V)
(1)
-+-
~
0)
C
>-
LL
Vest -Pocket Park and Pathway
• The Gateway Path Pine central
element to the Vest-Pocket Park
at the end of the cul-de-sac.
• 50% of Residences on North side of
the streets in Seaview do not have
ocean views
• These neighbors walk to the
pocket park for their view
• Drop off / pick up for joggers and
bikers eliminates parking issues
• My husband is a Registered Civil
-
-
-
-
Engineer, and I am a planner.
We have managed the
construction of numerous pocket
parks in LA County.
Tom oversaw the construction the
55-acre Wilmington Gateway Park
at the Port of Los Angeles.
With increased traffic on PV Dr. S,
pedestrians and bikers are at
increased risk, especially where the
median terminates, the road
narrows and the slide area begins
directly in front of our house.
The path guides pedestrian and
bikes safely from little PV Dr. S to the
unimproved social roadside path.
Social Usage
Neighbors walk to the
Gateway Path Pine
for the view Pathway to get to and from the Roadside
Social Usage
• Trail jogger hydrating
under the tree while
waiting for his wife to
pick up him.
Social Usage
• Neighborhood usage
Mother -Daughter
Morning Coffee Walk
Spare the Pine Tree
• Consider all of your constituents
• Consider the impacts
• Consider Alternatives
• Once it is gone, it's gone!
• Take a holistic view
• Develop a comprehensive plan
Uphold the Appeal
or Postpone decision
Thank you!
Thank you for your service to our Community!
1
Subject:FW: JUL 20 MTG LATE CORRESPONDENCES
Attachments:city mtg jul 20 old view photo.jpg; CITY MTG jul 20.pdf; cty mtg jul 20.pdf
From: Bob Locke <boblocke2@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 5:30 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: JUL 20 MTG LATE CORRESPONDENCES
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Enclosed are 3 letters sent to the Bergs re the view
The photo is another FYI – I don’t know the date, it you look carefully in the lower left hand corner you can see the top
of Berg’s garage
Thank you, Bob
Bob Locke, CDPE WEST SHORES REALTY Palos Verdes
“Serving LA & Orange Counties”
DRE LIC# 01231182
310 544 4667 - Direct Office
310 795 2311 - cell
310 544 5029 - fax
boblocke2@cox.net - email
http://www.BobLockePV.com
2
10 i.l01 !0flJ 1ts: rri 989-r_4_2_5LB-{ -_Ft E 5f l!r.r
FLT&UT(
BOBII)CKE
.{ilT2 AI,MINADI.,E D*.
BAIVGO PIL(N VEnDr,g CA 902?5
EOIIE - 3lDs4r-t495 rax-rro544sD9
FANE E:I i::
FAig 91i 01"
Thc ttE c on thc rortbw€nt comor 0f yout property (bdrlnd thc garage) Are bcgtoning 0o
Hodr our vic*.
D..{IE: Oclober%t0gl
TO : 4tit PY lMral{or{t-(I1c Berlo?Q
E.
Wr fivo drcc{y eDorro ytur horuc (6r ffc fet t7 16 ftarr}
I'n rcrycsdry peroimiffi to dtt€r trim or lcvrl, your choh0) thBo tr$& ltqturrlly va
*ill p"y to berrc ttcwork &oa
Plcrro 3ive oo e cell 64 y6".
Yurnribbor.
loblrch3-310.541-1{95
Pori.il'Fax Nole 767i r't" ta . ro.ca l&8L> I
Il sqo upcKe-r'o' .1q,.. 651qq
Oo.loept.Co.
pt'.""*.3ro- 54i - i{95 Pxqi.* flo. 9/\b"g?.rz
'a'r 544- 5oz9 15lq:548"9195
t:Dr+< Me., \oqe-
t'l,*ur. \|orl FoR -t\tE r$crricE, E i-twe €ITTACTFD oLrR*
LFuPSIAPEA { *o, (xU,r. LrArrosc*ee, d*eo* Crrr)^
U[o ARE &'eiuq gC.Hg5.$\-ED "r() PFF,tuRr '-5'lrS urOnt'y'
*Nt) oTF(eF, (+eruERJ^,.\ \R\Mf\^llJq d\THtiJ 'T6'\E- fvl6t.JT{'
[Je CAu Nrr 4RAr'i'r '{orJ TER*-uiStsn'J 'TC E4 5r-<t1
tdoRK B.UT uulE (*ERTAIN L'l lrl{)Lru) L\\nE* ^loLrt-
tN?uT A6our*r tdNNT TD TFt,t"4iEc\'. ftre r-c"r rca
ili-r],' -oo* iS o$B' F.E5P0N{'tts'lLi\l NcT \ece1 ' -
P.e*tE. Fee\- FFeE- -To cSt'i'TA(-I N'\E-- tF-r\ot FIAUE
X"f o'Tl,ieF- 9uElTr o''l\ v\ (tutuENT9. I\:t".-\,s-{-"^'bt*f
U
18110/ !683 1L 4: 4,1lq;Iry.<lJgJ 1li 4.:|
t. ?/:B/?fl!3 il I 36
-.,1,'.'.:
!agl;.4?rit €14
J r ul.1t5i9t
3.:.e3cr:521
ij,itrE 1l / $lP.l€ a1,r6i
PAE Ai
R"i: 6E Flrlr,j
BEF6CM
tsoB L0cl<l
uoturcre
,.slt*Drd[na3[.B'DB
&aNeBo PAX.O$ VruDES, CA gm?!
&0$1tr - 31116{!-14*5 trAX - 31e.3{{.s{I}9
BA'Ifit O**rrfS$lS
tO ; Tm Iq -.ltC3IY Dric l&6$
lBrr l{r.Serg
Itr* yor fir 5mry b&l,to uc ao qdddy,
Ililrrftsl lhro t0 crf, a* r,rd an&r rffrlgrrm.tBto cooc rp *nd ldn r lools rt ow
*[rdo& If]tr prrfor, I cau trril p&otoo of tt*e rroru olusou to 1tu,
?fir rlqcr&q rad fmrrds L tr€.dy rgercd$ad. E$ncltr' ! anr Bore tst
trmrt( fo ldp dat a lod. ofitr+ G0.t, Wordd yu rcorpl r dmalhc to &p t3el.. of my
iiln00t?
?td..r3 h,
IS [r*c-rt0s4r.l{r*-!{rilI - Eotr4,o{}q!4$0S&eT
Posl-rtt Fax f..!ote tti i ;.?rs to.. ro l;.;l.r ,'" flos LEr(c.rrn. '6^. ftt(
Co. t.p1
F x' dEslJt-r'.",,r i3 lo. 5.$, irt ?J.
'i1.t,co.lK,s AqAr{ . Er'' Nr,-r "lEcE!g.\RY Al A-L.
A*t 5:10 , cri. t4, Atu'- M{1ET i'rl' !a' Cqt- i-A\r{){(&fl'L-
'fo s(e,u tt !^) 'e. t-^I'J'*r- i*l ' "Jorae-' ts-r-rt'* -r4rt'
0""";;'.'-- rfo!') IIi*""ei.c!+t'tE- -rlr 65itu ''r) '
rE *r.,., ;dlrq $- 5il*"--Jo'+ Vtt',TAtrL/Trt'a
t>orrJr\. 'T"t*t*,x,1 ,, '[ +"*. Btrtz
{Ca*ttN .,
A
EE*o. 6.\6. \-oct'.
BOB AND BARBARA LOCKE
4332 ADMIRABLE DR- PALOS yERDES, CA 90275
310 541 149s - 310 s44 s029 FAX - BOBLOCKE2@COX.NET
May22,2005
Thomas and Deborah Berg
4353 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca90275
Dear Tom,
Pursuant to our conversatiou in eady December 2004 atmy listing on 13tr
street in San Pedro, it is now time to tim the trees in your yard which are
encroaching on our view.
I have enclosed digital photos showing the primary areas of concern:
SECTION A. - Photos I & 2 show the bundle of approximately 60 linear
feet of(eucalyptus??) trees on the NW corner ofyour lot (extending from
the west end of your house to the far NW corner of the lot) which are now
blocking our view ofthe cove. Just to clear the view will require that a
minimum of 4 feet be cut offtle top of these trees.
SECTION B. - Photo 3 is the large "round" tree in your front yard which
needs to be cut down by approximately 8 feet to clear our view.
SECTION C. - Photo 4 is a grouping of approximately 3 eucalyptus trees in
the NE corner ofyour back yard which need to be cut down by
approximately 10 feet to clear our view.
Our primary concern is the area defined as SECTION A" the other 2 areas, at
least for the moment, are not as much of a concern to us. Therefore if you
would please hasten your efforts to clear this area first we will be most
appreciative.
Please let me know if there is a problem taking care of this issue prior to the
15ft ofJune.
Thanking you in advance.
Bob and Barbara Locke
.r*)u^rur -tJ Xu-tX" - ,'*' c^^d 'f;'n','-
*A dry ,0*.!",*"9- ( *,1 ,r)
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:29 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW : Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item # 1 -Tree
LC
From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:28 AM
To: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo .com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; Elliot Levy
<elliotlevy@gmail.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Jessica Vlaco <v1aco5@cox.net>; Judy Hildebrand
<judbabe@aol.com>; Scott Mills <smills300@gmail.com>; Yossef Aelony <Y.aelony@cox.net>; SUNSHINE
<sunshinerpv@aol.com>; Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Subject: Re : Council Meeting, 07 /20/21 -Item # 1 -Tree
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thanks for sending this Mickey.
It has been our constant refrain that all greenery must be retained . When we petitioned the city to take over LL as a
park, we expressed great desire to keep the park as green space .
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 19, 2021, at 4 :22 PM, Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com > wrote:
It seems to me that our City is waging a war on trees. The tree in question at the end of
Seaview, that the city wishes to remove, is only the beginning of their campaign.
For the new Ladera Linda park, our Ladera Linda HOA wished to leave the existing trees along
Forrestal Drive as a noise buffer to our neighbors along Forrestal Drive. However, the City plans
to de -nude the full 11 acres of trees, ground cover and shrubs and replace them with all new
shrubbery.
I don't think our City listens to its residents anymore. They have a different agenda. Why
hasn't the Land Conservancy spoken on this issue? Or the Sierra Club?
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:33 AM
CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Cory Linder
Appeal July 20, 2021 City Council Public Hearing Item No . 2
High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV Mayor Alegria and Council members,
I am in support of the Appeal to save the tree.
Please continue this item to allow for further investigation and discussion before taking
action.
Please do not vote to cut down the tree.
This pine tree is on property that the City acquired (2004) with the Hon Purchase for "open space".
The City's code strives to trim and maintain healthy City trees. But not this tree .
Because of complaints from the neighbors of view impairment, the Bergs have been good neighbors
trimming the tree on an annual basis at their own expense, and planting and maintaining the area
which was previously bare dirt in that area, not knowing it was city property. As you can see it is now
is a lovely pocket park shaded by this well-maintained tree and is visible from P V Dr. South. A
community asset.
Some versions of the City's General Plan, Parks Master Plan, Trails Network Plan, Coast Vision Plan,
and Landslide Moratorium were in place when the city bought the land on which this tree lives.
The Community Development Department recommends removal of this tree because crown
reduction to a height level necessary to eliminate impairment of the shoreline views will both kill the
tree and destroy the aesthetics of the tree, according to the City's contract arborist.
see Figure 4 photo
I was hoping for a more specific Arborist report in the Staff Report to clarify the consequences of
various options. However, according to the Staff, there is only one option possible to restore the
shoreline view for the Applicants -remove the tree. I diagree.
The residents deserve to have their shoreline view. How about another solution?
The community & the general public benefits from this tree if it remains.
Staff has provided photos to illustrate where foliage blocks the view of the shoreline and not of the
rooftops. So the rooftops will still be in the center o'.the viewing area. c9
City Arborist's Opinion On June 1, 2021, the City's Public Works arborist contracted from West Coast
Arborists, Inc., confirmed that crown reduction to the proposed trim levels (75% and 50% crown
reduction) will cause certain death of the tree and destroy its aesthetics.
The subject foliage impairs to a lesser, insignificant extent, the ocean view. No mention of Inspiration
Point promontory in this application.
The City's arborist recommends that no trees be replanted because a new replacement tree will
regrow up into the view. The existing tree has grown .!:!Q into the insignificant ocean view. Shoreline is
below.
If you look at the photos, Figure 4 shows that the crown of the tree blocks the ocean view, not the
shoreline. It's the lower portion of the tree that blocks the shoreline view. Therefore,
It appears that if the tree were "trimmed up" from the bottom to something like 10 feet, removing the
horizontal branches to a certain height, the shoreline would be visible. Instead of crown reduction
please consider "raising the canopy" to restore the shoreline view and to save the tree. How far is
the question that needs an answer.
How high would the existing tree have to be trimmed up in order to expose the shoreline view? This is
a question that needs to be investigated as the dotted lines on the photos do not indicate where the
shoreline meets the water. Since this info is unknown at this time, do not cut down the
tree. Instead, please continue the hearing to allow for investigation.
Figure 3 photo shows a palm tree located between the viewing area and the pine tree which would
be obstructing the shoreline even if the pine tree were gone.
Do not cut down the pine tree.
I would suggest more Alternatives to the City Council:
Alternative #3 trimming the pine tree from the bottom up to a level that will restore the protected
shoreline view for the Applicants
Alternative #4 continue this item while the Rec.& Parks Department weighs in on their interest in this
existing amenity on the City's "open space" public parkland (Gateway Parkland)
Alternative #5 continuing this item while the "trimming up" (raising the canopy) potential solution is
investigated, and while the potential impacts of removal of the tree on the landslide are investigated.
Thank you for your service to our city.
Sincerely,
2
Lenee Bilski
resident since 1962
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:07 AM
CityClerk
FW: Coyote Management Plan
From: Jasmine Ralat <jasmine@wisteriaportals.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 202110:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: scaiall@aol.com; terrence antonelli <terryantonelli@gmail.com>; Nancee Kioudjian <oceantrail@cox.net>;
gordonteuber@gmail.com; liturek@gmail.com; adrianapeacock@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: Coyote Management Plan
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Major and Council,
Referenced below is an email that I wrote to John on Saturday.
Several years ago, I invested a lot of my time in trying to find a solution to the coyote issue.
I contacted several wildlife professionals and scientist.
The recommendations referenced below were made back then and now I am making them again for your
review and consideration.
The coyote issue is now completely out of control. My neighbors and the entire community seek your
leadership in finding a solution
that is effective and most of all humane. Our group does not want to kill all coyotes, we would like to see
some culling and behavior
modification, clearing the brush, and bringing back a sense of safety to our community. This requires an
investment in our community
and most of all in healing our ecosystem that is greatly suffering. The coyotes have no prey and they are
populating and eating all animals
on the hill.
Major and Council, legally there are laws that protect the public and we are aware of liabilities that can
happen if a wild animal attacks a person in a public area.
When a wild animal attack happens in a public space, the local government or property owner can be held
liable for injuries. The California Tort Claims Act relinquishes liability for injuries caused by "natural conditions"
or "unimproved public property." Wild animals are considered as natural conditions. A state or property
owner can be held liable if:
1. The owner took action to increase the risk of harm by a wild animal.
1 5 .
2. The owner is aware that a special animal is posing a risk and fails to take action to protect the public.
People are frustrated and angry that nothing has been done by our leadership. I hope we can work together
and really put together a plan that is measurable and successful for our community.
Thank you,
310-740-7043 cell
310-514-2338 Studio
From: Jasmine Ralat
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 202111:28 AM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Coyote Management Plan
Good Morning John,
Thank you & I appreciate your email.
I am very frustrated about the Coyote situation especially with the incidents of my Neighbor & most of all my Mom.
Several years back, I made contact with a wildlife expert who updated me on the changes that took place with the wild
life agency that handled the Coyotes & other wildlife. There was a time when this agency did cull the Coyotes. That
agency has drastically changed & it changed its name & Coyote policy. According to the scientist you need to do a
combination of efforts to curtail the situation . Please note the following:
Culling
Behavior modification -done through herding them & keeping them moving .
This will teach them to fear humans.
Keeping canyons & open spaces free of brush where they hide & create dens.
Tracking -keeping a few Coyotes & tracking them -killing them all will not work
Teaching the public of what is & what is not normal behaviors
Bringing in Foxes
John, this is an investment that the city needs to make. I suggested this several years ago & I never received a response.
Fernando cannot do this job. We need to hire professionals' wildlife experts who will provide a REAL Coyote
management plan with quantitative & proven results .
2
Our community deserves for our city leaders to give this situation more thought & consideration. Please provide a real
plan that will invest in mitigating this issue .
If we leave things like they are, Mother Nature will kick in & spread more disease to these creatures & they will die &
that disease will spread to other wildlife & to us. Mother Nature can be unkind & we need to balance the Ecosystem of
the Peninsula.
If there is anything I can do to help let me know. I am saddened by what is happening & frustrated . I am very protective
of my home & community.
As a community we can turn this around.
Just like the situation with Edison ( the pole swaying) I am very tenacious & I can do the same with this situation.
Thank you, John & Council,
Jasmine
On Jul 17, 2021, at 10:28 AM, John Cruikshank <John .Cruikshank@rpvca.gov > wrote :
Hi Jasmine,
I read your entire email but didn't see any suggestions only complaints . I'm all ears when it comes to
coyotes . Please let me know what your scientists are suggesting so we can consider. Thanks .
As you know, you can always call me at 424-328-1028 .
John Cruikshank
Sent from overpriced Verizon account
--------Original message --------
From: Jasmine Ralat <jasmine@wisteriaportals.com >
Date: 7 /16/21 9:50 PM (GMT-08:00)
To : Eric Alegria <Eric .Alegria@rpvca.gov >, David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>, John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov >, Ken Dyda <Ken .Dyda@rpvca.gov >, Barbara Ferraro
<barbara.ferraro@rpvca .gov >
Subject : Coyote Management Plan
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Major Eric and Council,
I just reviewed the Coyote Management Plan and I am very disappointed especially since it
states that it was updated in September 2018.
Obviously, this plan is not new and you are presenting something old that did not help the
situation back in 2018 .
3
The issue with the coyotes could have been resolved several years ago if the city leaders would
have invested in professional scientists that
could have come and studied these creatures. This problem in which coyotes do not have a
prey has endangered the other animals on the hill.
The entire ecosystem of the peninsula is in danger because of the over population of one
species and not to mention the illnesses and diseases
that these animals carry. I have spoken to several scientists who know of the dangers in
ignoring what lies ahead if these animals are allowed
to over populate. Many will die and many will spread diseases, kill pets, and eventually will start
attacking people.
As a leader of our community being a steward of the nature that surrounds us is very
important. There needs to be more that can be done
in protecting the ecosystem of our peninsula. The coyote management plan that was sent to
me is not a plan, it is simply telling me that you
do not care about the quality of life for the residents and preserving the uniqueness of our
community.
I deeply feel sorry for the seniors who walk their little dogs in fear or the moms who cannot
leave their children on their decks that face
the canyons because ofthe lurking of these creatures. My neighbor(senior) had her little dog
taken out of her garden while she was there and watched
in horror as the coyote chewed up her dog. My neighbor was so traumatized that she sold her
house.
My experience with coyotes was terrible too. I was taking my 95-year-old mom for a stroll
around Trumps National Golf Course and three coyotes
started following us. Initially they seemed playful and harmless. However, as they came closer
to my mom in her wheel chair they were aggressive
and I had to distract them by yelling (Hazing) and throwing rocks at them. Sadly, they were not
afraid of me. Luckily, a worker from the golf course
immediately saw the situation and quickly arrived in a golf cart and scared them away.
These animals are unpredictable and it is only a matter of time when the unthinkable happens
in which a coyote attacks a human.
Many of these coyotes no longer fear people and are very territorial.
The role of government is to protect its people and your coyote plan does not protect us and
will only cause
for coyotes to increase their population, bring disease, and kill our pets and eventually attack a
human.
I hike the canyons, walk the parks, and I walk the roads -these creatures are everywhere and
some are afraid but many are not
afraid and they are becoming more aggressive. If I ever get attacked by a coyote, I will seek
legal action.
More and more cities are being sued by homeowners because of coyote attacks.
4
Mailing out a cheap coyote management plan that is dated September 2018 is an insult to our
community.
Please invest in the problem so that it does not become worse.
Thank you,
310-740-7043 cell
310 -514-2338 Studio
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:07 AM
CityClerk
FW: toooooo many coyotes
From: Thelma Chin <tkchin4@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 5:46 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Thelma Chin <tkchin4@gmail.com>
Subject: toooooo many coyotes
CAUTION : This email ori inated t~om 0111tside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I live at Rancho Palos Verdes Estates at the top of Crest Road (
above Marymount College) for 30+ years ....... I have never been
sooooo AFRAID to go for a walk in my neighborhood ....... .
My neighbors and I have seen these LARGE coyotes on a
regular basis and hear them in the middle of the night---a sound
that is so awful---and then it stops suddenly ........ there has been
trapping and has only caught ONE!
I have smal I dogs and have to drive to another location to take
them for a walk .... they have been seen at all times of the
d h t · Ill ay ........ t a s ,s so crazy .. .
Please we need to do something NOW ....
thank you
thelma chin
1 5.
in ...
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:01 AM
CityClerk
FW: coyotes
Attachments: HPSCAN_20210720153947468_2021-07-20_ 154048024 (1) coyote and children.pdf
LC
From: Thelma Chin <tkchin4@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 8:56 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: coyotes
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
in today's newspaper ........... .
thank you
thelma chin
Thelma Chin ...
1 s.
A
'Too close for comfort': Wildlife officials
kill coyote that had approached children
BY LILA SEIDMAN
Federal wildlife officials
have killed a coyote that had
repeatedly charged at young
children in San Francisco's
Golden Gate Park.
Local officials deemed
the male coyote "too danger-
ous" to roam freely after it
had aggressively ap-
proached toddlers on five oc-
casions at the park.
·,
1Virginia Donohue, the
executive director of San
Francisco Animal Care and
Control, said the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection
Service, a part of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
was called to step in .
Wildlife officials with the
federal program determined
the coyote was a threat to
public safety and shot it at
the park Frtd!l,y.
Donohue blamed the
coyote's actions on people
repeatedly feeding it, lead-
ing the ammal to lose "not
just fear, but all sense of cau-
tion." There's evidence, she
S an Fr ancisco Anim al Ca re and Control
SINCE 2016, officials had been tracking a distinctive
male coyote at San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. It
was killed Friday after being deemed a safety threat.
said; that someone left
pounds of meat for the ani-
mal to devour in an area it
frequented .
Officials had been track-
irig the coyote, which was
identifiable by its distinct
features, since 2016. In fall
2020, a report came in that
the animal was approaching
young children at the San
Francisco Botanical Gar-
dens, located within Golden
Gate Park. Two incidents in
the fall were followed by
three more last month.
Each time, the coyote
came very close to the child,
getting about one foot away
in one instance, officials
said. No children were
harmed.
Parents described the
behavior as aggressive, Don-
ohue said, adding, "It's a
very frightening moment
when you see this coyote ap-
proachingyour baby."
Animal control deter-
mined the coyote "was too
close for comfort ," and along
with the city's Recreation
and Parks Department,
secured state support to
contact federal wildlife ex-
perts to evaluate the situa-
tion.
The Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service
has euthanized several coyo -
tes in California over the last
few years because of aggres-
sive behavior by the animals,
"such as biting people, in-
cluding young children,"
Tanya Espinosa, a spokes-
person for the government
agency, said in an email.
Although the animals
naturally shy away from peo-
ple, she said, they can lose
the impulse when they're
fed.
They're "more likely to
become aggressive when
they learn to connect people
with food ," Espinosa said.
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Coyotes
Video.mov
From: Kris Watson <bkb.watson@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 202112:47 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyotes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
My husband and I have lived on Rue de la Pierre for nearly 23 years. Our front yard faces the hillside below Los Verdes
Golf Club. Over the years we have enjoyed the occasional and varied wildlife that visit the area including hawks, rabbits,
squirrels, raccoons, skunks, and possums.
Starting about three years ago, we began to hear coyote barks and howls each spring. They were infrequent-perhaps
one or two a month. This past year, the frequency of the sounds has increased exponentially. We now hear the barking
and howling on a daily basis. We have had numerous sightings of the coyotes as well; during the day and close to our
property line. I captured the howling and barking of one such coyote last night. I have inserted a brief clip of this howling
below.
Our outdoor camera captured footage of a coyote later on last night brazenly trotting in our driveway, right near our
front gate.
1
We can no longer leave our dog in our yard unattended as we are fearful for her safety. God forbid our indoor cats
somehow find their way outdoors as they could get attacked. Small kids in the neighborhood have to be watched
carefully at all times for fear they might get injured or worse by one of these deadly and wild animals.
It is my hope that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will be proactive in their control of these coyotes by eliminating their
population before a serious injury occurs. Please don't wait until it's too late.
Regards,
Kristine Watson
30928 Rue de la Pierre
Sent from my iPad
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:46 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Coyote management
From: Starr Nagdev <starrnagdev@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyote management
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Just wanted to share that I am afraid each evening when I take my small dog out to go potty in my own backyard. I often
put him on a leash, in my own yard, or I stand right beside him while he does his thing. I live in such a panic, I am afraid if
I fall asleep and leave the task up to my son or husband who might not attend with the same level of care.
We also will not allow the dog in the backyard during the day as so often coyotes are seen wandering the neighborhood
during the day. We have two younger children -if a coyote comes into the yard and finds them instead of the dog????
I feel like we cannot be comfortable in our own space. The fact that they are no longer afraid of humans is problematic.
Please aid us in solving how to deal with this problem humanely.
Thank you,
Starr Nagdev
SilverSpur
Sent from my iPhone
1 5.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 19, 2021
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 20, 2021 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
Description of Material
Email from Sunshine
Emails from: Thomas and Deborah Berg; Lenee Bilski; Gerard Taccini;
Roko Vulin; Sunshine (also see Item #1 ); William and Marianne Hunter;
Elizabeth Eastman
Additional information from Staff
Emails from: Elias Amador; Kimberley Cavanaugh; Sharon Yarber
Proposed solution from Dr. William Fleury
Email from Sharon Yarber (see item #5)
Email from Sharon Yarber (see item #5)
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Teresa Takaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210720 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence
Robert Nemeth
Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:01 PM
CityClerk
FW: Coastal Permit. Case No. PLCP2021-0001 and View CTRP2021-0012
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 20211 :55 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>;
Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca .gov>; Katie
Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coastal Permit. Case No. PLCP2021 -0001 and View CTRP2021 -0012
CAUTION: This email ori ginated from outside of th e Cit 'l of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi Amy,
Thank you for the heads up. There is a lot of additional information which I may be able to provide .
Two sides . It is not fair to Council to present them with a recommendation which is not a holistic
solution to the over-all balance of public access and adjacent residential communities. It is also not
fair to the Applicant to schedule a Hearing before Staff has reached out to the local resources to get a
thorough understanding of all of the goals, potential impacts and potential solutions.
Like the tree blocking the view from 4332 Admirable (also on the July 20 Agenda), there is a
residential parking permit program in play in relation to public access to this recently acquired public
amenity. Robert Nemeth , Associate Planner, issued his View Restoration Decision without any public
review or even Rec.& Parks Department review of the alternative solutions to the request. Given
what Rec.& Parks and Public Works is going through in relation to parking near Del Cerro Park, one
would have thought that Community Development would have become more sensitive to all the
"planning" which has not happened in response to the creation of the PV Preserve.
What is now called Community Development was called Environmental Services when the RPV Trails
Network Plan was Adopted (1984). There is so much that the citizenry could help with but, Planners
no longer reach out to their resources. I am still looking for a way to increase the quality of your work
without increasing your workload.
1 I. 1)
There is a Circulation Element and a Public Safety issue in nearly every Application which arrives at
your counter. Before the Application is declared "complete" is when I and, those with special
interests, can be of the most help . Too many Public Works and Rec.& Parks projects never go
through that thorough of a documentation of the Scope of Work. Private Projects get to the Planning
Commission prematurely, too.
I am really looking forward to participating in how the real problems at Oceanfront Estates get
resolved. This could lead to a really wonderful portion of the California Coastal Trail. All it takes is
someone in charge of pulling it together, disbursing the Work Orders and sharing the lessons learned
so that they are applied to the rest of RPV's Coastal Zone and Nature Preserve.
Best regards ... Sunshine 310-377-8761
In a message dated 7 /14/202111:33 :27 AM Pacific Standard Time, AmyS@rpvca.gov writes :
Hello-
Please see the link below to the City Council agenda for the July 20 th City Council Meeting . However,
please note that Staff is recommending to the City Council that the permit parking request be
continued to the August 17th City Council meeting, in order to gather some additional information . This
means there will be little to no discussion of the item at next week's meeting , and the staff report for
the August 17 th City Council meeting will contain the analysis of the request. I will keep everyone
apprised if there are any additional changes and will send the August 17 th City Council agenda out
when it is completed, which will be one week prior to the meeting . Please let me know if you have any
questions at this time, thank you .
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
amys@rpvca.gov
A..-01Jc,b4• lt'I th. App $tote ond Gooole Plo:r
Phone -{310) 544-5231
2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes , :, 1,n l 11 t d un °•,r-1,( • 1• •,
• App Store ~ • Google Play
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
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 .
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0 -19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on
rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance
by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk -ups are limited to
one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department
phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website .
From: City of Rancho Palos Verdes <listserv@civicplus.com >
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:46 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Agenda for the Tuesday, July 20, 2021 (Hybrid In-Person/Virtual)
Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes .
View this in your browser
The next City Council regular meeting will be held on Tuesday , July 20 , 2021 at 7 :00 p.m. for the Regular
Meeting . The meeting will be conducted through a *hybrid combination of in-person and/or all virtual
attendance of the five members of the City Council and invited staff at Hesse Park, Mc Taggart Hall at Fred
Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Public participation is highly encouraged using
the virtual platform as there will be very limited seating (with a combined total of 25 people
between two rooms) at Hesse Park.
Note -Please note the start time of 7:00 p.m .
Click the following link to access the live meetings, agendas , and staff reports on the city website
at http://www .rpvca .gov/agendas .
To participate and provide public comment, complete a form at http ://www .rpvca.gov/participate/council to
receive an email with further instructions. If you require a disability -related modification or accommodation
to participate in a meeting, please contact the City at least 48 hours prior to the meeting via email
at adarequests@rpvca .gov .
3
If you have any questions , please contact the City Clerk's office at 310 -544 -5217 or
at CityC lerk@rpvca .gov .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category
you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message , it is an unmon itored
email address . You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http://www .rpvca .gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor Agency and Improvement
Authority Agendas on www.rpvca .gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>
Monday, June 14, 2021 8:50 AM
Robert Nemeth
Tom Berg
Subject: RE: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
Thank you, Mr. Nemeth,
We appreciate you emailing us this notice as our mail service has been quite unreliable lately.
We look forward the hearing on July 20 th and will prepare comments to send to you prior to July 8th.
Sincerely,
Thomas and Deborah Berg
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 8:41 AM
To: Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>; Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>
Subject: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
Good morning Mrs. and Mr. Berg,
Attached is the public notice, which was mailed to you on Thursday, June 10.
Regards,
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. 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.
Robert Nemeth
Community Development
Department
RNEMETH@RPVCA.GOV
Phone -(310) 544-5288
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
► Gfi'T ff~ le Play
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com>
Sunday, July 11, 2021 10:01 PM
Robert Nemeth
John Alvarez; Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; CC; Deborah Berg
Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012 -Impact to Landslide area
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
The Pine Tree in question is located in Zone 4, of the City's Geologist map, the same zone in
which I reside, namely at 4353 PVD South, adjacent the tree. Many houses in the Seaview
neighborhood are potentially impacted by the slide. I personally have noted a large,
subsurface crack which traverses from the top of the slope at Admirable Drive, directly to the
Pine Tree from the North, along the hinge point of the slope, passes underneath the pine tree
then continues into the street then into larger PVD South. In the middle of the PVD South cu I-
de-sac is a survey point which is routinely monitored by the City's Geotechnical
consultants. In my assessment as a Registered Civil Engineer, it is important to consider that
the removal of this tree could have impact on the slide zone, but more specifically, the slope
adjacent our property. The question remains, what consideration has been given to the
preservation of the slope occupied by this pine tree and the issues related to Zone 4?
Sincerely,
Thomas Berg, P.E., QSD
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm.com>
Monday, July 12, 2021 12:41 AM
Robert Nemeth
John Alvarez; Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; CC
Appeal of a City Tree Review (CTRP CASE NO. 2021-0012)
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
I would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for being willing to grant a hearing to allow additional
consideration of this important item.
In caring for the needs of RPV constituents and the environment, the Council has done an amazing job of
protecting parks and trails, respecting greenspaces and parklands, while developing and preserving land that is
anything but cooperative, with its unique geological movements and sensitivities.
When the initial recommendation to remove the tree was prepared, the Staff could not have known that the
tree represents an iconic green rest spot as a part of a gateway park to the Conservancy Trails and is
essentially a stand-alone vest-pocket park, a parkland that the entire community has enjoyed for nearly
twenty years. As such, it is important to make note of the enormous benefits the tree provides to so many
people, specifically residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The pine is the central feature of this pocket park.
Without the tree, there would be no fragrant shade for joggers, hikers and bikers regrouping after conquering
the trails, for the morning walkers' water break and turn around point, baby strollers, or a pause for quiet
reflection. Horses and their riders have taken respite in its shade. The tree has prompted marriage proposals
with photo opps taken next to its heart-shaped trunk. Neighborhood kids used to refer to it as the "The tree
where the sidewalk ends ... "
Question: Is the removal of this tree in conformance with City Planning for Gateway Parks and public
greenspace?
My husband and I have maintained the existing tree at our own expense, lacing and trimming it annually, as
well as the remaining park area, benches, and trail. Our desire would be to preserve the tree. Its removal
would leave no shade and would render the pocket park ugly and useless. Trimming may not kill it. (One of our
neighbors had a tall Norfolk pine severely cut back and it did not die). However, a severe trim may look
awkward. A stump left would be a terrible eyesore, and a source of termites and other insect pests. If a
replacement tree were planted, would it provide shade? Would the City monitor its establishment and bear
the cost to maintain it?
As members of this community, we are indebted to you for your service and the time you devote to making
our City such an incredibly wonderful place to live, work and recreate. Please do not make a hasty decision
about the removal of this landmark tree.
Sincerely,
1
Deborah Berg
Appelant
2
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021 -0012
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com >
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 202110:31 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Tom Berg <tom@bergcm.com >; Deborah Berg <deborah@bergcm .com >; John Alvarez <JohnA@rpvca .gov>; Ken
Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov >; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca .gov>; CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Appeal of a City Tree Review -case #2021-0012
Importance: High
AUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To Robert Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria, City Council and staff:
I am writing in support of the Berg's Appeal to allow the pine tree to remain. It is an asset to the City.
Please explain to the City Council and the public how the large pine on the property at #3 Yacht Harbor Drive
which obstructed the ocean and sunset views for numerous residents in the SeaView community when the
building project was proposed was allowed to remain when the project came before the Planning
Commission. It still obstructs the ocean, horizon and sunset views for many of us. If that tree was allowed to
remain, then this one should also be allowed to remain. Trim, Yes; remove, No.
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
SeaView resident
1
From: Robert Nemeth
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Monday, July 19, 2021 10:58 AM
CityClerk
leneebilski@hotmail.com
Subject: FW : Appeal on CC mtg. July 20,2021 -item #2 error
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Late correspondence
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 202110:49 AM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Appeal on CC mtg. July 20,2021 -item #2 error
Importance: High
CAUTION : This email originated from ou t side of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Error in Staff report on page 23
To RPV Staff -in reading the Staff Report I see this error which I don't want to bring up at the CC mtg.
D-2 the address is incorrect : should be 4353 Palos Verdes Dr. South not Admirable Dr.
"a low-growing replacement tree be planted adjacent to 4353 Admirable"
Lenee Bilski
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gerard Taccini <gtaccini@cox.net >
Sunday, July 18, 2021 8:17 AM
Robert Nemeth; CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad ; Cory Linder; deborah@bergcm.com
CTRP2021-0012 . July 20 , 2021 Council hearing of an appeal.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Nemeth, RPV Mayor Alegria and City Council,
Withdraw your recommendation that Juan Hernandez, Maintenance Superintendent of RPV Public
Works Department, remove one Pine tree located on City property (APN 7564-005-900, "Gateway
Park") pending outreach to the rest of the City's public amenities user groups and the City's Decision
Makers.
Sincerely,
Gerard Taccini
4245 PV Dr South
PV Preserve Neighbor, Resident, trail user, voter
From: Robert Nemeth
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:47 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
Late correspondence
From: roko vulin <rokovulin@att.net>
Sent: Monday, July 12 , 2021 9:51 AM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca .gov>; boblocke2@cox.net
Subject: Re: Appeal of CTRP2021-0012_Public Notice_Peninsula News
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Good morning Robert and Bob,
Due to emergency, I have to take a trip to Europe.
Unfortunately I won't be able to attend up coming meeting on 07 /20. Therefore I'm giving permission to Bob Locke to
represent my wife and, during our absence.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Roko Vulin
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 8:48 AM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW:
Late correspondence
From: roko vulin <rokovulin@att .net>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 202110:33 AM
To: Bob Locke <boblocke2@cox.net>; Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov >
Subject:
CAUTION : This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: roko vulin <rokovulin@att.net>
To: Roko Vulin <rokovulin@att.net>
Sent: Monday , July 12 , 2021, 10:18:47 AM PDT
Subject: View Impairment Photos, 4324 Admirable Dr.
[),
From pictures above which was taking from my dining room , living room and bedroom it clearly shows
that my view of ocean has been blocked by the subject tree .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Friday, July 16, 2021 1 :35 PM
CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Cory Linder
June 20 , 2021 RPV City Council Agenda Item 2. Appeal of tree removal
recommendation
The Ghost of Gateway Park -187 Jpg
AUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
Council is now faced with a complicated decision which has been presented in a vacuum. Staff's
position is that this one tree is an isolated issue and since it meets their interpretation of a substantial
blockage of a view of the shoreline, the appeal has no merit. Therefore, the tree should be removed.
The Appeal basically says ... Please don't.
My interest/concern is based on the lack of history , background and status of City Programs which
should have been considered in Staff's decision-making process. Without the Appeal, none of these
issues would have been brought to light. Even now, it is otherwise uninvolved people who are
bringing them up . I urge you to direct the Community Development Department to withdraw their
Memorandum which recommends that Public Works retain a contractor at an expense from the
General Fund, not to exceed $1,500.00 .
Once again, Council has the option of moving Staff's Recommendation and leaving public interest in
generating holistic solutions to the City's bigger imbalances to "someday". By acquiring large tracts of
land, the City has taken on a great number of land use/infrastructure opportunities and
responsibilities.
This single pine tree is one of them. The appellants have been taking care of the roadside pathway,
the fire fuel abatement and the health of this tree since before the City acquired the Hon Property
(2004 -05?). Seems to me , the View Restoration Ordinances was put in place before then. Seems to
me, the penalties for "molesting" City owned trees were put in place more recently . Staff has not
responded to my request for fire fuel abatement on City property which includes trees which have
begun to block my view. I have not had the trees removed due to the threat of penalties.
1
See the attached location of the tree in question. Is Parkland Foliage Maintenance a different Budget
Account than Trails and Open Space Management? Given that the boundaries of "Gateway Park"
are still a mystery, please save the tree until our public amenities have been sorted out.
SUNSHINE
RPV
310-377-8761
sunshinerpv@aol.com
2
J I
I
/
I
/
::,_ I -~
A
~
~
~
le
' r
/
/f..
/;)'
0
\·
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
Hunter Studios <2hunter@cox.net >
Monday, July 12, 2021 3:47 PM
Robert Nemeth; CC; CityClerk
Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Cory Linder; deborah@bergcm .com
Gateway Park tree
High
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
On July 20, 2021, the RPV City Council will hear an Appeal of the View Restoration Division's
direction to the Public Work's Maintenance Superintendent to cut down a tree which is on City
property (not in a roadway right of way).
The primary request is for Staff to change their position and commit to working with other personnel
and the public to look into all of the pro's and con's of cutting down this tree. Should Staff hold their
current position in their Recommendation to Council, the secondary request is for Council to uphold
the Appeal so that the tree is not cut down until after all of the public interests, environmental
concerns, Code Enforcement, Gifts to Parks and landslide impacts are analyzed, discussed and
Council gets to make a ruling .... S 310-377 -8761
SUBJECT: CTRP2021 -0012. July 20, 2021 Council hearing of an appeal.
TO: rnemeth@rpvca.gov , cc@rpvca .gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov ,
CC: krukavina@rpvca.gov , rawwad@rpvca.gov , coryl@rpvca.gov , deborah@bergcm.com ,
BCC : sunshinerpv@aol.com
Dear Mr. Nemeth, Mayor Alegria and City Council,
in the overall picture, As residents of this city for almost 25 years , it is with great concern that I write
to ask that, at this time you withdraw your recommendation that Juan Hernandez, Maintenance
Superintendent of RPV Public Works Department, remove one Pine tree located on City property
(APN 7564-005-900, "Gateway Park") pending outreach to the rest of the City's public amenities user
groups and the City's Decision Makers.
It is clearer than ever how much each tree is needed to help clean the air of CO2, provide oxygen and
to shade the ground in our efforts to cool our environment. One tree is a drop in the preverbial
bucket , but we can never fill it by eliminating those drops . The trees here are a great part of the
beauty of our city and none should be taken lightly.
William and Marianne Hunter
1
Residents, Portuguese Bend
Member of PVPLC, Audubon, environmental advocates, letter writers and VOTERS.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert Nemeth
Monday, July 12, 2021 2:08 PM
Debbie Eastman
Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig; Teresa Takaoka
FW : Tree
Forwarded to the City Clerk's office as late correspondence.
From: Debbie Eastman <pbde48@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Tree
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear sirs,
It took this tree 60 years to get to where it is today -removing CO2 from our atmosphere and providing oxygen (02) for
us . Can you really end its life to improve the "view" of our plastic filled ocean? What are our priorities, anyway???
Elizabeth Eastman
pbde48@gmail.com
16 Limetree Lane
RPV Ca 90275
1
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Trang Nguyen
Friday, July 16, 2021 3:56 PM
CityClerk; Ara Mihranian
Late correspondence -public hearing item #3
2021-07-06 Ab Cove Sewer fund balance.pdf
Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
At the request of Councilman Dyda, I have prepared a financial history for the Abalone Cove Sewer
as additional information. Attached are the annual revenues and expenditures for the Abalone Cove
Sewer Fund from FY 2001-02 to FY 2021-22. Please note that two of the 21 years are estimates, FY
2020 -21 and FY 2021 -22. Below is a quick summary of financial history:
• Property tax received ranges from $20,467 to $56,578 from FY 2001 -02 to the projected FY
2021 -22.
• The lowest property received was in FY 2001 -02 and the highest was in FY 2014-15.
• Here are some averages for the last 21 years.
o Average property tax -$46,100
o Average total expenditures -$96,800, of which $56,100 is the average annual
repairs/maintenance
o Average General Fund subsidy -$41,800
• The total subsidy to this program over the last 21 years is $1,076,261, of which $877,461 is
from the General Fund and $198,900 from the CIP Fund.
This will be included in the late correspondence package for the public. Please let me know if you
have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you,
Trang Nguyen
Director of Finance
tnguyen@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5278
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
ti '1 ,-11! J,I ,1 1 1 I~,-._ r rl t •• •'•
• App Store '-' • Google Play
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.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COV/0 -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
1 3.
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
Abalone Cove Sewer Fund
Annual Revenues and Expenditures
Revenues FY2001-02 FY2002-03 FY2003-04 FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 FY2009-10
Property Assessments 20,467 20,636 33,988 42,767 41,609 43,009 43,091 44,321 46,248
Sewer User Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,829 1,159
Interest 700 941 545 745 1,885 1,758 5,206 2,021 425
CIP Fund Subsidy (CIP Projects) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy (Transfer) 35,000 35,000 15,000 12,761 10,700 10,700 80,700 10,700 14,700
SUBTOTAL 56,167 56,577 49,533 56,273 54,194 55,467 128,997 64,871 62,532
Expenditures
Administration 9,394 45,656 53,214 8,704 8,918 9,734 8,428 12,546 16,940
light and Power 0 0 0 2,779 3,090 8,392 3,870 3,705 3,443
Maintenance 0 0 0 27,467 9,654 31,965 53,181 34,104 77,400
Sewer Improvements 0 23,902 0 992 30,155 0 0 38,635 0
CIP Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL 9,394 69,558 53,214 39,942 51,817 50,091 65,479 88,990 97,783
Spendable Fund Balance 46,773 33,792 30,111 46,442 48,819 54,195 117,713 93,594 58,343
Revenues FY2010-11 FY2011-12 FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015 -16 FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2011H9
Property Assessments 49,432 52,948 48,416 54,451 56,373 55,670 54,836 56,578 50,672
Sewer User Fees 1,181 1,217 1,241 1,257 1,270 0 0 0
Interest 262 289 121 92 119 336 786 2,856 6,407
CIP Fund Subsidy (CIP Projects) 0 0 0 0 0 0 198,900 0 0
General Fund Subsidy (Transfer) 32,700 10,700 10,700 50,700 50,700 80,700 208,000 208,000 0
SUBTOTAL 83,575 65,154 60,478 106,500 108,462 136,706 462,522 267,434 57,079
Expenditures
Administration 15,548 13,089 19,731 20,205 19,529 16,783 16,607 31,278 16,357
light and Power 3,386 3,182 2,663 3,612 3,634 3,312 3,306 3,335 2,581
Maintenance 26,306 106,290 41,449 60,354 88,982 90,618 143,703 83,575 30,987
Sewer Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CIP Projects (CIP Fund) 0 0 0 0 0 0 198,900 0 0
SUBTOTAL 45,240 122,561 63,843 84,171 112,145 110,713 362,516 118,188 49,925
Spendable Fund Balance 96,678 39,271 35,906 58,235 54,552 80,545 180,551 329,797 ~951
Revenues FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 YE Est. FY 2021-22 Budget
Property Assessments 52,379 49,849 50,000
Sewer User Fees 0 0 0
Interest 7,676 1,517 2,000
CIP Fund Subsidy (CIP Projects) 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy (Transfer) 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL 60,055 51,366 52,000
Expenditures
Administration 42,379 63,307 52,300
light and Power 2,056 2,820 4,000
Maintenance 93 ,574 76,533 101,200
Sewer Improvements 0 0
CIP Projects 0 0
SUBTOTAL 138,009 142,660 157,500
Spendable Fund Balance 258,997 167,703 62,203 =
Note: Revenues and expenditures were not broken out until FY 2004-05 when Naviline w as fully implemented.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 19, 2021 9:03 AM
CityClerk
FW: Coyote management
From: Elias Amador <68.elias@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 202111:14 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyote management
CAUTION: This email ori inat ed from outs ide of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verd es.
Dear RPV City Council:
My pet dog was killed by coyotes in my yard, here in Del Cerro.
When are we as a City going to be realistic about this danger?
We need to start trapping, poisoning and shooting the coyotes, they are
an ever present danger to pets and humans, particularly children.
We need to get rid of the coyotes.
Thank you,
Elias Amador, MD
23 Crestwind Dr
RPV
1 5.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 19, 2021 9:03 AM
CityClerk
FW: Coyote Plan
From: Kimberley Cavanaugh <4cavmar@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 202112:29 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyote Plan
CAUTION: This email orl inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
THANK YOU so much . a week ago I was approached by 1 then two more within 2 minutes of each other, on Verde Ridge,
they are fearless, they ran for the park. I made a sound finally with my wind chimes, clang clang clang and they took off,
they were standing in my driveway not 6 ft away from me. I did not sleep for a week. I waited on my street and warned
everyone who were walking their dogs to go another direction as I did not know where they went into the park. They
did try to go through my neighbors side yard to the park but could not so they came back to the street. They hurt
people and kill our loved ones, along with the snakes this is terrific news. Now we need to get money for king snakes to
deal with the rattlers. Great start. Thank you.
Kimberley Cavanaugh 6503 Verde Ridge Road
D Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 s
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 19, 2021 9:55 AM
CityClerk
FW: Agenda items for July 20th
From: McKenzie Bright <mBright@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9 :24 AM
To: momofyago@gmail.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Subject: RE : Agenda items for July 20th
Good morning Ms . Yarber,
Thank you for your email regarding items 5, 7, and 9 on the City Council agenda for tomorrow night. The Mayor and City
Council are in receipt of your email and it will be shared as Late Correspondence.
Thank you for sharing your position on the vote of no confidence is LA County District Attorney George Gascon . Please
let me know if you have any questions on this item.
Sincerely,
McKenzie
McKenzie Bright
Administrative Analyst
mbright@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5305
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
C<>nn«1 "''*' l ho City f,om Y"'"' p'->• o, 1obltll
DOWNLOAD
'h'it <PV
c --·
Avoiloblo In th., App $10,. """ G,.,oo,I, l'>t.,~
I ,,,,11, ,,1 , ,. •
■ AppStore
,l. . i,,
.'< • Google Play
This e-mail message contains information be longing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended on ly for use of the individual or entity named . Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited . If
you received this ema il in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately . Thank you for your assistance and cooperation .
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 .
1 5", 7 ,Cf
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com >
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 202112:44 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Agenda items for July 20th
CAUTION: 1iflls email ari inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the Council,
As you know from prior correspondence from me, I strongly support item 7 of Regular Business, voting "no confidence"
in George Gascon. Please vote accordingly on Tuesday .
As to item 9 of Regular Business, I strongly support enacting an ordinance to allow outdoor dining. Not only do our local
restaurants need this, the residents enjoy dining outdoors as weather permits, and this should be approved by Council.
As to item 5, I take issue with a comment in the staff report that states "it is well known that trapping and
euthanizing coyotes is not as effective as hazing." According to Rex Baker, professor emeritus at Cal Poly Pomona, and
an expert on coyotes, removing a few bullying (aggressive) coyotes can often keep others in check and prevents the bold
from training juveniles. Part of our management plan must include identifying and killing aggressive coyotes for whom
hazing efforts have proved to be ineffective. Further, in doing some research on this issue, I have read that spraying wolf
urine around your property perimeter has a strong deterrent effect. I have ordered a large container of it from Amazon .
We will see if it works, but this might be added to your suggested actions that residents can take to prevent intrusion
onto properties in the community.
Sincerely,
Sharon Yarber
2
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:10 PM
Cc:
Subject:
wwynder@awattorneys.com ; McKenzie Bright; Megan Barnes; CityClerk
July 20 CITY COUNCIL MEETING -Regular Business Item 6
Attachments: PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR MENTALLY ILL -EXEC SUMMARY 7-18-2 1.docx
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Councilmember Cruikshank requested that I share the attached paper that was prepared by Dr.
Fleury on the homeless crisis specifically as it relates to mental illness.
Dr. Fleury is planning on speaking at tomorrow's Council's meeting and the attached paper will help
put some perspective on his talking points.
It may also help facilitate the Council's discussion not only on a local level, but a more regionally level
when seeking solutions to the State's homeless crisis.
The attached paper will be provided to the Council as late correspondence.
Please do not reply to all.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
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.
1
THE PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR THE MENTALLY-ILL HOMELESS CRISIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
William E. Fleury MD -July 2021
Page 11
{Dr. Fleury is a Partner Emeritus of the Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center, where he
practiced Internal Medicine for 36 years. He served as President of Staff, and Chairperson of the Quality
Assurance and Critical Care Committees, and was chosen as the Physician Exceptional Contribution
Award recipient for the medical center in 2008.)
Summary of the problem:
As detailed previously in the unabridged version of this article: due to misunderstanding the nature
and cause of severe mental illness, starting in 1963, well-intentioned political leaders in our country
closed the state asylums, and replaced them with a federal Community Mental Health system that was
never effective. This led to our country's present crisis of mentally-ill homeless unfortunates.
This homelessness crisis has been allowed to persist for SO+ years because it was financially
advantageous for state governments to defer treatment to the federal government; the federal
government didn't know what to do except throw money at it in an uncoordinated fashion; and local
governments were under-resourced and had their efforts blocked by civil rights attorneys and activist
judges.
With no one taking the responsibility for fixing the problem, and with the natural tendency of the
untreated severely mentally ill to break laws and commit murder at an astonishingly high per capita
rate, responsibility for care of our country's most severely mentally ill patients has naturally
devolved onto law enforcement.
But there are three fundamental problems with using the criminal justice system as the primary
treatment system for the mentally ill homeless.
First, policemen have neither the training nor the desire to function as therapists.
Second, the correctional sentences for the vast majority of minor crimes committed by these
unfortunates last for merely a matter of weeks or months. Treatment lasting only weeks, for a lifelong
schizophrenic who would then be released back onto the street, would be of no long-term benefit.
Treatment needs to be life-long.
And, most important, what is really needed is permanent housing for these individuals; and a way of
making them accept not only the housing, but also a long-term treatment program and psychotropic
medications to control their psychosis symptoms. This would best be accomplished with
Conservatorships.
Page 12
A Much-Needed Treatment Collaboration
A successful resolution of the homelessness crisis could best be accomplished with a collaboration
between law enforcement, mental health courts, and mental health treatment professionals such as
the LA County Department of Mental Health.
Law enforcement would function as the initial point of contact, or entry point into the treatment
system. As mentally ill homeless individuals break the law, which they tend to do quite often, they
would be brought into the system.
The Department of Mental Health would then do an evaluation of mental capacity and competence to
stand trial in a regular court, or be triaged into the mental health courts. And the Department of
Mental Health would subsequently provide the psychiatric expertise to oversee long-term treatment.
Mental health courts could then arrange mandatory long-term outpatient treatment for minor
crimes instead of jail time. The mandated treatment option in California could come in the form of a
5350-conservatorship relationship, as defined in the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. The mental health
court should require regular follow up reports from the patient and therapist, to confirm ongoing
compliance. Failure to comply would result in incarceration, with the outpatient treatment program
again offered as an early-release incentive reward for good participation.
While ongoing cooperation with treatment could earn for the patient the progressive loosening of
court restrictions, it is recommended that the 5350-conservatorship relationship never be canceled.
The natural inclination of this patient group when unsupervised is to wind up back on the street again.
For more serious crimes involving imprisonment, the disposition would ideally be to dedicated mental
health prison facilities involving treatment by mental health professionals. Mandatory treatment
and psychotropic medications, according to psychiatric experts, control the violent tendencies of the
small subset of the mentally ill who commit violent crimes such as murder. Even so, there are so many
examples of repeated murders by such patients, years after they were released from treatment, it
would be highly recommended to never allow them to stop mandated treatment and medication,
should they be released from prison.
The Housing Challenge:
Dedicated, mandatory, supervised and secured long-term living facilities, combined with long-term
conservatorship and psychotropic medication, appear the best option for keeping the homeless
mentally ill off the streets.
Dedicated: Housing should be especially designed for the severely mentally ill.
Mandatory: The patients should be required to stay in the housing, as part of the 5350
Conservatorships.
Supervised: Facilities must be managed by, and patient care overseen by, psychiatrically-trained
caregivers.
Page 13
Secured: Patients must be prevented from wandering off to live on the streets again. After being
stabilized on medication, patients who demonstrate willing participation may be given more freedom
to leave the facility.
Long-term: Schizophrenia is a life-long illness, with demonstrable changes in the substance of the
brain. Treatment has to be life-long.
The 2.5% of the severely mentally ill patients in California who are homeless, by their very lifestyles,
have already demonstrated they are "gravely disabled" and "unable to provide for basic personal
needs for food, clothing, or shelter". So, they should qualify for ongoing long-term 5350
conservatorship; and they need for us, with our tax dollars, to provide housing for them.
According to HUB Urban Initiatives, there were 137,292 temporary and permanent shelter beds
reported by Continuums of Care in 2019 in California. If one-third of those beds (around 45,000) were
converted to locked-down supervised psychiatric beds, that should be just about enough to house all
the severely mentally-ill homeless folks in California.
But that is not seen as a long-term solution. These barracks-style shelter beds could be used for
transitional housing for inmates just released from jail, or for those in the initial phase of
conservatorship after being seen in Mental Health Court, while awaiting a more permanent housing
solution. Such shelters should be designated exclusively for the mentally ill, supervised by mental
health workers, and be secured until patients can be stabilized on medication.
According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), in 2020 LA County had 66,433
homeless individuals, 2/3 were male, and of the total, 14,125 of them were determined to have severe
mental illness. So, potentially 14,000 rooms or beds for the mentally ill are required, long-term, in LA
County at present.
[Interestingly, a member of our local LA City Councilman's office was quoted as recently saying that the
city of Los Angeles owns about 14,000 unused buildings, sitting empty. Could some of those buildings
be converted to long-term housing for the homeless?]
In an effort to supply beds, as reported in the LA Times (12/12/20), the City of Los Angeles has begun
building villages in parking lots of tiny pre-tab houses, each measuring 64 square feet. Although these
Pallet houses are less than $10,000 to purchase, LA City spends about $100,000 each, including all the
installation infrastructure required. Tacoma, Washington, by comparison, installed 58 ofthe same tiny
houses for about $12,000 each(!) The once-homeless inhabitants interviewed said they appreciated
having their own space and privacy. At $100,000 each, 14,000 of the tiny houses would cost $1.4
billion.
[But supplying only 5,000 of the tiny houses for Skid Row residents would satisfy the injunction brought
by Federal Judge David 0. Carter against the City of LA.}
Another effort to supply more permanent homeless housing is featured in the February 10, 2021 LA
Times article "They're Building Affordable Housing For The Homeless-Without Government Help."
Page 14
This profiles the first-of-its-kind private equity impact fund supplying permanent supportive housing
(one-bedroom apartments) for the homeless, with a per-unit cost less than $200,000. This
collaboration, between SDS Capital Group, RMG Housing, Homeless Health Care Los Angeles, the Los
Angeles Council of Religious Leaders, and nonprofit donors such as $50 million donor Kaiser
Permanente, expects to produce 1200 to 1800 units, "with mental and physical support on site".
[Perhaps the SOS Supportive Housing collaboration could provide even more homeless housing, even
quicker and cheaper, if they simply renovated some of the 14,000 unused buildings belonging to LA
City?]
An excellent model for holding down costs, while building the self-esteem and employment skills of
their homeless clientele has been developed by the faith-based Village of Hope/Rescue Mission in
Tustin, California. Each of the 200+ once-homeless boarders is required to work eight hours a day in
various jobs at the site and is assisted with finding a job in the community before they leave. Facility
cost per client is $16,000 a year. And the facility is located on a donated decommissioned/renovated
military base. (Analogous to the 14,000 unused buildings owned by LA City, which could be re-
purposed.)
The surprisingly high cost of $1.4 billion to install 14,000 of the tiny pre-fab Pallet houses
notwithstanding, getting the mentally ill homeless off the streets, and providing consistent access to
medical and psychiatric care would very likely save more than that, not to mention enhancing the
health of the patients considerably.
There could be a stair-stepped approach to supplying housing for the estimated 14,000 mentally-ill
homeless in Los Angeles:
• PHASE ONE housing for large numbers, could be supplied with very little delay with converting
shelter beds, which already exist, and tend to be underutilized. The LA Homeless Services
Authority (LAHSA) in 2019 said there are 15,617 shelter beds, and 21,221 permanent housing
units in LA, to serve 66,436 people made homeless by all causes, so more shelters may be
needed. New shelters not yet built should be designed with the mentally ill homeless in mind.
• PHASE TWO could be the tiny Pallet houses, for those who graduate from the barracks-style
shelters. (Demonstrated treatment compliance by patients in the shelters could earn a chance
to be housed in the less tightly supervised pallet houses.) At least 5,000 of these need to be
built to satisfy Judge Carter's injunction. (But, will the mentally-ill homeless take to these
shelters as a secure and snug hide-out; or will they feel claustrophobic, and want to escape?)
• PHASE THREE, for graduates of PHASE TWO, could be the SDS Supportive Housing units,
estimated to have 1200 to 1800 apartments available within perhaps 6 years. These are
intended to be permanent housing. But, there need to be more than this available.
• There are said to be 14,000 unused buildings owned by the City of LA, which presumably could
be turned into housing for the homeless, at a fraction of the cost of new construction.
Page IS
Medical Care:
The homeless mentally ill population should be designated as a patient group, with healthcare
premiums paid by the LA County Department of Mental Health, and contracting services with a
healthcare provider. Kaiser Permanente HMO provides comprehensive high-quality healthcare at a
more reasonable price than any government entity ever could. Considering all the funds spent on
unnecessary, repeated ER visits, and hospitalizations that could have been avoided, there might even
be a net cost saving.
A successful treatment plan for the severely mentally ill homeless will involve helping them receive
proper psychiatric and medical care, and transition off the streets into secure and safe permanent
housing. As has been proven by Kaiser Permanente and other medical care groups, appropriate
preventive care is not only better for insuring patient health, but is also much less costly than
haphazardly paying for more advanced problems as they arise.
Economic Feasibility:
In similar fashion, a coordinated Conservatorship care system for these homeless unfortunates will
almost certainly be less expensive than the wantonly wasteful and fragmented non-system that
exists at present. A net cost saving could likely be achieved.
(If an economic feasibility study is desired for any of the claims of cost savings from the strategies
discussed above, there is an international Los Angeles-based infrastructure assessment firm AECOM,
which does economic and fiscal impact studies for corporate and government projects.) , ................................................................................... .
In summary, the mentally-ill homeless crisis is the fault of egregious mistakes made by the Federal
and State governments. And in California it has been left to local governments, with funding from
the State, to assume the responsibility and accountability for fixing this calamity.
A collaboration between law enforcement, mental health courts, and mental health professionals
such as the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health can help gather the severely mentally
ill homeless into a safe harbor conservatorship relationship.
Dedicated mandatory long-term living facilities, combined with long-term conservatorship and
psychotropic medication, appears the best plan for keeping the homeless mentally ill off the streets
long-term, and restoring the 25 years of life-span that a life on the streets has been proven to cost
them.