Loading...
20210816 Late CorrespondenceCITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 16, 2021 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 17, 2021 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Public Comment Email from: Donald Bell K Email from: Gary Randall 1 Email from: Sharon Yarber 2 Draft memo from: Principal Engineer, Dragoo Email from: Sunshine 5 Emails from: Judith King & Philip Rundel; Marc Kaiser; and Dana Dorsett 6 Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Dave Simpson. Email from: Constance Turner Respectfully submitted, c1w1;;1~~~j Teresa Takaoka L:\LA TE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20210817 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 16, 2021 8:57 AM CityClerk Fw: Council Meeting August 17, 2022 A non-agenda item. Please read! Before you decide to authorize more signs! RPVsigns.pdf From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 8:36 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Subject: Council Meeting August 17, 2022 A non-agenda item. Please read! Before you decide to authorize more signs! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To City council and Staff 1 Worthless Management Style It is increasingly apparent, that the fundamental management style of City Staff as well as guidance from City Council is to pursue Management by Signs. If a problem is noticed, the solution is to put up another sign. The city is now covered in signs. And the signs are universally ignored for there is no true effort to diligently enforce the rules . That was confirmed during a Zoom meeting on Thursday August 12 by both Cory and Ara. A great example is the monthly report from Recreation and Parks Department which has a dedicated enforcement component that issues rare citations. This is in spite of obvious visible evidence of individuals constantly ignoring all signs. Look at the trash, illegal trails, broken park fencing, feces, dogs off leash, blatant users refusal to follow trail user group rules, noise, hours violations, paragliding {YIJest Portal Trail of Ocean Trails Reserve), graffiti, and now an increase in crime at trailheads. I vividly remember being in PUMP Committee Meetings long ago when the trails network was being developed. I repeatedly asked how are the rules going to be enforced? And repeatedly (and Ara was also there) the question was left to the future to be determined. Well, we are long past the future and the explosion of signs and rules is not enforced. Many residents, including myself, have abandoned our parks and preserve due to the unregulated behavior of the current user groups. Yes, there have been efforts to develop solutions. The evidence shows vast majority of efforts to date have not worked! I am certain that there will be a magical result of new rules, regulations, security system, staffing and SIGNS for the new Ladera Linda Park. Yet the neighbors will ultimately be the resource to bring violations to the attention of staff after the fact and get lip service as a way forward. The simple fact is that A&P is incapable of managing their existing area of responsibility. And giving them new and more responsibility will only accelerate deterioration of quality of life in our Ladera Linda neighborhood. We are already scheduled for a multi-year nightmare with the destruction of the existing park and its replacement by an unwanted $20 million dollar City Council Monument. I sent repeated messages and photos (these taken 8/9/21 8:30AM) to Cory over the past several years concerning the continued safety problem in Founders Park. {Is this the second most used park in the city?) The photos show the safety problem stemming from use of above grade plastic junction boxes as the original lighting units are vandalized. The Trump Organization has been allowed to employ a cheap and unsafe alternate. What is the city liability if a child begins to remove the wire twist caps and then touches two of the bundles? There should be replacement lights instead. Now there are more missing lighting units than lights that remain. How often does a R&P staff member visit Founders park and submit a report on damage or other problems in the Ocean Trails Reserve? Why have the parasailers, who destroyed all vegetation on their launch point below the West Portal Trail, not been cited? I have also noted to Cory and CC the missing Founders Park benches that had been vandalized. And the precious view, that many on City Council noted they consider a vital element for the Ladera Linda plan, has been eliminated for seated visitors for a long time. The only two benches that face the ocean have been removed and never replaced. Can you ever figure out how to manage the existing infrastructure and user groups? If you are encouraging visitors and crowds, you must figure out how to control them! People are not universally nice and obedient. In my observation, we are experiencing an increase in negative behavior in society and RPV is not doing anything in an active sense to deter behavior that costs money and detracts from resident enjoyment of our resources. My recommendation is to know who is present by reservation, by license plate ID, by security cameras, and constant on the ground patrols. I have not heard any of these requirements committed and budgeted for a new Ladera Linda Park for they have simply been kicked down the road to study by consultants. RPV should gain the reputation as a place to visit that is enforcing its rules. We should have social media buzzing from abusive visitors upset that they were cited or arrested because of their behavior. Sincerely, Donald Bell PS 1 I do have to wonder how R&P will be able to continue their aesthetic quality and skill to deface the new park as they do in the existing space. There actually had been more of the Dog Leash Rule signs for I believe I counted 13 at one time where now there are only 5. PS 2 Does anyone else wonder if there is something wrong with all these trucks regularly parked in the Ladera Linda lot? (Photo 8/9/21 at 2:20PM) How much money is sitting there? How many hours a week are all in use? I guess there is a belief that With Sign Management no one needs to check to verify if any rules are being followed! Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:22 PM CityClerk Subject: Fw: PVDS/PVDE Traffic signal cost increase Hi Enyssa, Can you add this to Late corr? Tx T From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:29 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: PVDS/PVDE Traffic signal cost increase CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tern, and City Councilmembers: I noted with interest the agenda item before the CC next week regarding a 10% cost increase for the traffic signal at PVDS/PVDE. What I thought was interesting was the reason for the cost increase noted in the staff report. Staff apparently forgot (they call it an "oversight") to include pushbuttons for pedestrians/equestrians at the crosswalks, and also failed to include ADA compliant cutaway ramps on the curbs at the ends of the crosswalks. Actually, the real cost for those features is more like a 20%-25% increase, but they had some "buffer" in the original budget for the project which covers some of the increase. A 20-25% oversight is not a small one or a "minor" oversight! These seem like such ordinary and basic items that would always be included at any new intersection, I have a hard time figuring out how highly compensated and abundant RPV staff can overlook such simple items. They just put in a traffic signal over by Trader Joes, seems like they should be well versed on all this. And I also cannot figure out why they are adding equestrian pushbuttons when the trail use map in their report clearly shows only pedestrian and pedestrian/bike only trails in the area. So why are they adding equestrian pushbuttons? Are we not being told something about future trail plans in this area? I have lived in RPV for 50 years, and in Ladera Linda HOA for 23 years, and I can assure you I have never seen equestrians at that intersection. I hope you all, as our elected officials, pull this item from the consent calendar for discussion and not simply rubber stamp it for approval. During 1 that discussion, I hope you would ask staff some tough questions about this increase, about how these oversights could possibly happen and what they will do to avoid these types of "surprises" in the future, and about the supposed need to add equestrian pushbuttons. Regards Gary Randall 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Sunday, August 15, 2021 12:56 PM CityClerk Fw: Oceanfront Estates Parking From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 202112:04 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Oceanfront Estates Parking Dear Council, Balancing the interests of the public and the property owners in Oceanfront Estates may at first glance appear to be difficult, but it is not; at the end of the day, the public has a right of access to the coast and the public has a right to use, and park upon, public streets. We have already placed too many restrictions on too many public streets with resident parking permits. I am opposed to any resident parking permit program for these streets in Oceanfront Estates. If you don't want a lot of people parking in front of your house, then move to a less popular spot that is not along the coast. Please do not waste any more time on this doing more analyses, car counts, etc. The CCC won't approve of this effort anyway, so deny the application on August 17th and move on. Sincerely, Sharon Yarber 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ron Dragoo Friday, August 13, 2021 3:23 PM CityClerk Nathan Zweizig; Ken Rukavina; Jaehee Yoon; Ramzi Awwad Late Correspondence for 8-17 CC Meeting GTS Draft Memo 28160 PVDE.pdf The attached is late correspondence for the August 17, 2021 City Council meeting, item 2 Public Hearing on 28160 PVDE. Ron Dragoo, PE Principal Engineer 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 Directorv on the City website. 1 t +1213267 2332 I f +1213318 0744 info@gentecsol.com I www.gentecsol.com 1055 W 711> St #3300 , Los Angeles, CA 90017 GTS I General Technologies and Solutions MEMORANDUM Date: August 12 , 2021 GTS: 210504 To: Ron Dragoo, City of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Rawad Hani , GTS cc : Sean Lopez , City of Rancho Palos Verdes Subject: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East The project proposes to install a new single-family residence located at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East. The location of the development is along a sharp curve in the road with sight distance concerns. The developer's engineer and the City's traffic engineer reviewed the site and made recommendations over the past 3 years leading to both parties concurring on the final findings . The project was presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) who ultimately accepted the methodology presented by the traffic engineers and recommended accepting those conditions to the Planning Commission . The project was presented to the Planning Commission several times leading most recently to a denial of the application. With the above background, GTS provided a third -party review of the documentation of the work that was performed on this project and conducted a site visit to observe first-hand the traffic operations. Figure 1: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East (Source : Los Angeles County Assessor Maps) In what follows we present the chronology of the events focusing on sight distance considerations (based on the project documentation) as well as our recommendations based on the field observations. Chronology of E:vents Date May 16, 2018 Application Submitted July 13, 2018 Initial City Review February 12, 2019 Planning Commission Action Description of Action Applicant submitted application requesting approval to construct a new 3-story residence and ancillary site improvements with associated grading . Initial Review by City + Comments on Project Design Planning Commission dismissed the request to review the project on the basis that a project should be reviewed by the Planning Commission once it is deemed complete for processing by City Staff. June 7, 2019 Technical memorandum that addressed Sight Distance and Metal Beam Guardrail : Traffic Engineering Analysis on behalf -Sight Distance analysis was based on the posted 25 mph advisory speed . The of Applicant constraining movement was identified as the southbound left turn from Palos Verdes Dr E into the westerly driveway (going up the hill turning left into the first driveway). Stopping sight distance was noted to be just above standards for posted speed, but is inadequate for prevailing speed (which is higher than the posted speed -referred to as 85 th percentile speed). In order to mitigate this condition , it was recommended to the owner that the westerly driveway be restricted to in/out configuration with the easterly driveway being the entrance and the westerly be the driveway serving as the exit , along with a restriction that left turns in/out of the driveway be not allowed . Physical limitations to the driveway were not proposed as this is a private driveway , therefore the owner will have to be cognizant of this restriction and self-limit the turning movement. Metal beam guardrail (MBGR) is not needed along the property line but retain chevrons and delineators . Nov. 13, 2019 The Review pointed to two main elements : Traffic Engineering Review on behalf -The project's proposed deck in Public ROW and the challenges associated with ~~ec~ t Nov. 25, 2019 Project presented to Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) April 2, 2020 Staff deemed the application complete for processing May 12, 2020 Planning Commission Hearing Sight Distance Analysis of the Applicant 's Traffic Engineer (June 7, 2019 analysis used 25mph instead of the 85 th percentile) and concluded that the driveway locations are not acceptable based on the Palos Verdes Dr. E 85 th percentile Speed of 38 mph . GTS Note : Until this stage both City and Applicant's traffic engineers are using previously available information for speed along Palos Verdes Or. E which is collected at other locations of the road not in the vicinity of the project. As the characteristics of the road varies , this explains the discrepancy in findings. Staff is in support of encroachment permit , to allow mentioned retaining walls, the driveway , and signs within the Public ROW, with several conditions identified . Based on the revisions , the TSC adopted a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission, based solely on traffic safety considerations, to proceed with the proposed project as set forth in the Public Works Department Staff Report (which asked to install and maintain "Right Turn Only" signs at both driveway approaches - right in-right out circulation). Staff deemed the application complete for processing , setting the action deadline to June 1, 2020 . On that same day , a public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 ' radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News , providing a 30-day time period to submit comments and concerns. Planning Commission had concerns with the enforceability of the "right-in/right-out only" and "no left turn" signs , the necessity of a two-way driveway approach, and instances where vehicles driving westbound along Palos Verdes Drive East that make 2 Date June 2, 2020 Traffic Engineering Review on behalf of the City June 10, 2020 Project presented to Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) June 19, 2020 Traffic Engineering Review on behalf of the Applicant June 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting June 26, 2020 Traffic Engineering Review on behalf of the City July 28, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting June 29, 2020 Traffic Engineering Review on behalf of the Cit Description of Action left turns into the property may result in rear collisions due to insufficient sight distance visibility at the hairpin curve. Public Works Department noted that adding a left turn pocket as a center lane along Palos Verdes Drive East may possibly alleviate potential rear collisions when left-turns are made into the property , although it will be a costly option to pursue . Commission voted to continue the public hearing to June 23 ,2020 to provide the applicant an opportunity to consider design improvements and resubmit the project lans. Re-assessed sight distance based on new speed data collected : a speed radar survey was collected on Wednesday May 20, 2020 for the speeds being driven by vehicles around the curve. The 85th percentile speed came out to be 30 mph. A desktop analysis was carried out that showed deficiencies in turning left into the site and proposed 3 potential alternatives for mitigation: Prohibit left turns in and out of the site A shared driveway with adjacent property to the west A two-way left turn lane which the memo recommends The analysis noted that the "three Alternatives discussed have both advantages and disadvantages, however Alternative 3 is the preferred and recommended alternative ." GTS Note : During the pandemic, speeds have been reported to higher than average due to lower traffic volumes on the roads . Thus the collected speed can be considered conservative (good thing) for this analysis. Project Applicant and their Traffic Engineer as well as City Staff and their Traffic Engineer presented the findings to the TSC. No decisions were made as a traffic analysis was presented at the meeting by the applicant which the City did not have a chance to review yet (this is the report discussed in the following action of June 19, 2020). However , the applicant noted their refusal of Alternative 3 pointed above as it entails one driveway which the fire department rejects. It should be noted that in addition to the sight distance traffic engineering analysis, the project discussion also included discussion of the encroachment and intrusion into the public right of way , which is not discussed here as this report focuses on the traffic elements of sight distance and the encroachment/intrusion can be addressed by the architectural design . This analysis utilized the speed survey data (30mph 85 th percentile speed) as well as the braking distance and reaction distance to calculate the stopping site distance . The study also utilized the field topographic survey to make more accurate measurements. The findings of this study are : left turns into the east driveway meet the safety standards and as such , are allowed with no further mitigation requirements necessary . the east driveway be used for entering and the west driveway to exit. Staff Update Continue Hearing on July 28 , 2020 A field sight distance analysis was performed to collect the field measurements for the sight distances. This review recommended the installation of the two -way center lane and a singular westerly driveway in coordination with the fire department. Status update from City Staff Receive and File The City 's Traffic Engineer reviewed the June 19 , 2020 Applicant's Traffic Engineer Analysis and disagreed with the findings . July 1, 2020 Project presented Committee (TSC) The sight distance analysis was discussed extensively with the City staff , the applicant to Traffic Safety and their traffic engineers . The item was deferred to allow the Staff and applicant to meet and perform another sight visibility analysis and report back to TSC . 3 Date September 28, 2020 Traffic Engineering Review on behalf of the City September 28, 2020 Project presented to Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) March 23, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Recommendations Description of Action Based on the field measurements collected in the field and discussions with the applicant to come up with a solution that was safe and also provided them flexibility on the site the following was recommended : Both the west approach and east approach driveways be allowed for egress from the property for left and right turns out of the property. The west approach driveway be the only driveway used for ingress to the property . The east approach driveway be used for egress only, be gated and signed with "No left turn" signs on public right of way to prohibit left turn movement for Palos Verdes Dr. E vehicles traveling westbound into the property. The proposed recommendations meet the minimum stopping sight distance standard of 200-feet (for an 85 th percentile speed of 30 MPH) and provides the applicant the flexibility needed by the fire department during an emergency scenario by keeping the two driveways . Doing so will provide an acceptable stopping sight distance for ingress and egress , reduce the conflict points for ingress and increase safety . TSC voted to recommend approval as long as the following three conditions are met (all conditions): West approach and East approach driveways be allowed egress from the property for left and right turns out of the property , and Ingress will be restricted to the West driveway only, and East driveway is to be gated and only opened only for egress . There should be a sign on the gate indicating there is no entry or exit only. That sign to be viewed by drivers on Palos Verdes Drive East. The Planning Commission stated that items that will need to be addressed when the project comes back for further consideration at its May 11 , 2021 meeting that include reviewing the feasibility of an escape lane; legal liability from the City's perspective if traffic accidents are to occur along the hairpin curve; possible traffic calming measures for implementation ; and revisions to reduce the overall height. The Planning Commission continued to express concerns with the overall height, traffic safety , and grading . Passed a motion to deny the application. Passed a motion to deny the application . From a sight distance perspective , we concur both the City and Applicant's traffic engineers on the sight distance and associated mitigations based on detailed analysis and field surveys (as documented in the September 28 , 2020 Traffic Engineering Review on behalf of the City). The proposed recommendations state that the west approach and east approach driveways be allowed egress from the property for left and right turns out of the property and ingress will be restricted to the west driveway only (enforced by a gate on the east driveway that only opens for egress as well as associated signage on Palos Verdes Drive East).The recommendations meet the minimum stopping sight distance standard of 200-feet (for an 85th percentile speed of 30 MPH) and provide the applicant the flexibility needed by the fire department during an emergency scenario by keeping the two driveways. It should also be noted that the westbound movement is also on an uphill which provides a natural advantage when reducing a vehicle's speed in this area. As noted earlier, part of the discrepancies in initial findings is driven by a desktop analysis (utilizing previously available information of the entire road) versus a field analysis and speed survey which cater for the unique characteristics of the site . 4 Based on our site observations, many of the existing access points in the project vicinity do have some visibility constraints (which was also noted in the Traffic Safety Commission Meetings). Site observations also noted the presence of multiple modes utilizing the Palos Verdes Drive East (pedestrian , bicycle, equestrian). As such , it is recommended as part of the development approval, for the City to consider the implementation of traffic calming measures along the road in the vicinity of the project. While vertical measures such as speed humps and rumble strips will not be popular given the residential nature of the area and the tendency of these devices to create noise, horizontal measures such as reducing lane widths from the current 12 feet to 11 feet (thereby widening the shoulder) where appropriate can help in traffic calming as well as helping cyclists in this area. The City can consider any or all the following traffic calming measures as part of the 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East development approval as directed by the City Engineer: Reducing the lane width from 12 feet to 11 feet along Palos Verdes Drive East curve area Adding speed limit pavement legends for both approaches on Palos Verdes Drive East Creating a 25 MPH speed zone (which is possible given that the 85 th percentile speed was found to be 30 MPH). The applicant could be required to install the required speed guidance and advisory signage. The speed advisory signs can be reduced from 25 MPH to 20 MPH as requested by the City. Adding solar speed feedback signs on both approaches of the curve along Palos Verdes Drive East Adding special signs , as requested by the City, such as those warning for turning vehicles ahead or slow traffic ahead among others The above noted calming measures will not only benefit the site under consideration but the various residences and users of the road and can contribute to reducing cut-through traffic. 5 The following table and exhibit are intended to provide an abridged summary of the above write-up. Speed Used as a proxy for Stopping Sight Distance Calculations Site Specific Site Distance Initial Assessment of 25 MPH Year 2012 85 th Percentile Year 2020 85 th Percentile {30 MPH) Measurements as a proxy for sight distance {38 MPH) as a proxy for sight as a proxy for sight distance calculations distance calculations calculations Refer to>>> Exhibit 1-A Exhibit 1-B Exhibit 1-C Exhibit 1-D 2012 Speed Zone Study between 2020 Speed Zone Study at the curve Field Measurements of Sight Bronco Dr and the Northerly City adjacent to 2816 PVDE Distance {Road temporarily Limit closed by Police to enable the investigations) Condition: Westerly driveway be Locations of driveways a re A desktop analysis proposed three The following was restricted to in/out with the unacceptable. potential alternatives: recommended: easterly driveway being the -Prohibit left turns in and out of the -Both the west approach and entrance and the westerly be site east approach driveways be the driveway serving as the -Asha red driveway with adjacent allowed for egress from the exit, along with a restriction property to the west property for left and right that left turns in/out of the -A two-way left turn lane which was turns out of the property. driveway be not allowed. recommended {applicant rejected -The west approach Physical limitations to the based on fire department driveway be the only driveway were not proposed. requirements for 2 driveways) driveway used for ingress to the property. -The east approach driveway be used for egress only, be gated and signed with "No left turn" signs on public right of way to prohibit left turn movement for Palos Verdes Dr. E vehicles traveling westbound into the property. Meets Sight Yes based on above No based on above assumptions For some movements {not all) Yes based on above Distance assumptions based on above assumptions assumptions Requirements El Sisters of Cha ~ of Rollrng Hills q Exhibit 1: Schematic showing the locations of various surveys B 7 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sunday, August 15, 2021 4:44 PM CC; CityClerk; PC; imac; TSC; EPC More than CC, August 17, 2021 PUBLIC HEARING Item 2, Appeal of 28160 PVDE CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of t he Cit of Rancho Palos Verd s. Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council, Here is the short version of what is on the table as taken from another project. There is a lot more at stake in your decision than the fate of one gawd awful structure. Approve the application or disapprove the application and suffer the consequences . Tweaking the design any further will simply cost the Applicant and the local Tax Payers even more money . Everybody loses, particularly the immediate neighborhood. Support our Planning Commission and then fix the underlying problem. I'm trying to determine more specifically, how Staff is abusing both Applicant's and the public's interests. What I am seeing is not just about trails and not just about the PV Preserve. I really need your cooperation to create a way for the City Council to get a grip on how Staff is manipulating them and screwing all of us. I think staff is really busy and it has been difficult for them working from home This predates the pandemic. I am of the opinion that the "gradualism" methodology of the United Nation's Agenda for the 21st Century (UN Agenda 21) is at work so there is no specific date to say... This is when the RPV City Council directed Staff to stop availing themselves of volunteer expertise at both negotiating and engineering. Here is the slightly less short version. The long version would be everything I have written to Council since 2000. There has got to be a way to put something in your resolution which puts Staff on notice that this sort of avoidance of using citizen volunteers to come up with "holistic solutions" in complicated situations is unacceptable. We have the time and information which they do not. As a De Novo Review, one would think the you could stop this train wreck. That is not the case. Simply based on Staff's description of the 28160 PVDE site and the conflicting Land Use v, Zoning designations, this Application should never have been declared "complete". The whether or not this lot is "buildable" question has not been resolved to my satisfaction. 1 RPV's Planning Staff worked with the 28160 PVDE Applicant literally for years without referencing and resolving the extensive collection of conflicting "Plans" which the City Council has Adopted over the years. To make matters worse, they did not call on the expertise of our volunteer public to sort out all the cross referencing before they started calling for piece-meal revisions to the Applicant's design. From May 16, 2018 until May 11, 2021, this Applicant has been ruining his design to no avail. OK, it is a "spec house", not a "dream home". But still, Staff should have been able to define what would not be acceptable in this community essentially from day one. It was more than a year "in process" before the Traffic Safety Committee got called in because we have no Roadway Standard for this unique stretch of roadway. Staff even ignored the suggestion that the City offer to purchase the lot as a simple solution to all of the roadway safety, roadway encroachment, steep slope grading, emergency access, drainage, Q Zone and trail enhancement issues which building on this site as proposed will exacerbate. Too many other projects are wading through this "deep state doo doo" for you to not take advantage of this opportunity to set them straight. Please move more than Staff's Option 4. Sincerely, SUNSHINE RPV 310-377-8761 su nsh inerpv@aol.com PS: In case you had not noticed, the situation is even worse with projects which are initiated by Public Works or Rec.& Parks. 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, August 16, 2021 1:05 PM CityClerk Subject: Fw: Cox WiFi failures Late corr From: Judith King <dendrochick@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 9:28 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Cox WiFi failures We have minimal internet accessibility on many days. Our signal is not very strong at best, but often there's no signal at all! It's unpredictable and frustrating. Thank you for listening, Judith King and Philip Runde! 30 Sweetbay Road Rancho Palos Verdes Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 16, 2021 3:06 PM CityClerk Fw: Internet Outages From: Marc Kaiser <marckaiser@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 2:29 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Internet Outages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Cox Internet outages are worse than they've ever been in my service area. They are coming frequently and lasting for hours. I have no other real options other than Frontier DSL, which apparently is even worse in reliability and customer service. We need more competitive options across the entire city. Clearly Cox is putting resources elsewhere or is not investing in the business sufficiently. Living with a monopoly that is performing poorly is not what I expect in RPV. I feel that the city has enabled Cox to be complacent, using RPV's contract as a cash cow. Marc Kaiser 30003 Matisse Drive Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typos, errors, or impolite closings caused by fat thumbs. 1 5. Enyssa Momoli To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: RE: Cox Communications From: Dana Moon <dm@danamoon.com> Sent: Monday, August 16, 202111:11 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Cox Communications Cox internet service needs updating. It is of extremely poor quality, and we purchased many items, including from Cox, that improves the quality only a little. When we experience more severe problems, such as a complete disconnect or extremely poor connection, we call Cox, only to have Cox sell us its higher speed internet service, which still does not solve the problem of weak internet transmission. Thank you for giving your attention to this matter. Dana M. Dorsett 4032 Exultant Drive RPV, CA 90275 I lip Cl•i!ent'.: of thi'; P mail rne?'.•,sage ,ind it:; attachrnents are intf!ndeci solely for thL' addressee(s) hereof. Tffr, e mnil ,,,,r, :ni'.,SiC!n rnav be urn(idential and may be' subject to privilep,e:: protecting corrnrnmications bt•l\AICNl attcm1riys ,ind :, l i:vnl', If yo11 are not 1Iw nanwd dddresser-, or if thi~; n1ess,1ge hc1s Ileen addres•,ecl to you in errn:. you arc not tu dis, lo~:c. n::produce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmls•,ion. If you have ren•ived lhi'; ii ,·;1ni:,:,io11 in error, ple;.i!;e alert the sender by ri,ply t' n1<1il and delf'.te lhis rr1essa1~e <111d its t'1Hc11hmcn!s, if any, fn,rn 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 2:54 PM To: Cc: Simpson, Dave (CCI-California); Teresa Takaoka CityClerk; Ramzi Awwad Subject: RE: Letter of Concern, Item 6 on tomorrow's city council agenda item Hi Dave, The City is in receipt of your letter and will make sure it is provided to the City Council as late correspondence for consideration at tomorrow night's meeting. The concerns raised in your letter are similar to other utilities and will be considered. We also look forward to an opportunity to work together to address the City's concerns on a potential code amendment. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager CITYOF 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? Tl1i!; ri rn,,il 1missag<~ contains i11for111aU011 belon[Jing t:o the City of Rancho Palos Vim1es, which rnay be privileged, confil1m1ti,.1I and/or protected from di:-;closure. The inforrnation is intended only for use of the inclividual or ent:ity narmid. Unautllorizecl dissemination, distribution, or copyino is strictly prohii.Jitcd. If you l"Cceived this email in rirror, 01· am not an ,ntemfrid recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and coop(iration. Connlld with tho Coy from you, 1>honq or tobf,1,1tl DOWNLOAD 'tlt_far Avol.f-ubt"' in tho App Store and Google Play 1 ► G£TITON Google Play From: Simpson, Dave {CCI-California) <dave.simpson2@cox.com> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 2:09 PM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Letter of Concern, Item 6 on tomorrow's city council agenda item Ara and Terri, Hope you both are well. Please find attached Cox Communications' letter of concern on item 6 on tomorrow's council meeting. We understand this issue may also be discussed in closed session prior and we would greatly appreciate it being shared with the Mayor and Council members prior to that meeting. I did not have an e-mail for Mr. Wynder but if it could be passed along to him that would also be appreciated. Cox intends to summarize the letter in public comment on the item if it is heard. For item 5 which Cox is presenting on, speaking will be myself, Chanelle Hawken, VP of Government and Public Affairs. We would like to request a person from out operations team be able to comment on a council question, which we anticipate, if it is beyond what myself or Chanelle can answer. Is this feasible? Thank you very much. Regards, Dave Simpson pson Manager, Government Affairs 121 Towne Centre Dr. Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Dave.Simpson2@cox.com 949-979-3628 2 August 16, 2021 Honorable Mayor Eric Alegria City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mayor Alegria, On behalf of Cox Communications, I would like to express our concerns with the proposal included in Item 6 of your August 17, 2021 city council agenda which seeks council approval to amend Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code relating to encroachment permits. Cox along with other stakeholders were first made aware of the proposed changes on Thursday, August 12, 2021. As you are aware, the COVID pandemic has placed a sharp focus on the importance of reliable broadband service. We last presented to council in October of 2020 and have also met with city staff individually as well as collectively that included other cities on the peninsula many times. In those meetings we heard loud and clear the desire for safety, reliability, and customer service. This effort included a meeting with City Managers and staff on August 5, 2021 where there was no mention of this proposal. We believe we have demonstrated a strong response to expedite needed network upgrades and safety improvements and to do so with the end user in mind. Certainly, more needs to be done and that is exactly what we plan to do. As briefly detailed below, the proposed changes to your municipal code make routine upgrade and maintenance of our network, as well as the provision of new broadband service, difficult to achieve. We respectfully request a continuation of this item to accommodate appropriate consultation with city staff and impacted utilities that will address community concern while allowing necessary work to be completed. The entire peninsula is within a Tier 2 fire-threat zone and the ordinance as written impacts our ability to meet requirements for projects addressing wireline resiliency as mandated by a California Public Utility Commission earlier this year. There are 55 identified wireline resiliency projects in Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 12.22.070(8) (C) (Findings for Approval) (Conditions for Approval) Under both the Findings for Approval and Conditions for Approval, the City stresses that the proposed encroachment must not unreasonably interfere with the intended or potential use of a City Right-of-Way. It is a violation of State law for the City to include in their municipal code language suggesting that broadband infrastructure is not an intended or potential use of City right of way and can therefore be rejected on this basis. Pub. Util. Code § 5885(a) states: "The local entity shall allow the holder of a state franchise under this division to install, construct, and maintain a network within public rights-of-way ... " Section 12.22.090(A) (Public Notification) Cox has a robust customer notification process when planned work may impact the service of our customers. However, the act of making these infrastructure permits discretionary and placing de facto authority to deny encroachment permits in the hands of residents is a violation of the state law referenced above. In addition, Section 621 (a)(2) of the Cable Act of 1984 (Cable Act) clearly states "[A]ny franchise shall be construed to authorize the construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way." 47 U.S.C § 541 (a)(2). Cox Communications appreciates the opportunity to provide vital services to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. We respectfully request that this item be continued so that adequate discussion can be had with Cox and others to address shared concerns. I would be pleased to speak with you further on this matter if needed. I can be reached at (619) 266-5490 or, via e-mail, lngo.Hentschel@cox.com or you may also contact Dave Simpson, Manager, Government Affairs at (949) 563-8101 or Dave.Simpson2@cox.com. Thank you for your consideration of our request for a continuance. Sincerely, lngo Hentschel SVP & Region Manager COX California cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Mr. Ara Mihranian, City Manager Mr. William Wynder, City Attorney Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, August 16, 2021 1 :00 PM CityClerk Subject: Attachments: Fw: Southern California Edison's Attorney's formal objections letter regarding proposed Public Notification Ordinance Title 12 to be recorded in the city's official records 8-16-21 Letter Re Objections to RPV Proposed Amendment Title 12.pdf From: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com> Sent: Monday, August 16, 202110:47 AM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Southern California Edison's Attorney's formal objections letter regarding proposed Public Notification Ordinance Title 12 to be recorded in the city's official records Thank you. Connie From: Constance Turner Sent: Monday, August 16, 202110:42 AM To: TeriT@rpca.gov; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Southern California Edison's formal objections letter regarding proposed Public Notification Ordinance Title 12 to be recorded in the city's official records Thanks. Connie 1 b. VIA EMAIL William Wynder, Esq. City Attorney Mr. Ara Mihranian City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 August 16 , 2021 Re: Objections to Proposed Amendment to Title 12-City of Rancho Palos Verdes Code Messrs. Wynder and Mihranian: Mark Rothenberg Senior Attorney Mark.A.Rothenberg@ sce .com As you know, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) has recently proposed the adoption of an ordinance imposing various new requirements on franchised utilities in the City. These requirements include expansive trench restoration requirements, the payment of security deposits, and the establishment of a public noticing and subjective/discretionary review protocol prior to the utility being permitted to complete work. Unfortunately, SCE staff only became aware of the ordinance on Thursday, August 12th. Our understanding is that the ordinance is scheduled for first reading by the City Council on August 17 , 2021. SCE appreciates the City staff's recognition that the ordinance may benefit from a consultation session with the utilities to determine if mutually acceptable modifications can be made. SCE further understands that the City's staff will take the matter to a closed session to discuss whether the item can be continued given the legal and practical objections summarized below. SCE is providing the following initial summary of its objections and requests the courtesy of a continuance to enable the parties an opportunity to explore whether these objections can be resolved prior to adoption. SCE must respectfully reserve the right to supplement its objections and the right to seek legal redress should the item move forward. As a threshold matter, SCE has a franchise with the City (City Ordinance No. 28) ("Franchise"). A copy of the Franchise is attached. Section 2 of the Franchise clarifies that the Franchise incorporates the provisions of the Franchise Act of 1937 (Public Utilities Code Section 6201, et seq.) ("Franchise Act"). It is true that Section 6294 of the Franchise Act requires that franchised utilities comply with ordinances and rules adopted by the City. However, such ordinances and rules may not conflict with the paramount authority of the state (the CPUC). Moreover, courts have since clarified that jurisdictions are precluded from imposing requirements that substantially impair the franchise. An impairment occurs if a provision alters a material term of the Franchise and adds either cost or delay. P.O . Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Ave. Rosemead , California 91770 (626) 302-6916 Fax (626) 302-1910 William Wynder, Esq. Mr. Ara Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes August 16, 2021 Page2 To illustrate, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeal struck down an ordinance of the City of Santa Ana mandating that the utility pay trench excavation fees. See Southern California Gas v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F. 3d 885 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California struck down a permitting regimen imposed by the City of Alhambra that charged various fees and imposed other conditions. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Alhambra, 2011 WL 4389655 (CD Cal. 2011). Most recently, the Central District ruled against the City of Laguna Beach's Motion to Dismiss a complaint filed by utilities regarding Laguna Beach's attempt to mandate that utilities underground utility poles or go through a public hearing process to justify maintaining systems above-ground. Following the ruling, the City rescinded the ordinance. Southern California Edison Co. v. City of Laguna Beach, 2017 WL 4480827 (CD Cal. 2017). In addition to SCE's belief that the Ordinance as written substantially impairs the Franchise, SCE believes that the Ordinance purports to invade the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Courts have long since clarified that jurisdictions may not regulate issues that are fundamentally an area of state concern. The method by which SCE designs its systems, performs vegetation management, and notifies its customers of work are either expressly regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or are fundamentally a matter of State concern. Even if the CPUC has not issued specific rules or regulations relative to SCE's work, courts have still found preemption where certain activities are a necessary component of utility work. San Diego Gas & Electric v. City of Carlsbad, 64 Cal. App. 4th 785 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1998) (City preempted from requiring utility seek dredging permit-even though CPUC had not directly regulated dredging). The proposed Ordinance either substantially impairs SCE's Franchise or is otherwise pre- empted in a number of respects: • Section 12.04.045: Requires what appears to be lane to lane re-paving and goes well- beyond SCE's obligation to repair the site of a utility trench. Section 12.04.060: Ordinance imposed penalties for failure to obtain a permit. This Section should clarify that Franchised utilities are exempt and that contractors performing work as agents of the Contractor are similarly exempt. Section 12.22.030: Utility is required to pay fees. Such fees may violate the Franchise and would need to be explained to the utilities. Section l 2.22.030(D): The Ordinance allows the Director to require a security deposit. The Franchise Act provides for a single penalty bond at the time the Franchise was negotiated. See, Public Utilities Code Section 6231 (bond only permitted if set forth in Resolution to adopt Franchise). SCE respectfully submits that a requirement for any other security instrument work would violate the Franchise. Section 12.22.040: SCE understands the need for points of contact within the company but the requirements as drafted are onerous and unworkable. William Wynder, Esq. Mr. Ara Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes August 16, 2021 Page 3 • Section 12.22.060: SCE will not provide the City with a supplemental indemnification agreement. The Franchise Act of 193 7 (Public Utilities Code Section 6296) already provides for an indemnification. SCE cannot agree to broaden its risk profile. Similarly, SCE is not amenable to paying security deposits. • Section 12.22.070(8): The Ordinance establishes subjective criteria (including aesthetics and unstated public safety concerns) for the issuance of encroachment permits. Such permits must be ministerial. Otherwise, pursuant to CPUC General Order 131-D, SCE may not be required to obtain any form of discretionary approvals from the City for its system work. • Section 12.22.090: The public notification process in the Ordinance violates SCE's Franchise and is antithetical to preemption of local discretionary review set forth in CPUC General Order 131-D. The Franchise does not precondition SCE's work on providing notifications to adjacent property owners nor does it require subjecting work plans for further City review. It should be noted that SCE does have a process for notifying customers of planned outages and certain forms of planned maintenance work. Moreover, the City could elicit such information and provide notice to residents following utility coordination meetings. However, SCE respectfully objects to the imposition of a notice protocol as a prerequisite to the receipt of permits. • Section 12.22.090 (A)(4): SCE further notes that its construction schedule may be fluid. In some instances, SCE crews may be allocated from one site to another to speed up emergency work. Therefore, the requirement that SCE provide 3 business day commencement notification is unworkable. • 12.22.090(4)(b)): SCE does not provide traffic control outside of its work areas (e.g., backup generation or traffic signage). The City is free to police its own intersections following notice from SCE-but as a customer of SCE, the City may not expect the functional equivalent of a continuous power supply. • l 2.22.090(E): SCE is aware of situations where it may have superior rights to that of the City or if the project in question is a proprietary governmental function. While this matter is still being litigated in federal court, SCE cannot agree to a default rule that it be required to pay for the relocation of municipal systems in all instances. • SCE further notes that the Ordinance-if enforceable-would result in considerable changes in the City. As such, SCE objects to the claimed CEQA exemption. It is not SCE's intent to antagonize the City. However, SCE must be permitted to perform its work in a manner that recognizes its unique contractual relationship with the City and regulation and oversight by the State. We are however confident that a mutually amicable resolution to these issues can be achieved and look forward to continued dialogue with the City's staff. Therefore, SCE restates its request for the item to be continued until the utilities and the City's staff have had a chance to discuss the Ordinance. William Wynder, Esq. Mr. Ara Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes August 16, 2021 Page4 Thank you for reviewing SCE's initial objections and concerns. Representatives of SCE will be in touch with your office to schedule a meeting. In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. MAR/kk Attachment Sincerely, Isl Mark Rothenberg Mark Rothenberg Enyssa Momoli To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: RE: Southern California Edison Franchise Agreement copy for you two From: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com> Sent: Monday, August 16, 202110:46 AM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Southern California Edison Franchise Agreement copy for you two Thanks. Connie 1 ,,_. -- \ ORDINANCE NO. 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY 0~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALI~ORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ITS .SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A FRANCHISE TO USE AND TO CONSTRUCT AND USE·, FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING ELECTRICITY FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES, POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS, AND APPUR~ TENANCES, INCLUDING COMMUNICATION CIRCUITS NECESSARY OR PROPER THEREFOR, IN, ALONG, ACROSS, UPON, OVER AND UNDER THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS AND PLACES WITHIN THE·CITY OF RANCHO PALOS· VERDES. The City Council of the· Q,;l't,;Y.,..Q,f. •• ~n.Q)lQ_,P.§.l,Q.§ .. :Y.:e.r,de.§. does ordain as follows: Section 1: Whenever in this Ordinance the words or phrases hereinafter in this section defined are used, it is intended that thev shall have the respective meanin~s assigned to them in. the following definitions (unless, in the given instances, the context wherein they are used shall clearly import a different _meaning): · (a) The word "grantee"· shall mean th.e corporation to which the franchise contemplated in this Ordinance is granted and its lawful successors or assip:ns; (b) The word "City" shall mean the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation of the State of California, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated; enlarged or reincor- porated form; · (c) The word "streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places as the same now or may hereafter exist within said City; (d) The phrase "poles, wires, conduits and appur- tenances 11 shall mean poles, towers, supports, wires, conductors, cables, ~uys, stubs, platforms, crossarms, braces, transformers, insulators, conduits, ducts, vaults, manhol~s, meters, cut-outs, switches, commun.icatiort circuits, appliances, ·attachments, appurtenances; and ·. any other property located or to be located in, alon~, across, upon, over or ~nder the streets, of said City, and used or useful, directly or indirectly, for the pur- pose of transmittin~ or distributing electricity; .) ,' ( () (e) The phrase "construct and use" shall ·mean to lay, construct, erect, install, operate, maintain, use, repair, replace or relocate. Section 2: The franchise to use and to construct and use, for transmitting and distributinR electricity for any and. all purposes, poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, including communication circuits, necessary or proper therefor, in, along, across, uport, over and under the streets within the Cit~ of Rancho Palos Verdes, is hereby granted to Southern California Edison Company, its lawful successors and assigns, under and in accordance ·with the provisions of the Franchise Act of 1937. Section 3: Said franchise shall be i-ndeterminate, that is to say, said franchise shall endure in full force and effect until, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission.of the State of California,the same shall be voluntarily surrendered or abandqned by the grantee, or until the State or some mu~icipal or public corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall purchase by voluntary agreement or shall condemn and take under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of said fran~hise and situate within the territorial limits of the state, municipal or public ·corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until said franchise shall be forfeited for noncompliance with its terms b:v th.e grantee. Section 4: ; The grantee of said franchise during the life thereof, will pay to said City two percent (2%) of the ~ross annual receipts of said grantee arising from the use, opera- tion or possession of said franc~ise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts derived by grantee from the sale of electricity within the limits of said City. Section 5: The grantee shall file with the City Clerk of .said City, within three (3) months after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional ·calendar year, followin~ the date of the granting of this franchise, and within three (3) months after the expiration of each calendar year thereafter, a verified statement showin~ in detail the total gross receipts of said grantee derived during the preceding calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, from the sale of electricity· within the limits of said City. The grantee shall pay to said ~ity within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing said statement, in lawful money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage of its gross receipts for the calendar year, or fractional calen~ar year, covered by said etatement. ~ny neglect, omission or refusal by said grantee to file said verified statement, o~ to pay said precentage at the times or in the -2- I I I I ---------·--· -......... -···· .......... _ ... ········-·-··-·············-··-··· ···-.. ·-·················-···-· ·······-······· ......... ········-·-·-·-----r 0 c-- _ _) manner hereinbefore provided, shall constitute ~rounds for , the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and of all ri~hts of ~rantee hereunder. Section 6: This Ordinance shall become .effective thirty (30) da~s after its final passage, unless suspended by referendum petition filed as provided by law.· Section 7: The ~rantee of this franchise shall pay to the City a sum of money sufficient to reimburse. it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting of this franchise; said payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the City shall have furnished said grantee with a written statement of such expenses. Section 8: The franchise granted hereby shall. not become e£fective until written acceptance thereof shall have been filed by the grantee with the City Cierk of said City. Section 9: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted within fifteen (15) days after its passage in three (3) public places within said City. First read at a-regular meeting·of the City Council of said City held on the 19th day of March, 1974, and finally adopted and ordered _posted at a regular meetin~ of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April, 1974, by the followin~ vote: AYES: Buerk, Dyda, Ruth, R. Ryan, M. Ryan NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: LEONARD G. WOOD, CITY CLERK AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE COUNCIL /s/ Doris :Srown Deputy -3- /s/ Marilyn Ryan __________________ ,, ______ , ....... _,_,, __ ,,., ,,·· ,. 0 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and cor·rect copy of Ordinance No. 28 approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at a meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of April, 1974, and that said ordinan.ce was posted pursuant to law. LEONARD G, WOOD, CITY CLERK AND EX OFFICIO CLERK 0~ THE COUNCIL By /s_/ Doris Brown ·--~-----------Deputy -4- ··•------····-·----·-· -··-··········--------------------·--···----.. ,-... -........ .