20210817 Late CorrespondenceAttention:
From:
Mayor and Council Members
08/17/2021
Miriam Naomi Foust
AGE.NOA ITEM: ~
RECE IVED FRO..,..,~M-: -----
t:\rt;l/1,lM,, ~' 6,,vst
Reference: 1.
Relocation of five (5) high voltage transmission lines
Funicello Residential Property
3867 Crest Road East
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275
2. City Project Approval ( Design 3) City Hall
Meeting Date: of 11/04/2020
Subject: Halt approved action ( Ref. 1,2) Note: All
concerned contractors are under Edison's purview
Mayor and Council your positions afford you the ability to halt
an injustice and potential enormous liability.
Please review the following points and take swift action to halt
and then reverse approved action.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as
outraged as those who are"
Benjamin Franklin
1. The Funicello Property, (Reference 1.) has been engaged in a
relocation effort of five (5) High voltage
transmission lines and the accompanying low voltage lines
from his property since 2015.
2. Funicello engaged So. Cal Edison's Engineering Departmen
along with its counterparts to design and
engineer the relocation of five (5) High Voltage Transmission
and the accompanying low voltage lines.
3. Edison completed original UNDERGROUND design and
engineering (Design 1) for re location of five ( 5)
High Voltage Transmission Lines taking into account: 1. Risk 2.
of fire hazard
Visual impediment
Mitigation of electromagnetic fields (EMF)
4. The cost for FuniceHo project (Design l) exceeded their
expected budget, they in turn re-engaged
Edison and counter parts with the primary focus on cost
engineering (Reducing cost). They have
2.
3.
since redesigned the project three (3) times. These reiterations
reduced cost by relocating the
high voltage transmission lines and equipment ABOVE
GROUND verses UNDERGROUND.
Per the origjna1 desjgn (Desjgnl ). The effect is:
l. Negating responsible fire mitigation by placing high
voltage lines and equipment in
a grove of pine trees.
2. Transferred visual impediment from the Funicello property
to my property and
my neighbors property.
3. Currently transmission lines and poles are down the hill,
across the way and obscured by the
grove of pine trees.
4. Transferred negative results from the electromagnetic fields
(EMF) produced from the
high powered transmission lines away from the Funicello
property (Reference 1) by relocating
these lines much closure to my property and that of my
neighbors (74 Residential homes).
5. Conclusions: So. Cal Edison and its counterparts designed
and engineered the UNDERGROUND
Funicello project (Design 1) in a manner that was acceptable
to all parties with the exception to
Funice11o budget concerns. Edison, it's counterparts and the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
have approved a overhead plan ( Design 3) that reduced cost
at the expense of the following:
1. Subjects my property and my neighbors property to
greater FIRE risk , knowing
that original UNDERGROUND relocation design (
Design l) nullifies this FIRE risk. The fire risk
is not in accordance with Edison's 2020-2022 Wildfire
Mitigation Plan. In addition, this
decreases my property value and that of my neighbors (7 4
Residential Homes).
2. Visual impediment via relocation is passed from the
Funicello and Mayor John Cruikshank
property to my property and my neighbors property. In
addition, this decreases my property
value and that ofmy neighbors (74 Residential homes).
3. Relocation of the high voltage transmission lines away
from the Funicello property and closer to
my property moves Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and
there negative effects
closer to my property and my neighbors property. In
addition this decreases the value of my
property and that of my neighbors.
4. The Funicello's purchased their property at a greatly
reduced cost because of the existing
High voltage transmission lines and low voltage lines
that are on their property.
Now they seek to relocate same off their property and pass
the risk, blight, and negative financial
impact to myself and my neighbors. They enrich
themselves at the expense of myself and
and my neighbors,(74 Residential Homes). This project
needs to be accomplished using the
original UNDERGROUND design and engineering, thus
a11eviating stated fire risks and concerns.
6. Notes:
1. Mayor John Cruikshank:, who sits on Rancho Palos
Verdes city council with his cronies, has a
residential property adjacent to the Funicello property
and will" BENEFIT" from the relocation
of the power poles, as they negatively impact his
property. EXTREMLY SUSPECT!
Note: Mr. John Cruikshank "excused" himself from final
approval vote of Funicello project.
2. Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall has removed the City Hall
meeting minutes date of: 11/04/2020
( Date of approved project by City) from its archives,
WHY?
3. During the City CounciJ meeting date of: 11/04/2020,
Mayor Pro Tern, David L. Bradley opined
in regards to the authorized, but unjust practice of
permitting city owed lamp post to be moved
from an unwanted location to the front of his neighbors
residence.
Mr. Bradley further stated that the Public Works
Department was directed by
the City Council to rewrite the city codes and correct this
injustice. This is the same thing but, far
more egregious, the FuniceJlo's pushing off their
unwanted power poles onto their neighbors!
4. Edison approved contractor, CSI Services, proceeded in
the course of this project as to:
1. Tearing up streets and installing equipment without
approvals, permits, inspections by,
Edison and/or City Officials, soils engineering or
reports.
2. Cutting down and removal of full growth pine trees
along with shrubbery within private
property, this was accomplished in a stealth-like
manner on a Sunday morning.
5. Rancho Palos Verdes Estates is one of the most expensive
real estate developments within
Southern California and this approved action presents a
huge risk and financial liability for
those who are complacent in allowing this relocation to
move forward.
6. It has been stated verbally and in writing that, So. Cal.
Edison and/or CPUC has no input into
these actions~ that is not correct. These actions must be
stopped and any furtherance of this
project must retreat back to the original underground
design (design 1).
Respectfully,
Miriam Naomi Foust
7 Avenida De Magnolia
Rancho Palos Verdes Estates
California 90275
PH: 310 918 5160
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:54 PM
CityClerk
Fw: customer service
From: LAWRENCE RUBIN <li_rubin@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:20 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: customer service
Contacting customer service is an extreme. When contacted, it is not unusual to be
disconnected. Additionally, when we put in our service at our home, we were told somebody would be come
at a specific time. The individual never showed and stated the house was inaccessible ...... which is totally
untrue. (we were home dealing with the movers). This occurred on a Saturday and couldn't get another
'tech' out until the following Tuesday.. (Nobody to help on Sunday and nobody available till Monday. No
phone service, no internet.. ......... nothing .. Only apologies ......... claiming COX was using third party vendor and
a 'tech' from COX would arrive on Tuesday ( the following week)
On that date April 23rd ... Called COX 7 times.
Also pricing changes for services offered on every phone call prior to installation. Never know what info is
real or something that is just thrown out.
AWFUL CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 5.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Please add to the website.
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:27 PM
CityClerk
FW: Cox question for this evening's virtual presentation 8/17/21
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 COVID-19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jadis Cox Email <jsh2003@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:24 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cox question for this evening's virtual presentation 8/17 /21
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Why so expensive?
We have had an increase in our service of over $100 for the same exact subscription services with COX.
We now pay 295.00 a month and hardly watch TV, thus currently researching our options with other companies.
Thank you,
Jodi Hamilton
1 5.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
This LC was in my junk folder
-----0 rigi na I Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Wednesday, August 18, 2021 9:31 AM
CityClerk
FW: Cox Update Question
From: Craig Louis <craig@louis-equipment.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cox Update Question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello RPV City Council,
Our question for the Cox Communications community update meeting scheduled for August 17 is:
As telecommuting is finally taking off, when can residential customers in Miraleste expect fully symmetrical fiber to the
curb level internet service from Cox?
While the old TV cable internet service is suitably robust for entertainment and rudimentary VOiP telephony, it's now
ancient technology and limited for telecommuting and other internet mediated rich media communications.
We've been very happy with Cox customer service over the years, and we hope to see Cox moving to provide more up to
date services.
Thanks very much,
Craig L. Louis
Direct: +1831 708-8699
1 5.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
AUGUST 17, 2021
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
2
3
5
6
Description of Material
PowerPoint from: Luis De Moraes (Applicant)
Letter from: Bill James
Email from: Jean Longacre
Letter from: Michael Shanafelt
Email exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst, Villalpando
and Marc Kaiser; Jaslin; Romeo Natividad; Craig Louis; Dana Dorsett.
Emails from: Jagdish Chopra; Irene Lam; Michael Gutierrez; Marilyn
Long; Philip and Leslye Borden; Sylvia Macia
Email exchange between City Manager, Mihranian and Angie Gilbride;
Faviola Ochoa.
Letter from: Paul Albritton
Email from Dale Spiegel
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, August 16, 2021**.
Resped submitted, c~ /C()e,~
Teresa Takaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20210817 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Enyssa Momoli
From: Jaehee Yoon
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 3:26 PM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Powerpoint Presentation
Attachments: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East Power Point -August 2021 -Architect's
Presentation.pptx; 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East Power Point -August 2021 -
Architect's Presentation.pdf
Hi,
Please display either the powerpoint or pdf attached during the public hearing item no. 2 (28160 PVDE) when Luis de
Moraes (Applicant) speaks.
He'll be participating in-person tonight along with the Appellant (property owner) who is also preparing slides to share
while he speaks.
I'll fwd the slides as soon as I receive them.
Thank you.
Jaehee
From: luis@envirotechno.com <luis@envirotechno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20211:57 PM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>; De Langis, David (FAA) <David.De.Langis@faa.gov>
Subject: Powerpoint Presentation
Hi Jaehee,
Please find attached my presentation for the City Council tonight.
Please make sure you can open and confirm back to me.
Thank you.
Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C
Principal
ENVIROTECH NO INC.
Westside Office:
13101 Washington Boulevard #404
Los Angeles, California -90066
South Bay Office:
116 South Catalina Avenue-Suite 102
Redondo Beach, California 90277
Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716
email: luis@envirotechno.com website: www.envirotechno.com
1
CouNTY OF Los ANGELES
~~t;s1.~1§ID
Al .EX ''II.I.A NIJEVA , SHERIFF
January 28, 2021
Da.Vid De La.ng!s
Federal Av1a.t1on Administration, Civil Engineer
WSA Engineering Serv1ces, AJW-2Wl5F
777 AVia.tion Boulevard, Suite 150
Ma.1l stop 2N-251
El Segundo, Ca.llfornia. 90246
Da.V1 d.De.La.n,t1 s @faa.gov
Dear Mr. La.ng!s :
PUBLIC RECOR.DB A<:Jr REQUEST #20-790RE
This letter is in response to your request for records under the California. Public
Records Act dated a.nd received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department,
Discovery Unit on June 13, 2020.
In your request you a.re seeking the followtng:
"I a.m 1n the process of building a. new home in the jurisdiction of the Lomita.
Sheriff Station Department. Address: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive Ea.st, Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90276. As pa.rt of a. Traffic Safety Study, I wish to find a.ny tra.fflc
accident records reported over the la.st 5 yea.rs 1n the Vicinity of my home. Ideally,
any colllsions recorded or reported on Palos Verdes Drive Ea.st, between Headland
Drive and Sunnyside Ridge Road."
Beaponse: The LASD found no records responslve to your request.
If you have a.ny questi ons, please contact Lieutenant Moret of the Discovery Unit
a.t (323) 890-6000.
Sincerely,
ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF
~"UM 1d II 1 ?-:J
Al~. MaJ.~ptain
Risk Ma.na.gement Bureau
211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00012
.Ji!I f!fiocli/i()JI o/ .C}iu.111c('
~-/J'i'JH'r• 1,,·;11 ~
S~f. JUAR.t.2 LOMrTA, .s.+tt::Fl-fr'S .S.TA-TIUN
2'=,l'.2-3 NAP-BONNE. -1r-.JE, l--OMIT-A <:...A 9i5717
(310) S~9 -lbhl
~
I
... ,.,..
' -. ' -..,. '0!!.-r n . .,. .. ~· ~ ~ ;:e-"ol ;a, •· :--} ::f I
~ 0 1
...I ~.9 I ,•
a,
C ·--.... ::>
0
en ::>
··l , ......
_A;;
I I I
I I
I
r~
I
I I, ,.-
i~ t -•
': f •
---,..
+-c ·-0
Q_
...: -·
B511.Dt1' -----
------REQUIRED VARIANCE
TO ACCOMODATE GARAGE ENTRANCE
IIM1al IIEOROOM
00
l'Pl!l.V.
COI.UMN->-
MAST>RBATH
CRAWi. SPACE
Sl& lERRNEAN
AUT0MOBILE STOfW3E
CRAWi.SPACE
t19'-<T
REQUIRED 0'11DOOR
GUEST PARKINGMEA
SUB--TERRANEAN
AUTOMOBILE LFT
CRAWi.
SPACE
ON THROUGH GARAGE
PM.OS VEAOES DRIVE EAST
WIDENIN G
REQU IRED STARTING POINT
FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS AT
STREET LEVEL WITH STREET
PL I ifjj
I CITYPR,J.,RTY I ~ I I AREA DESIGNATED ,ii\ S1REETW1oe.l.o < I
I I ~I
WIDENING +-"8!-""'=-"====:<+ r-~~ ~00---FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND TURN AROUND
CANNOT BE PROVIDED
EXTREME HEIGHTS ON RETAINING WALLS
6S&IX1' -IE
MASTER BEDROOM MA8TER BATH /
/
/
43%AVERAGE
EXISTING SlOPE
3CAAGARAOE
---/ SUB-TERIWENI
AIJTOMOBU. ST0RN3E
SUO-"IERIWEN<
AUTOMOBILE LIFT
SECTION THROUGH GARAGE
ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION FOR LOWERED
STRUCTURE TO ELIMINATE VARIANCE
NOT FEASIBLE
~ ~, tban-d ,.. -.....
T lowest poin --,a /
2% slope require ,.-f.
by PublL~.Y./=Qd<s J>ipa
:u.a, ra ':ru,1,i:• .. .,..., (.· .u 1. ~ i , ----->
1 1
30' visible height
PROTECTED HABITAT
VEGETATION TO REMAIN
HEIGHT WILL BE SCREENE
BY EXISTING VEGETAION -
C'0 .--
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Octavio Silva
Monday, August 16, 2021 5:35 PM
CityClerk
William Wynder; Elena Gerli
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Letter to City Counsel (re appeal to be heard on Aug. 17
Letter to City Council re appeal.docx
Late Correspondence for Public Hearing at tomorrow's Meeting.
Octavio Silva Cono1<?ct with th<.• CBy hom your phom.11 or toblut!
Deputy Director/Planning
Manager
octavios@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5234
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
•
,_ Download on the
App Store ► GETITON Google Play
!"lw; e-n:ail contains iniornkltion bclo1viin9 to tlK: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileqrcid, confidential ilncl/or protccled from
,Jbcl<>SUl'i!. The ,nformt,lion is i11lc,11rk,d only for use of the individual 01· entity 11c)l11c:d, Unauthorized disse111inc11.ion, distribution, or copvinq 1s strictly prohibited. If
y(,u rcccivctl U\!ci cnnil in error, 01· an; 11ot: an intcmlcd l'(:cipicnt, pleas(' notify the sender irmncdiately. Tlvmk yo11 for your c1ssistimcc and coopcrdtion.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: William James <william.james@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:00 PM
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>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter to City Counsel (re appeal to be heard on Aug. 17
Dear City Council Members,
Attached is a letter addressing the appeal to be heard by
you on August 17, 2021.
Thank you for your consideration,
1
t.
n James
2
William J. James
Planning Commissioner
Rancho Palos Verdes
Mayor Eric Alegria
Mayor Pro Tern David Bradley
Councilman John Cruikshank
Councilman Ken Dyda
Councilwoman Barbara Ferraro
August 16, 2021
Re: Agenda Item No. 2: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial
of an application for a Height Variation Permit, Major Grading
Permit, Variance, Site Plan Review, and Encroachment Permit at
at 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East ( Case No. PL V A2018-0001)
Dear Members of the City Council,
The Applicant in the above-referenced case is seeking permits and variances to
allow him to build a 5,285 sq. ft. house. Although it would be the second largest
house in his neighborhood along Palos Verdes Drive East, 1 the size of the house by
itself would not have caused the project to be denied. But its size coupled with the
particular topography of the lot did. The proposed house is 150% higher than the
upper limit allowed by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC"),
proposed walls higher than allowed by the RPVMC, would require major grading
on a slope that is on an average in excess of the RPVMC's definition of "extreme
slope" and would entail significant encroachment into the Public Right-of-Way at
the end of a "tight hairpin curve" on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Although Staff has consistently supported, since the Planning Commission denied
the application on a 5-0 vote, I thought it might be helpful to you to read at least
one Commissioner's thoughts regarding this unusual divergence of views.
1 Staffs Neighborhood Compatibility analysis of the 20 closest homes showed that there is 1
home at 1,821 sq. ft., 10 homes between 2,000 and 3,000 sg. ft., 5 homes between 3,000 and
4,000 sq. ft., and 3 homes over 5,000 sq. ft. The average size of these homes is 3,094 sq. ft. 12
of them are 1 story, 8 of them are 2 story. No other home is 3 story (as proposed in this case).
I
The RPVMC is a set of rules designed to allow development of property in a
reasonable and harmonious manner. In various places, specific Code sections
emphasize, inter alia, the importance of promoting health, safety and the general
welfare, preserving neighborhood compatibility, preserving views and the natural
scenic character of the area, minimizing fire hazards, and minimizing the risks of
erosion or floods, etc.
RPVMC § 17.04.010.A provides flexibility to consider a variance where a project
doesn't "strictly comply" with the basic rules. The section, which is discretionary,
provides that, "A variance may be granted when practical difficulties, unnecessary
hardships or results inconsistent with the general intent and purpose of this title
occur by reason of the strict interpretation of any of its provisions." The
inclusion of the word "strictly" makes it clear that the section doesn't intend to
invite wholesale abandonment of the basic rules, but rather to facilitate flexibility
in close cases.
There is a constant push for bigger and bigger homes and each time the City
allows a project that is "not in strict compliance" with the basic rules, or even the
exceptions to those rules, subsequent applicants argue that it would be
discriminatory not to allow them the same leeway. In this case, the Applicant is
requesting significant variances to deviate from the RPVMC related to overall
height, wall heights, grading and encroachment onto public property. There
certainly are "practical difficulties", but the Planning Commission felt,
unanimously, that those difficulties are caused by the fact that the Applicant is
proposing a project that doesn't work on the lot in question.
Height Variance. RPVMC §17.02.040.B.l provides a basic height limitation for
residential buildings of 16 feet. This height is significantly expanded to 30 feet for
buildings proposed on slopes. Both the City's Planning Division and the Planning
Commission regularly consider applications for permits to exceed these limits and
the RPVMC provides a mechanism to consider such applications. But the RPVMC
includes specific limitations, and the amounts by which applicants seek to exceed
the basic limits are usually relatively small.
RPVMC § 17.02.040.B. l goes on to provide that, "Approval for proposed
structures or additions to existing structures exceeding 16 feet in height, may be
sought through application for a height variation permit, which, if granted
pursuant to the procedures contained herein, will permit the individual to build a
structure not exceeding 26 feet in height, except as provided in subsection
(B)(l)(d) of this section, or such lower height as approved by the city."
2
Subsection (B)(l)(d) provides that, "no portion of the structure shall exceed 30
feet in height, when measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab
meets finished grade to the ridge line or highest point of the structure."
In this case, the Applicant is seeking a permit to allow a residence with a height of
44.5 feet. This is almost three times the basic limit applied throughout the City and
almost 150% of the maximum height permitted by the Code. No legitimate reason
is offered for ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the Code.
Applicant makes the argument that, "[t]he building height is justifiable to meet Fire
Department requirements, provide runoff mitigation measures, accommodate
widening of Palos Verdes Drive east and comply with parking requirements."
Staff does not agree with all of these contentions, but it does conclude that due to
"the constraints of the project site's physical attributes, Staff is of the opinion that
there is merit in the Appellant's appeal assertion."
Unfortunately, there is no statutory support for this approach. There is no
discretionary exception that would allow a 44.5 foot tall residential building. The
fire department requirements, street widening requirements and parking
requirements are not independently necessary on the lot in its natural state. They
would only be required to accommodate the project currently being proposed.
Allowing this project would not only constitute a grant of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations enforced against other properties throughout the
City, it would set a precedent that would be inconsistent with both the City's
General Plan and its overall zoning philosophy.
It may be that the City will be forced by the State legislature to change its
building codes in the future, but that has not happened yet.
Retaining Wall Variances. RPVMC § 17. 76.030.C. l. provides that fences, walls,
and combination walls located within the front yard setback area shall be permitted
up to 3 ½ feet and those located outside of the front yard setback area shall be
permitted up to 7 feet. RPVMC § 17.76.030.D addresses the maximum height for
permissible walls where a Minor Exception Permit is obtained.
Subsection D. l .a. provides for:
"Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than 42 inches
and up to seven feet in height located in the front setback areas; provided,
3
the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan
approved by the director of community development."
Subsection D. l .b. provides for:
"A fence or wall, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front
yard setback area which does not exceed 11 ½ feet in height as measured
from grade on the lower side and seven feet in height as measured from
grade on the higher side."
Subsection D. l.c. provides for:
"Fences higher than seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not within
the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot
retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope
and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities.
The fence above the seven-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or
similar material, capable of admitting at least 80 percent light as measured
on a reputable light meter."
In this case, the Applicant seeks a variance to erect retaining walls 6 feet high in
front and 24 feet high in back. As with the overall height variance sought, this is
not a minor difference caused by an unusual situation. This is a significant
difference and there is no statutory basis for it.
Building on an Extreme Slope. The basic rule in Rancho Palos Verdes is that
buildings should not be allowed on "extreme slopes", defined as 35% or
greater. RPVMC § 17.48.060 provides as follows:
"No development or construction of any structure shall be allowed on any
extreme slope (grade of 35 percent or greater), except as follows:
A. Trash enclosures, enclosed mechanical equipment or pool equipment
located within an area of less than 50 square feet; provided, that the structures
and/or equipment are not located more than six feet from the top or toe of the
slope and are adequately screened from view from adjacent properties and the
public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the director;
B. Structures and improvements allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.060
(Extreme Slope Permit);
C. Satellite dish antennas allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas);
4
D. Grading and retaining walls allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.040
(Grading Permit);
E. Fences, walls and hedges allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.030 (Fences,
Walls and Hedges);
F. At grade steps or stairs less than six inches in height, as measured from
adjacent existing grade; and
G. Construction of new residences (including habitable and nonhabitable
space) on previously undeveloped, recorded and legally subdivided lots
existing as of November 25, 1975 or if within Eastview, existing as of
January 5, 1983, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the
director or planning commission finds that such construction, as conditioned,
will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare, provided that such
structures are consistent with the permitted and uses and development
standards for the underlying zoning designations of the lots.
H. Renewable energy systems (photovoltaic and solar water heating)
pursuant to Section 17.83.050 (Application Procedures for Renewable Energy
Systems (Photovoltaic and Solar Water Heating))."
As the above sections make clear, exceptions may be appropriate for minor
variations or for certain accessory structures where there are unusual
circumstances, but the fact that an applicant just wants to build a comparatively
large house on a lot that may be inappropriate for that house is not a reason to
ignore the basic rule.
An "extreme slope permit" may be available in limited situations. RPVMC
§ 17. 76.060, which covers extreme slope permits provides as follows:
"A. Purpose. This chapter provides standards and procedures for permitting
within residential districts the minor encroachments of accessory structures
onto extreme slopes (3 5 percent or more), which are not zoned open space
hazard and where such slopes constitute the only reasonable area for
development. Extreme slope permits are not required for renewable energy
systems such as photovoltaic systems (solar panels) and/or solar water heating
systems, which are addressed in Section 17.83.050 of this Code.
B. Scope. The director may grant extreme slope permits for the following
uses only:
5
1. Decks, which extend or cantilever a maximum of six feet into the
extreme slope area, as measured on a horizontal plane from the top or toe
of the slope;
2. Flag poles up to 16 feet in height, as measured from the grade adjacent
to the flagpole base to the top of the flagpole, upon a finding by the
director that no significant impact on views from surrounding properties
would result."
Despite this clear statement of intent in the Code, the argument advanced in this
case is that §17.48.060.D (which allows "grading and retaining walls allowed
pursuant to_Section 17.76.040" as an exception to the 35% rule) creates another
exception to the general rule. More specifically, the argument is that
§ 17.48.060.E.10 (which provides the director or the Planning Commission with
discretion in unusual situations to grant a permit for grading in excess of that
permissible under subsection E.9.) creates some sort of overriding "out" for those
who seek to exceed even the exceptions to the basic rules. (This subsection will
be discussed in more detail below).
As a matter of both statutory construction and common sense, this argument is
questionable: (1) The fact that "grading and retaining walls" are specifically listed
in this subsection implies that the exception was not meant to encompass
"construction of any structure"; (2) and the interpretation suggested is inconsistent
with and would, in effect, nullify the basic rules found in§ 17.76.060 (above).
Major Grading Permit. The rules for grading are separate from, but parallel, the
rules for building on an extreme slope.
RPVMC § l 7.76.040.B.2(d) states that an applicant may seek a major grading
permit for, "excavation or fill on an extreme slope (35 percent or more)." The
granting of such a permit is discretionary. § 17.76.040.E provides a list of criteria
to be considered in exercising that discretion. Subsection E 1 requires that the
proposed grading, "not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title." The
permitted primary use in this case is residential.
This section is interpreted differently by Staff and the Planning Commission.
Staff interprets the requirement as allowing whatever grading might be required
for the specific residential project being proposed.
6
The Planning Commission believes that an applicant with a very large project on
a site that cannot accommodate that project cannot argue that whatever grading
might be required to support such a project is "necessary" within the meaning of
the Code. What is "necessary" is what would be required by any residential
project, not a specific applicant's proposed project. It is respectfully submitted
that Staffs interpretation would nullify the Code Section.
§ 17. 76.040.E. 9 provides the following list of grading standards:
"a. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35 percent shall be allowed on
recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975 or if
within Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, which are not currently
zoned open/space/hazard,2 if the director or planning commission finds that
such grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and
welfare.
b. No finished slopes greater than 35 percent shall be created, except at the
point of vehicular access adjacent to driveways, as per subsection (E)(9)(f) of
this section.
c. Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not
exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the director or the
planning commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions,
previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and
necessary.
d. No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50 percent gradient,
unless the grading is on a 67 percent slope, allowed pursuant to subsection
(E)(9)( f) of this section.
e. Retaining Walls.
i. Unless located within the required front or street side setback, one
upslope retaining wall not to exceed eight feet in height may be used.
Retaining walls located in the required front or streetside setback shall not
exceed three and one-half feet in height;
2 The initial staff report for this project stated that "nearly half of the southern portion of the
project site's General Plan land use and Zoning designations are Open Space Hillside and Open
Space Hazard, respectively." Staff interprets such section as allowing construction on lots which
are partly zoned open/space hazard if the construction is not on such part. Although the
language is unclear, (in my opinion) Staffs interpretation is reasonable.
7
ii. One downslope retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half feet in
height may be used;
iii. On lots sloping with the street and other configurations not discussed
above, one retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half feet may be used
on each side of the lot;
iv. Retaining walls may be allowed up to five feet in height, adjacent to
driveways, only if required for access or slope stabilization. There shall be
no more than one upslope or one downslope retaining wall adjacent to
driveways;
v. Retaining walls which are an integral part of a structure may exceed
eight feet, within the building footprint;
f. Driveways.
i. Driveways which exceed 20 percent slope shall not be permitted except
that one length, not at the point of access, of not more than ten linear feet
may have a slope of up to 22 percent;
ii. Slopes not greater than 67 percent may be permitted adjacent to
driveways."
The proposed project in this case does not meet the above standards. E.g.:
Subsection 'a' would allow grading on a slope that exceeds 35% if the
Planning Commission can make an affirmative finding that such grading
would not threaten the public health, safety and welfare. The Planning
Commission did not make such an affirmative finding.
Subsection 'c' provides that except for the excavation of a basement or
cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet at any point except
where the director or the planning commission determines that unusual
topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make
such grading reasonable and necessary. The Applicant is proposing 6 feet
of cut and 17 .5 feet of fill. The Planning Commission did not conclude
that there was unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or
other circumstances that make such grading reasonable and necessary.
Again, there is a divergence of views between the ways that Staff and the
Planning Commission interpret this section. In the view of the Planning
8
Commission, an applicant cannot "create the problem" with a project that is
inappropriate for a site, and then claim that the additional grading is "reasonable
and necessary" to solve that problem. If so, any builder could simply go to the
steepest slope in the City and claim that because of the "unusual topography" he
should be allowed to build there. Applicant's house which, as Staffpoints out,
would be the "second largest home in the immediate neighborhood", is being
proposed on a lot that exceeds the RPVMC' s definition of an extreme slope not in
only a few places, but "on average".
Subsection 'e', above, permits retaining walls up to 3½ feet in height.3 In
this case, the Applicant is seeking a variance to erect retaining walls 6 feet
high in the front yard setback area and 24 feet high in the back yard. As
with the height variance sought, this is significantly in excess of the
maximum limits allowed by the RPVMC.
Discretionary Override. Staff suggests that a final "out" for applicants whose
projects do not satisfy either basic rules or codified exceptions for permits or
variances can be found in § 17 .76.040.E.10, which provides the director or the
Planning Commission with discretion to address truly unusual situations and (I
would suggest) fairly minor deviations from the basic rules:
"The director may grant a grading permit for development in excess of that
permissible under subsection (E)(9) of this section upon finding that:
a. The criteria of subsections (E)(l) through (E)(8) of this section are
satisfied;
b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A
of this section;
c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of this section will
not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity; and
d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will
not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property."
3 Staff does not focus on this issue in its report, maybe because it was not specifically
addressed in the Planning Commission's resolutions. But, as Staff points out, the matter before
the City Council is a Trial de Novo.
9
In balancing the needs and desires of applicants seeking to build new projects, the
neighborhoods surrounding such projects and the City as a whole, it is important
not to 'miss the forest for the trees'. The basic rules of the RPVMC and the
reasoning and intent underlying those rules are still there. Specific codified
exceptions provide sufficient flexibility. Making a strained argument under
§ 17. 76.040 (E) (10), itself an exception to an exception, does not provide an
applicant with an argument that he or she has 'a right' to have a project approved.
But even if one were to accept the statutory interpretation endorsed by Staff, the
Planning Commission would not have approved the grading for this project.
1. The Planning Commission did not find that, the criteria of subsections
(E)(l) through (E)(S) are satisfied. To the contrary, it found that because
the proposed project was too large for the site, its proposed grading
exceeded that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.
2. The Commission did not find that the proposed project would not be
detrimental to the public safety or other property. To the contrary, it
concluded that there were significant safety concerns and that the
Applicant had failed to meet his burden of showing otherwise.
Encroachment permit. Encroachments extending more than 6 feet into the
public right-of-way, and whose height without decorative features exceeds 5 feet
are subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. According to the
Staff report, "the proposed project involves the construction of a circular two-way
driveway that extends up to 25' 6" from the front property line, retaining walls up
to 9' in height with 946 yd3 of associated grading, a 5' self-latching gate and
freestanding walls, planters, and 24" light fixtures in the public right-of-way (Palos
Verdes Drive East)."
One issue is public safety. The Commission received a number of letters from the
public regarding this issue. They were all opposed to the project. Most were
concerned about safety. Some felt that granting rights in the Public Right-of-
Way would constitute a special privilege.
Following are some examples:
a. "I cannot fathom why City staff is in support of an encroachment permit of
25' -27' of Public ROW for the purpose of developing a private driveway
10
at street level v. just access to the property, as many homeowners on PVDE
have."
b. "The county should never have made this a legal lot ... any use is better
than the creation of another death trap on Palos Verdes Drive East."
c. "As a resident of Martingale Drive, I am deeply concerned about the
potential to build at [28160 Palo Verdes Drive East] for the following
reasons: 1. It is a very tight curve on Palos Verdes Drive East. Even in
good weather, it is a challenge since there is no visibility around the curve
until in the middle of it. 2. PVDE is the only corridor off the hill for
vehicular traffic for a large portion of the residents." The writer goes on to
say that closing a lane during construction would be catastrophic in the
case of a fire or other emergency.
In response to these and other letters, and based on concerns expressed by some
of the Commissioners themselves, considerable time was spent at all three of the
hearings before the Planning Commission considering public safety.
The Appellant argues that "there was a lack of understanding and confusion by the
Planning Commission on the prevailing speed limits used for the traffic study."
Staff argues that the sight distance analysis supported a finding that the project
would be safe if a number of mitigating factors were applied.
These arguments fail to capture all of the concerns that exist. First, testimony on
this subject was inconsistent. In addition to letters like those mentioned above, the
Commissioner's own site visits confirmed that the project site is on a dangerous
curve. The engineering studies presented varied depending on exactly where a car
might stop to tum into a driveway. A June 19, 2021, letter from the Applicant's
engineers stated that cars should be able to stop short of the 186' needed. (pp C-8
to C-10 of the Staff Report). According to the earlier Willdan Engineering study,
"the minimum stopping sight distance for 30 mph is 200 feet." (pp C-13 to C-15 of
the Staff Report). The Willdan study found that at that speed, turns out of either
driveway were unsafe.
A number of arguments were advanced, including arguments that cars drive at
Palos Verdes East at a wide range of speeds (the average speeds used by both
studies were in excess of the posted speed limits) and that Palos Verdes Drive East
has a long history of accidents caused by everything from excess speed to fog to
limitations on visibility.
11
Presented with conflicting testimony, and because safety is an important issue to
the City as a whole, the Planning Commission was not prepared to make a
borderline finding. Ultimately, the Commission felt that the Applicant had not met
his burden of proving that ingress and egress to his driveway were safe.
Even aside from the safety issues, Staff argues that, "The encroaching structure
cannot be reconfigured or relocated due to practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship, including economic hardship, so as to either, a. Locate the structure on
the Applicant's property in accordance with provisions of the Municipal Code; or,
b. Adhere to the criteria set forth for a Planning Director Level Review. The
Applicant cannot reconfigure or relocate the proposed structures entirely onto the
project site nor adhere to the criteria set forth for a Director-level review due to
practical difficulties that will cause more concerns related to bulk and mass, overall
height, and grading ... [and] will result in the residence and ancillary site
improvements encroaching into the Open Space Hazard Zone at the southern
portion of the property, which is designated to prevent unsafe development of
hazardous areas."
As with some of the other issues discussed in this letter, this argument reflects a
fundamental difference between the views of Staff and the Planning Commission.
Staff starts with the assumption that an applicant should somehow be able to build
his proposed project, even if concessions to the Code have to be made. The
Planning Commission does not believe that every project can be made to fit into
every lot. Many of the lots along Palos Verdes Drive have limitations. Most of the
other homes in the immediate neighborhood are under 3,000 sq. ft. ( see n.1,
above). 80% of them are under 4,000 sq. ft. Without approaching either of these
comparative numbers, one could build a house on the Applicant's lot without
seeking exemption from multiple provisions of the RPVMC.
Prior Concessions and Modifications. Once again, we see an argument that a
proposed project has "already been reduced" in response to previous suggestions
made by Staff or the Planning Commission. Staff even supports this kind of
reasoning, including a 2-page chart in its report comparing the "original plan" with
the "revised plan." In fact, the Applicant was not willing to consider reducing the
overall size of his project at either of the last two hearings before the Planning
Commission, despite the fact that more than one Commissioner suggested that it
was necessary for him to do so. More importantly, the issue is not how many
concessions an applicant may have already made; the issue is whether the version
of a project as it now exists should be approved.
12
The Planning Commission tries hard to encourage and enable applicants to come
up with a project that can be approved, allowing them, as in this case, an
opportunity to come back two or three times with revisions. When, at the last
hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he would not make any further concessions
regarding the height or overall size of his proposed project, the Planning
Commission concluded, unanimously, that, there were just too many corners that
could not be cut.
As I said at the outset of this letter, I am only one Commissioner. Others are
welcome to agree, disagree or offer other views.
Respectfully submitted,
WCl.luivwvJ. J~
William J. James
Planning Commissioner
13
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:38 AM
CityClerk
Fw: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East Appeal on 8-17-21
From: jeanlongacre@aol.com <jeanlongacre@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:03 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 28160 Palos Verdes Drive East Appeal on 8-17-21
Dear City Council,
One of the main reasons the Planning Commission voted to deny this project was because of the danger to the driving
public. I do not feel that was adequately presented in the Commissions minutes or in the document of denial.
The Willdan Report dated Nov. 13, 2019 (presented to the TSC 11-25-19) stated that the line of sight needs to be 305 feet
to be safe. The developer then presented a plan to the TSC with a third lane. On June 26,2020, Willdan wrote that with a
third lane and a single driveway in the center of the lot a 200 foot line of sight would be adequate. However, the third lane
idea was later dropped. When the project went to the Planning Commission, their discussions were based on the original
report which called for 305 feet and they felt that the project did not meet safety requirements.
I am also concerned about the information you have received from the public. Letters sent before the staff report is
completed are included. However, some of us wait for the Staff report in order to decide which issues to address .. Are
letters sent as late correspondence included somewhere? There is so much in the report and I am having difficulty finding
them.
Sincerely,
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
CC Jaehee Yoon
1
1..
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 12:48 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Proposed Amendments to Title 12 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code (Encroachment Permits -Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places)
Ltr to Mayor re Rancho Palos Verdes -Proposed Amendments to Title 12 (Streets
Sidewalks and Public Places) 8-17-21.PDF
From: Ruby Williams <Ruby.Williams@ndlf.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 202112:23 PM
To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Michael W. Shanafelt <Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk
<CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>;
john.kruikshank@rpvca.gov <john.kruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro
<barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; stephen.garcia@crowncastle.com <stephen.garcia@crowncastle.com>;
joshua.trauner@crowncastle.com <joshua.trauner@crowncastle.com>
Subject: Proposed Amendments to Title 12 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Encroachment Permits -
Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places)
Sent on behalf of Michael Shanafelt
Ruby Williams
Legal Administrathrn Assis.tant
949.271.7238 I Ruby.Williarns(g)ndlfcom
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dovo Street, 5th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
newrr1eyerdillion. com
1
NEWMEYER
ILLI N
August 17, 2021
VIA E-MAIL
Eric Alegria, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
eric. alegria@rpvca.gov
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street
Fifth Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949 854 7000
Michael W. Shanafelt
Michael.Shonafelt@ndlf.com
Re: Proposed Amendments to Title 12 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code (Encroachment Permits -Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places)
Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the City Council:
This office represents Crown Castle Fiber LLC ("Crown Castle") with regard to all
matters pertaining to the permitting and installation of wireless telecommunications
facilities in the public rights-of-way ("ROW") of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City").
This letter presents Crown Castle's preliminary comments concerning the
proposed amendments to Title 12 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
("RPVMC") regarding encroachment permits for work performed in the City's ROW.
Crown Castle reserves its rights to supplement this letter as the hearings on the
Applications progress.
1. INTRODUCTION
Crown Castle constructs, operates and maintains telecommunications facilities
and fiber optic networks in the ROW of the City. It does so pursuant to a statewide
franchise issues pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1. Its
installations also are governed by federal law, including sections 253 and 332 of the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C., § 253, 332) ("Telecom Act"). (See
Part 2, below, for a further discussion of the special laws governing deployments of
wireless telecommunications and related infrastructure in the ROW.)
Crown Castle's networks provide critical voice telecommunications and
broadband services to residents in their automobiles and homes as well as other mobile
users in the City. Networks like those deployed by Crown Castle are replacing
traditional wireline telephone service and soon may constitute the only form of
2464.131 / 9476828.1
i N<:;\Nport
newmeyerdillion.com
I 1/\h:inut
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 2
telephonic infrastructure.1 Without a reliable wireless telecommunications network, the
City would be left without adequate telephone service --including 911 service. Crown
Castle's infrastructure is critical for the following reasons, among others:
(a) The world is going wireless. In a recent international study, the United
States dropped to 27th in the world in wireless broadband penetration,
well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.2
(b) Over 60 percent of American homes are now wireless only.3 That trend
will continue until the entire Nation conducts its telecommunications
exclusively through wireless networks.
(c) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack
of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number
of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly
increased in recent years. It is estimated that more than 80 percent of 911
calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing.4
Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in
spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. Between 2010 and
2019, wireless data traffic in the United States expanded from 388 billion megabytes to
37.06 trillion megabytes.5 Global mobile data traffic is expected to reach a seven-fold
increase by 2021.6
2. THE LEGAL BACKDROP FOR CROWN CASTLE'S NETWORKS.
A number of federal and state laws place restrictions on the ability of local
governments to regulate telecommunications facilities. A brief summary of some of the
laws governing Crown Castle's installations follows here:
A. Telecommunications Act of 1996
When enacting the Telecom Act, Congress expressed its intent to "promote
competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality
services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid
deployment of new telecommunications technologies." (110 Stat. at 56; see also T-
1 See, e.g., http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-att-landline-end-illinois-0706-biz-201707 05-
story. htm I.
2 https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-global-digital-
overview?utm source=Reports&utm medium=PDF&utm campaign=Digital 2020&utm content=Dual R
eport Promo Slide
3 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January-
June 2020; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Health Statistics (2020);
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/d ata/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202102-508. pdf
4 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services.
5 https://www.statista.com/statistics/800956/mobile-wireless-data-traffic-in-the-united-states
6 http://digitalcongurer.com/news/cisco-mobile-visual-networking-index-vni-forecasts-seven-fold-increase-
global-mobile-data-traffic-2016-21/
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 3
Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte (D.Kan. 2007) 528 F.Supp.2d
1128, 1146-47.
The Telecom Act is intended to reduce impediments imposed by local
governments on the installation of wireless communications facilities, such as antenna
facilities and associated equipment offering telecommunications and/or comingled
services. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Section 332(c)(7)(B) provides the limitations on
the general authority reserved to state and local governments. Those limitations are set
forth as follows:
(1) State and local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent services (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(I)).
(2) State and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction
or modification of wireless service facilities in a manner that prohibits, or
has the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services
(better known as the "effective prohibition clause") (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
(3) State and local governments must act on requests for authorization to
construct or modify wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of
time(§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(ii)).
(4) Any decision by a state or local government to deny a request for
construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities must be
in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written
record (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii)).
(5) Finally, no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may
regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of the perceived environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
FCC regulations concerning such emissions (§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv)).
Section 253(a) of the Telecom Act states: "No State or local statute or regulation, or
other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."
Section 253(a) applies to preempt local ordinances and regulations that prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications services. (Sprint
Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 571, 578.)
B. Shot Clock Rule
In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued the "Shot
Clock Order" to provide a specific timeline for what constitutes a "reasonable period of
time" to act on a wireless telecommunications permit application under section
332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Telecom Act. (Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 24 F.C.C. Red.
13994 (2009) (" Shot Clock Rule".) It did so in light of significant delays caused by local
governments in issuing permits for telecommunications facilities:
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 4
Personal wireless service providers have often faced lengthy
and unreasonable delays in the consideration of their facility
siting applications, and [ ] the persistence of such delays is
impeding the deployment of advanced and emergency
services.
(Id. at 14004-14005; see also id. at 14006 ["[t]his record evidence demonstrates that
unreasonable delays in the personal wireless service facility siting applications process
have obstructed the provision of wireless services."].) Under the Shot Clock Rule,
therefore, a municipality's failure to allow the construction of a new wireless service
facility within 150 days of submission of the application (or 90 days for a collocation site)
is presumptively unreasonable and constitutes a "failure to act" that triggers the right to
seek judicial relief ("Shot Clock").
C. FCC Small Cell Order
In 2018, the FCC issued a new order, colloquially known as the "Small Cell
Order," to provide new regulatory interpretations of various provisions of the Telecom
Act as they apply to ROW installations. (See Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, FCC No. FCC
18-133, WT Docket Nos. 17-79, 17-84, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order
p. 10, fn. 49 (Adopted Sept. 26, 2018; Issued Sept. 27, 2018) (hereinafter "Small Cell
Order") [emphasis added], available athttps://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-facilitates-
wireless-infrastructure-deployment-5g.)
The Small Cell Order clarified the contours of the Telecom Act's restrictions on
local governments in relation to wireless telecommunications facilities, including those in
the ROW. The FCC noted that telecommunication interests are not just local and state
issues, but have a national and international concern. (Small Cell Order, ,r 42.) The
Small Cell Order clarifies the Telecom Act's limitations on the City's ability to deny a
wireless telecommunications facility application. The Small Cell Order establishes the
following principles, among others:
(1) The FCC adopted the "materially inhibit standard" articulated by the FCC's
earlier California Payphone decision (cite below) as an appropriate
standard for determining whether a state or local law operates as a
prohibition or effective prohibition within the meaning of section 253,
subdivision (a) and section 332. (Small Cell Order, ,r 35.)
(2) The FCC determined that state and local fees and other charges
associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure can result in an
unlawful prohibition of service as they can materially inhibit deployment of
networks. (Id., ,r 32.)
(3) The FCC shortened the applicable Shot Clock timeframes, determining
that sections 253 and 332 of the Telecom Act allow only 60 days for
reviewing and issuing a decision on an application for a small wireless
facility collocation on an existing structure and 90 days for the review of an
application for attachment of a small wireless facility using a new
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 5
structure. (/d., ,r ,r 13, 105.)
(4) The FCC further clarified that failing to issue a decision during that time
period is not simply a "failure to act" within the meaning of applicable law;
it also constitutes a presumptive prohibition. As the FCC observed, "[w]e
would thus expect any locality that misses the deadline to issue any
necessary permits or authorizations without further delay. We also
anticipate that a provider would have a strong case for quickly obtaining
an injunction from a court that compels the issuance of all permits in these
types of cases." (Ibid.)
The FCC's interpretation of the Telecom Act, as presented in the Small Cell
Order.], reaffirmed the ruling In the Matter of California Payphone (12 FCC Red 14191)
("California Payphone") that a state or local regulation constitutes an effective
prohibition of service if it "materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or
potential competitor to compete in a fair and a balanced legal and regulatory
environment." (Small Cell Order, ,r 35.) Under this regulation, a municipal policy can
materially inhibit the provision of service even if it does not present an insurmountable
barrier or complete prohibition of service. (Id., ,r,r 35 and 41.) The FCC's declaratory
ruling applies with equal measure to the effective prohibition standard that appears in
section 253(a) and 332(c)(7). (Id., ,r 36.) The provisions apply to both
telecommunication services (including small wireless facilities) as well as commingled
services (such as broadband) and facilities. (Ibid.)
An effective prohibition of service occurs where a state or local legal requirement
materially inhibits a provider's ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to
its provision of a covered service. (Id., ,r 37.) This test is met either when filling a
coverage gap and when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or
otherwise improving service capabilities. (Ibid.) Thus, an effective prohibition of service
can arise where the local legal requirement materially inhibits additional services or
improving existing services. (Ibid.) To limit the effective of section 253(a) and
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to merely protecting coverage gaps ignores Congress's goals to
promote competition and securing higher quality services and encouraging rapid
deployment of new telecommunications technologies. (Id., ,r 38.) Indeed the vast
majority of new wireless builds are designed to add network capacity and take
advantage of new technologies, rather than plug gaps in network coverage. (Id., ,r 40.)
A state or local legal requirement can also function as an effective prohibition of service
either because of the resulting financial burden or the resulting competitive disparity
caused. As such, a local legal requirement or an unduly burdensome applications
process can qualify as an effective prohibition of service. (Id., ,r 39.)
Recently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Small Cell Order's restrictions on state
and local governmental entity's ability to deny deployment of small cell wireless
telecommunication facilities within the ROW. (See, City of Portland v. United States,
969 F.3d 1020, 1039-1043 (9th Cir. 2020) ("City of Portland').) City of Portland affirmed
all aspects of the 2018 Small Cell Order save for those portions related to the aesthetic
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 6
regulation "no more burdensome" standard and the objectivity standards. (Id., at pp.
1041-1042.) Still, a local government's review of a project's aesthetic principles must
be "reasonable," that is, "technically feasible and reasonably directed" at remedying
aesthetic harms. Anything else is preempted as prohibitory. (Ibid.; Small Cell Order, 1l
86, emphasis added.)
The Small Cell Order also applied its ruling on section 253 and 332 to state and
local government terms for access to public ROW, including city owned or controlled
property. (See, Small Cell Order, 1'[ 92.) That is because the ROW, and the manner in
which the municipalities exercise control over it, serve a public purpose. (City of
Portland, supra, 969 F.3d at p. 1045.) The ROW is meant to be regulated in the public
interest, not only a local government's financial interests. (Ibid.) Cities thus manage
access to the ROW in a regulatory capacity, not in a private party capacity. (Ibid. citing
Olympic Pipe Line Co. V. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2006) 437 F.3d 872, 881.) This
includes the use of, or attachment to, government-owned property within the ROW,
including adding new poles, attaching to existing poles and or replacing light poles,
traffic poles, utility poles, and similar property for hosting small wireless communication
facilities. (Small Cell Order, 1'[ 92.)
Under the current interpretation of the above laws, therefore, as confirmed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in City of Portland, "local policies" that "materially inhibit"
the ability of providers "to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory
environment" may violate section 253 and 332 of the Telecom Act. (See Small Cell
Order,r 35 (quoting California Payphone, 14191, 14206.) This standard does not
require a "complete or insurmountable" barrier to service, but merely a showing that the
standards materially inhibit deployments. (Id.)
D. Public Utilities Code Section 7901 and 7901.1
Crown Castle is a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). CLECs qualify
as a "public utility" and therefore have a special status under state law. By virtue of the
CPUC's issuances of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" ("CPCN"),
CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, and abutments" in
the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of
access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams
Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a
CPCN, a telephone corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its]
facilities."].)
The CPUC has issued Crown Castle a CPCN authorizing Crown Castle to
construct ROW networks pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. Crown
Castle's special regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right under Public
Utilities Code section 7901 to use the ROW in the City to "construct ... telephone lines
along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands
within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the
insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such
points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. Code, §
2464.131 I 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 7
7901.) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows:
... "[l]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a
continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph
companies to use the highways, which offer when accepted
by the construction and maintenance of lines constitutes a
binding contract based on adequate consideration, and that
the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by
subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus,
telephone companies have the right to use the public
highways to install their facilities.
(Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting
CountyofL. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378,384 [196 P.2d 773].)
Public Utility Code section 7901.1 --a sister statute to section 7901 --grants
local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place,
and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]." Nevertheless,
such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use of the ROW or otherwise prevent
the company from exercising its right under state law to "erect poles" in the ROW. That
is because "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and
other public places within the city is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal
affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.)
Moreover, section 7901.1 specifies that such controls, "to be reasonable, shall, at a
minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner." (Ibid., emphasis added.)
E. Government Code Section 65964.1
Recently, the California Legislature echoed the courts' oft-repeated declaration
that "the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public
places within the city is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair."
(Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) It did
so in the context of enacting AB 57 in October 2015. AB 57 is codified as Government
Code section 65964.1. Under section 65964.1, if a local government fails to act on an
application for a permit to construct a wireless telecommunications facility within the
prescribed Shot Clock timeframes (150 days for a stand-alone site and 90 days for a
collocation site), the application is deemed approved by operation of law. When it
enacted section 65964.1, the Legislature observed that:
The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless
telecommunications facility has a significant economic
impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term
is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California
Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern.
(Gov. Code, § 65964.1, subd. (c).)
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 8
3. Implications of the City's Proposed Amendments to Title 12 of the RPVMC.
In the City's ROW, wireless telecommunications facilities already are governed
by Chapter 12.18 of the RPVMC. Chapter 12.18 mandates a robust --if not onerous --
process that is the equivalent of a conditional use permit approval procedure, with,
among other things, (a) public hearings before the Planning Commission ("Major
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit," RPVMC, § 12.18.040.C); (b) rigorous
application requirements (id., § 12.18.050.B.,C); (c) noticing requirements (id., §
12.18.060.D., E); and (d) appeal rights to the Planning Commission and/or City Council
(id., § 12.18. 060. F; Chapter 17. 80). The current process already --arguably --presents
material obstacles to deployment of telecommunications networks. Nor is the current
process consistent with the short timeframes and mandates presented by the Shot
Clock Rule or the Small Cell Order.
After the above process to obtain a discretionary "wireless telecommunications
facilities permit" ("WTFP"), an applicant for a WTFP must then obtain an encroachment
permit. (RPVMC, § 12.18.040.D.) The proposed amendments to Title 12's
encroachment permit process convert what should be a routine and ministerial plan-
check into a discretionary process that resembles a conditional use permit. With
respect to wireless telecommunications facilities in particular, the new encroachment
permit regime would add another layer of duplicative and burdensome regulatory
hurdles, in addition to Chapter 17.80, including additional noticing, appeal rights,
findings requirements and ill-defined aesthetic approval criteria. The proposed
amendments would present demonstrable, material obstacles to telecommunication
infrastructure deployments in a manner that is inconsistent with the above-referenced
federal and state laws.
4. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
We respectfully request that the City Council decline to adopt the proposed
amendments to Title 12, or at a minimum continue the item to allow additional industry
input and critical reconciliation with the existing regulatory regime for wireless
telecommunications facilities.
Crown Castle representatives will be on hand to present the principles articulated
herein at the August 17, 2021, City Council meeting.
Very truly yours,
1#5f#((/
Michael W. Shanafelt
MWS
cc: Ara Mihranian, City Manager -AraM@rpvca.gov
City Clerk -cityclerk@rpvca.gov
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Mayor Alegria and City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 9
Eric Alegria, Mayor -eric.alegria@rpvca.gov
David L. Bradley, Mayor Pro Tern -david.bradley@rpvca.gov
John Cruikshank, Councilmember -john.kruikshank@rpvca.gov
Ken Dyda, Councilmember -ken.dyda@rpvca.gov
Barbara Ferraro, Councilmember -Barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov
Stephen Garcia -Stephen.Garcia@crowncastle.com
Joshua Trauner-Joshua.Trauner@crowncastle.com
2464.131 / 9476828.1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 1:24 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: Internet Outages
From: Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20211:18 PM
To: marckaiser@cox.net <marckaiser@cox.net>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Internet Outages
Hello Mr. Kaiser
Thank you for your email. The Mayor and City Council are in receipt of your email expressing
concerns with Cox Communications.
City staff has forwarded your email to Cox Communications' Government Affairs Manager, who will
be reaching out you shortly in regards to your specific situation.
Additionally, your email will be included as late correspondence for the August 17 Agenda Report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Thank You
Jesse Villalpando
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Emergency Preparedness
Jvillalpando@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5209
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Available In the App Store and Google Play
~ GIT!TOO
,,_~ Google Play
I his e-mail messil\JC contains Information belonging to the City of Rancl10 Palos Verdes, wliich may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The~ information is intend11d only for use of the individual or entity named. Unaulhorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohitiitecL If
you received this email in error, or are not an intend1!d 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
1 6.
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Kaiser <marckaiser@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 2:30 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.
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 12:50 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: Cox Communication Comment
Late corr
From: Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 202111:37 AM
To: lhjaslin@gmail.com <lhjaslin@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Cox Communication Comment
Hello
Thank you for your email. The Mayor and City Council are in receipt of your email expressing
concerns with Cox Communications.
City staff has forwarded your question to Cox Communications' Government Affairs Manager, who
will be reaching out you shortly in regards to your specific situation.
Additionally, your email will be included as late correspondence for the August 17 Agenda Report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Thank You
Jesse Villalpando
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Emergency Preparedness
Jvillalpando@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5209
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
DOWN
'hlti
Available In the App Sloro and Google Play
► GETITOH
Google Play
This e .. ·rnilil rnessilge contains information belonging to the City or Rancho Palos Verdes, whicll may be privileged, confidential arnj/or pro\:l~cted from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or t)ntity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyi119 is strictly prohibited. If
you receiv2d this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. ·niank you for your assistance and cooperation.
1
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: lhjaslin@gmail.com <lhjaslin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 8:23 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cox Communication Comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Three time's in the last week in "settings" on our devices, it's said "connected with no internet". The
internet icon has been visible, but we've been unable to access any destinations. We've never
encountered this situation before ... ??
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, August 17, 20211:24 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Cost
From: Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20211:23 PM
To: romeo.natividad@gmail.com <romeo.natividad@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Cost
Hello Mr. Natividad
Thank you for your email. The Mayor and City Council are in receipt of your email expressing
concerns with Cox Communications.
City staff has forwarded your questions to Cox Communications' Government Affairs Manager, who
will be reaching out you shortly in regards to your specific situation.
Additionally, your email will be included as late correspondence for the August 17 Agenda Report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Thank You
Jesse Villalpando
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Emergency Preparedness
Jvillalpando@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5209
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
0 •
Connect with the Ctty from your phone or tablet!
Available in the App Store and Google Play
bi.._ GUITON
,-, Google Play
This f,· mail rnessaoe contains information biilo119i119 t:o t:he City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which rnay be privileqi,id, confidential and/or prot:<Kl(-;d from
disclosure. Tile inforrnation is intended only for use of the imliviclual or c:11Uty named, Unautt1orized dissemination, distribution, or copyinn i, strictly prohibit:wL If
you received this ernail in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender irn111ccliat:ely, Thank you for your assistance ancl cooperation.
1
6.
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: Romeo Natividad <romeo.natividad@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20219:46 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cost
They always say speed up to x-amount. They should charge accordingly. I pay for the highest speed available for
residential, and never get it. And yet they throttle me back. To me that should be illegal. That is like charging me $50 in
gas and only giving me $25 worth ...
Romeo Natividad
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 1 :23 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Cox Update Question
From: Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20211:20 PM
To: craig@louis-equipment.com <craig@louis-equipment.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Cox Update Question
Hello Mr. Louis
Thank you for your email.
City staff has forwarded your questions to Cox Communications' Government Affairs Manager, who
will be reaching out you shortly in regards to your specific situation.
Additionally, your email will be included as late correspondence for the August 17 Agenda Report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Thank You
Jesse Villalpando
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Emergency Preparedness
Jvillalpando@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5209
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Ploy
•
, Downloid on tho
App Store
.... GETITON
rr Google Play
l his (, .. mail rncssa9c contains Information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privilcncd, conficlcntial and/or piotect:ed from
disclosure. The inf'onnation is intr.indcd only for use of' l:l'ie individual or entity named. Unauthorized disi,;emlnation, distribution, m copyino Ii.; strictly proliil'Jitco. Ii
you received this email In error, or arc not an intended rcciplt~nt, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your <1ssistancc: rn1d cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVJD-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
1
6.
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 Staf{Directorv on
the City website.
From: Craig Louis <craig@louis-equipment.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 8:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cox Update Question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello RPV City Council,
Our question for the Cox Communications community update meeting
scheduled for August 17 is:
As telecommuting is finally taking off, when can residential customers
in Miraleste expect fully symmetrical fiber to the curb level internet
service from Cox?
While the old TV cable internet service is suitably robust for
entertainment and rudimentary VOiP telephony, it's now ancient
technology and limited for telecommuting and other internet mediated
rich media communications.
We've been very happy with Cox customer service over the years, and we
hope to see Cox moving to provide more up to date services.
Thanks very much,
Craig L. Louis
Direct: +1831 708-8699
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 10:28 AM
CityClerk
Fw: Cox Communications
From: Jesse Villalpando <jvillalpando@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20219:25 AM
To: dm@danamoon.com <dm@danamoon.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Cox Communications
Hello Ms. Dorsett,
Thank you for your email. The Mayor and City Council are in receipt of your email expressing
concerns with Cox Communications.
City staff has forwarded your concerns to Cox Communications' Government Affairs Manager, who
will be reaching out you shortly in regards to your specific situation.
Additionally, your email will be included as late correspondence for the August 17 Agenda Report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Thank You
Jesse Villalpando
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Emergency Preparedness
Jvillalpando@rgvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5209
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Play
~ GETITOO
~ Google Play
1'11is e· mail messa9c contains information belonginq to t:he City or Rancho Palos Ven1es, which may llE: privik,9Eid 1 confidential and/or prot:ecl0.cl from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unautr1orl,.ecl dissemirnition, distribution, or co1.)Yin\1 i', strictly prohibited. If
you receiv(·\d this email in error, or ,.u-e not an intfmded recipi,~nt:, pleasE: notify 1:1101 stim1er immedint:ely, Tt1ank >1ou frn· your ,.,ssistanrn and cooperation.
1
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.
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),, coi:!c'.nb oi· this e m,1il iili'S'.;ai;e ,rnd its attadrn1e:nts ,m.~ intended solely for the addres<;e('(:,) hc~reof Thh e ir1c1il
; 1 <li1Snli,;sion rnay be confidenti;,i and may be subjPct to privilege protect int conmH111icalio11s lwtw<:N1 ;ittomey.'; ;;nd
!heir dic•1its. If you an: not the named addrcs:;ee, or if tlfr, l(ll'ssage h,1s bn~n ciddrt'SSf~d to you iii ,?nor, you are no1 to
u·eid, dbcio'.,C, r0,produce. distribute, ck,semirwte or otherwi<;e use this transmission. If you hc1vr: received thi:;
: r-:l!l\tni:;sion i11 error, plPc1se alert the se11cler by reply r•-rn;lil dnd de>lete this rnesf,age and its att1rhtnenh, if any, inrn1
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, August 16, 2021 5:20 PM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: cox cable services
From: jagdish chopra <jchopra710@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20211:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: cox cable services
Thanks for holding a meeting with a cox representative. I won't be able to participate,
however here are a couple of questions for the RPV city hall and Cox.
1) Why doesn't the city has a competitor to Cox in providing TV cable services? There
is nothing better than a competition to provide efficient, responsive, and cost-effective
services.
2) About two years ago, I switched my internet service to Cox. Recently I have noticed
the Wifi connection drops off for a few seconds here and there because my mouse
stops responding to commands.
3) Cox needs to have more knowledgeable technical support to be efficient. I
recommend Apple customer support as a model of technical support.
I have been a customer of Cox for more than 40 years and a resident of RPV for 49
years. Thanks!
Jagdish Chopra
1 5.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, August 16, 2021 5:20 PM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: Cox Communications Update August 17 -comment to City Council
From: Irene Lam <ilam4SOO@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 202112:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cox Communications Update August 17 -comment to City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Since the update to the City Council last year by a Cox representative, internet speed and reliability have still been sub-
par. I am in the Silver Spur area near Peninsula Center. There continue to be an unacceptable number of days and hours
when sites and video content will not load, or when the connection keeps dropping. Supposedly credit can be
requested, but who has the time to document the times, wait on hold to reach someone at Cox, and then spend half an
hour fighting for a credit of a couple dollars?
1 5.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, August 16, 2021 9:40 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Questions for Cox Cable meeting
From: Michael L. Fiorentino Gutierrez <michael.g.fiorentino@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 6:49 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Questions for Cox Cable meeting
City council,
I would like the following questions answered by Cox:
1.) Are there plans for additional fiber in RPV?
2.) If fiber isn't expanded in RPV, what is Cox going to do regarding upload speeds? Even Cox's most expensive plans in
RPV only provide lSmb to 30mb upload speed.
Best regards,
Michael Gutierrez
Rancho Palos Verdes resident
1
From: Marilyn Long <pviavaiam@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 4:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Cox billing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Cox,
I signed up for Cox services for a year. The sales person quoted me a price of $215.08 for the entire year. The
subsequent months I was billed $221.97. I called Cox back and wanted to talk to a supervisor on this matter.
Unfortunately there was no supervisor Available to help me. Why is it that if I was quoted a price for the whole year
that it changed?
This does not seem to be a good business practice. Thank you for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Long
2
From: Philip Borden <philawed@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Leslye Borden <leslyeborden@cox.net>
Subject: COX UPDATE MEETING
We give Cox mixed grades:
.. Our service drops out far more than it should. On the one
hand, we have developed a plan for shutting down our
computer and/or TV and/or phone and restarting them on our
own. On the other hand, should we have to do so in the first
place? And so frequently?
.. We have to call Cox almost monthly about issues connecting
to our streamer despite having the highest level and fas test
"panorama" modem/ router. On the one hand, most of the
technicians are helpful. On the other, we run into snotty "not
my problem" types whose basic approach is to blame us for
being stupid. And should the need for technical support recur
so frequently in the first place?
.. We recently had a telephone issue that caused us to be
without communications for two days--we cannot get cellular
service on our hill. The first techie could not solve it. It took
the "Level 2" technical person hours working remotely with
me to correct what was not an equipment failure but a
software glitch.
We are not experts, but we are consumers with a right to the services we pay for. We
believe that Cox is simply underresourced in the area and the ratio of Cox's capacity to
the needs of the population is too low.
Thank you for this opportunity.
--Philip and Leslye Borden
2
6.
From: Sylvia Macia <sylmac4040@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:40 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: COX Internet Services -Very poor in Trump Golf Course's surrounding neighborhoods, Very SLOW, FREEZING
UP, daily numerous freezes
All,
I would love to have the ability to speak with a Cox engineer to see what is the problem in our area as I am
paying for high speed, high capacity service and NOT GETTING IT AT ALL!
Yours,
"Be a free thinker and don't accept everything you hear as Truth. Be critical and evaluate everything you
believe in." Aristotle
2
5.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Monday, August 16, 2021 5:22 PM
Gilbride, Angie; CC
Cc: CityClerk; Charles Eder; Ramzi Awwad; Armendariz Jr., Daniel; Baeza, Agustin
Subject: RE: Cal Water response to Proposed Amendment to Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verde s
Municipal Code
Hi Angie,
The City Council is in receipt of you comment letter and will provide it to the City Council as late
correspondence for their consideration.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and the CalWater team on addressing the
concerns that prompted this proposed code amendment.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
~ Do you really need to print this e-mail?
Th is e-mail message conta ins information belong ing to the City of Rancho Pa los Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
d isclosure. The information is intended only for use of t he individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copy ing is strictly prohib ited. If
you received th is email in error, or are not an intended recip ient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your ass istance and cooperation .
... .
DOWNLOAD '11t,~ -_,~ j
Avoiloble-in th• App Store o nd G009t• Ploy
1
b.
I C,C IT ON
: • Google Play
From: Gilbride, Angie <agilbride@calwater.com>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:12 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi
Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Armendariz Jr., Daniel <DArmendariz@calwater.com>; Baeza, Agustin
<ABaeza@calwater.com>
Subject: Cal Water response to Proposed Amendment to Title 12 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
CAUTION: This email ari imated fi"0m outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
Good afternoon Mayor Alegria and members of the City Council,
Attached is a letter that summarizes some of Cal Water's concerns regarding agenda item 6 that will be discussed at
tomorrow's City Council meeting. Our staff received very little notice about this item and we are respectfully requesting
additional time to fully analyze the proposed changes to Title 12 and the opportunity to discuss these changes with City
staff before you consider adopting an ordinance that could have significant impacts on our operations and on our duty
to provide safe and reliable water service to our customers in Rancho Palos Verdes.
We value the relationship we've built with the City and look forward to working with City staff on a solution that
represents the interests of all stakeholders involved. We will be in attendance tomorrow and look forward to speaking
during public comment.
Thank you.
Angie Gilbride
California Water Service
This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain California Water Service Group proprietary information and is
confidential. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail and then deleting it
from your system.
Angie Gilbride
Regional Community Affairs Specialist
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
+l (310) 2571437 x71314
Quality. Service. Value.
calwater.com
2
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
I Rancho Dominguez District 2632 West 237th Street
Torrance, CA 90505 Tel: (310) 257-1400
August 16, 2021
The Honorable Eric Alegria
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Concerns Regarding Proposed Amendment to Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public
Places) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
Dear Mayor Alegria,
I am writing to you on behalf of California Water Service (Cal Water) to express our concerns
regarding agenda item 6 that will be discussed at the August 17, 2021 City Council meeting. Cal
Water staff received very little notice about this item and we are respectfully requesting
additional time to fully analyze the proposed changes to Title 12 and the opportunity to discuss
these changes with City staff before you adopt an ordinance that could have significant impacts
on our operations and on our duty to provide safe and reliable water service to our customers in
Rancho Palos Verdes.
It should be known that the additional requirements in the proposed ordinance may directly
increase water rates and monthly water bills for all residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula,
including Rancho Palos Verdes, and these increases could be substantial.
Based on the limited time we had to review the draft ordinance, the proposed amendments
would impose various new requirements on Cal Water and other franchised utilities in the City
that could add significant costs and time and require additional resources to complete both
planned and emergency projects, all of which would ultimately affect your residents. While not
exhaustive, the items below are among the concerns we have and for which we would like
additional time to discuss with the City:
1. Section 12 .04.045 (Repair and Reconstruction of City Highways)
The proposed street restoration of a full lane plus 50 feet of grind and cap goes beyond
the industry standard of a utility trench repair and could consequently add costs to all of
our projects .
2. Section 12 .22 .040 -Encroachment permit -Application.
A-6. Contact information, including email and mobile phone, of an individual who can be
reached 24 hours a day during the work.
We have an emergency customer service line available 24 hours per day, seven days per
week, as well as rotating operational staff who are on call 24 hours per day on a rotating
Quality. Service . Value .
calwater.com
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
basis. It will be difficult to include a specific point of contact as the sole liaison to the
City, as the time during which work takes place may transcend a single emergency shift.
A-7. Written Permission of Homeowner(s), if applicable.
For planned capital projects, we have a data-driven Main Replacement Program where
we identify pipeline projects utilizing risk assessments that analyze pipeline data, risk
factors, cost information, and input from operational staff and the community. Once the
pipes have been selected for replacement, Cal Water submits the proposed projects to
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for review and approval, which also
includes a thorough review process by the Public Advocates Office, another
independent organization that advocates solely on behalf of customers . This process is
required of all utilities regulated by the CPUC. As you can see, there are already review
and approval processes in place to solicit public input.
Additionally, Cal Water has a public notification process we follow to notify our
customers of certain planned work, emergency work, and associated water
interruptions. The proposed required permission from homeowners as a condition of
permit approval can cause a project to be potentially denied based on factors that do
not take into account the data subject matter experts in our field utilize to select high-
risk and aging pipes that are in need of replacement. Our primary objective as a water
utility is to ensure safe and reliable water service to our customers, and giving general
authority to select residents over what projects can or cannot be completed could
jeopardize that.
3. 12.22.070 -Decision Process for Encroachment Permits and Findings for Approval.
C. The Director may impose conditions of approval on the Encroachment Permit as
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, welfare; to preserve the
intended use of the City Right-of-Way or Easement; to enhance the aesthetics of the
project site as required by the Director; and to ensure compliance with the findings
supporting such approval.
D. Within ten (10) business days of submitting the application, the Director shall review
the same for completeness, and if incomplete, state the reasons to the applicant.
E. Upon finding that the complete application for the requested encroachment permit
conforms to the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this code,
the Director may issue the permit no sooner than 10 business days after public
notification has been issued pursuant to Section 12.22.090(B).
After completing projects, we restore our work areas to the same or better condition, as
long as it is prudent and justifiable. We would like clarification on the conditions that
reference enhancing "the aesthetics of the project site using landscaping, screening, or
other means" as this may result in cost overruns that go beyond what may be justifiable
Quali t y. Se rv ice . Valu e.
calwater.com
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
to and approved by the CPUC, or may infringe upon the CPUC's regulation of Cal Water's
operations, including its design, restoration activities, notification requirements, and
payment and approval obligations.
Additionally, we are concerned that the proposed review and approval process could
add up to 20 days to when a permit can be issued, resulting in added costs and delays .
4. Section 12.22.080 (Appeal of the Director's Decision)-If a Permittee or interested party
is dissatisfied with a decision of the Director with respect to the denial of an
encroachment permit or the imposition of conditions of approval, that decision may be
appealed to the City Council within five days of the notice of decision.
Rather than work directly with City staff on resolving issues, which we believe has
worked well and most efficiently, this new requirement may make the permitting
process and the time to complete projects more protracted as it includes an appeal to
the City Council at a future meeting, which could be pushed out indefinitely.
5. 12.22.090 -Permitted work requirements.
A. Public notification -10 day public comment period
We are concerned about the potential supplementary conditions from the public
comment process that could additionally be imposed by the City, resulting in unforeseen
time and cost impacts for our projects.
G. Site restoration -Unless otherwise approved by the Director, the minimum required
site restoration shall be to return the site to an equal or better condition to that prior to
the work including landscaping and screening as deemed appropriate by the Director.
Similar to our comments in item 2 above, we would like clarification on this
requirement, as it is subjective as written .
We truly value the partnership we've built with the City over the years and believe that a
collaborative approach to resolving issues works best. Factors that affect project costs and
timeliness ultimately affect our customers, including customers' bills. We strongly believe that
we can help the City develop a more balanced solution that is mutually beneficial to all
stakeholders, and we hope that you will consider giving us the opportunity to provide our
feedback along with the impacted utilities and work with Staff before adopting the proposed
ordinance. We are always available as a resource, so please let us know how we can be of
further assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
Quality. Service. Value .
calwater.com
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
Dan Armendariz
District Manager
Cc : The Honorable David Bradley, Mayor Pro Tern, Rancho Palos Verdes
The Honorable John Cruikshank, Council Member, Rancho Palos Verdes
The Honorable Barbara Ferraro, Council Member, Rancho Palos Verdes
The Honorable Ken Dyda, Council Member, Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Ara Mihranian, City Manager, Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Ramzi Awwad, Public Works Director, Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Charles Eder, Senior Engineer, Rancho Palos Verdes
Quality. Service . Value .
calwater.com
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:35 PM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Ordinance, Encroachment Permits -Tonight's
Council Agenda Item 6 [Rancho Palos Verdes]
Attachments: Verizon Wireless Letter 08.17.21.pdf
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?
n:ail nK:,,:;ac1,' contains i11forrnalio11 helonginq to the Cily of Rancho l'illo,, Verdes, which may ll<, privii('gccl, confidenlial and/or proteclz:cl from
u111::iv:u1 e. The inl'orrnatio11 intoncled only for use of the inc!ividoai or entity ndm<<L Unauthorized dissemination, distriLiution 1 or cop11i11q is strictly prohibilc1.L It
rw:uivctl this email in C'ITW, or arc 11ot an intcndcxl recipi1}11t:, pk,asr' notify th<! 11cndcr imrnPdiatcly, Thank you for your ilssistancc :md cnopNdlion,
...... GETITON
~ Google Play
From: Paul Albritton <pa@mallp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20212:32 PM
To: Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; l<en Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>
1
Cc: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>; Bill Wynder <wwynder@awattorneys.com>; Ramzi Awwad
<rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Ordinance, Encroachment Permits -Tonight's Council Agenda Item 6
[Rancho Palos Verdes)
Dear Councilmembers, attached please find our letter prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless
regarding the draft ordinance adding encroachment permit requirements to the City's Code (proposed
Chapter 12.22).
The draft ordinance would duplicate or contradict provisions of Chapter 12.18 regarding wireless
facilities in the right-of-way. We urge the Council to continue this item, and direct staff to make
needed revisions.
Thank you.
Paul
Paul Albritton
Mackenzie & Albritton, LLP
155 Sansome Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 288-4000
pa@mallp.com
2
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Eric Alegria
Mayor Pro Tern David Bradley
Councilmembers John Cruikshank,
Ken Dyda and Barbara Ferraro
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
TELEPHONE 4 l 5 / 288-4000
FACSIMILE 415 / 288-40 l 0
August 17, 2021
Re: Draft Ordinance, Proposed Code Chapter 12.22 Regarding Encroachment Permits
City Council Agenda Item 6, August 17, 2021
Dear Mayor Alegria, Mayor Pro Tern Bradley and Councilmembers:
We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the draft ordinance (the "Draft
Ordinance") that would add new encroachment permit requirements to the Rancho Palos Verdes
Code of Ordinances (the "Code"). Proposed Code Chapter 12.22 would apply to all public
utilities, but in a likely oversight, it would duplicate several requirements of existing Chapter
12.18 that regulates wireless facilities in the right-of-way, including public notice and indemnity.
As indicated in letters from Southern California Edison and SoCa!Gas, the Draft Ordinance
would benefit from collaboration with industry stakeholders prior to first reading. We urge the
Council to continue this item, and direct staff to revise the Draft Ordinance to eliminate duplicate
or contradictory provisions.
Currently, the Code requires an encroachment permit for wireless facilities, in addition to a
minor or major WTF permit. See, e.g., Code§ 12.18.040(D). Proposed Chapter 12.22 of the Draft
Ordinance would apply to any public utility, including wireless carriers which would not be
exempt. See Draft Ordinance §§ 12.22.020 (definitions of "person" and "utility"), 12.22.030(A).
Draft Ordinance requirements that duplicate or contradict existing Code Chapter 12.18
regarding wireless facilities include:
12.22.030(B). 90-day term. This limits the term of an encroachment permit to 90 days,
but Code Section 12.18.120(C) allows one year to begin construction of a wireless facility.
12.22.060(A). Indemnification, insurance. These requirements essentially duplicate
Code Sections 12.18.090(C) and (D) that specify insurance and indemnity provisions for
wireless facilities.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
August 17, 2021
Page 2 of 2
12.22.070(B). Permit findings. These general, subjective findings ( e.g., "significant
adverse impact on the appearance or aesthetics") contradict the special wireless findings
of Code Section l 2. l 8.060(C) that refer to specific location and design standards for
wireless facilities. This could lead to unfounded denials of approved wireless facilities at
the encroachment permit stage.
12.22.080. Appeal. This would allow a second appeal of a proposed wireless facility,
because Code Section 12.18.060(F) already allows an appeal of a WTF permit.
12.22.090(A). Public notification. This requires that public notice of all proposed
utility encroachment applications be sent to property owners within 500 feet, but Code
Section 12.18.060(D) already requires that for wireless facilities.
To avoid contradiction and complications, staff should closely compare the Draft
Ordinance to existing Code Chapter 12.18 to eliminate duplication and ensure streamlined
approval of encroachment permits for wireless facilities.
We note that for a small wireless facility, federal law requires cities to review and act on
all required authorizations within the same "Shot Clock" time period. Rancho Palos Verdes
must make a final decision on both WTF and encroachment permit applications within 60 days
( existing poles) or 90 days (new poles).1
We urge the Council to continue the hearing of the Draft Ordinance, and direct staff to
make needed revisions.
cc: William Wynder, Esq.
Charles Eder
Ramzi Awwad
Ara Mihranian
Very truly yours, {5!:aV.ii--
Paul B. Albritton
1 See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory
Ruling and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Red. 9088, ~ 132 (September 27, 2018); see also 47 C.F.R. § l .6003(c).
Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld these FCC requirements. See City of Portland v. United States,
969 F.3d 1020 (9 th Cir. 2020), cert. denied,_ U.S._ (U.S. June 26, 2021) (No. 20-1354).
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Faviola,
Ara Mihranian
Monday, August 16, 2021 5:29 PM
Ochoa, Faviola; wwynder@awattorneys.com
Ramzi Awwad; Charles Eder; CityClerk
RE: City Ordinance regarding Public Notifications
The City is in receipt of your email and will provide it to the City Council as late correspondence for its
consideration tomorrow night.
At this time, we are going to recommend continuing the matter to a date uncertain so that we have an
opportunity to meet with the utility companies to address the concerns that prompted this code
amendment.
I look forward to our continued working relationship on this and other matters involving SoCalGas.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
c1rvo-l ~CH0 PALDs VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
~ Do you rea lly need to pr int this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be p1·ivileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named . Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended rec ipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
0 --. .
DOWNLOAD 'l1t. !i . .,, ,_;;v
Avoilobl• in th• App Stor• and Google Ploy
• ( ,[1 1; ,;:s,
:· • Google Play
From: Ochoa, Faviola <FaviOchoa@socalgas .com>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 3 :31 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com
Cc: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City Ordinance regarding Public Notifications
CAUTION: This email ori lnated from outside of the Cit of Ranclilo Palos Verdes.
Good afternoon Ara and Mr. Wynder,
Attached is a letter with SoCalGas' concerns regarding the proposed amendments to Title 12 of the city's municipal
code .
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Faviola Ochoa
Public Affairs Manager
(213) 808 -7857
FaviOchoa@Soca!gas.com
From: Charles Eder <CharlesE@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 202110:33 AM
To: Charles Eder
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Or dinance regarding Public Notifications
Good morning all,
The City is set to introduce an ordinance to amend Title 12 of the City Municipal Code . It is intended to make certain
amendments relating to encroachment permits, which includes a public notification requirement for certain types of
projects for utility companies.
For more information, please see the link to the Staff Report and Proposed Ordinance below:
https:ljrpv.granicus .com/MetaViewer.php?view id=S&event id=1695&meta id=96550 [rpv.granicus .comj
If you have any thoughts or concerns about the proposed item, please communicate those thoughts in writing.
The agenda item is scheduled for the August 17th City Council meeting.
Thank you.
2
Charles Eder
Senior Engineer
charlese@rpvca .gov
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov (rpvca .govl
, 1 t .,. 1 I 1,1 •I!) 1 · r
• AppStore (apps .apple .coml (play .google.com
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 indiv idual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this ema il in error, or are not an intended recip ient, 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
(gcc02 .safelinks .protection .outlook.coml on the City website .
This email originated outside of Sempra Energy . Be cautious of attachments, web links, or requests for information.
3
GIBSON DUNN
August 16, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
William Wynder
City Attorney
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
Ara Mihranian
City Manager
Gi bso n, Dunn & Cru tc her LL P
333 Sou th Gra nd Aven ue
Los Ange les, CA 9007 1-3 197
Tel 2 13.229.70 00
www.g i bso ndun n.com
David A. Battaglia
Direct: +1 213.229.7380
Fax: +1 213 .229 .6380
DBattaglia@gibsondunn.com
Client: 86010-01105
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
Re: Initial Objections of Southern California Gas Company to Proposed Amendment to
Title 12 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
Dear Messrs. Wynder and Mihranian:
We represent Southern California Gas Company ("SoCalGas"). We understand that
SoCalGas only recently became aware that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was
proposing to adopt an ordinance imposing new and different requirements on
franchised utilities in the City, including upon SoCalGas which is under franchise
with the City.
We are in receipt of correspondence to the City from Southern California Edison
("Edison") dated August 16 , 2021, regarding this proposed ordinance. SoCalGas
joins in the concerns expressed by Edison. SoCalGas has significant constitutional ,
statutory , regulatory and legal concerns regarding provisions of the proposed
ordinance as applicable to it as a licensed public utility.
It is worth noting that SoCalGas was directly involved in the cited case law which
found unconstitutional and illegal the adoption of provisions of municipal law which
modified or imposed new or different burdens upon SoCalGas than those which were
set forth in the franchise . These cases held that a municipality could not use its police
power or a reservation of rights provision in the franchise agreement to attempt
unilaterally to modify material terms of the franchise. In addition, in both the Santa
Ana and Alhambra decisions , the municipality was required to pay the utility
companies attorneys ' fees and costs in connection with challenges to the ordinances,
which in Alhambra was $350,000.
Beijing • Bru sse ls · Ce ntu ry City • Dallas · Denv er• Dub ai •Fran kf urt • Hong Kong · Housto n • London • Lo s An ge les · Munic h
New York• Ora ng e Co unty• Palo Alto • Pari s • San Franc isc o• Sao Paul o • Sin ga pore• Was hington, D.C.
GIBSON DUNN
August 16 , 2021
Page 2
SoCalGas concurs that the most appropriate course of action at this stage is continue
consideration of the adoption of the new ordinance until SoCalGas and the City have
had the opportunity to discuss the proposed ordinance and the best manner to address
SoCalGas 's significant concerns.
The cooperation and collaboration of the City is most appreciated in this regard.
Of course , should the City proceed with the process of considering and adopting the
ordinance in its present form nonetheless , SoCalGas hereby formally registers its
objections , and fully reserves its rights to pursue any and all legal remedies (including
without limitation attorneys' fees/costs) and any additional objections.
Thanks for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
David A. Battaglia
DAB/ayb
104746314 .1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com>
Tuesday, August 17, 2021 10:28 AM
CityClerk
Ramzi Awwad; CC
Comment for RPV City Council Meeting Agenda Item #6 -Amendment to Title 12
I applaud the City Council, the Department of Public Works, and City Staff for this proposed amendment. Thank you for
taking on this project to provide residents with more transparency and opportunity for public interaction to protect our
property values.
As one of the residents affected by the Crest Road East project referenced in the Agenda Report, I have lived through
the pain of receiving notice only by the chain saws across the fence. This proposal may not be perfect, but is a huge step
in the right direction.
I note that in Late Correspondence, SCE objects to any oversight or delay. Their lack of transparency and willingness to
cooperate with affected residents is a principal reason why this measure is so important. They object to a managed
planning process. Other than in emergency situations, should our critical infrastructure be managed "on the fly"????
My only comment on technical details at this time is proposed Section 12.22.090.A.1 (on page A-8 of the Agenda
Report): "Notification requirements shall only apply to public utilities." SCE and other utilities make extensive use of
private contractors, and often the utility itself is not the party requesting the Encroachment Permit. It should be
absolutely clear that the notice requirements apply to any project sponsored in any way by a public utility or involving
any equipment belonging to or used by a public utility.
Thank you for moving this project forward.
Dale Spiegel
1
CITYOF RANCHO 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,
Ciu.1z;,:J(I.~~
Teresa Takaoka
L:ILATE 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 0f./est 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 R&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 A&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 COV/D-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 Han 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
t +1213267 2332 I f +1 213318 0744
info@gentecsol.com I www .gentecsol.com
1055 W 7th 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 Events
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
cl~eC~ i
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 Dr. 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 ."
G TS 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.
Jr 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 85th Percentile Year 2020 35u, 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 are 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 -A shared 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
6 Sisters or Cha ~
of Rolling Hills q
Exhibit 1: Schematic showing the locations of various suNeys
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 the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
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
sunshinerpv@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 s.
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
1 l!<.• :ients oi this e--rnail mc•ssage ,HHl its ,Htaclirnents <He intended !,Olely for the addr0ssee(s) hereof. niis ('maii
11"" nis 1,ion rnc1v be con!id1'nti2i ;ind rnay be subject to privileg,: protec:ting comnwnications IH·lwt.'Nl aitonu•ys ;ind
1 •:,_•1ds If you arc not the named addrcs';CP, ur if rhis nicss;ige hc1:, !wen adcirc',•;ed to you in (!ITCH. you ;ire 1101 \u
riisciosf'; rep1od1ne, distribute, rlis.seniinate or oti1erwise use thi:; irans,nission. If you l1tlv1• reu•ived thh
\'.-1, •,1nb1.ion in i'1rur1 plca~.e alert the sender by reply c n1<ii! and delete this message· and ils <1tli!clmH"rH.s, if ,111y 1 frc,Y1
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?
Tlw, r:· 1nail message contains information belon[:Jing to the City of Rancho Palos VerclE,s, which may be privik,ged, confidt,nti,il andior prol:ecl:ec.l from
tlisclosun:,, The inforrnation is intended only for use of t:he inc\ividlk\l or· entity nanwd. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyin9 is i;trictly prnhil.Jitcd, if
vou 1·cceivccl this 1nnail in t}!Tor, or are not an ,ntendrid recipient, please notify the sendc1r immediately. Thank you fo1· your assist:anw and cooperation,
DOWNLOAD
11/_!j
1
► Gfl'TITOH 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
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.
PO 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
Page 2
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 1937 (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 l 2.22.070(B): 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
,·
I
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· QJ~Q.f •. Ee.n.QbQ_f.§.l.,Q~ 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 _meanin_g): ·
(a) The word "grantee"· shall mean th.e corporation
to which the franchise contemplated in this Ordinance·
is granted and its lawful successors or assigns;
(b) The word "City" shall mean the City of Ra:ncho
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 mav hereafter
exist within said City;
(d) The phrase "poles, wires, conduits and appur-
tenances" shall mean poles, towers, supports, wires,
conductors, cables, ~uys, stubs, platforms, crossarms,
braces, transformers, insulators, conduits, ducts,
vaults, manholes, meters, cut-outs, switches; commU:n.icat:ion
ci'.i'.'CUits, appliances, ·at~achrnents, appurtenances; and
any other property located or to be located in, alon~,
across, upon, over or ~nder the streets, of said Cit~,
and used or useful, directly or indirectly, for the pur-
pose of transmittin~ or distributing electricity;
.)
C)
I
(
(e) The phrase "construct and use 11 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, upori, ovsr and under the streets within the City 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 cor~oration 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 by th.e grantee.
Section 4: 1 The grantee of said franchise during the life
thereof, will pay to said City two percent (2%) of the gross
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 ~alendar year, followin~ the
date of the granting of thie 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 g~antee shall pay tq said
~1ty 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 ~tatement. Any neglect,
omission or refusal by said grantee to file said verified
statement, or to pay said precentage at the ti~es or in the
-2-
i
I
J
0
manner hereinbefore provided, shall constitute ~rounds for
1 the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and of
all rights of grantee hereunder.
Section 6: This Ordinance shall become .effective thirty
(30) dajs after its final passa~e, unless suspended by
referendum petition filed as provided by law.·
Section 7: The grantee 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
grantin~ 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 Clerk 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 Cit~ 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 following
vote:
AYES: Buerk, Dyda, Ruth, R. Ryan, M. Ryan
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
LEONARD G. WOOD, CITY CLERK AND
EX OFP.ICIO CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
/a/ Doris l.3:rown.
Deputy
-3-
/s/·Marilyn Ryan
Mayor·
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, 1974i and that
said ordinance was posted.pursuant to law.
LEONARD G. WOOD, CITY CLERK AND
EX OFFICIO CLERK 0~ THE COUNCIL
By /s./ Doris Brown , __ ..;_..;_ _________ _
Deputy
-4-