20210907 Late Correspondence1
Subject:FW: City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
From: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:56 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
I think we forgot to include this as late corr.
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:40 AM
To: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
Hello Mr. Rodich,
Thank you for your email. For clarification, the area within the 330 feet along Crenshaw Blvd. for which staff is
recommending extending the temporary parking moratorium includes area red curbed for a fire hydrant, area red
curbed because it is an access area for the adjacent private property, and an area where the City has recently chosen to
permanently restrict parking to allow sufficient sight distance resulting from a traffic study. So while the length of the
entire consecutive red curbed area is significant, staff is only specifically recommending the temporary restriction of
parking within six parking spaces. This email will be included as late correspondence, as this was not clear within the
staff report. Thank you for pointing out the need for clarification.
I hope this information is helpful.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative
Analyst
Recreation and Parks
Department
katiel@rpvca.gov
Phone ‐ (310) 544‐5267
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
G
2
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: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 12:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have a number of comments to make on the Agenda for the City
Council meeting on Sept., 7,2021.
Item #G ‐ Consent Calendar
This item is about 6 parking places located on Crenshaw Blvd. How can
"6 parking places on the south side of Crenshaw from Rattlesnake
trailhead to Park Place" be 330 feet long? If you assume 30 feet per
parking place, that would be at least 11 parking places. Either it's more
than 6 places or less than 330 feet. Which is it? Also, since Crenshaw
Boulevard runs North and South, I think the sides should be East and
West.
Item #L ‐ Consent Calendar
This item is about Construction Management services adding $759,000
to the cost of the new Ladera Linda park. Costs just keep increasing.
When will we know the "all‐in" cost for the Ladera Linda park project
so that the City Council can agree that "enough is enough" and decide to
scuttle this ultra expensive 6,700 sq. ft. design? This project has been
irresponsibly handled, from the very beginning, by the Rec. & Parks Dept.
I don't believe it is prudent for our City Council to have approved
construction of this park without knowing the actual true prohibitive
total cost for this park.
3
Item #M ‐ Consent Calendar
This item is for conducting a comprehensive classification and
compensation study for all employees.
The Staff report states, "The custom database will be provided to the
City at the conclusion of the study, enabling City Staff to run multiple
reports for comparative analysis." I am not comfortable with the City
Staff being involved in determining their own classifications and salary
increases. The City Council and the Financial Advisory Committee with
residential input should be involved with the whole process. Everyone
who has worked in the private sector would have liked to have the ability
to determine their own classifications and salary increases each year.
I emailed our City Council and Staff on Aug. 24, 2021, asking who was
responsible for the $81,358 "oversight" increase on the traffic signal
project on PVDE and PVDS, and what actions have been taken to prevent
it from happening again. This is a costly mistake and I still have not
received an answer. I think a letter should be added to the responsible
person or persons personnel file and be considered when making
classifications and salary increase recommendations for them. I guess it
will make no difference who was involved and they will automatically get
a salary increase.
1
Subject:FW: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
Attachments:2021-9-7 - Californians Letter to City Council.pdf
From: Matthew Gelfand <admin@caforhomes.org> On Behalf Of matt@caforhomes.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:06 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley
<david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com; Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To the City Council:
Please see the attached correspondence regarding Public Hearing Item 1 being considered at your upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
--
Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
525 S. Virgil Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90020
matt@caforhomes.org
Tel: (213) 739-8206
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through
impact litigation and other legal tools.
1
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
September 7, 2021
VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Email: john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov; eric.alegria@rpvca.gov; david.bradley@rpvca.gov;
ken.dyda@rpvca.gov; barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov; cc@rpvca.gov
RE: September 7, 2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 1
30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, PLGR2019-0025
To the City Council:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools
to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the 30504 Palos Verdes Drive
West Project, which will be considered at your September 7, 2021 meeting.
The City’s approval of the Project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act,
Government Code Section 65589.5.1 The City is required to approve the Project under the Act.
We detailed the City’s obligations under the Act, and their application to this Project, in our July 9,
2021 letter, which we have attached here for reference. We note that in the time since we sent our
letter to the Planning Commission, it has additionally become clear that the relevant slope value
for the Project is less than 50%.
The City’s effort to engage in an interpretative exercise in the context of this application
highlights exactly the reason the Legislature adopted the Act and its subsequent amendments. It
is clear from the staff report before you that the City’s standards are not “objective” within the
meaning of the Act—i.e., they are not “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and
uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or
proponent and the public official.” See Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). It is also clear that a
1 The City Attorney has suggested that the Project is not covered by the Act because the Act
refers to projects containing “residential units,” which is plural. But this interpretation is directly
at odds with Government Code Section 13 (“The singular number includes the plural, and the
plural the singular.”), and has no basis in the legislative history of the Act. In any event, to gain
coverage by the Act under the City’s interpretation, the applicant could simply reapply, adding
an accessory dwelling unit or one of the new development types permitted by SB 9.
September 7, 2021
Page 2
reasonable person could find that the Project meets the City’s standards, which means that the
Project is deemed to have met those standards under the Act. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).
Accordingly, the City is required to approve this Project, and faces the serious risk of
litigation if it fails to do so.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Jaehee Yoon, Senior Planner (by email to jyoon@rpvca.gov)
Ken Rukavina, Comm. Dev. Director (by email to krukavina@rpvca.gov)
William W. Wynder, Esq., City Attorney (by email to wwynder@awattorneys.com)
ATTACHMENT
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
MATT@CAFORHOMES.ORG
TEL: (213) 739-8206
July 9, 2021
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Email: stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov; david.chura@rpvca.gov; julie.hamill@rpvca.gov;
william.james@rpvca.gov; gordon.leon@rpvca.gov; lan.saadatnejadi@rpvca.gov;
ron.santarosa@rpvca.gov; pc@rpvca.gov; planning@rpvca.gov
RE: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, PLGR2019-0025
To the Planning Commission:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools
to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the 30504 Palos Verdes Drive
West Project, which will be considered at your July 13, 2021 meeting.
The City’s approval of the Project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act,
Government Code Section 65589.5. If you deny the Project on the basis identified in the proposed
findings prepared by staff, the denial will violate the Act, exposing the City to the serious risk of
litigation. If we or another non-profit organization, or the applicant, is forced to litigate and
prevails, the City will be required to repay our or their attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code
§ 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii).
This letter first summarizes the Act and then explains why the proposed findings of denial
would, if adopted, violate the Act. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2),
this letter constitutes our written comments submitted in connection with the project.1
The Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act generally requires the City to approve a housing
development project unless the project fails to comply with “applicable, objective general plan,
zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the
time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). To count as
“objective,” a standard must “involve[e] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official
1 We write here on our own behalf. To date, we have had no contact with the applicants or any
of their representatives. This letter is based on information we learned from the public record.
July 9, 2021
Page 2
and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”
Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8). In making this determination, the City must approve the project if the
evidence “would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project met the relevant standard.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).
The City is subject to strict timing requirements under the Act. If the City desires to find
that a project is inconsistent with any of its land use standards, it must issue written findings to
that effect within 30 days after the application to develop the project is determined to be complete.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). If the City fails to do so, the project is deemed consistent with
those standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
If the City determines that a project is consistent with its objective standards, or a project
is deemed consistent with such standards, but the City nevertheless proposes to reject it, it must
make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have
a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have
“a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written
public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application
was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II).
Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official
and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion
available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”
Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it
may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable
measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue.
These provisions apply to the full range of housing types. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see
Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011) (applying act to market-
rate single-family development). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and
implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval
and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).
When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying
with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed
this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a
private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov.
Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the
project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality
that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own
expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an
July 9, 2021
Page 3
enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the
organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also
impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:
In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of
Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the
development of market-rate housing. The court held that the county did not identify
any objective standards that the proposed subdivision would not meet, and therefore
violated the Housing Accountability Act in denying the application.
In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied
a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the
factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and
the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to
specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform.
San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council , Alameda
County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases
relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes
and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court
ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees.
In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that
the City violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws,
by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixed-use
residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay
approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case.
In other cases, localities have settled lawsuits by agreeing to approve the subject projects
and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
Application of the Act to the Project
We have reviewed the proposed findings of denial drafted by staff. The proposed findings
cannot satisfy either prong of the Act. As to the objective standards prong, the findings fail to
meet the requirements of the Act for at least four reasons:
First, because the application to develop the Project was deemed complete on January 8,
2021, the City was required to identify any inconsistent standards under the Act by February 7,
2021. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A). Although the applicant later agreed to extend the City’s
deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the
applicant extended the City’s deadline under the Housing Accountability Act or excused the City’s
July 9, 2021
Page 4
failure to identify inconsistent standards within 30 days. Because the City appears to have failed
to timely identify inconsistent standards, the project is deemed consistent with those standards as
a matter of law. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
Second, because staff previously determined that the Project meets the requirements of
Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10), you cannot determine otherwise unless you determine
that no reasonable person could agree with staff’s assessment. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4). You
cannot do so, because staff’s determination was well-supported and reasonable.
Third, the proposed approach for assessing the slope of this site is unreasonable. The
overall slope of the portion of the site to be developed does not appear to exceed 50%, so the
Project is not subject to Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9)(d). It is not reasonable to assess
slope by dividing the parcel into smaller parts and assessing the slope in those smaller parts. By
shifting the frame of view smaller, it will always be possible to find steeper slopes within more
gentle ones; this is a version of the well-known coastline paradox.
Fourth, even if you could validly determine that the Project violates Section
17.76.040(E)(9)(d) or fails to meet the requirements of Section 17.76.040(E)(10), those standards
are not objective because reasonable minds can differ on their application to this Project, as
indicated by the dissents from staff and from two members of the Planning Commission. To
qualify as objective, a standard must involve “no personal or subjective judgment by a public
official and be[] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public
official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
As to the health and safety prong, the findings of denial do not even attempt to identify a
valid health and safety concern that would meet the Act’s standards. But, for avoidance of doubt,
the slope-related concerns do not come anywhere near qualifying as “significant, quantifiable,
direct, and unavoidable impact[s], based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete,”
nor can the City find that there is “no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid” the
impacts. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(j).
Accordingly, if you adopt the proposed findings, your decision will violate the Act.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ken Rukavina, Comm. Dev. Director (by email to krukavina@rpvca.gov)
Jaehee Yoon, Senior Planner (by email to jyoon@rpvca.gov)
William W. Wynder, Esq., City Attorney (by email to wwynder@awattorneys.com)
Christy Marie Lopez, Esq., Atty. to the Comm. (by email to clopez@awattorneys.com)
1
Subject:FW: Coyote management agenda question
From: Turner, Lisa <lturner@signatureaspen.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:57 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyote management agenda question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Good evening
Could you please address the situation we have with coyotes and their dens at Mira Catalina elementary school and
playground and surrounding area? This is dangerous for out small kiddos walking to school in the morning
Sent from my iPhone
2
1
Nathan Zweizig
Subject:FW: For tonight’s meeting - please share to the attendees
From: Richard Reid <richard.reid@buzzfeed.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:23 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: For tonight’s meeting ‐ please share to the attendees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Regarding coyote management in the area.
We have lost a pet to coyotes, seen them in our yard acting without fear despite all our deterrents in place. We have a
baby and a small dog that we are in fear of allowing in our yard, even if they are accompanied. We moved here in
November and spent a lot on the purchase of our house. We were excited to use our yard. But honestly, we wouldn’t
have considered moving to the area if we knew there was such danger and such inaction from the local council against
the danger. We have encouraged our friends with small children and pets to not move to the area as a result of this. Our
neighbors have also lost two cats.
We beg the council to place take meaningful action here. How bad does it need to get before something in done?
Thank you.
Richard Reid
6201 Picardie Road
Rancho Palos Verdes
CA 90275
3109937999
Sent from my iPhone
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Cn-YOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 7, 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.
G
L
M
1
2
Description of Material
Emails from: Kathy Edgerton; Mickey Rodich
Email from Mickey Rodich (see Item G)
Email exchange between Human Resources Manager DeZeil and:
Mickey Rodich
Emails from: Planning Commissioner Bill James; Fay Davoodian;
Anonymous
Emails from: Irene Robinson; Nancy Ganahl; Anna Brown; Laura
Kendall; Kathryn Johnstone; Debbie Taylor; Sarah Haas; Kathy Snell;
Shelly Milam; Eva Albuja; Gauri Rao; Lisa Harden; Jennifer Duffy;
Verena Roosli; Dean Seislove; Ray Mathys; Julia Duenes; Teresa
Young; Theresa Hew; John Frank; Diana Howard
Email exchange between Deputy Director of Community Development
Silva and Gayle Darbyj
3 Emails from: Herb Stark; Jim Hevener; Mickey Rodich; Sunshine; Gary
Randall
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Teresa Takaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021I2021 Coversheets\20210907 additions revisions to agenda .docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:20 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: September 7, 2021, City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item G, Extension of
Temporary Parking Moratorium Until October 19, 2021
9-5-2021 Ltr to City Council.docx
From: Del Cerro HOA <De1Cerro _H0A@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 7:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: September 7, 2021, City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item G, Extension of Temporary Parking
Moratorium Until October 19, 2021
CAUTION : libls emall 01il lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
Attached is a letter from the Del Cerro HOA Board supporting City Staff's recommendation to extend the
temporary parking restrictions at the southern end of Crenshaw Blvd . until October 19, 2021.
Sincerely,
Kathy Edgerton
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:20 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
Subject: FW : City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 202112:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have a number of comments to make on the Agenda for the City
Council meeting on Sept., 7,2021.
Item #G -Consent Calendar
This item is about 6 parking places located on Crenshaw Blvd. How can
"6 parking places on the south side of Crenshaw from Rattlesnake
trail head to Park Place" be 330 feet long? If you assume 30 feet per
parking place, that would be at least 11 parking places. Either it's more
than 6 places or less than 330 feet. Which is it? Also, since Crenshaw
Boulevard runs North and South, I think the sides should be East and
West.
Item #L -Consent Calendar
This item is about Construction Management services adding $759,000
to the cost of the new Ladera Linda park. Costs just keep increasing.
When will we know the "all-in" cost for the Ladera Linda park project
so that the City Council can agree that "enough is enough" and decide to
scuttle this ultra expensive 6,700 sq. ft. design? This project has been
irresponsibly handled, from the very beginning, by the Rec. & Parks Dept.
I don't believe it is prudent for our City Council to have approved
1
construction of this park without knowing the actual true prohibitive
total cost for this park.
Item #M -Consent Calendar
This item is for conducting a comprehensive classification and
compensation study for all employees.
The Staff report states, "The custom database will be provided to the
City at the conclusion of the study, enabling City Staff to run multiple
reports for comparative analysis." I am not comfortable with the City
Staff being involved in determining their own classifications and salary
increases. The City Council and the Financial Advisory Committee with
residential input should be involved with the whole process. Everyone
who has worked in the private sector would have liked to have the ability
to determine their own classifications and salary increases each year.
I emailed our City Council and Staff on Aug. 24, 2021, asking who was
responsible for the $81,358 "oversight" increase on the traffic signal
project on PVDE and PVDS, and what actions have been taken to prevent
it from happening again. This is a costly mistake and I still have not
received an answer. I think a letter should be added to the responsible
person or persons personnel file and be considered when making
classifications and salary increase recommendations for them. I guess it
will make no difference who was involved and they will automatically get
a salary increase.
2
From: Julie DeZiel
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11 :54 AM
mickeyrodich@gmail.com
Cc: CC; CityClerk
Subject: RE : City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
Good Morning Mr. Radich,
In regards to Item #M, City Staff would not be involved in determining classifications or salary increases . Any
recommended changes to classifications or salary structure will be done by the consultant selected. Any decisions
made regarding classifications or salary must be approved by City Council. The database provided to the City will
provide comparative analysis which will provide data on how the City of Rancho Palos Verdes compares to neighboring
and/or comparable agencies. The data in this database may be used as a resource in labor negotiations.
Thank you.
Julie DeZiel
HR Manager
jdeziel@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5331
Fax -(310) 544-5291
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
., -·
0 .,_,_ .. -. •·
DOWNLOAD 11t:r -;,~v
Available in th• App S torc o nd Googlr P lay
, J 1 ,;,nlo1dr111n11• r,(TITf1-J.,;
• App Store i • Google Play
To limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COV/0 -19, City Hall is temporarily closed to the public, but services are available
by telephone, email, online and limited curbside service . Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. Please
note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City
website .
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, September 6, 202112:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting; Sept. 7, 2021
CAUTION: 'Tillis email ori inated from outside of the CitY, of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have a number of comments to make on the Agenda for the City
Council meeting on Sept., 7,2021.
1
Item #G -Consent Calendar
This item is about 6 parking places located on Crenshaw Blvd. How can
11 6 parking places on the south side of Crenshaw from Rattlesnake
trail head to Park Place" be 330 feet long? If you assume 30 feet per
parking place, that would be at least 11 parking places. Either it's more
than 6 places or less than 330 feet. Which is it? Also, since Crenshaw
Boulevard runs North and South, I think the sides should be East and
West.
Item #L -Consent Calendar
This item is about Construction Management services adding $759,000
to the cost of the new Ladera Linda park. Costs just keep increasing.
When will we know the "all-in" cost for the Ladera Linda park project
so that the City Council can agree that "enough is enough" and decide to
scuttle this ultra expensive 6,700 sq. ft. design? This project has been
irresponsibly handled, from the very beginning, by the Rec. & Parks Dept.
I don't believe it is prudent for our City Council to have approved
construction of this park without knowing the actual true prohibitive
total cost for this park.
Item #M -Consent Calendar
This item is for conducting a comprehensive classification and
compensation study for all employees.
The Staff report states, "The custom database will be provided to the
City at the conclusion of the study, enabling City Staff to run multiple
reports for comparative analysis." I am not comfortable with the City
Staff being involved in determining their own classifications and salary
increases. The City Council and the Financial Advisory Committee with
residential input should be involved with the whole process. Everyone
who has worked in the private sector would have liked to have the ability
to determine their own classifications and salary increases each year.
2
I emailed our City Council and Staff on Aug. 24, 2021, asking who was
responsible for the $81,358 "oversight" increase on the traffic signal
project on PVDE and PVDS, and what actions have been taken to prevent
it from happening again. This is a costly mistake and I still have not
received an answer. I think a letter should be added to the responsible
person or persons personnel file and be considered when making
classifications and salary increase recommendations for them. I guess it
will make no difference who was involved and they will automatically get
a salary increase.
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Ken and Octavio,
Karina Banales
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:21 PM
Ken Rukavina; Octavio Silva
Megan Barnes; CityClerk
FW: September 7, 2021 City Council meeting
Can we have the email from Bill James and the letter?
Thanks!
Karina
From: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca .gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3 :18 PM
To: William James <BillandKathyJames@msn.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>;
Liz Cantella BoD <Elizabeth_cantella@yahoo.com>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: September 7, 2021 City Council meeting
Bill,
As usual great analysis and summary of the issue.
Thanks
Dave
David Bradley
Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmember and Mayor Pro Tern
david. brad ley@rpvca.gov
(310) 487 -2418 Cell Phone
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From: William James [mailto:BillandKathyJames@msn.com ]
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 4:52 PM
To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca .gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca .gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elena Gerli <egerli@awattorneys .com >; William Wynder
<wwynder@awattorneys.com >; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov >;
PC@rpvca .com
Subject: September 7, 2021 City Council meeting
CAUTION: This email orl inated from outside of the Cit afi Ram elilo P.alos Verdes.
1 7
Dear City Council Members,
Attached is a letter relating to your Agenda Item
No. 1: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of
an application for a Site Plan Review, Major Grading
Permit, and
Minor Exception Permit for the property located at
30504 Palos Verdes
Drive West (Case No. PLGR2019-0025).
Bill James
2
William J. James
Planning Commissioner
Rancho Palos Verdes
September 6, 2021
Mayor Eric Alegria
Mayor Pro Tern David Bradley
Councilman John Cruikshank
Councilman Ken Dyda
Councilwoman Barbara Ferraro
Re: Agenda Item No. 1: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of
an application for a Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and
Minor Exception Permit for the property located at 30504 Palos Verdes
Drive West (Case No. PLGR2019-0025)
Dear Members of the City Council,
The Applicant in the above-referenced case is seeking to build a house on a flag lot
connected to Palos Verdes Drive West by a narrow private driveway. The lot was
created by subdividing it from another lot at end of the same driveway. The
resulting rear lot is on an extreme slope, has limited areas suitable for building and
is bisected by a City storm drain swale.
The application was denied by the Planning Commission (1) because the building
is proposed entirely on a slope that is considerably in excess of that which is
permitted by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code ("RPVMC"), and (2)
because the extensive grading sought does not satisfy the RPVMC's requirements
for a Major Grading Permit.
Although the application will be considered by the City Council de nova, I am
writing because Staff is again recommending that the City Council overturn the
Planning Commission's decision.
One of the basic Use and Development Standards in our City is that buildings
should not be allowed on extreme slopes, defined as 35% or greater. RPVMC
§ 17.48.060. The City's grading rules require a Major Grading Permit where there
is grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, where there is an excavation of 5' or more
or fill of 1 O' or more, or where excavation or fill is sought on an extreme slope,
1
again defined as 35% or more, and provide that "[n]o fill or cut shall be permitted
on a slope exceeding 50 percent gradient." RPVMC §17.76.040.
The instant case is unusual for how much the application seeks to deviate from
these basic rules. This is not a case where a small comer of a proposed house
would be slightly higher than the 35% limit. In this case the entire house is
proposed to be built on slopes ranging from 35% to 80% and the majority of the
house is proposed on slopes in excess of 50%!
It is also unusual for the volume of opposition from neighbors on all sides. 1
If the home previously approved by the director, or some version of it, had been
built, this case wouldn't be here. 2
If, as some of the neighbors suggested, an applicant had sought to build a home the
size of the majority of the neighboring homes, this case wouldn't be here.3
While focusing on their analyses of exceptions to the City's basic rules and
attempting to rely on dubious "precedents" in other cases, both Staff and the
Applicant are missing the forest for the trees. No case in the City has involved a
deviation from the norm anywhere near that sought in this case -and properly so.
Furthermore, if one were to accept the reasoning of Staff and the Applicant,
granting this application would set a precedent that would be cited in all future
cases involving extreme slopes and the City would run the risk of being accused of
acting "arbitrarily" any time it did not allow a similar result.
1 Written public comments -all in opposition to the project-can be found at pp. 44-154 of the March 9, 2021
Staff Report to the Planning Commission, and pp. 49-66 of the June 22, 2021 Staff Report to the Planning
Commission. E.g., one neighbor wrote: "The main concern that I have along with many neighbors is the size of the
structure. It is clearly off scale to the surrounding neighborhoods to both the South, North and East! The average
home in these neighborhoods is 2000 sq ft! How does an almost 4000 sq ft structure get City approval? And with
an almost 600 sq ft garage and a roof deck?! The second concern is the roof deck. The property will offer
absolutely NO privacy for my home in the back as well as many others! The third issue is the property is to be built
on the steep hillside where there is currently a drainage ditch for runoff and clearly issues with water runoff and
possible hillside erosion. There are two homes right below it that I am sure would see the effect of any slide or
erosion from this structure. I am very much opposed to this project at its current scale and design. It does not match
the neighborhoods as mentioned, in square footage or in architectural design!" As Staff points out, although the
application is to be considered de nova by the City Council, "all testimony, evidence and other material" presented
to the Planning Commission shall be considered in the record on review.
2 As explained below, the previous approval only required 499 cubic yards of grading. The present application
envisions a project that would require 1,049 cubic yards of grading. The application went to the Planning
Commission because the amount of grading sought exceeded 1,000 cubic yards.
3 18 out of the 20 homes used by staff in its Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis are between 2, I 80 square feet
and 3,415 square feet.
2
Building on an Extreme Slope.
As stated above, a basic Use and Development Standards in our City is that
buildings should not be allowed on "extreme slopes", defined as 35% or greater.
RPVMC §17.48.060 provides:
"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 * * *;
B. Structures and improvements allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.060
(Extreme Slope Permit)4;
C. Satellite dish antennas allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.020 (Antennas);
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 [sic.] uses and development standards for the underlying
zoning designations of the lots.
H. Renewable energy systems * * *."
4 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 (35 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:
I. 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."
3
The Applicant relies upon subsection G, which creates leeway for previously
existing lots, contends that the Planning Commission did not cite "substantial
evidence of a threat to public health, safety or welfare" and that its decision was
arbitrary because other houses have been permitted in the City that involved
construction on extreme slopes. Because the present hearing is de nova, these
arguments are technically irrelevant, but they should be addressed because the
applicant will likely argue that the same factors should affect the decision to be
reached by the City Council.
First, § 17.76.060.G does not provide that an application "shall be" granted
"unless" the Planning Commission finds such a threat. To the contrary, it provides
that the exception applies only "if' the Planning Commission affirmatively finds
that such threats do not exist. In this case, there was no such finding. The Council
will have an opportunity to revisit the factual issues de nova.
§ 17.76.060.G should not be read as creating an open-ended exception to the basic
rule. The City's "extreme slope" rules are designed to protect public safety and
other property. The rules for Extreme Slope Permits (n.1, above) are instructive.
They illustrate the limited extent to which building should be allowed on slopes
that exceed 35%. It is one thing to argue that, on balance, a portion of a structure
might be able to be built on, e.g., a 41 % slope.5 It is quite different to argue that an
entire house should be able to be built on slopes ranging up to 80%! Allowing
building on a slope over twice the City's definition of an 'extreme slope' would
be a radical, and unwarranted, departure from the general rule.
Another problem involving public health, safety and welfare which was not
resolved before the Planning Commission involves a major slope drain ( commonly
known as a swale) which begins to the east of the subject property and runs
through the middle of the present project site and the area where construction is
proposed. There can be no question that the City's slope drain rules exist to
protect public health, safety and welfare.
Because of the steepness of the hill (it is even steeper in many places above the
swale), and the length of the swale (which runs through at least 8 lots to the east of
the Applicant's property), it carries a substantial amount of water during a storm.
5 Staff argues that on February 8, 2011, the Planning Commission at that time conditionally approved grading for a
project at 30148 Cartier Drive involving a 41 % slope. (Staff Report, p. 15, n.1 ). As the Staff Report for that case
pointed out, however, "[ t ]he existing 'natural' contours of [that] project site [were] largely the result of past mass
grading for the development of the neighborhood", similar accommodations had been made for the abutting
properties, and there was no opposition to the application submitted by any neighbor. In the instant case there was
no prior mass grading and there were numerous submissions in opposition to the project -all opposed to it.
4
Several neighbors submitted public comments stating concerns with respect to any
interference with the swale, and both of the property owners below the Applicant's
lot stated serious concerns with respect potential water damage on their properties.
RPVMC §17.56.060 provides that:
"It is unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having possession of
any property in the city on which a slope drain exists to interfere with, impede the
flow of, or reduce the effectiveness in any manner, of said slope drain. The
construction of any structure over a slope drain and the accumulation of trash,
debris, overgrown vegetation, earth or any other materials within a slope drain is
prohibited."
At the March 9, 2021 hearing, Staff suggested that the problem could be worked
out after approval by the Building and Safety Division. The Planning Commission
found this response to be unacceptable.
The Applicant then came back at the June 22, 2021 hearing with a conceptual
proposal for a pipe designed to reroute the water from the slope drain. That
proposal did not comply with the RPVMC, and, according to the owner of one of
the lots immediately below the subject property did not solve the problem. No
resolution was reached.
Second, § 17.76.060.G requires that proposed construction be consistent with the
development standards for the zoning designation of the lot. The development
standards for single-family residential lots are set forth in RPVMC § 17.02.030.
Those standards specifically address neighborhood compatibility, including in
connection with balconies and roof decks. § 17.02.030.D.3 provides that:
"a roof deck or balcony that exceeds 80 square feet or projects more than six feet
from the existing building shall not be approved unless determined to be
compatible with the existing neighborhood."
The Planning Commission did not make such an affirmative finding in this case.6
The proposed project includes a 678 square foot roof deck with an outdoor kitchen
and a 210 square foot balcony. The applicable Code section provides that an
excessively large roof deck or balcony "shall not be approved unless determined to
be compatible with the existing neighborhood."
6 Although the Planning Commission believes that each application must be evaluated based on its own merits, and
disagrees with the suggestions by Applicant and Staff that other cases should be seen as "precedents" in cases
involving the exercise of its discretion, it is certainly possible that an excessively large roof deck might not meet
neighborhood compatibility standards. On August 17, 2021, the City Council found that a proposed 881 square foot
roof deck did not meet Neighborhood Compatibility requirements because it was "excessively large".
5
A number of neighbors testified and/or submitted public comments in opposition to
the project contending both that these decks were not compatible with the
neighborhood and that they invaded their privacy.7 The Council will have an
opportunity to revisit this issue de nova.
Major Grading Permit.
The rules for grading are separate from, but in some cases parallel, the rules for
building on an extreme slope. RPVMC § 17.76.040.B provides rules for Minor
Grading Permits, Major Grading Permits and Remedial Grading Permits.
A Major Grading Permit is required for an excavation, fill or combination
thereof, in excess of 50 cubic yards; an excavation five feet or more below
natural grade or a fill five feet or more above natural grade; an excavation or fill
which encroaches on or alters a natural drainage channel or watercourse; or an
excavation or fill on an extreme slope (35 percent or more). In this case, a major
grading permit would be required because the applicant is seeking:
( 1) to do 1,049 cubic yards of grading (798 cubic yards of cut and
251 cubic yards of fill with 54 7 cubic yards of export),
(2) to excavate up to 15 feet below the natural grade and fill up to 10
feet above the natural grade, and
(3) to both excavate and fill on a slope that ranges from 35% to 80%.
RPVMC § 17.76.040.D.4 requires that a grading application that proposes earth
movement involving 1,000 or more cubic yards of earth must be referred to the
Planning Commission. The criteria for evaluating a grading application are found
in Subsection E.
1. 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. There is prim a facie evidence that the amount of grading now sought
is not "necessary". As both Staff and the Applicant point out, a prior design for
the same lot was submitted and approved by the director in 2008. That design
7 One neighbor wrote: "I do NOT want to be looking down on a roof deck. That strikes me as being very large and
out of place in our neighborhood. Roof decks were one of the main issues we had with the development west of
P.V. Dr. West. They wanted roof decks on most of those homes and we vociferously protested because roof decks
are notorious for loud parties, unsightly storage of misc items, etc. I am the one who has to look at the roof deck and
yet you have no control over its use or how it will look in the future." Many others wrote similar letters.
6
would have required 499 cubic yards of grading. So there can be no argument
that the grading now sought -1,049 cubic yards, more than double that amount -
is "necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot."
2. Subsection E.5 requires "for new single-family residences, the grading and/or
related construction [be] compatible with the immediate neighborhood character".
Neighborhood compatibility was an issue raised by several of the neighbors and
this is a subjective issue that will be considered by the Council de nova.
3. Subsection E.8 prohibits grading from causing "excessive and unnecessary
disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of
vegetation." There was evidence presented to the Planning Commission of
disturbance of wildlife habitat, but again, the Council can consider such evidence
de nova and make the subjective determination whether such disturbance is
excessive or unnecessary.
4. Subsection 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, 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. * * *
f. Driveways. * * *
7
The proposed project in this case does not meet the above standards.
1. Subsection 'a' would allow grading on a slope that exceeds 35% if the
Planning Commission makes 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. To the contrary, the Planning Commission
found (a) that building on a slope that is at some points double the City's
definition of an "extreme slope" would be totally inconsistent with such a
finding, and (b) that the issue concerning interference with the City's swale
remained unresolved.
2. Subsection 'c' provides that except in the case 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 10 feet of cut and 15 feet of fill.
The Planning Commission did not "determine that unusual topography, soil
conditions, previous grading or another circumstance that would make such
grading reasonable and necessary". The only "unusual" feature of the topography
in this case is that the slope is well beyond excessively steep. An applicant
cannot create a problem by proposing a project that is inappropriate for a site, and
then claim that 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 or she should be allowed to build there.
Staff again suggests that a final "out" for applicants whose projects do not satisfy
either the basic rules or codified exceptions to them can be found in RPVMC
§ 17.76.040.E.10, which provides as follows:
"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
8
d. Departure from the standards of sub sec t ion (E)(9) of t his section will
not be detrimenta l to the publ ic safety n or to oth er property."
As suggested above , 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. §17.76.040.E.10 , itself
an exception to an exception , provides the director or the Planning Commission
with discretion to address truly unusual situations and minor deviations from the
basic rules. Just because an applicant disagrees with that exercise of discretion
cannot rise to the level of creating a right to have a project approved.
As stated at the outset of this letter, the instant application was denied by the
Planning Commission ( 1) because the building is proposed entirely on a slope that
is considerably in ex cess of that which is permitted by the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code ("RPVMC"), and (2) because the extensive grading sought does
not satisfy the RPVMC 's requirements for a Major Grading Permit. If the Code
were interpreted as suggested by Staff, the director would in effect have subjective
discretion to wholly disregard the objective criteria contained in the statute .
Granting the present application would not only give this Applicant an ultimate
privilege consistently denied to all other residents in the City , it would set a bad
precedent for our City 's fragile topography.
Respectfully submitted,
William J . James
Planning Commissioner
9
From:
Sent:
FAY DAVOODIAN < mfsbd@cox.net >
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11 :41 AM
To:
Cc:
Eric Alegria; David Bradley; John Cruikshank; Barbara Ferraro; Ken Dyda; CityClerk
jmpotter@gmail.com
Subject:
Attachments:
Additional comments associated with public hearing item #1 -Sep 7th 2021
30506 PV Drive West Concerns -Davoodian's -September 7.pdf
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos \le~des.
Dear Mayor Alegria, Mayor Pro Tern Bradley and Councilmembers:
We appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing the proposed site plans at 30504 PV Drive West as well
as our concerns as the nearest neighbors at 30506 PV Drive West.
In the past couple days we received questions and comments regarding some of our concerns. Attached is our attempt
to provide more specific details including pictures to try and resolve any outstanding questions. Please let us know if
there is anything else that may help.
We look forward to speaking at the meeting via Zoom tonight and hearing your thoughts.
Thank you,
Fay Davoodian
1 /.
Michael & Fay Davoodian
30506 Palos Verdes Drive West
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
September 07, 2021
VIA EMAIL: eric.alegria@rpvca.gov, david. bradley@rpvca.gov, John. Cruikshank@rpvca.gov,
barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov, ken.dyda@rpvca.gov, cityclerk@rpvca.gov, jyoon@rpvca.gov,
krukavina@rpvca.gov
Re: Case No. PLGR2019-0025
Property Address: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West
Applicant: Luis De Morales, Envirotechno Architecture Inc.
Owner: David Haas
Dear Mayor Alegria, Mayor Pro Tern Bradley and Councilmembers:
We wanted to recap some of the points that may have not been clear in our previous letter and
also provide more information pertaining to issues that are important to us.
Existing lot configuration and conditions
When we purchased our home almost two decades ago we were aware that at some point in the
future a house may be built on the vacant lot at 30504. To this day we still do not have concerns
about the building of 30504 as long as our property remains safe and stable and we are able to
enjoy our home and private yards without excessive and unreasonable privacy violations.
Anyone living in our home would want the same, including the owners of 30504 if the roles were
reversed.
Likewise, when the owners of 30504 bought the property 2 years ago they should have been
aware of the easement settlement agreement between us and the previous owners (Haddad's)
which was completed over 6 years ago. As part of this agreement, the Haddad's were financially
compensated by us in order to make the existing configuration legal through providing an
easement on their property for our use. All of this negotiation and legal work was completed by
the Haddad's and us in February of 2015.
In the Staff Report, a justification was made that the 30504 roof deck is reasonable because there
is no room for a yard. Since the owners of 30504 were aware of the lot configuration, I have to
assume they made the decision to maximize the house footprint to the setbacks in each direction
in order to maximize square footage, forgoing space for a yard. However, this maximized
footprint directly causes the problem of not having room for a yard. The approach of creating a
problem for the purpose of benefiting from the problem is questionable and sets a troubling
precedence. In fact, the previous owners of 30504 had plans approved where there was a yard
including a pool. This shows that if something is important it can be accomplished in the design.
1
Extreme slope and associated RPVMC
This lot was split in 1967 when houses were 1,400-1,800 square feet. It goes without saying that
in 1967 a house of 4,500+ square feet was never envisioned on this lot. Because this lost was
split prior to 1975, it is "allowed on extreme slopes provided construction will not threaten the
public health, safety and welfare" (RPVMC 17.48.060(G)). However, I don't believe a date
alone provides a license to be in non-compliance with RPVMC. If this were the case these types
of lots would be highly sought after by developers because they would be allowed to ignore
sections of RPVMC for their own benefit, while potentially causing harm to the health, safety
and welfare of the surrounding properties.
Ironically, current RPVMC states:
• 17.76.060 -Extreme slope permits are required to build decks and flagpoles only when
they are found to not have adverse impacts having to do with slope instability, etc ..
• 17.76.040(E)(9)(d) -No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50 percent
gradient
I do not know the full history as to why 17.76.060 and 17.76.040(E)(9)(d) were proposed and
adopted into the RPVMC. However, it is not hard to imagine that these were specifically added
to protect the safety of people, property and the RPV neighborhoods. To know that an extreme
slope permit is required to install a flag pole or satellite dish that has little to zero possibility of
negatively harming people or property, yet a 4,500+ square foot house is exempt is mind
boggling at best.
In the staff report there are some gradient percentages and diagrams which I want to recap and
discuss.
• Staff report page 4, bottom paragraph states " ... with extreme slopes (i.e. 35% or greater)
throughout the site averaging 49.6 % ... ". This is clearly stated as a site average, not an
average on the buildable portion (lot minus setbacks). The northern portion of the 30504
lot has the least aggressive slope (in some places 0%) but unfortunately this portion is
outside of the buildable footprint. Given this, the average slope on the buildable
portion is well above 50%. In the end this buildable slope average is more important
then the average across the site where building will never occur. To date, no buildable
average slope has been shared with the public.
• Staff report page 15, image copied below for convenience: This image highlights the
buildable portion of the lot within a green border. The colors represent slope steepness
within the buildable area.
2
Buildablt> ArN
Outside o r Setbacks
OVER 50%
[ Figure 1) Tota l
Recapping the key from the diagram correlating steepness with buildable area
percentage ...
Percentage of buildable area Slope steepness
(gradient)
2.9% Below 35%
42 .1% Between 35%-50%
55% Above 55%
Perce ntage
2.9%
42.1%
55%
100%
Given this information, essentially the entire buildable area (97.1 %) is compromised of
extreme slope or worse. The majority (55%) of the buildable slope is above 50% in
steepness . If ex treme slope is defined as 35% or greater, what is the definition of a slope
greater than 50%? I didn 't find a definition in the RPVMC (I propose insane slope
personally), but what is clear is that the code as written says again that:
• "No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope ex ceeding 50 percent gradient" -
17. 76.0 4 0(E)(9)( d)
3
• I have to imagine that this code was not written as a nuisance or temporary hurdle
to potential builders, but instead was carefully crafted and adopted to protect
people, property and the RPV neighborhoods.
• Below are additional details of the slope gradient using the topography submitted by the
applicants and performed by Denn engineering. Images below show a 10ft by 10ft grid
on top of the topography and the average gradient for each grid section. Although the grid
spans the entire lot, the proposed house footprint is also shown to better illustrate where
this specific property requires grading to support the proposed structure.
4
RC< "'"' lPERTY CORH£R
5
11«3002
>PERTY OORH£R
Image 2: Outline of proposed house footprint on top of the
topography.
6
Image 3: 10ft by 10ft grid on top of the topography. Green grid
sections indicate an average gradient below 30%.
7
"",.,..
JPERTV CORN[R
Between
I
I
I
I
0/o -40°/o
fl) 2"1P.
0.25' 'if'LY OF COONDt
Image 4: Yellow grid sections indicate an average gradient
between 30% and 40%.
8
Between
40% -SOo/o
9
,:? Grid I
I
{
I
I
I
I
= lOftxlOft , slope is ave rage within grid
...,4?p ,,
Between
Oo/o -60%
FO 2• l,P.
0.2.5' ffLY OF' CORNER
10
? Gr,id = l0ftxl0ft; slope is average within g r id
/ ,-,·
I ,,
I
I
I ·eetween
60% -7Qo/o
I
I \.,.. \ :J, \
/
I ,,•
/ 'b
I I,
I I
Image 7: Red grid sections indicate an average gradient between
60% and 70%.
11
-~·/' ~ ..• sq' L4'1 ,Nef: Jg~
:/·1,1 ·:_ f~l~~~ ... c~. ' ... ·:·:yJ\!f(:
~ .. , .
·•\\~:'/e,
OCNC
·~;,~~ ;~_t·:;:~·~,
\{{~
-.. . d ,~· G r,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
= l0ftxl0ft, slope is average within grid
,,;," ,,
Between
I
70% -80o/o
I
I
I
I ' ,.
I I t 1 I • \ I
/
I ,,•. I ,~
I ~
! I f'O 2" l,P,
0.25' -1,u • Of C~Ut
Image 8: Purple grid sections indicate an average gradient
between 70% and 80%.
12
?Gr,id
I
I
I
I
I
I
= l0ftxl0ft, slope is average within grid -~· ,,
Between I I 80% -90°/o
I
I
I
I
/ ,...
/ / ,,,.. ,,., ... ,., -:,'b
ror1I'.
Q.15' NN'LY or COONtR
/~~i;,
Image 9: Black grid sections indicate an average gradient
between 80% and 90%.
13
It is extremely clear from the information above that the proposed structure requires
grading on slopes well above 50%, which is seemingly not just a simple variance. This
proposed structure entirely sits on slopes well above 50% and in specific cases, such as
the back retaining wall, cuts through a significant amount of hillside where the slopes are
between 70% and 90% (purple and black sections in Image 9 above).
I trust that the RPVMC has been carefully crafted to allow safe building that prevents
harm to the health, safety and welfare of the RPV community. I can imagine that each
code has been debated for countless hours with pros and cons to each item. However, the
code as written today is very clear again that:
• "No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50 percent gradient" -
17. 76.040(E)(9)( d)
If the grading proposed on the steep slope of 30504 is considered a variance then the
precedence that is set forth will be simply devastating to all of RPV. As the ultimate
caretakers of the RPV municipal code I know that City Council will make the right
decision for it's residents.
Lastly, if the intent of the authors of 17.76.040(E)(9)(d) was to provide a cautionary, nice
to have goal post, then the wording would have not been written in such a strong binary
manner (No __ SHALL be permitted when exceeding __ ).
Privacy Concerns
The configuration of the lot and the proposed plans create extensive and unreasonable privacy
violations to the majority of areas of our house and private outdoor areas. For the past two
decades we have relied on this privacy and expect that everything possible within reason will be
done to maintain this privacy. For a simple comparison, the plans of the previous owners of
30504 (Haddad's) did not have a southern facing balcony at all and the main living area was
away from our house, towards the northern portion of the lot, which helped provide some sense
of separation given the lot configuration.
In previous Planning Commission meetings we brought up the major offender of our privacy, the
678 square foot roof deck/balcony. We offered several alternatives that would improve the
extensive privacy violations to our property, but none were acted on. However, the site plans of
30504 were modified to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors on Via Cambron, which in
comparison is much further away in distance then our house. In the very last revision of the plans
there was a proposed strip of foliage/hedges/shrubs (see Image 10). However, I want to expand
on how this affects our privacy.
14
w z
J
~
ffi I ~ I _[t -
-I -------
--1 ·-·-·-·-·-·-·--. i-. :-_: :-_: :-=..: = :-_: :-J ~ :-'
~ I <OR
I
=i=l6
I
t:Tr
i
w
w z
J oz > ~ J CfW'.lf.l!l:HtC 1-
> Q A~~ ffiJ_.-
1-<( I 1,1.lLOt«:.-LNf.-........... ~ I Zm• ~,o
~li;I ~-+--~ •· """'~-/ [ I
lL<J a,,o"°"'="'~="""""a,':,:_:',,-._ -~N~.,-:__ _ _ _ _ -•-•-_,_,
. -:--· =:...:..:=-=:e!IC:i t=.c..::::i::...:..:=-~-1-----+---+--------., ~-=------. -. --. -. -. -. -v,. • ,....,.,..., -.,,,,,. .
!_:-+_,::_::-,-_ ::m---,r--+,r:-=,:=c:r--+r-t::-t=::-,-. ::_::-,-::_::-:-=-:-::t-:-=:-:-:=.c: _=_c: -l'f·l'.~----. -t ~: =-: =-: =-: ! ,
. -, .
I
I ~--· I
-·---------1 ---1
I
I
lNfOF~AllJIW..€..ll~l'lfC.(S(J.J:£. I
I
I
I ______________ _____! -. -
i I
\ I
I I
·=l=:=:= =:=:_·_ i
I I
: t
l I
: t : . b
~
b
6
_____ -~ -------~ ------. -~ L<Yf;:~VEWL ~~-= h-=-=-= ~ ~~ ~~c::_~ c::_ -=c-=-=-=-=-=-= ~ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-=-= ~-=~-=~-= ~ £NTRYLML HL ~--I I
: I :
I I
I I
I I FINIISH SURFACES
b
~
b
!'.!
: : I
: I I El 9.tOO'TM 'IHTESl\.CCO FtM:3-i-
ANA.L SF'EC:I TO FO..l.0/J
f:'1 J,WMl"'-ttA 90«0 WG'M. 'NOOOLNAIKAJE L!J AN:3H
El PAJffi'ED ,,ET.&l. CAP
0 rEMPERmCt.,1,SSRM.-..0
El PANTEOtAETALFA.9CtJ,
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCAL..E..-11J.• =1·.cr
Image 10: Per the south elevation drawings, a 16 ft. tall hedge/shrub/foliage will obscure the bottom 2
feet of the glass railing. An average height person will stand roughly 3-4 feet above any foliage and
roughly 2 feet above the proposed railing height (see Image 13 for more details).
15
There are two perspectives to consider when looking at the privacy views. Views from people
that are standing on the roof deck in proximity to the railing, and views from people further back
on the roof deck or within the interior of 30504.
• Views through the glass railing: The hedge/shrub/foliage is potentially helpful in
blocking views through the balcony glass railing into the interior of 30504 or to people
sitting further back on the balcony (for instance the two couches by the fireplace, see
Image 11 below or pg 116 of staff report for details on balcony configuration). If the
hedge/shrub/foliage is allowed to grow, this would be roughly similar to the railing being
stucco. If the hedges/shrubs are trimmed to maintain views then we are back at square
one with the question of what privacy will it provide? One aggressive trim by the
gardener and privacy is gone. As far as I know there is no way to say a hedge/shrub
height of X feet tall must be maintained. A stucco wall in this case represents a
permanent solution from views through the balcony railing.
0 In the staff report, renderings of views from the roof deck were provided by the
applicant (pg 17 of the staff report and copied as Image 12 below). However, several
of these views are misleading to the benefit of 30504 and overestimate the actual
privacy benefits. Taking a closer look at rendering #1, #2 and #3, these are all taken
such that the balcony railing cuts across the mid to top half of the image. In order to
have this perspective in real life, someone would need to be crouching down to the
point where this railing cuts across the vertical midpoint of their view. For this
specific case it would mean that a person's head is roughly 44 inches above the roof
deck flooring, while also standing back from the edge of the railing. If an average
height adult was standing at these points in the renderings the balcony railing would
not be visible as seen in perspective B in Image 13 below.
• Views from people standing/using the balcony: The hedge/shrub/foliage does not
provide privacy when people are standing on the balcony in proximity to the railing (see
Image 11). Using a general assumption that an average adult height is 5ft to 6ft, a person
standing at or close to the railing would appear several feet above the balcony railing and
hedge/shrub height. This is especially important since the proposed balcony
configuration has placed a built-in BBQ and three stool bar directly in this south/west
corner. I have to assume that this corner will become a location where people gather,
cook, eat and enjoy conversation. In order to provide privacy in this use case, something
taller would be needed to obscure views. From looking at the plans and tarp on the site it
looks like taller hedges/shrubs is not an option due to maximum height regulations
(<16ft). Something taller would also potentially obstruct their southern views. At the end
of the day if these views look over the private side yard and backyard of our house then
there will always be competing claims of privacy vs. views. Given this lot configuration
and the current plans, there is no easy way to have both southern views from 30504 and
privacy at 30506. In earlier planning commission meetings we asked if the balcony could
be scaled down, moved or removed to provide a solution, however nothing was done.
Given that one of the owners (Ann) told us on Sunday September 5th that the southern
views are less important than the westerly views, it seems reasonable that solution in the
architectural/design space is available to solve this problem.
16
,,_
I '
(::~=-::---
~ -00-
-........ --~--
-~-:~;;t~~:.;;.
✓-----------
:,: ____ ======:,~:;
---------
------,
---I -, I
LJ
□ O!NlNGR~
PROPERTY
CO RN ER
-.~ \\
l
\~
\ ~ ~~
----.~~J \\ ii~ 121 .95
Image 11: Average height adults standing within the red area of the roof
deck will have line of sight visibility to private side yard and backyard
even with a stucco railing or the proposed hedges/shrubs/foliage.
17
3 05 0 6 Side Ya r d from 3 0504 Dec k
3 05 0 6 Side Yard w ith Railing
305 06 Side Yard and Back Yard from Dec k w ith
landscaping screening .
View from the seatin g area
on the deck.
Image 12: Applicants provided rendering . #1, #2, and #3 overestimate actual
privacy due to the perspective/height in which they represent.
Green box represents shrub height 2ft
above roof deck floor
A B
Red topped post represents silohuette and railing height
Image 13: Perspective A is equivalent to rendering #1, #2, and #3 from image 12.
An average height standing adult will have perspective B which will look over top
the foliage/hedge/shrub and have clear views to private yards of 30506.
18
Conclusion
We trust that City Council will look at all of the information and make a decision that provides
the health, safety and welfare that the RPV community expects. We trust that even though this
lot was split before 1975 doesn't mean it gets a free pass when it is clearly and excessively
violating RPVMC. We trust that City Council stands behind and protects the carefully crafted
code and regulations and we appreciate that each code has been debated for countless hours in
order to allow for reasonable and safe building.
This project is of great concern to the safety and well being of our property which is our primary
residence and home we have lived in for nearly two decades. We share this home with our family
and loved ones who visit to make memories and cherish special moments as family.
The totality of this project and the unresolved issues below continue to make us believe that this
project on this lot configuration given the current RPVMC should be denied.
• Grading on slopes well above 50%, it would be great to have the average slope
percentage of the actual buildable portion of the lot.
• Complete removal of all trees on the 30504 property which currently contribute to
hillside stability.
• Inadequate water drainage plan which has a direct impact on the hillside stability and
potential water damage to our house. Water issues on a steep slope is a recipe for disaster.
• The proposed structure does not fit within the neighborhood, including large roof deck
and general style (flat face, flat roof, horizontally accentuated design features)
• Excessive and unreasonable privacy violations into nearly every window and private yard
of our house.
• 332 square foot ADU from original plans was claimed to be eliminated but in all actuality
it was renamed to "Crawl Space". In the current plans it maintains an exterior window &
door and interior door for future conversion. Although this doesn't currently count
towards habitable space, it does reflect the true size of this house at 4,682 square feet plus
the 678 square foot roof deck making it the largest house in the immediate neighborhood.
• 555 cu yd of export grading is equivalent to 50 dump trucks worth hauled down the
narrow shared ingress/egress easement likely causing damage
• Construction crews and equipment will without a doubt block our only entrance/exit
hampering our ability to access our home or worse blocking required emergency access.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing the material and look forward to the
meeting and discussion tonight.
Thank you,
Michael and Fay Davoodian
19
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
C A-,tf)Yl"~Ov ~
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:57 PM
CityClerk
Comments on 30504 PV Dr West Proposed Build for City Council meeting ...
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Comments on 30504 PV Dr West Proposed Build for City Council meeting Sept 7, 2021
We support all of the concerns that were voiced by the Planning Commissioner's at the previous Planning Commission
review of the proposed project. We also still support the concerns that the concerned neighbor's had commented upon
in the previous communications.
A) The Biologist report was originally based on a habitat dynamic, which has changes greatly in the 14 plus years since it
was originally contracted for. The current biologist report implies that it is an update of the previous report, not a
completely new assessment of the environmental dynamics of the build site and the surrounding areas. It appears to be
defective or incomplete if not inaccurate for the following reasons:
1) There is an abundance of sage scrub, with is nesting habitat for the protected California Gnatcatcher, on the property
adjoining the build site. Sage scrub is also present in abundance across PW Dr West in the preserved areas, some of
which are within 500' of the proposed build. The biologist report 2006 or current does not acknowledge these
elements. Report also does not acknowledge the removal of 14+ tall pine trees from the surrounding neighborhood,
which had provided habit during the time prior to the current {updated from 2006) biology report.
2) The report also does not make recommendations to mitigate impact upon wildlife, including the legacy Redtail Hawk
mating pair that currently has an active nest with a brood of 2 offspring.
3) Considering the proximity to the build and the surrounding vital habitat of the build within the canyon combined with
the extended length of the construction time of the project and the wind flow up the canyon, tall perimeter fencing to
contain the construction debris should be called for.
4) Since the original environmental report was acquired in approx. 2006 more than 14 tall pine trees have been removed
from the Via Cambron/PV Dr West neighborhood. Thus, the biologist report, which was first created over 14 years ago is
an incomplete resource for analysis of the wildlife concerns.
B) Extreme Slope Concerns still have not been answered to confirm that there is not a potential threat to stability and
risk of harm to surrounding properties on this extreme slope proposed build.
C) Comments had suggested that the all of glass railings be change of stucco to give privacy to both all of the property
owns in line of sight of one-another no the build. The project owners choose to only add stucco to the small portion of
their decks that face their own master bedroom from their own outdoor deck. Leaving all of the rest of the railing in
glass, which continues to promise to deny protecting the privacy of 5 neighbors with the same stucco railing instead of
glass railing.
D) Is the extreme slope lot a valid lot to build upon.
Please redact personal information.
1 I.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Irene Robinson <ivyvine1@aol.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:14 PM
CityClerk
Coyote Concerns in Palos Verdes -SAFETY
AUTION: 1Tlil is ema il afl ir11 ati ed from outside of the Cit of Ran cho Palos Verdes.
I have the following concerns with the exploding coyote population that is overtaking our
residential areas.
In my opinion, the #1 highest priority we are facing with the growing coyote population
is LACK of SAFETY. We, as property owners, are no longer able to use own
property/backyards for our own families and family pets SAFELY. I fear for the safety of
my grandchildren and family pets on a daily basis which has become very stressful. Even
when I'm outside watching over my pets, I do not feel safe. Coyotes are known to jump
in and out of our backyards grab and kill our pets within minutes. The only way to
protect our pets outside is to keep them on a short leash or stand over them with a golf
club and a can of bear spray; this is no way to live on a daily basis. When a family pet is
killed by a coyote, it's very traumatic for the entire household; especially young children
who can't understand what happened to their beloved pet cats or dogs. Hearing and
reading about multi pets being killed by coyotes on a weekly basis is out-of-control and
very heartbreaking.
We are currently asked to lock up our pets inside the house to keep them safe. Locking
up our pets, so these dangerous predators can have access to come and go in our
backyards is "unacceptable" and has gone too far. Our children and pets deserve the
"freedom, exercise and fresh air" that has now been taken away from them. It's also
unsafe to walk small to medium size dogs any time of the day, unless we are again
armed with protective equipment, sprays or horns.
If these dangerous coyotes were domestic dogs jumping over our fences into our
backyards killing our family pets, they would be taken to the pound and eternized; no
questions asked. These wild coyotes should be treated the same way; they are
dangerous predators killing our pets for their next meal with no end in sight.
It is not uncommon for coyotes to attack young children even with their parents close
by; let's not let this happen in our neighborhoods .
Thank you,
Irene
(Montemalaga -PVE)
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy Ganahl <diamondheadnan@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:18 PM
CityClerk
coyotes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have given up reporting sightings. It is a daily thing. They like my yard either during the day or more frequently in early
evening. They even defecate in my rose garden! There are often 3 at a time cavorting in my back yard.
It is scary to realize they've come through 10 minutes after my friend was in the yard. I am slow moving and feel I need
to carry a weapon to defend myself. Not a way to live. Do something!!
Thank you,
Nancy Ganahl
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
anna Brown <annamariew36@hotmail.com >
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1 :55 PM
CityClerk
Tonight's City Meeting -Coyote Management
CAUTION: lfhis email arl lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
My husband, 11-year-old dog, Lola and I moved to the area in December and I've never before experienced a
wildlife situation this far out of control. I see posts daily on NextDoor showing emboldened coyotes stalking
pets and houses and read stories of violent attacks from our terrorized community of pet owners and
concerned citizens. To merely walk outside of my house with my dog I am always poised and ready to fire my
pepper spray and animal attack prevention horn. I feel it's necessary to stay at my dog's side and look around
for predators constantly when I am in my backyard, even during the day; Lola no longer enjoys the freedom of
a leisurely sniff or to wander out of sight in her gated backyard. Though I love the community, I am saddened
by the lack of centralized planning to get this situation under control. Citizens should not have to live in fear
of coyotes hunting their dogs in front of them in broad daylight in their own backyard and the scars this
traumatic experience will leave them with.
Please do what is necessary to get this situation under control and return us to a balance with nature; right
now the balance favors coyotes over pets and residents.
Anna Brown
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Laura Kendall <lkendallmd@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1 :33 PM
CityClerk
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello, I have comments I would like to be heard at tonights city council meeting:
Her name was Kelly Keen, and she was only 3 years old when a coyote grabbed her out of her front yard in Glendale, CA
and dragged her away, and despite her parents' heroic attempts to save her, she succumbed to her injuries and
died . Yes, that was a long time ago in 1981, but the danger is even more real today in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am a mother to a 3 year old and a 5 year old and stories like this are so chilling to me. Especially now that my next
door neighbor recently sighted a coyote in their backyard only a couple of months ago. Across the street from us, our
neighbor's cat was brutally massacred, leaving only it's head for the poor owner to discover the next day.
I have a baseball bat, pepper spray, and a blow horn. Still, this will not be enough if I'm not in the right place at the right
time. Coyotes kill small animals, AND small children. They are becoming increasingly emboldened and unafraid of
people. The city of RPV NEEDS to do something drastic about this now, before more pets and children become victims
to their attacks. PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!!
Laura Kendall, MD
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:07 PM
Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW : COYOTES: See my new Ring video!
From: Kathryn Johnstone <KathyJohnstone@outlook.com >
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 202112 :02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Bill James <billandkathyjames@msn.com>
Subject: COYOTES: See my new Ring video!
CAUTION: This email orl inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The attached Ring Video shows three coyotes in our backyard last night -3517 Palo Vista Drive. Coyotes in the
back yard have become so common, I have not been reporting the sightings lately.
Check out this video I captured on my Ring device .
https ://ring.com/share/558486fa -6c90 -4d7a -aa85-c7b3d21cfe09
Sent from my iPhone
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debbie Taylor <debtaylorrealtor@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10 :39 AM
CityClerk
Coyotes
CAUTION : This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
We feel the coyote population needs to be culled . We know a few residents in our neighborhood who have lost pets
that have been killed by coyotes . We have been awakened by the screams of an animal being killed by coyotes . We are
anxious about letting our dog go into our backyard alone despite it being fenced in . Nextdoor has reported accounts of
over 100 incidents of coyotes showing up in private yards both day and night as well as multitudes of pets having been
killed by coyotes. THIS MUST STOP! Governments in surrounding states and communities have been culling wolves and
deer for decades, for the benefit of the population and to prevent starvation. It's time to listen to the community!
Thank you.
Dan and Debbie Taylor
Debbie Taylor
Realtor
1-310-994-4848
debtaylorrealtor@gmail.com
CalBRE 01778726
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Sarah,
Rudy Monroy
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:58 AM
sarahhummert@gmail.com
CC; CityClerk
RE: Coyote Issue
The City is in receipt of your correspondence below. It will be provided to City Council as late correspondence regarding
the status update on the City's coyote management strategies that will be considered at tonight's September 7th
meeting.
Thank you,
Rudy Monroy
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
D (310} 544-5296
rmonroy@rpvca.gov
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: Sarah Haas <sarahhummert@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 20214:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyote Issue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello,
I moved to Lunada Bay in April and am extremely disturbed by the amount of coyote activity in the area.
I have seen two coyotes in broad daylight while walking with my infant and toddler. We hear packs of them howling at
night and poor animals screaming when being caught. And dozens of neighbors report losing pets and seeing them as
well.
1
I don't feel comfortable in my own fenced yard with my children or dogs. At night when I take my dogs to go to the
bathroom my husband carries a BB gun.
Frankly I'm terrified for my family's safety and something needs to be done before more animals are hurt or before a
child is mauled.
Please eradicate the coyotes at any means This is a neighborhood white miles of neighborhood around it. We are not in
a rural area.
Please advise me on how to make a greater impact on this situation.
Best,
Sarah Haas
Sent from my iPhone
2
From: Rudy Monroy
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:23 AM
Kathy Snell
Cc:
Subject:
CC; Ara Mihranian; Ken Rukavina; CityClerk
RE: Coyote Management Plan Report
Hi Kathy,
The City is in receipt of your correspondence below. It will be provided to City Council as late correspondence
regarding the status update on the City's coyote management strategies that will be considered at tonight's
September 7th meeting .
Kind regards,
Rudy Monroy
Code Enforcement Officer
t:i' City of Rancho Palos Verdes
D {310} 544-5296
rmonroy@rpvca.gov
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.
I Do11 n l11,H t on Hu•
• AppStore
C,fl 110:0.
. • Google Play
From: Kathy Snell <ksnell0001@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 202110:18 PM
To: Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Fwd: Coyote Management Plan Report
1
CAUTION: lf flis email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Correcting email
From: Kathy Snell <ksnel10001@aol.com >
Date: September 6, 2021 at 10:13:23 PM PDT
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >, Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov>, rmonroy@rpvca.org ,
"ksnell0001@aol.com " <ksne1I0001@aol.com >
Subject: Coyote Management Plan Report
Agenda 9/7/2021
RPV City Council members and City's staff have been facing coyotes killing pets and overpopulating for
more than 20 years with NO success.
RPV needs to immediately hire as many private trappers available, paying a premium, AND investigate
the use of birth control for coyotes like the Catalina Conservancy uses on the bison.
Many of the coyote specialists who wanted residents to coexist with coyotes have been discredited by
the aggressive behavior of the new, bigger and bolder urban coyote and coy-dogs. When your staff
wants the coyote population in the Preserve monitored so the other vermin population doesn't
increase, apparently they missed the fact the coyote population is out of control.
Attached is an interesting letter from 2002 from the then city manager to a resident complaining about
coyotes killing pets. If RPV had taken appropriate action in 2002, or any year thereafter, coyotes would
have not been allowed to overpopulate and kill so many pets.
Thank you,
Kathy Snell.
2
November 14, 2002
Jack Downhill
20 Vanderlip Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
·oear ivir. Downhill:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
Thank you for your letter dated October 31 st regarding your concern about
coyotes roaming in the Portuguese Bend area.
I've asked my staff to investigate the matter with California Fish and Game, local
animal authorities and the City of Rolling Hills. Before I share our findings with
you, keep in mind that coyotes are ever present throughout Los Angels County,
including more urbanized areas than Rancho Palos Verdes. Coyotes, like
raccoons, possums, and skunks have learned to adapt to living near humans. As
a result these animals are attracted to the easy accessibility of food, water and
shelter.
In your letter you mention that you suspect coyotes may have attacked one or
more small animals or pets in your neighborhood during the night. According to
Inspector Mark Adams with the Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture, a
coyote sighting at dusk, dawn, or in the middle of the night is not considered a
significant public safety risk, but normal and expected. Coyotes are most active
and preying on 8.nima!s at those times. !f yol! had witnessed a coyote in your
driveway killing a cat in the middle of the day, that would be an example of
brazen coyote behavior to raise public concern. I understand your concern for
the neighborhood's safety, however I strongly feel that the presence of coyotes
roaming your neighborhood at night is neither a public safety risk nor warrants
mass trapping and killing of coyotes. It's the City's practice to encourage
residents to be responsible about eliminating any attractive food sources, such
as fallen fruit, securing garbage lids and keeping the pet food and pet indoors at
night. To my knowledge, there has not been a serious coyote incident during the
past five years I've been City Manager. Each year, the City typically receives at
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 / FAX (310) 544-5291
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
Printed on Recycled Paper
November 14, 2002
Downhill
Page 2 of 2
most three reports on either coyote sightings or suspicion of coyotes preying on
small pets.
The coyote scenario in City of Rolling Hills appears to have been unique to
Rolling Hills. According to the City Manager of Rolling Hills, there were
increased citizen reports of more brazen coyote behavior and frequent sightings
during the middle of the day. As a result, the City contracted with the County
Agriculture Department for trapping services. During the summer, the County
trapped and killed a total of four coyotes in four months. In addition, the City
instructed its residents to follow strict measures of eliminating food sources,
keeping petslnaoors and constructing appropriate fences. As of the end of
October, the City discontinued coyote trapping, since coyote behavior has
returned to normal and the number of sightings has diminished.
If you wish, the City can arrange to have Mark Adams or another specialist speak
before your Homeowners Association about coyotes and how to discourage or
prevent visitations. If you haven't already done so you may want to ask Mark
Adams to inspect your property and surrounding areas. For more information
about coyotes, I recommend visiting the County Animal Control Department
website; there is helpful information about living with wildlife under "Managing
Urban/Suburban Coyote Problems" at http://animalcontrol.co.la.ca.us.
It makes sense for residents to learn how to coexist with local animal
populations, since these animals, coyotes included, are also permanent
inhabitants of the semi-rural environment you enjoy on the Peninsula.
If you need further assistance obtaining information about coyotes, please
contact Gina Park in my office at 544-5206.
Les Evans
City Manager
C: City Council
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:18 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: Coyote management
From: Michelle Milam <shellymilam4@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:10 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Coyote management
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To whom it may concern at the RPV city council,
I would like to go on record to formally request that the coyotes in our area be removed. Remove them in whatever way
is acceptable to you, but do not let this problem continue.
It is no longer an acceptable situation when neighbors are literally buying protective gear for their pets to go outside in
their own backyards to relieve themselves. We have a right to have pets and we have a right to have our pets be safe in
our own backyards. Our city has multiple pet deaths per day now and it is not acceptable. Hearing cat and dogs wailing
while being killed in our community is just terrible and it is incomprehensible for me to think that the city doesn't care
enough to do what is right about the situation. My in-laws have lived here for over 50 years now, and they know
firsthand that the coyote situation has never ever been as bad as it is today. Is the city waiting for a small child to be
attacked by a coyote before RPV responds to the coyotes correctly? The lawsuit from a family with an injured or killed
child will cost the city an indescribable sum of money! Please remove these animals now and save our pets, our children,
& your own bank accounts.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Shelly Milam
RPV resident for 27 years
1 J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Eva Albuja, <eva.albuja@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:08 AM
CityClerk
Coyotes out of control
AUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Clerk
The coyotes are out of control. There are too many of them. Please assist with any of the following solutions.
1) move them out just like the city did with the peacocks. (I wanted the peacocks to stay but that didn't happen) The
coyotes are causing a larger problem than peacocks ever did.
2) any ones left behind should be sterile to keep the population down
I am tired of seeing them on the streets, backyards, parks and public areas 24 hours of the day . There's too many of
them and our pets and kids need protection. Thank you Eva
EvaAlbuja
310-351-3113
South Bay Property Advisors, Inc.
Broker Representing Residential,
Commercial, & Investors Since 1993
Cal BRE # 01156226
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
GAURI RAO <gaurinrao4@gmail.com>
Monday, September 6, 2021 11 :26 PM
CityClerk
Gauri Rao
Coyote Management plan
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit at Ra mc ho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV Council members
I have lived in Palos Verdes both as a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills
Estates since 1982. I am a contributing member of the RPV HOA of Mesa Palos Verdes. I have also
served on their Board as a Zone leader. I am writing to voice my concern about the Human and
Coyotes confrontations that are increasingly dangerous in and around the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.
We did not have encounters with Coyotes the way we do now and nor did we see these many pets
disappear up until almost 4-5 years ago.
On Saturday September 4th, at around 9:20PM, two large adult coyotes ran through my front
garden through my driveway where my vehicle was parked. I was helping my elderly sibling who
has trouble walking, get into my vehicle, when two coyotes appeared. One ran away, but the other
came around from some bushes I have bordering my property. I was terrified since I had not
helped my sibling yet inside of the vehicle. This second coyote stood for a moment and looked at
me. I had to resort to hazing because he was very close and I was afraid. I literally had to push
my sister in, and run to the driver's side to get in and escape in case this animal chose to come
any closer. I have reported this incident on your Coyote Sighting Website.
This is not a good sign for those of us who are not too swift on our feet. We have a lot of senior
neighbors in this area who are in their upper 70's and 80's and possibly unsteady on their feet.
Many of them have dogs and cats as pets and are used to walking them outside. I fear for their
animals as well as their persons.
This confrontation between Humans and Wildlife is getting to be too frequent and too close for
comfort. I heard a couple coyotes catch a cat in my yard several months ago. It is gut wrenching to
hear the deathly screams. The sounds haunt you and are very traumatizing.
I see and hear of a lot more pets being attacked and killed by Coyotes now than ever before. We
have had large Dogs and cats for over 50 years, but now I am afraid to adopt any dogs or cats as
therapy for my family due to this fear of coyotes attacking our loved animals.
It is high time that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in tandem with Rolling Hills Estates, and
Rolling Hills, do more than Data gathering of Coyote sighting and mapping them. It does no good
to just collect such Data if you are not going to take Action on these killings and vicious (to us
humans) attacks on pets.
I am requesting the city do active trapping, culling or even sterilizing the coyotes so that their
population is not exploding. I don't think the city would want to be held accountable for not
1
having done enough to prevent other human-animal confrontations that may bode further harm to
the residents.
Thank You.
Gauri Rao
29203, Stonecrest Road
Rolling Hills Estates
90275
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lisa Harden <hardenl@pvpusd.net>
Monday, September 6, 2021 10 :52 PM
CityClerk
Coyotes please read at meeting Sept 7th
CAUTION: This email ori irit at ed from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
We have lived on the hill for 40 years and have never seen a coyote until 1 year ago . We've seen them at 8pm at night
running down the street, at 9:30pm walking up the street and at 11pm trotting down the street. If that wasn't enough,
just 2 months ago, there were 2 in our backyard at 9:30am in the morning . You would expect them at night, but to see
them in our yard in the morning really disturbed us . We have a small dog that we are constantly nervous about letting in
our own backyard! In the evenings we both go out with an air horn, heavy flashlight and cane in hand in case we
encounter one . Its not fair that our pets cannot enjoy their own yards without being attacked or eaten. Its not fair to
have fear to let our pets do their business or just to enjoy the sunshine. Nearly every day we seem to read about
another family pet being taken away by a coyote . Enough is enough! Its time that something needs to be done. Thank
you for your time. Bill and Lisa Harden
Get Outlook for Android
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jennifer d <jenniferinla1@gmail.com>
Monday, September 6, 2021 10:42 PM
CityClerk
coyote plan meeting 9-7-21
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
Please publish or read my comment for the meeting:
I have lived in RPV and Rolling HIiis Estates for 20 years.
The coyotes have been increasingly aggressive. When I was out with my dog, a small maltipoo, recently, a coyote was
stalking us . It got too close to us and I had to pick up the dog and I was fearful for my life as well. There should be
measures to protect humans. This is not just a pet issue.
I also observed coyotes in a pack of 3 directly in front of the Ridgecrest School on High ridge on Friday at 12:00 a.m . They
will shortly be on campus with children during the day if preventative measures are not taken.
The coyotes I saw were not afraid of humans in the least. They did not run away. They continued on their path which
crossed our path and did not veer away.
They are used to humans now.
I can't imagine how the city officials will explain to the world how they had warning and advance notice of the danger
but did nothing. This is not just an "if" situation but a "when" situation.
I urge you to act now.
Thank you,
Jennifer Duffy
1
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Cristina Gal I egos < Cristi naGallegos2020@outlook.com >
Monday, September 6, 2021 6:40 PM
CityClerk
Cayotes are a Threat to our Pets
CAUTION: This email origi nat ed fr om outside of the Cit of Ramt ho Pa los ~e rdes .
Dear Sir/Madam:
I fear for my doggie being killed by a coyote; I am very afraid to leave him in the back yard by itself and it is hard to me
to watch every time my doggie goes out to the backyard where he loves to play.
I live on Diamonhead Ln and kindly count me in for any proposed actions to alleviate this uncertainty in order to feel
comfortable leaving my doggie to go and play without fear of losing him. My doggie is my only companion.
Verena Roosli
verena@veroo .rocks
310-541 -7060
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dean Seislove <resOmsrq@verizon .net>
Monday, September 6, 2021 4:53 PM
CityClerk
Coyote Management Plan
CAUTION : This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
Dear esteemed city council members,
The escalating incidents of coyotes intruding on residential property and attacking pets signals a need to engage a more
aggressive response to cull the coyote population in the South Bay. All cities are impacted by the policies in place to
minimize this threat to the safety and serenity of our family, neighbors, and pets. The loss of a pet is horrific but injury or
death to a child would be catastrophic. Torrance has already recognized the need for urgent action and has put a plan in
place. Nevertheless, this is a regional problem, as it is highly likely that the coyote population on the hill is migrating
down into the beach cities (although the reverse could be true). Either way, I hope that you, too, will put an aggressive
plan and resources into play. Perhaps your responsiveness to the fearful situation felt by many of us will require my
home city of Redondo to follow suit.
Don't let another pet owner be traumatized and beset by heartbreaking loss due to their pet being ripped to pieces in
front of his or her eyes.
Respectfully,
Dean Seislove
Redondo Beach
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
1
From: Rudy Monroy
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, September 1, 2021 5:53 PM
mathysrw@gmail.com
Cc: CC; CityClerk
Subject: RE : coyotes
Hi Ray,
The City is in receipt of your correspondence below. It will be provided to City Council as late correspondence
regarding the status update on the City's coyote management strategies that will be considered at the
September 7th meeting.
Kind regards,
Rudy Monroy
Code Enforcement Officer
~ City of Rancho Palos Verdes
D {310} 544 -5296
rmonroy@rpvca.gov
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 ou r response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website .
~.
0 . -•-
., -. . -
I O i,✓1nl 1 1 ,11f ,1r1 ,,_,,.
• AppStore
1-~£ i I'" , \"
• Google Play
From: Ray Mathys <mathysrw@gmail.com >
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 20214:23 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: coyotes
1
CAUTION: This email orl lnait ed fifam 0uit side 0fi the Ci t of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor Eric Alegria &
Members of the City Council
Coyotes have no natural enemies, at least not here on the Peninsula . They have become a real problem for our citizens
by killing their pet dogs and cats . By all mean s, Please instigate a trapping program. By hiring professional trappers to
reduce their number here on thi s hill would be a great service to all our people. Right now they are afraid to venture out
to walk their dogs which should not be the case. The other three Citie s should participate in the program . It's a
Penin sula wide problem.
Thank you for your help .
Ray Mathys
Please use my new email address for future communications, thank you .
2
From :
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Julia Duenes <jduenes65@gmail.com >
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:27 PM
CityClerk
Coyote situation
CAUTION : This email ori lnated fliem 0111t side of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Members of the RPV City Council and All Concerned:
The coyote situation is not only a concern to pet owners but also to families with small children who would like to play in
the yard. We have young grandchildren who spend a great deal of time with us. We have a large yard that is completely
fenced . A month or so ago a coyote was running in our yard . This is a danger to our grandchildren and the children in all
the neighborhoods .
I do request that all the cities of the peninsula take a much firmer stand with this serious coyote problem in our
neighborhoods . Please take action.
Thank you,
Julia Duenes
Diamondhead Lane
RPV
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Young <tiger2byte@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:48 PM
CityClerk
Coyotes
CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi. We are very concerned they are coming over our concrete wall. 3 at a time . We have dogs we cant let out. They dont
seem to be fearful of the human. This is a very large safety problem for us and our pets. We have hooked up lights water
sprinklers red light to signify fire but they keep coming. 7 8 in the morning . We tried wolf spray which is a natural enemy
although these coyotes probably dont know what a wolf is. We cant enjoy our own backyard. Please provide a solution
to this increasing problem.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Les Hew <lthew1@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:49 PM
CityClerk
Coyote Management
CAUTION: This email orl inated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members ,
The time is NOW to take aggressive action toward these brazen, habituated coyotes. Science supports lethal
removal to stop the pet killing and threats to human safety. Lethal removal and education with maintenance
trapping as needed will keep pets and people safe . Thank you for being leaders and doing the right thing. I
hope your efforts will be followed by other nearby cities.
Stay Well ,
Theresa Hew
Long Beach resident
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
this <incac4@gmail.com >
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:57 PM
CityClerk
COYOTE MANAGEMENT
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor and City Council,
Coyotes in our neighborhoods have become very bold and aggressive.
Coyote biologists Drs Baker and Timm have studied urban coyotes for decades and all Coyote Management Plans cities
currently have include the Coyote Aggression Behavior progression within the tiers, etc.
Coyotes are habituated just by the mere fact they live among people. Feeders are not the only cause of the coyotes'
aggression.
Coyotes, many ofthem are now aggressive habituated and need to be trapped.
If you do not trap the future is likely a child been badly injured followed by adult attacks .
Our northern neighbor Canada is already experiencing such situation.
Please take action and start a trapping program before serious injury or death occurs in a child/ resident in our
community.
Thank you,
John Frank
Sent from M ail for Windows
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Diana Howard <puppylady7@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:39 PM
CityClerk
Coyotes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
As a resident of RPV ( via siena) I am very concerned at the increase in coyote attacks of pets this past year. Just a few
months ago my neighbor saw surveillance footage of two coyotes jumping his fence and grabbing his dog to its death. I
cannot let my pets out even for two minutes to do their thing. What will it take, a small child getting attacked before
anything is done? We cannot wait until it is too late to be proactive and address this issue.
Thank you
R. Harris
D. Howard
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Gayle,
Rudy Monroy
Thursday, September 2, 2021 9:09 AM
gdarbyj@gmail.com; Barbara Ferraro; CityClerk
Tessa Park; Lisa Turek; patrick rayner
RE: Coyote Management Plan Report September 7
The City is in receipt of your correspondence below. It will be provided to City Council as late correspondence
regarding the status update on the City's coyote management strategies that will be considered at the
September 7th meeting. Staff has selected private trapping services with Coyote, Wildlife & Pest Solutions . To
view complete staff report visit the following link https://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting -Video-and-Agendas
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file a status report on the City's coyote management
strategies and provide staff direction on updating the Coyote Management Plan to maintain an objective of "no
pets killed" and augmenting the escalation tiers, reducing food supply, conducting a community workshop,
publishing a newsletter, and developing a regional plan among other things ; (2) Direct Staff to initiate a
contract for private trapping services with Coyote, Wildlife & Pest Solutions to implement aggressive private
traRping services, including any necessary CEQA documentation; (3) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to
Supervisor Hahn requesting additional resources to support regional and Peninsula coyote management
efforts; and, (4) Initiate code amendment proceedings to amend Section 17.76.030 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) to allow rollers or other devices on certain fences.
Kind regards,
Rudy Monroy
Code Enforcement Officer
~ City of Rancho Palos Verdes
D (310} 544-5296
rmon roy@rpvca.gov
---0 . •· . • g
DOWNLOAD 1'1l:; _> ._;;v
A.Yo ilobt. in th• App Sto,• oncf Googt. Ploy
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 .
From: gdarbyj@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 7:38 AM
To: Rudy Monroy; Barbara Ferraro
Cc: Tessa Park ; Lisa Turek; patrick rayner
Subject: FW: Coyote Management Plan Report September 7
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi Rudy,
Well, whoever wrote this notice below knows how to upset a community who listened to July's City Council meeting,
promising a trapper and a hunter be hired. Not to mention, those at the meeting, including myself, who posted on
NextDoor and FaceBook that RPV would in fact, be hiring a second trapper and a hunter! Now you have written below:
and consider seeking the services of a private trapper.
I just spoke to you this week and you stated you were interviewing for these positions, which is certainly taking quite
some time since July 20 . Which is it? I would suggest correcting this or telling us the truth. We have one upset city and
several upset neighboring cities. We've lost dozens of pets since the July meeting and we've been defending RPV City
Council for standing behind us.
We are loosing our patience around the inaction, and growing angrier. This announcement fueled the already burning
fire in our communities and is causing a lack of trust in our City Council Members.
Regards,
Gayle
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Do Not Reply@rpvca .gov
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 202112:04 PM
To: Gdarbyj@gmail.com
Subject: Coyote Management Plan Report September 7
2
Coyote Management Plan Report September 7
On September 7, the City Council will hear an update on City's coyote management
strategies and consider seeking the services of a private trapper.
The hybrid in-person/virtual meeting will take place at 7 p .m . in McTaggart Hall at Fred
Hesse Jr. Community Park and via Zoom with a very limited number of in -person
attendees and COVID-19 safety protocols in place . Virtual participation is highly
encouraged. The meeting will be live-streamed on the City website and televised on
RPVtv Cox 33/Frontier FiOS 38 .
A staff report for this topic is available on the City website . Please submit your
comments to the City Council in advance of the meeting by emailing them
to cc@rpvca.gov . If you would like to provide comments during the meeting or leave a
pre-recorded voice message, please complete a form at rpvca.gov/participate .
For more information about the City's Coyote Management Plan , visit rpvca .gov/coyotes ,
and for updates , sign up for the Coyote listserv at rpvca .gov/notify .
If you are a person with a disability and need an accommodation to participate in
programs , services , activities and meetings , contact the City's ADA Coordinator/Risk
Manager at 310-683-3157 , ~. 30940 Hawthorne Blvd ., Rancho
3
Palos Verdes , CA 90275, at least 48 hours in advance to request an auxiliary aid or
accommodation .
f Share on Face book ~Share on Twitter
Copyright 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes. All Rights Reserved .
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
If you no longer wish to receive emails from us , you may Unsubscribe .
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser .
4
Share via Email
Powered by
~~IVIC SEND
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Wednesday, September 1, 2021 1 :20 PM
CC; CityClerk
Regular Business Item 3
AUTION: lihls email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Regular Business Item 3 Forrestal Reserve Parking Options
After reading the staff report one can only come to the conclusion that through the past Recreation
and Park's manipulation of the data they have put the City Council in a no win situation. For years
there has been in place, at Ladera Linda, a practical parking plan that has worked for both the
residents and the Reserve hikers and bikers. Yet Recreation and Parks continues to want to
complicate the situation, adding additional staff and capital expenses.
The present plan includes three basic elements
1. Reserve parking in the park
2. No parking on Forrestal below the gate on both sides of the street down to the park
property
3. Keeping the Forrestal gate closed
4. Restricted parking in the residential areas
Recreation and Parks has consistently rejected this concept saying that the Reserve parking should
not be part of the park's plan and now would be costly and would delay the completion of the
park. This is nonsense.
The parking at the top level of the park can be increased by eliminating the half basketball court
which was the resident's recommendation several years ago and to provide additional parking on the
view side of the basketball court that presently is wasted space. Staff's objection to this is that cars
would be near the children's area. This could be solved by installing a simple low fence to contain the
children.
This way the parking in the park can be increased from the present 57 spaces to 70 spaces.
As for Reserve parking during construction, there is ample parking along Forrestal below the no
parking area and on Trump Way. The only change that would be recommended would be to add
signs restricting parking between the hours of 7 am and sunset.
Staff infer that this is too far to walk to get to the trailheads yet hikers are consistently hiking from the
Art Center on Crenshaw to the Burma Road trailhead which is also uphill.
This approach has several advantages:
1 3.
1. Eliminates the need for additional staffing
2. Low vehicle crime rates (as far as I know there has not been any vehicle crimes in the park
parking lot)
3. Eliminates the need for additional gates, fencing and reservation control
4. Eliminates the cueing at the Forrestal gate and the continual traffic of hikers that would
occur when looking for an open parking space (one of the main complaints of the Del Cerro
residents)
5. All the noise is contained within the park
6. Eliminates the congestion at the Pirate/Forrestal intersection
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, September 2, 2021 10 :09 AM
CityClerk
Cory Linder; Katie Lozano
FW: Ladera Linda Parking Plan
From: Herb Stark <ptl7stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 9:58 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Parking Plan
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I have a simple question for the City Council. Why would Recreation and Parks want to destroy a successful parking plan
that is presently in place and has been working for several years for one that will bring the Del Cerro chaos to Ladera
Linda?
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 8
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Saturday, September 4, 2021 10:55 PM
Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; CityClerk
Fw: August 2021 Crime Report
Attachments: August 2021 Crime Report.pdf
From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 4, 2021 5:35 AM
Subject: August 2021 Crime Report
CAUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Attached is the August 2021 crime report for the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
This month the complete narrative is included in the body of the report.
The report highlights three issues of importance:
1. During August we have seen a significant increase in residential crimes and a continuing
high level of vehicle crimes
2. At a passed city council meeting the Lomita Sheriff indicated that there is a high level of
correlation between vehicle crimes and trailheads. Included in the attached report is a
summary of trail head vehicle crimes. The table shows that Del Cerro (Burma Road) and the
trails at Trump National are locations of high levels of vehicle crimes.
3. At the upcoming city council meeting on September 7th the city council will decide on the
parking for the Forrestal Reserve. Up until now Reserve parking has been contained within
the Ladera Linda Park where there have been little or no vehicle crimes reported. Recreation
and Parks staff would like to move the parking out of the park onto Forrestal behind the
gate. This area is isolated and has the potential for attracting vehicle crimes which could
overflow into the residential areas.
The Ladera Linda HOA supports retaining the present successful parking plan with the
Reserve parking in the park.
Once the park is closed for construction there is going to be a large number of construction vehicles
and people in the area. The city needs to develop a security plan for the residential areas. This plan
should be presented to the Ladera Linda HOA and in place before the start of construction scheduled
for February of 2022.
1 3.
Herb Stark
2
August 2021 Rancho Palos Verdes Crime Report
The following information
has been compiled from the
Lomita Sheriff's website,
official information sent to
the city from the Lomita
Sheriff and
August 2021 Crime Report
This month, with everyone returning to work, we have seen a significant increase in
residential burglaries. Most of these were by forced entry, breaking a glass door or
window.
We continue to experience a large number of vehicle crimes. At a city council meeting
the Lomita Sheriff reported that they were seeing a direct correlation between trailheads
and vehicle crimes. Historical data for the year indicates that the Del Cerro (Burma
Road) and the trails at Trump National are the most frequent points for these crimes
followed by the Forrestal Reserve.
This has been one of the major concerns of the Ladera Linda HOA. Two meetings have
been held with city staff over crime issues and the Forrestal Reserve parking.
Presently, Reserve parking has been directed into the Ladera Linda Park where there
has not been a reported vehicle crime. This will be stopped starting in February 2022
when reconstruction of the park begins.
The Ladera Linda HOA took the following positions on six issues that would affect the
security and quality of life of the residents.
1. Adding parking to LLCC plans: The Community Center should have at least 70
spaces to accommodate Preserve parking on the weekends. This is a long term
plan for when the CC reopens. The LLHOA prefers to have parking within the CC
for both the CC and the Preserve as a long term result.
2. Gateway Park: The LLHOA supports the 'temporary' use of Gateway Park as an
entrance to the Preserve. The HOA also supports the use of a traffic consultant
to determine the safest use of parking here. We are concerned about queuing of
vehicles along PVDS as people look for spots.
3. Parking beyond the Forrestal Gate: The HOA opposes parking beyond the gate
for the Preserve.
4. Maintain and regulate existing parking on Forrestal near the PVDS intersection.
The HOA supports maintaining the current red curbs on Forrestal, with additional
signage that indicates 7am to dusk parking similar to signs at the CC. The HOA
supports no parking within the LL neighborhood during construction.
5. Expand on street parking by removing red curb parking. The LLHOA is opposed
to removing any red curbs on Forrestal.
6. Pocket Parking lots: The LLHOA is not really interested; we do not want to bring
people into the neighborhoods.
The HOA is in the process of making a portion of the residential area restricted parking.
The residents are concerned that Forrestal Reserve parking will overflow into the
residential areas bring with it both vehicle and residential crimes. The success of
restricted parking to control parking is based upon enforcement. Unfortunately there is
little or no enforcement by the city of restricted parking areas at this time.
Opening up the Forrestal gate presents a similar problem with the added issue of
heavier traffic on Forrestal due to the increased availability of parking (approximately
200 parking spaces). Making a left turn on to PV Drive South from Forrestal is currently
a problem, opening up the gate with the added parking would make a left turn an
impossible task.
Additionally, parking above the gate is in an isolated area and therefore a prime target
for vehicle crimes that could spill over into the residential areas. The reason the gate
was put there in the first place was to prevent the dumping of trash and unauthorized
partying and fires at the end of Forrestal and Main Sail.
Even providing a limited number of parking places beyond the gate presents a problem
similar to Del Cerro with the cueing of cars waiting for the gate to open, blocking the
intersection of Pirate and Forrestal, noise and traffic of cars looking for or waiting for a
parking spot to open up.
The issue of parking and traffic will be on the agenda for the September ih city council
meeting . It is important that residents read the staff report and make their concerns
known to the city council.
The big question is why is Recreation and Parks staff insisting on changing a
successful in place parking strategy into one that has the potential of creating the
Del Cerro disaster?
Phone Scam
Recently we received a call from what was supposed to be Social Security. "Suspicious
activities have been detected on your social security account and you must press 1 to
prevent the consequences". This is a scam do not answer it. Social Security would
never call you.
Home Security from the City Manager's Report
Practice Your 9PM Routine
Every night at 9:00PM, the community is encouraged to lock up property, turn on lights,
and bring in valuables to reduce the likelihood of falling victim to property crimes.
Lock all doors and windows, including garage doors, turn on lights or set them on a
timer if you plan to be away, and avoid leaving valuables in visible areas.
These actions help deter burglars and may help prevent residential burglaries .
Be aware, and if you see something suspicious, say something! The City encourages
you to call the Lomita Sheriff's Station at 310-539-1661 if you see suspicious persons or
activity .
Tips to Prevent Vehicle Burglaries
Take steps today to prevent thefts from your vehicle. Residents are strongly
encouraged to use "Lock It or Lose It" prevention tips every day. It only takes a matter of
seconds for a thief to break into your car and grab your valuable items.
Look through the windows of your vehicle.
What do you see? A bag on the passenger seat? A charging cord? A garage door
opener? Change in a cup holder? Take it with you or remove it from plain view and be
sure to close all windows and lock doors.
Follow these tips to help prevent vehicle burglaries:
1. Remove all valuable items from your car including purses and electronics.
2. If you must leave valuables behind, put them in your trunk or locked glovebox before
you reach your destination. Avoid doing so while in plain view.
3. Close all windows and lock your doors.
4. Park in a locked garage or well-lit areas.
If you see suspicious activity, report it immediately to the Lomita Sheriff's Station at
310-539-1661. In case of emergency, call 9-1-1.
RPV Part I and Part II Crimes That Occurred in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's Jurisdiction
INCIDENT DATE STAT DESC STREET Vehicle Burglary Scam
8/4/2021 17:00 MISDEMEANORS, MISCELLANEOUS: All Other Misdemeanors 28000 ELLA RD
8/4/2021 20:48 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Attempt 4100 MIRALESTE DR X
8/5/2021 1 :00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Entry by Force 6600 VIA SIENA X
8/5/2021 16:00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Day, Entry By Force 30300 VIA RIVERA X
8/6/2021 4:25 GRAND THEFT: From Unlocked Auto 6500 OCEAN CREST DR X
8/6/2021 6:00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Unknown, Entry By Force 32600 NANTASKET DR X
8/6/2021 7:53 Misdemeanor Possessn of a Controlled Substance (excluding Marijuana) PALOS VERDES DR E AND PALOS VERDES DR S
8/6/2021 8:30 OFFENSES AGAINST FAMILY: Domestic Violence (Other than Phys Assault) 6500 OCEAN CREST DR
8/7/20211:15 GRAND THEFT: Bicycles 6600 BEACHVIEW DR
8/7/2021 22:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28900 WESTERN AVE X
8/8/2021 8:00 GRAND THEFT: From Unlocked Auto 27500 S WESTERN AVE X
8/8/2021 8:30 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Unknown, Entry By Force 100 VIA DEL CIELO X
8/8/2021 10:41 IDENTITY THEFT (GOODS/SERVICES/CREDIT) 29400 S BAYEND DR X
8/8/2021 12:30 GRAND THEFT: Auto Parts And Accessories 28700 ROTHROCK DR X
8/8/2021 14:45 THEFT, PETTY: Other (From Prvt Res, Boat, Plane.Yard) COLT RD AND MIRALESTE DR
8/8/2021 18:00 GRAND THEFT: Bicycles 5700 RAVENSPUR DR
8/8/2021 20:45 ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED: ADW-HANDS, FEET, FIST, ETC. 28800 CRESTRIDGE RD
8/9/2021 7:15 THEFT, PETTY: From Auto (Except Parts/Accessories) 2100 ROSENARD RD X
8/9/2021 10:42 EXPLOITATION OF CHILD VIA INTERNET X
8/11/2021 20:50 VANDALISM MISD 29600 ENROSE AVE
8/12/2021 0:00 GRAND THEFT: Auto Parts And Accessories 6500 LA GARITA DR X
8/12/2021 2:51 BURGLARY, OTHER STRUCTURE: Night, Entry By Force 28300 S WESTERN AVE
8/12/2021 6:45 ASSAULT, NON-AGG: Hands, Feet, Fist, Etc. 4900 ROCKVALLEY RD
8/15/2021 21 :18 ROBBERY, WEAPON: Other 29600 WESTERN AVE
8/16/2021 2:00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Entry by Force 30800 VIA LA CRESTA X
8/16/2021 2:22 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Entry by Force 31000 RUE LANGLOIS X
8/16/2021 20:30 GRAND THEFT VEHICLE (GTA): Automobile/Passenger Van 28500 VISTA MADERA X
8/17/2021 6:00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Entry by Force 7200 BERRYHILL DR X
8/18/2021 0:00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Unknown, Entry By Force 5800 OCEAN TERRACE X
8/18/2021 11 :00 GRAND THEFT VEHICLE (GTA): Automobile/Passenger Van 6600 EL RODEO RD X
8/19/2021 5:00 GRAND THEFT VEHICLE (GTA): Automobile/Passenger Van 30400 VIA RIVERA X
8/19/2021 6:00 IDENTITY THEFT (GOODS/SERVICES/CREDIT) 26700 SHADOW WOOD DR X
8/19/2021 6:28 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Entry by Force 6800 VALLON DR X
8/19/2021 16:00 DRUNK DRIVING -VEHICLE/BOAT: Drugs Only 5700 PALOS VERDES DR S
8/20/2021 18:00 ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 32600 NANTASKET DR
8/21/2021 0:00 FRAUD: Fraud By False Pretenses 30200 CARTIER DR X
8/22/2021 17:29 ASSAULT, NON-AGGRAVATED: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1800 HOMEWORTH DR
8/23/2021 15:03 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Unknown, Entry By Force 30500 RUE DE LA PIERRE X
8/23/2021 16:58 GRAND THEFT: Shoplifting (From Dept Store, Mkt Gas Sta) 30000 HAWTHORNE BLVD
8/23/2021 23:17 MISDEMEANORS, MISCELLANEOUS: All Other Misdemeanors 6500 OCEAN CREST DR
8/25/2021 11 :30 VANDALISM: Graffiti/Tagging 28600 WESTERN AVE
8/25/2021 17:30 VANDALISM FELONY 29000 WESTERN AVE
8/25/2021 19:00 ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED: ADW-HANDS, FEET, FIST, ETC. 32600 NANTASKET DR
8/27/2021 0:00 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Unknown, Entry By Force 6900 VALLON DR X
8/27/2021 2:24 BURGLARY, RESIDENCE: Night, Entry by Force 29300 WHITLEY COLLINS DR X
8/27/2021 9:30 FELONIES, MISCELLANEOUS: All Other Felonies 6700 LOS VERDES DR
8/27/2021 14:11 VEHICLE AND BOATING LAWS: Misdemeanor GANADO DR AND PALOS VERDES DR E
8/27/2021 15:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 CALLE ENTRADERO X
8/27/2021 18:30 ASSAULT, NON-AGG: Child Assault 1400 CADDINGTON DR
INCIDENT _DA TE STAT_DESC STREET Vehicle Burglary Scam
8/27/2021 18:45 ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED: ADW-HANDS, FEET, FIST, ETC. 3500 HEROIC DR
8/28/2021 5:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28100 PEACOCK RIDGE DR X
8/28/2021 5:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 32600 SEAGATE DR X
8/28/2021 5:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28100 PEACOCK RIDGE DR X
8/28/2021 7:54 Misdemeanor Possessn of a Controlled Substance (excluding Marijuana) 2900 WESTERN AVE
8/28/2021 12:30 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28100 PEACOCK RIDGE DR X
8/28/2021 12:30 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28100 PEACOCK RIDGE DR X
8/28/2021 12:30 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28100 PEACOCK RIDGE DR X
8/28/2021 16:37 ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED: ADW-KNIFE 100 MARGUERITE DR
8/28/2021 18:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 6500 BEACHVIEW DR X
8/28/2021 19:52 ROBBERY, WEAPON: Store, Business, Hotel, Motel, Etc. 29400 S WESTERN AVE
8/29/2021 2:07 VANDALISM FELONY 32600 SEAGATE DR
8/30/2021 11 :45 VANDALISM FELONY 29900 HAWTHORNE BLVD
Total 17 13 4
RANCHO PALOS VERDES:
CRIME FILE# RD
SHOPLIFTING 21-02417 1735
ROBBERY/ 21-02398 1736
BURGLARY
(RESIDENTIAL)
BURGLARY 21-02446 1736
(RESIDENTIAL)
GRAND THEFT 21 -02376 1743
(AUTO)
GRAND THEFT 21-02369 1744
(UNLOCKED
VEHICLE)
PETTY THEFT 21-02367 1745
(UNLOCKED
VEHICLE)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT-LOMITA STATION
REPORTED CRIMES & ARRESTS BETWEEN (07/25/2021 -008/30/2021) T
DATE TIME LOCATION-PUBLIC METHOD OF ENTRY LOSS-PUBLIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-PUBLIC
7/28/2021 1950 30000 BLK OPEN FOR BUSINESS ALCOHOL SUSPECT MO/30'5-40'5/600/200-220/BLK
HAWTHORNE BLVD HAIR/BRN EYES WRG A BLK HAT, BLK SHIRT, AND
BLK SHORTS. SUSP WAS SEEN LEAVING LOC IN A
BLK 2013-2019 MERCEDES POSSIBLE GLE/GLC
SUV .
7/28/2021 2100 6400 BLK SATTES REAR SLIDING GLASS FOB, CELLPHONE, MISC 51 FH. 52 MALE. 53 MALE.
DR DOOR SHATTERED JEWELRY
7/25/2021-1800 6800 BLK ALTA BEDROOM NO LOSS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
7/31/2021 1100 VISTA DR WINDOW
SHATTERED
7/25/2021-2100 30000 BLK GANADO N/A WHITE 2016 FORD FOCUS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
7/26/2021 0715 DR
7/24/2021-1600 6500 BLK VIA SIENA UNLOCKED VEHICLE SUNGLASSES, GLASSES, US SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
7/25/2021 1430 CURRENCY, DEBIT CARD,
CREDIT CARD, GIFT CARDS,
PURSE
7/24/2021-1500 4000 BLK UNLOCKED VEHICLE WALLET SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
7/25/2021 0805 MIRALESTE DR
TOTAL ARRESTS: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -1, DRUNK IN PUBLIC -1, ELDER ABUSE -1, EMBEZZLEMENT-1, VEHICLE VIOLATIONS -2
CRIME FILE# RD DATE TIME LOCATION-PUBLIC METHOD OF ENTRY LOSS-PUBLIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-PUBLIC
GRAND THEFT 21-02511 1735 8/5/2021-2330 6500 BLK OCEAN UNLOCKED VEHICLE CDL, EARPHONES, SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(UNLOCKED 8/6/2021 0920 CREST DR SUNGLASSES, US CURRENCY
VEHICLE)
GRAND THEFT 21 -02558 1735 8/7/2021-1600 28000 BLK CATALYTIC CATALYTIC CONVERTER SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(CATALYTIC 8/9/2021 0900 RUTHROCK DR CONVERTER
CONVERTER)
Page 1 of 4
CRIME FILE# RD DATE TIME LOCATION-PUBLIC METHOD OF ENTRY LOSS-PUBLIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-PUBLIC
BURGLARY 21-02502 1737 8/5/2021 1500 30000 BLK VIA REAR SLIDING GLASS 2 LARGE BAGS SUSPECT MH OR MA/25-30 WRG DARK
(RESIDENTIAL) 1700 RIVERA DOOR SUNGLASSES . SUSP WAS SEEN LEAVING LOC IN A
DARK BLUE MINIVAN.
GRAND THEFT 21-02532 1740 8/6/2021-1500 6000 BLK N/A BICYCLE SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(BICYCLE) 8/7/2021 1130 BEACHVIEW DR
BURGLARY 21 -02491 1744 8/4/2021-2000 6600 BLK VIA SIENA SLIDING GLASS NO LOSS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 8/5/2021 0600 DOOR SHATTERED
ATTEMPT 21-02496 1744 8/4/2021 2048 4000 BLK WINDOW SCREEN NO LOSS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
BURGLARY MIRALESTE DR BENT AND TORN
(RESIDENTIAL)
BURGLARY 21 -02523 1746 8/7/2021 2100 28000 BLK REAR PASSENGER MISC CLOTHING ITEMS, SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) 2300 WESTERN AVE SIDE WINDOW VEHICLE REGISTRATION,
SMASHED INHALERS
TOTAL ARRESTS: DRUGS -1, WARRANTS -3
CRIME FILE# RD DATE TIME LOCATION-PUBLIC METHOD OF ENTRY LOSS-PUBLIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-PUBLIC
ASSAULT 21 -02533 1732 8/8/2021 2045 28000 BLK N/A NO LOSS 1 SUSPECT ARRESTED
CRESTRIDGE RD
GRAND THEFT 21-02586 1734 8/8/2021-0001 5700 BLK N/A BICYCLE SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(BICYCLE) 8/9/2021 1200 RAVENSPUR DR
GRAND THEFT 21-02558 1735 8/7/2021-1600 28000 BLK CATALYTIC CATALYTIC CONVERTER SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(CATALYTIC 8/9/2021 0900 RUTH ROCK DR CONVERTER
CONVERTER)
PETTY THEFT 21 -02548 1744 8/8/2021 1100 COLT RD/ N/A SIGNS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
1830 MIRALESTE DR
PETTY THEFT 21 -02570 1746 8/6/2021-1700 2100 BLK UNLOCKED VEHICLE SUBWOOFERS, VEHICLE SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(UNLOCKED 8/11/2021 2130 ROSENARD RD REGISTRATION
VEHICLE)
BURGLARY 21-02593 1746 8/14/2021 1550 29000 BLK FRONT PASSENGER WALLET, CDL, MISC CREDIT SUSPECT MH/25-30/508 WRG A GRY HOO DIE .
(VEHICLE) WESTERN AVE SIDE WINDOW AND DEBIT CARDS, SOCIAL SUSP WAS SEEN LEAVING LOC IN A WHITE 2008
SECURITY CARD MERCEDES BENZ C300 W/ THE FRONT BUMPER
MISSING .
GRAND THEFT 21 -02529 1747 8/8/2021 0730 27000 BLK S N/A FIREARM SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
0830 WESTERN AVE
BURGLARY 21-02567 1747 8/12/2021 0251 28000 BLK GLASS DOOR EYEGLASSES SUSPECT MALE WRG A SHORT SLEEVE LIGHT
(BUSINESS) WESTERN AVE SHATTERED COLORED CHECKERED BUTTON UP SHIRT, LIGHT
COLORED SHORTS, DARK SOCKS AND DARK
SHOES.
TOTAL ARRESTS: ASSAULT -2, BATTERY -2, WARRANTS -2
Page 2 of 4
CRIME FILE# RD DATE TIME LOCATION-PUBLIC METHOD OF ENTRY LOSS-PUBLIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-PUBLIC
GRAND THEFT 21-02635 1735 8/14/2021-1200 6600 BLK EL RODEO N/A SILVER 2019 MERCEDES SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(AUTO) 8/18/2021 1034 RD A220
BURGLARY 21-02647 1736 8/19/2021 0025 6800 BLK VALLON FRONT GLASS DOOR UNK AT TIME OF REPORT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 1232 DR PANELS REMOVED
BURGLARY 21-02655 1736 8/12/2021-0800 30000 BLK VIA LA SIDE GARAGE DOOR BICYCLE SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 8/19/2021 2000 CRESTA FORCED OPEN
BURGLARY 21-02611 1737 7/31/2021-0500 VIA DELCIELO REAR WINDOW NO LOSS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 8/16/2021 1200 SHATTERED
BURGLARY 21-02623 1737 8/17/2021 0600 7200 BLK HOLE CUT INTO UNK AT TIME OF REPORT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) BERRYHILL DR DOOR
BURGLARY 21-02648 1737 3/31/2021-0830 30000 BLK VIA FRONT EXTERIOR UNK AT TIME OF REPORT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 8/19/2021 1400 RIVERA WINDOW
SHATTERED
BURGLARY 21-0265 3 1737 8/16/2021 0142 31000 BLK RUE REAR SLIDING GLAS S VIDEO GAME, VIDEO 51 UNK DESC. 52 UNK DESC.
(RESIDENTIAL) 0302 LANGLOIS DOOR LOCK RECORDER
MECHANISM
DAMAGED
GRAND THEFT 21-02701 1737 8/16/2021-0500 30000 BLK VIA N/A BLK 2002 ACURA TLS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(AUTO) 8/24/2021 1235 RIVERA CA/4SVP316 OR DP332MS
BURGLARY 21-02651 1739 8/17/2021-0000 5800 BLK OCEAN REAR WINDOW JEWELRY SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 8/19/2021 0000 TERRACE DR SMASHED
ROBBERY 21-02605 1746 8/15/2021 2118 29000 BLK N/A BAGS, WALLET, MISC Sl MH/18-20/505/THIN BUILD/BRN EYES/BRN
WESTERN AVE PAPERS, US CURRENCY, HAIR. S2 MW/21-25/511/HEAVY SET/BLUE
KEYS EYES/BLONDE HAIR .
TOTAL ARR ESTS: DOMESTIC VIOL ENCE -1, VEHICLE VIOLATIONS -1, WARRANTS -1
BURGLARY 21-02733 1732 8/27/2021 0224 29000 BLK WHITLEY WINDOW SCREEN NO LOSS 1 SUSPECT ARRESTED
(RESIDENTIAL) COLLINS CUT IN HALF
BURGLARY 21-02757 1734 8/27/2021-2300 28000 BLK FRONT DRIVER'S NO LOSS SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) 8/28/2021 1100 PEACOCK RIDGE DR SIDE WINDOW
SMASHED
BURGLARY 21-02758 1734 8/27/2021-2130 28000 BLK REAR DRIVER'S SIDE PURSE, CDL, MISC CREDIT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) 8/28/2021 1230 PEACOCK RIDGE WINDOW CARDS,USCURRENCY
DRQ SHATTERED
BURGLARY 21-02759 1734 8/28/2021 1230 28000 BLK FRONT DRIVER'S UNK AT TIME OF REPORT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) PEACOCK RIDGE DR SIDE WINDOW
SMASHED
Page 3 of 4
CRIME FILE# RD DATE TIME LOCATION-PUBLIC METHOD OF ENTRY LOSS-PUBLIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-PUBLIC
BURGLARY 21-02760 1734 8/28/2021 1230 28000 BLK FRONT PASSENGER UNK AT TIME OF REPORT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) PEACOCK RIDGE DR SIDE WINDOW
SHATTERED
BURGLARY 21-02761 1734 8/28/2021 1230 28000 BLK FRONT PA SSENGER UNK AT TIME OF REPORT SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN .
(VEHICLE) PEACOCK RIDGE DR SIDE WINDOW
SHATTERED
SHOPLIFTING 21-02688 1736 8/23/2021 1658 30000 BLK OPEN FOR BUSINESS ALCOHOL 1 SUSPECT ARRESTED
HAWTHORNE BLVD
BURGLARY 21-02737 1736 6900 BLK VALLON N/A CHECK 1 SUSPECT ARRESTED
(RESIDENTIAL) DR
BURGLARY 21-02687 1737 8/23/2021 1 503 30000 BLK RUE DE REAR WINDOW VACCUM, JEWELRY BOX, SU SPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) LA PIERR E OPENED AND JEWELRY, US CURRENCY
SCREEN REMOVED
GRAND THEFT 21-02701 1737 8/16/2021-0500 30000 BLK VIA N/A BLK 2002 ACURA TLS SU SPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(AUTO) 8/24/2021 1235 RIVERA CA/4SVP316 OR DP332MS
ASSAULT 21-02767 1737 8/28/202 1 1637 MARGUERITE DR N/A NO LOSS 1 SUSPECT ARR ESTED
BURGLARY 21-02798 1737 8/27/2021 1430 CALLE ENTRADERO N/A DEBIT CARD, US CURRENCY SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) 1530
ASSAULT 21-02746 1740 8/25/2021 1900 32000 BLK N/A NO LOSS SUSPECT FA/19/507 /105/SHORT BLK
NANTASKET DR HAIR/TATTOOS ON BOTH ARMS WRG A BLK TANK
TOP AND SWEATPANTS.
BURGLARY 21-02785 1740 8/26/2021-1700 6500 BLK N/A CAMERA SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(VEHICLE) 8/30/202 1 1900 BEACHVIEW DR
BURGLARY 21-02771 1741 8/27/2021-2030 32000 BLK SEAGAT E REAR DRIVER'S SIDE BAG, COMPUTER, SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
(RESIDENTIAL) 8/28/2021 1330 DR WINDOW BACKPACK, VITAMINS, KEY S
SHATTERED
ASSAULT 21-02751 1742 8/27/2021 1830 3 5 00 BLK HEROIC N/A NO LOS S SUSPECT KNOWN
1900 DR
GRAND THEFT 21-02712 1744 6/28/2021-0000 30000 BLK KNOLL N/A US CURRENCY SUSPECT(S) UNKNOWN
8/25/2021 0000 VIEW DR
ROBBERY 21-02768 1746 8/28/2021 1952 29000 BLK S OPEN FOR BUSINE SS FOOD 2 SUSPECTS ARRESTED
WESTERN AVE
TOTAL ARRESTS: ASSAULT . 1, ATTEMPTED CHILD ABUSE -1, ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE-1, BATTERY -1, BURGLARY -1, CRIMINAL THREATS -1, DRUG S -1, ELDER ABUS E -1, GRAND THEFT -1, ROBBERY -2, VEHICLE VIOLATIONS -1, WARRANTS -2
Pag e 4 of 4
RPV Vehicle Crimes Near Trailheads August 2020 Through August 2021
TRAILHEADS INCIDENT DATE STAT DESC STREET
Abalone Cove 6/8/2021 13: 17 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 5900 PALOS VERDES DR S
Abalone Cove 6/13/2021 14:07 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 5900 PALOS VERDES DR S
Colinita Trail 10/13/2020 2:45 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 6600 VIA COLIN IT A
Del Cerro Burma Road 12/10/2020 12:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 PARK PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 1/21/2021 9:50 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND PARK PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 1/21/2021 9:50 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND VALLEY VIEW RD
Del Cerro Burma Road 2/4/2021 11 :00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND PARK PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 2/4/2021 11 :04 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND PARK PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 2/4/2021 11 :15 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND CREST RD
Del Cerro Burma Road 3/26/2021 11 :50 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND SAN CLEMENTE PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 4/17/2021 18:15 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND CREST RD
Del Cerro Burma Road 5/5/2021 15:58 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 29500 CRENSHAW BLVD
Del Cerro Burma Road 5/12/2021 15:37 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 PARK PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 5/25/2021 9:40 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CREST RD AND CRENSHAW BLVD
Del Cerro Burma Road 6/1/2021 11 :00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 PARK PL
Del Cerro Burma Road 6/13/202112:52 THEFT, PETTY: From Auto (Except Parts/Accessories) CRENSHAW BLVD AND CREST RD
Del Cerro Burma Road 6/23/2021 20:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary CRENSHAW BLVD AND CREST RD
Del Cerro Burma Road 7/22/2021 17:45 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 5400 CREST RD
Del Cerro Burma Road 7/22/2021 18:46 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 5400 CREST RD
Flowerfield Trail Terranea 9/26/2020 13:30 GRAND THEFT: From Unlocked Auto 6600 BEACHVIEW
Flowerfield Trail Terranea 7/4/2021 4:32 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 6600 BEACH VIEW DR
Highridge Trails 9/18/2020 0:30 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 28200 HIGHRIDGE RD
Lnada Canyon Trail 8/18/2021 11 :00 GRAND THEFT VEHICLE (GTA): Automobile/Passenger Van 6600 EL RODEO RD
Lorraome Trail 10/27/2020 18:00 GRAND THEFT: Auto Parts And Accessories 4400 MIRALESTE DR
Nike Trail 7/26/2021 1 :00 GRAND THEFT VEHICLE (GTA): Automobile/Passenger Van 30300 GANADO DR
Pelican Cove 9/11/2020 10:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 31400 PALOS VERDES DRS
Pelican Cove 4/16/2021 9:22 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 31300 PALOS VERDES DRS
Pelican Cove 5/24/2021 10:45 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 31300 PALOS VERDES DRS
Pelican Cove 6/25/2021 13:20 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 31300 PALOS VERDES DRS
PVIC 1/23/2021 14:10 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 31500 PALOS VERDES DR W
Seascape Trail 9/26/2020 12:10 GRAND THEFT: From Unlocked Auto 100 VIA DEL CIELO
Seascape Trail 8/27/2021 15:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 CALLE ENTRADERO
Siena Loop Trail 7/25/2021 3:15 GRAND THEFT: From Unlocked Auto 6500 VIA SIENA
Terranea 3/23/2021 16:00 THEFT, PETTY: From Auto (Except Parts/Accessories) 32600 NANTASKET DR
Terranea 7/23/2021 20:15 ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 100 TERRANEA WAY
Trails at Forrestal Reserve 11/14/202017:55 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 32400 FORRESTAL DR
Trails at Forrestal Reserve 11/26/2020 1 :00 GRAND THEFT VEHICLE (GTA): Automobile/Passenger Van, Attemp 3900 PIRATE DR
Trails at Forrestal Reserve 3/21/2021 13:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 32200 FORRESTAL DR
TRAIL HEADS INCIDENT DATE STAT DESC STREET
Trails at Forrestal Reserve 4/10/2021 5:30 THEFT, PETTY: From Auto (Except Parts/Accessories) 32300 CONQUEROR
Trails at Forrestal Reserve 4/10/2021 5:41 THEFT, PETTY: From Auto (Except Parts/Accessories) 32200 SCHOONER DR
Trails at Forrestal Reserve 4/20/2021 14:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Attempt Auto/Passenger Van Burglary FORRESTAL DR AND PALOS VERDES DRS
Trails at Trump National 9/2/2020 14:15 GRAND THEFT: From Unlocked Auto 100 TRUMP NATIONAL DR
Trails at Trump National 10/21/2020 11 :00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary LA ROTON DA DR AND PASEO DEL MAR
Trails at Trump National 12/8/2020 16:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 3300 LA ROTUNDA DR
Trails at Trump National 12/18/2020 11 :20 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 TRUMP NATIONAL DR
Trails at Trump National 1/14/2021 12:52 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 3200 PALOS VERDES DR S
Trails at Trump National 1/30/2021 13:36 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 TRUMP NATIONAL DR
Trails at Trump National 2/12/2021 14:40 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 3200 LA ROTUNDA DR
Trails at Trump National 2/15/2021 16:37 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 TRUMP NATIONAL DR
Trails at Trump National 4/17/202117:00 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary TWIN HARBOR DR AND LA ROT ANDA DR
Trails at Trump National 5/8/2021 19:05 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary LA ROTON DA DR AND PASEO DEL MAR
Trails at Trump National 6/13/2021 16:05 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 3200 LA ROTUNDA DR
Trails at Trump National 6/29/2021 15:17 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary 100 TRUMP NATIONAL DR
Trails at Trump National 7/22/202119:30 VEHICLE BURGLARY: Auto/Passenger Van Burglary LA ROTUNDA DR AND PALOS VERDES DR S
, ,, ., ..,. ..,..
I
I
I ,
'
I ,.
I
'
ca ,,
C
■-_J
ca
"-Cl) ,,
ca
_J
u, ...
Cl) 0
E
..,
u, C
:::, ■-
c, z
:::, ■-
<C 3:
Pacific Ocean
August 2021 Peninsula
Crimes That Occurred in the
Los Angeles County Sheriffs
Department's Jurisdiction
RPVCrime
Date Auto Burglary Total Crimes 80 -,-----------------------------------------~ 25
31 -Mar 9 6 42
30-Apr 3 3 26 70 -l-----------J'---'="------------J!'--\-------------------------l
31 -May 10 4 53
30-Jun 15 6 73
31-Jul 12 2 70
31-AUQ 7 3 43
30-Se p 11 4 61
31 -Oct 14 8 62
30 -Nov 21 2 58
31 -Dec 23 5 65
31 -Jan 14 3 50
Go ! / \ ,--....._.L_/ ~ I \ 'I ~"I ; , , i: ~ r A 'i ~ I
20 Ill
QJ
E ·;: u
15 > ...
IU
!,:ti
::::s
10 r:0
~
28 -Feb 15 3 38 0
31 -Mar 20 3 46
30-Apr 20 2 5 1
20 +------\.---#----~---------#-~--------------------------<f-----l +"'
::::s
5 <(
31-Mav 15 1 43 10 I lt....-'\: ::.-a....-\ / ""II ■ a.....: / I
30 -Jun 14 2 42
31-Jul 12 2 37 0 +----~--~-~---~--~-~-~-~---.-----~--~-~-~-~--+0
31-Aug 17 13 62 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-0ct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug
-rTota l Crime s -+-Auto -a-Bu rglary --Linear (Total Cr i mes) --Linear (Auto) --Linear (Burglary)
Date Auto Burglary
8/31/2018 10 10
9/29/2018 2 1 RPV Three Year Crime Rate
11/3/2018 2 3 25
"' 12/1/2018 14 6 ~ 20
12/29/2018 6 6
1/26/2019 3 7
2/28/2019 14 7
"O
~ 15
~ 10 ., ..,
-Auto
-Burglary
3/31/2019 6 9 E 5 :::, --Linear (Auto)
4/30/2019 14 5
5/31/2019 14 2
6/30/2019 4 6
7/31/2019 15 6
z
0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'V"<:) \'\,<:) \'\,<:) ,;:,<:) ,;:,<:) ,;:,<:) \'\,<:) 'V"<:) 'V"<:) ":,.'\,<:) ":,.'\,<:) ,;:,<:) 'V"<:) 'V"<:) \'\,<:) ,;:,<:) ":,.'\,<:) ,;:,<:) 'V"<:) rrr~~~rrrt~~r~r~~~r 'b...,,<:)...,,-i: -i: ~ 1:i 'b...,,<:)◊ -i: ~ 1:i 'b...,,<:)◊ -i: ~ 1:i 'b
--Linear (Burglary)
8/31/2019 9 3
9/30/2019 9 7
10/31/2019 6 6
11/30/2019 5 10
12/31/2019 3 6
1/31/2020 3 0
2/29/2020 6 2
3/31/2020 9 6
4/30/2020 3 3
5/31/2020 10 4
6/30/2020 15 6
7/31/2020 14 2
8/31/2020 7 3
9/30/2020 11 4
10/31/2020 14 8
11/30/2020 21 2
12/31/2020 23 5
1/31/2021 14 3
2/28/2021 15 3
3/31/2021 20 3
4/30/2021 20 2
5/31/2021 15 1
6/30/2021 14 2
7/31/2021 12 2
8/31/2021 17 13
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Herb Stark < pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sunday, September 5, 2021 11 :22 AM
CC; CityClerk
City Council Meeting September 7 Regular Business Item 3
CAUTION: This email ofii lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
September 5, 2021 Sunday 10 AM
There were 61 cars parked in the Ladera Linda Parking Lots
Given that the new park will have only 57 spaces with 6 used for the Park Rangers, 4 for charging
stations and 2 for handicap there will be only 43 spaces available.
This morning at 6:30 AM two pickup trucks with bicycles parked in the red no parking zone, unloaded
their bikes, slamming doors with loud talking, waking up the residents along Searaven and Pirate
bordering on Forrestal.
At this coming city council meeting the council will consider six options for Forrestal Reserve parking.
1. Forrestal Reserve parking on-site at the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center
2. Forrestal Reserve and Portuguese Bend parking at the Gateway Park location
3. Forrestal Reserve parking beyond the existing Forrestal gate
4 . Maintain and regulate existing on-street parking along Forrestal Drive near Palos
Verdes Drive South (PVDS) intersection
5. Expand on-street parking by removing red curbing along Forrestal Drive
6. Explore pocket parking lots (5-7 spaces each) adjacent to other trailheads
Items 3 and 5 should be rejected out of hand.
Item 3 Recreation and Parks has proposed two options .
1. Opening up the Forrestal gate: This will open up close to 200 spaces but will create a
traffic nightmare on Forrestal Dr. with increased traffic let alone creating a problem making a
left turn onto PV Dr, South impossible.
Forrestal behind the gate is isolated and will become a prime target for vehicle crimes . The
Lomita Sheriff has already identified a correlation between trailheads and vehicle crimes.
2 . Opening up a limited number of parking spaces behind the gate with a second
gate: Recreation and Parks has shown they have a problem with controlling the one gate let
alone two . When AYSO has an activity both gates would be open creating the problems of
item 1 above.
1 3.
Additionally as shown above there would be cueing before the gate is open and a continuous
flow of cars circulating looking for an open space creating the issues of Del Cerro.
Item 5 Expand on-street parking by removing red curbing along Forrestal
The red no parking along both sides of Forrestal down to the end of the park property was placed
there to prevent hikers and bikers from parking there at 5 AM in the morning or after
sundown. Before the red no parking, there were tailgate parties at all hours of the night disturbing the
residents that border along Forrestal. As shown above even with the no parking cars are cueing up
before the gate to the park is open. At least with the no parking these people can be cited.
The only real option is to expand the parking in the park item 1.
Recreation and Parks claims this is impossible as it would be costly and delay the park opening. Also
that it would put cars near the children's area. This is all nonsense.
There are already cars parked near the children's area in the upper parking area. As for the cost and
delay, the proposal is to delete the half basketball court and to provide additional parking between the
tennis court and the ocean side of the park on the upper level. This area has never been used. The
concept does not change the park or the building and would be more cost effective than adding
additional gates and controls.
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:20 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: Ladera Linda Preserve Parking -Sept 7 Council Meeting Item #3
Ladera Linda Parking 09-05-21.pdf
From: James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 2:36 PM
To: Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca .gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.brad ley@rpvca .gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Preserve Parking -Sept 7 Council Meeting Item #3
CAUTION: This email ori jnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Members of the City Council
Please find attached my comment letter. While we most certainly appreciate the concerns of the LLHOA, this issue was
carefully considered during the design phase and a conscious decision was made to move all the active components of
the Park to the NE corner (away from LL and Seaview) and address Preserve Parking separately and outside the
Park. Council should move forward with the current plan for the Park and Community Center. The large amount of
money that would be needed for a re-design (which undoubtedly would cause more conflict) would be better spent on
actually solving the parking problem.
I also wil provide a brief recorded statement. Unfortunately, I received notice of this issue and meeting only after I had
committed to a Cub Scout open house (which I am leading).
Thank you all for your attention and service, and I hope you are enjoying the Labor Day weekend.
Jim Hevener
1 3.
Ladera Linda Parking -Item #3 --Council Meeting 09/07 /21
I am Jim Hevener, a resident ofthe City, father of three, the Cubmaster for Pack 995, AYSO
Soccer Coach, Vice-President of the Mediterrania HOA (MHOA), and one of the designated
representatives of the MHOA with respect to the Lad era Linda Community Center and Park
Project. In short, I'm a busy Dad who cares deeply about the Ladera Linda Project.
1. Preserve Parking Is A Major Issue And Should Be Addressed In a Comprehensive Manner
With Consideration of Other Trailheads Including Del Cerro, City Hall, etc.
While the wave of COVID lock-down visitors seemed to have subsided, Preserve parking
remains an extremely serious concern.
The MHOA Board and I share many of the concerns expressed by the LLHOA and other
adjacent residents. The City needs to address Preserve Parking in a comprehensive manner.
The Del Cerro issues should not be solved by creating a problem at LL, and vice versa. Same
for the Portuguese Bend area etc.
We recommend Council direct Staff to include LL Preserve Parking in a comprehensive
review of all Preserve parking and include all stakeholders in a comprehensive process
(nearby residents and users alike). The PUMP process already exists, and this effort should
be coordinated with or made part of the PUMP process.
2. The City Should Spend The Money On Solving the Parking Problem Not On a Major
Redesign of the Park, as the Council Already Determined That Preserve Parking Would Not
Be In the Park, Including With Substantial Input and Support from LLHOA Residents.
The decision to locate Preserve parking outside the Park was carefully considered during the
design phase, and the decision to locate Preserve parking outside the Park was expressly
approved by the Council at least twice, with input from the LLHOA. The reasons supporting
that decision still exist. While we appreciate that concerns remain, those concerns do not
justify stopping the Project and spending large sums of money to re-design the entire active
area of the Park and the parking. The time and money should instead be spent on solving
the issue.
As a member of the committee of representatives of the four surrounding HOAs, I was
present for the meetings in which parking for the Community Center and Preserve was
considered. At those meetings several LLHOA representatives expressed the opinion that
they did not want Preserve parking in the Community Center and Park property, and
instead that Preserve parking should be separately addressed. While this view may have
changed on the part of the LLHOA, the original reasons still hold:
(a) Locating the active components of the Community Center/ Park in the northeast corner of
the Park property where Preserve parking otherwise would be located minimized the
impact on LL and Seaview. Per the diagram in the Staff report (attached below), adding
Preserve parking into the Park will require moving and substantially redesigning the active
play areas. Undoubtedly, the same residents who wanted the active play areas further from
LL and Seaview will oppose moving the active elements closer to their neighborhoods.
Eliminating the basketball courts to make room for Preserve parking is certainly not an
answer, especially when there are other options.
(b) Adding Preserve parking would involve a major re-design. Introducing parking and a turn-
around directly adjacent to the active play area for young children was not just a space
issue; it also was a significant safety issue. You can't just squeeze a bunch of parking spaces
into the NE corner of the Park.
(c) Desire to maximize open space and a buffer zone. Creating modest parking for the Preserve
away from the Community Center maximizes open space and buffer zones between the
Park and adjacent neighborhoods.
(d) Current parking is the minimum necessary. The number of space (56 or so) is the right
number for the Community Center and Park and is not adequate for both the Park and the
Preserve. While some extra parking may be available at times, 56 spaces is the minimum
needed for a Community Center with an MPR having a capacity for 80 and additional
classroom. This number was carefully considered by the design team to serve the Center
while also maximizing open space.
While no decision is perfect, the decision that Preserve Parking would not be in the Park
was a good decision and remains a good decision. Another re-design would be extremely
expensive and add months and months (at least) of delays. It's better to move forward and
spend the time and money on an actual solution.
3. Parking On Upper Forrestal Likely Is Best Option, But Only After Careful Study and as Part
of a Comprehensive Preserve Parking Plan.
The main option for Preserve parking for the LL trailhead has always involved some use of
"upper" Forrestal. This still seems like the best option, but the LLHOA has raised a number
of very legitimate issues that need to be considered. Perhaps building another gate just
beyond the current one too make space for 20 new paid parking spaces would be an option.
Another option that might be better would be to create gated spaces closer to the trailhead
(also paid) and away from LL. Because of AYSO it's not simple and we support the LLHOA in
opposing a solution that would create another Del Cerro in their backyard.
4. All Options, Including "Gateway Park," Should Be Considered For Parking During
Construction, Because On-Site Parking Using Current Entrance Likely Will Be In Direct
Conflict With Construction Activities and Pose a Safety Issue.
Sadly, even the short-term issue of parking during construction is not easy. Construction
experts can weigh in, but it appears temporary parking in the NE corner is not viable. The
only access route is by way of the narrow main driveway which will be used for
construction-sized vehicles. This seems like a conflict in terms of delay and also a safety
issue. Remember, any delays caused by traffic conflicts will only prolong the pain to the
neighbors .
A combination of parking areas could serve to mitigate the short-term impacts. This might
be a combination of Gateway (at least the part by the road but not too much because that
would cause another huge problem), plus Upper Forrestal, plus maybe some of the
currently red striped part of Forrestal (only temporarily). None of these solutions is great
and none solve the problem long-term .
5. No matter what happens. the City MUST commit to vigorous and consistent enforcement
of parking restrictions.
In our observation, a major issue with developing consensus is a lack of trust of the City and
Staff. We have great admiration for Staff and believe they really do listen to the residents
and try their best. But Staff must be directed and given adequate enforcement authority
and resources to back -up the parking restrictions (and use restrictions for the
Park/Community Center). This is key regardless of the solution. Otherwise, all the work by
everyone is just words, and makes matters worse because confidence continues to erode.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:19 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: City Council Meeting 09/07 /21 -Item #3, Preserve Parking
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 20214:48 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 09/07 /21 -Item #3, Preserve Parking
CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes .
This Item has 2 parts: 1) To review the short term parking options for
the Reserve during the construction of the new Ladera Linda park and 2)
To review the long term parking options for the Reservewhen the new
Ladera Linda park is operational.
Short Term Parking Options:
The LLHOA has met via Zoom with Staff to discuss the short term
parking options for the Reserve during construction of the new Ladera
Linda park. Staff has listed 6 options that are summarized in the staff
report.
The first option (Option #1) was to provide 25 temporary parking
spaces on the Ladera Linda park site, accessible from the present park
entrance, but that may prove to be difficult and unsafe with construction
equipment working on the park site. Present parking for the Reserve at
Ladera Linda averages about 70 cars on weekends and at times the lots
are full and they park in our neighborhood. I have heard some Council
members say that the demand for parking will decrease as covid-19 is
resolved, but I don't agree with them. People coming to our Reserves will
1 3
continue at their present levels because one big change has been made
where many employees can now work from home.
Another recommendation (Option #2) was to temporarily allow parking
in Gateway Park. The Gateway Park parking lot areas may not be
geologically acceptable and if any work was to start on landslide
remediation, that would be the logical construction staging area. A major
problem with Gateway Park is that it would create a traffic hazard on
PVDS with cars waiting for a parking place and block traffic creating a
major traffic bottleneck. That could be acceptable for the short term, but
in the past it was also rejected because of concerns of people crossing
PVDS to access beaches and Sacred Cove.
Another case is the Forrestal gate (Option #3). The gate was installed
many years ago to correct a problem of partying at night, lighting fires
and constantly dumping trash, furniture and tree branches throughout
that portion of Forrestal. The present gate has solved that problem
except for the times when the gate is not locked up at night.
In the staff report (Option #4) states that there are approximately 60
parking places (page 3 at bottom of the page) on lower Forrestal Drive
near PVDS. That should be adequate for ttemporary Reserve parking.
Staff says that it is too far away from the Reserve, however presently
hikers park on Crenshaw all the way down to the Art Center and
beyond and walk uphill to the Del Cerro trail access to avoid prepaid
parking.
It seems as though even if resident suggestions were approved by the
City Council and worked well to resolve issues, they are always subject to
being brought up again by staff to the City Council for change because
staff is not happy with the working solution. One case in point is the red
curbing on Forrestal Drive below the gate (Option #5). It has been in
operation for almost 3 years and works very well, except for the few
times that people park along the red curbs to access the Reserve at night
to party. That becomes a problem with enforcement. Why is this item
brought up again and again?
2
Another is the suggestion to explore pocket parking lots (Option #6)
adjacent to other trail heads. One would think that the staff would want
to minimize disruption in residential areas and not increase it as this
option would encourage. This would create havoc throughout our City.
Long Term Parking Options:
The LLHOA also met with staff on a Zoom meeting to discuss the 6
options for long term Reserve parking. However there is no need to
explore the 6 options because, this item has already been satisfacturally
resolved. A few years ago, when the red curbs were installed, our HOA
suggested that staff increase the amount of parking in Ladera Linda park
to accommodate the Reserve hikers. The Public Works Director, at that
time, found a way to save the City money, while easily increasing the
amount of parking spaces. Brush, debris and some unused telephone
poles were removed and the open spaces on the 2nd and 3rd levels were
leveled. He then provided asphalt street grindings, from road repaving
projects, to cover the flattened areas. That provided up to 90 total
parking places. Otherwise the City would have to spend many thousands
of dollars to truck the grindings to a landfill. Our HOA was also
instrumental in requesting signage to direct public parking to Ladera
Linda park and installed signs at our HOA entrance to redirect the public
and AYSO parking. Since that time we have had very few parking issues.
As you know, we have applied to the City for permit parking in a portion
of our neighborhood.
Our HOA has for years been suggesting that the new Ladera Linda park
be designed to accommodate 90 parking places, however that has fallen
on deaf ears. That would allow parking for the Reserve and the new park
as well. As I said before, when staff does not like our solutions, they just
bring it up to the City Council again for a different outcome. If you were
to look at the staff report for the August 20,2019 City Council meeting on
page 10, the last paragraph clearly states their attitude: "While all of
these suggestions are available for City Council consideration, Staff and
3
Johnson Favaro believe that their recommendations better represent
the input from all the community." Yes they know better what we want
than we do.
I personally feel that the staff's solution for permanent Reserve parking
is to permanently remove the gate on Forrestal because they know
better what we want than we do. That would be a tragic solution.
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Monday, September 6, 2021 6:28 PM
mickeyrodich@gmail.com; CC; CityClerk
Re: City Council Meeting 09/07 /21 -Item #3, Preserve Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello Mickey and our Council Members,
This Item has just one objective. Keep the unhappy natives distracted while Staff continues to avoid
facilitating a Citizen Task Force effort to balance the Goals and Policies in the Updated General Plan
with the not yet validated directions/agreements in the Natural Communities Conservation
Plan. Parking requirements to support the whole Theme Park will not happen one parksite
modification at a time . Modifying human behavior is a subject which appears to be too complicated
for Staff unless you understand that evicting uncooperative humans is a precursor to evicting all non-
Biologist humans.
Thank you for the documentation of the wild goose chases. The pursuit of a real solution to the real
problem is not to be found in this Agenda Item's Title. Therefore, Council may not direct Staff to
pursue such a remedy .... SUNSHINE
In a message dated 9/6/20214:48:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, mickeyrodich@gmail.com writes:
This Item has 2 parts: 1) To review the short term parking options
for the Reserve during the construction of the new Ladera Linda
park and 2) To review the long term parking options for the
Reservewhen the new Ladera Linda park is operational.
Short Term Parking Options:
The LLHOA has met via Zoom with Staff to discuss the short term
parking options for the Reserve during construction of the new
Ladera Linda park. Staff has listed 6 options that are summarized in
the staff report.
The first option (Option #1) was to provide 25 temporary parking
spaces on the Ladera Linda park site, accessible from the present
park entrance, but that may prove to be difficult and unsafe with
construction equipment working on the park site. Present parking
1 3.
for the Reserve at Ladera Linda averages about 70 cars on
weekends and at times the lots are full and they park in our
neighborhood. I have heard some Council members say that the
demand for parking will decrease as covid-19 is resolved, but I don't
agree with them. People coming to our Reserves will continue at
their present levels because one big change has been made where
many employees can now work from home.
Another recommendation (Option #2) was to temporarily allow
parking in Gateway Park. The Gateway Park parking lot areas may
not be geologically acceptable and if any work was to start on
landslide remediation, that would be the logical construction
staging area. A major problem with Gateway Park is that it
would create a traffic hazard on PVDS with cars waiting for a
parking place and block traffic creating a major traffic bottleneck.
That could be acceptable for the short term, but in the past it was
also rejected because of concerns of people crossing PVDS to access
beaches and Sacred Cove.
Another case is the Forrestal gate (Option #3). The gate was
installed many years ago to correct a problem of partying at night,
lighting fires and constantly dumping trash, furniture and tree
branches throughout that portion of Forrestal. The present
gate has solved that problem except for the times when the gate is
not locked up at night.
In the staff report (Option #4) states that there are approximately
60 parking places (page 3 at bottom of the page) on lower Forrestal
Drive near PVDS. That should be adequate for ttemporary Reserve
parking. Staff says that it is too far away from the Reserve, however
presently hikers park on Crenshaw all the way down to the Art
Center and beyond and walk uphill to the Del Cerro trail access to
avoid prepaid parking.
It seems as though even if resident suggestions were approved by
the City Council and worked well to resolve issues, they are always
2
subject to being brought up again by staff to the City Council for
change because staff is not happy with the working solution. One
case in point is the red curbing on Forrestal Drive below the gate
(Option #5). It has been in operation for almost 3 years and works
very well, except for the few times that people park along the red
curbs to access the Reserve at night to party. That becomes a
problem with enforcement. Why is this item brought up again and
again?
Another is the suggestion to explore pocket parking lots (Option
#6) adjacent to other trail heads. One would think that the staff
would want to minimize disruption in residential areas and not
increase it as this option would encourage. This would create havoc
throughout our City.
Long Term Parking Options:
The LLHOA also met with staff on a Zoom meeting to discuss the 6
options for long term Reserve parking. However there is no need to
explore the 6 options because, this item has already been
satisfacturally resolved. A few years ago, when the red curbs were
installed, our HOA suggested that staff increase the amount of
parking in Ladera Linda park to accommodate the Reserve hikers.
The Public Works Director, at that time, found a way to save the
City money, while easily increasing the amount of parking spaces.
Brush, debris and some unused telephone poles were removed and
the open spaces on the 2nd and 3rd levels were leveled. He then
provided asphalt street grindings, from road repaving projects, to
cover the flattened areas. That provided up to 90 total parking
places. Otherwise the City would have to spend many thousands of
dollars to truck the grindings to a landfill. Our HOA was also
instrumental in requesting signage to direct public parking to Ladera
Linda park and installed signs at our HOA entrance to redirect the
public and AYSO parking. Since that time we have had very few
3
parking issues. As you know, we have applied to the City for
permit parking in a portion of our neighborhood.
Our HOA has for years been suggesting that the new Ladera Linda
park be designed to accommodate 90 parking places, however that
has fallen on deaf ears. That would allow parking for the Reserve
and the new park as well. As I said before, when staff does not like
our solutions, they just bring it up to the City Council again for a
different outcome. If you were to look at the staff report for the
August 20,2019 City Council meeting on page 10, the last paragraph
clearly states their attitude: "While all of these suggestions are
available for City Council consideration, Staff and Johnson Favaro
believe that their recommendations better represent the input
from all the community." Yes they know better what we want than
we do.
I personally feel that the staff's solution for permanent Reserve
parking is to permanently remove the gate on Forrestal because
they know better what we want than we do. That would be a tragic
solution.
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
grapecon@cox.net
Wednesday, September 1, 2021 4:54 PM
CC; CityClerk
Sept 7 CC Regular Business Item 3
AUTION: This email ori ina t ed frrom outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
After reading the staff report for Regular Business Item #3, I believe it is very clear the path that should be taken (and I
have no idea why staff did not recommend this):
1. Short term:
a. Approve permit parking in LLHOA neighborhood, as requested by homeowners (subject of future CC
meeting)
b. Make no other changes, other than perhaps to limit hours of existing street parking on Forrestal Drive
(except permits for 3 residences located on Forrestal). Trail users will either have to park a little further
downhill, or perhaps utilize the City's well publicized Alta Vista area where there is "plenty of free
parking plus public restroom access" and "ocean views." (quoted from the recuring Facebook post the
city puts up). Yes, trail users may be slightly inconvenienced by this, but that is nothing compared to the
noise and dust that will inconvenience local residents for the 15 month construction period. Everyone
can share in the inconveniences.
2. Long term:
a. Keep short term parking arrangements on Forrestal in place permanently, as well as permit parking
within LLHOA
b. Follow the already approved PUMP plan of providing limited parking for the preserve wit hin the LLCC
parking lot. (Why this plan was not mentioned and followed during the numerous park planning
meetings, all of which I attended and actively participated in, I have no idea . Staff initially was open to
considering parking options for preserve within the community center, but then completely removed it
from the discussion, apparently in an effort to get the LLCC plan moved forward, and I don't recall ever
hearing the PUMP plan until reading this report today).
I believe under no circumstances (short or long term) should you consider allowing preserve parking beyond the current
Forrestal gate, as there is an extensive history of real and significant problems when that area is opened, and I do not
believe past or current staff has demonstrated any ability to properly monitor or control areas like this .
I also do not believe parking at Gateway is a viable short term, or long term, plan, as no matter how many staff members
you put on PVDS, people will use that area as a "Gateway" to access the sea caves and cliff areas. Let's face it, PVDSD is
a public street and you cannot lawfully prohibit pedestrians from using it or crossing from one side to the other. Let's
not kid ourselves.
I have many more opinions on the staff report, but have decided to be as brief as possible with my comments.
Gary Randall
Nearly 50 year RPV resident
1 3,