20210920 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITYOF Ri\NCHO PALOS VERDES ·
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, September 21, 2021 City Council meeting:
Item No.
D
1
2
3
Description of Material
Email from: Edith Balog; Marianne Hunter; Etild Asjian; Karla Amber;
Lola Fantappie; and Tara Mcguinness.
Email from: Mickey Radich.
Email exchange between Director of Public Works and Jessica Vlaco.
Email from: Gary Randall; Herb Stark; Kelvin Vanderlip
Email from: Sunshine
Respectfully submitted,
c-1vut1~~l
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210920 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
Enyssa Momoli
From: Jaehee Yoon
Sent:
To:
Monday, September 20, 2021 11 :58 AM
CityClerk
Cc:
Subject:
'.jeff@jefflewislaw.com'; Won, Ann M; David Haas; 'luis@envirotechno.com'
FW: major grading permit
Hello,
Please include the email below as late correspondence to the consent calendar item no. D. (project at 30504 PVDW).
Thank you.
Jaehee
From: Edith Balog <ebpiggy@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 202110:11 AM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: major grading permit
I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow regarding a major grading permit because I
am in a wheel chair.
I am very concerned about the plan to cut into the hillside. One area is right below my
pool
If this is approved and my property slides I will hold the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
responsible .
I am asking you to please vote against this gigantic structor.
Thanking you for your attention.
Edith Balog
30525 Rue Langlois,
RPV
1
\).
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Friday, September 17, 2021 6:54 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: Building permit
From: Marianne Hunter <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 20214:51 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Building permit
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
RE: 30504 Palos Verdes Dr W
We would like our city to reject the proposed building at this address. Building on this extreme slope with the
additional danger of a natural swale is not responsible on the part of the city or the property owner. It presents a danger
to and an infringement of privacy upon its neighbors.
Actions have consequences. In this case the positive affect for the landowner is far outweighed by the negative impacts,
certain and uncertain for the neighbors.
One person's benefit should not come at the cost of others.
Tax revenue is not a mitigating factor.
Sincerely, Marianne Hunter
1 Cinnamon
RPV CA 90275
Sent from my iPhone
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Saturday, September 18, 2021 9:30 PM
CityClerk
Fw: 4350 st ft McMcmansion at 30504 Palos Verdes Dr W.
From: Etild Asjian <outlook_D56438D99160E406@outlook.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 5:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 4350 st ft McMcmansion at 30504 Palos Verdes Dr W.
I am against the building of this mansion
Thank you
Etild Asjian
29612 Island View Dr, RPV 90275
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Saturday, September 18, 2021 9:37 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: No Mc Mansions & Extreme Slope buildings
From: Karla Amber <keao8888@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 8:16 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: No Mc Mansions & Extreme Slope buildings
Please do your duty & do not allow Mc Mansions & Extreme Slope buildings ruin our neighborhood. Bad
environmentally & visually!
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, September 20, 2021 8:54 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: 30504 Palos Verdes Dr W.
From: Lola Fantappie <lolafantappie@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 202110:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 30504 Palos Verdes Dr W.
Hello City Council members,
I ask that you properly reconsider the idea of such a home being built on
a very steep slope.
There are many reasons why building such a property goes against safety,
logic and our own City rules.
When the Planning Commission does not approve such a project, that is a
huge red flag.
The people of this neighborhood, including myself, are totally against this
project for good reason.
Sincerely,
Lola Fantappie
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tara Mcguinness <tara@taramcguinness.com>
Monday, September 20, 2021 4:01 PM
CityClerk; CC
Item Don the consent calendar
To the City Clerk and City Council Members:
I respectfully request that the City Council not approve the resolution and provide the staff or
applicant with additional direction.
This email is written in regard to the staffs' request that the City Council interpret, specifically
RPV Municipal Code §17.76.040(E) 1-8 ..
The RPV Municipal Code provides at §17.48.060 Extreme Slope provides, in relevant part:
No development or construction of any structure shall be allowed on any extreme slope (grade of 35
percent or greater), except as follows:
D. Grading and retaining walls allowed pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit);
(See my analysis in bold below.)
G. Construction of new residences (including habitable and nonhabitable space) on previously
undeveloped, recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975 or if within
Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the
director or planning commission finds that such construction, as conditioned, will not threaten the
public health, safety and welfare, provided that such structures are consistent with the permitted and
uses and development standards for the underlying zoning designations of the lots.
While it is agreed that this lot was subdivided before November 25, 1975, it is the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes that has jurisdiction to make the decision whether or not to award a
grading permit for an extreme slope for this project and not the County of Los Angeles.
The proposed construction is a threat to public safety and welfare, if not health of the
neighbors.
On June 29, 2021, the Planning Commission denied development application without
prejudice by a 3-2 vote. On July 13, 2021, the Planning commission adopted Resolution No,
2021-12, on a 4-0 vote denying, without prejudice to requested development applications.
It is unfathomable, in light of the weight of the problems with this extreme project on an
extreme slope, including challenges with drainage coupled the fact that the swale is directly
impacted by the construction of ths project, that the findings of the planning commission, that
this project is a threat to public safety, would be virtually ignored by the City Council by whom
they were appointed. Furthermore, approval of this project would open a pandora's box to
1
development on extreme slopes moving forward, particularly in light of Senate BILL 9 allowing
lots zoned for single family residences to have up to four units.
The planning commission found that there is a threat to public safety. The intent is to
remove 10490 cubic yards from the hillside below my neighbor's home. This decision should
not be overruled without engineering and geological back-up. The decision should not be
made until we have proof that the project is not a treat to the public health, safety and welfare
of any member of our community.
17.76.040 -Grading permit.
E.Criteria for Evaluation of Minor Grading and Major Grading Applications. A minor grading or major
grading application shall be assessed in light of the following criteria:
1.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as
defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions) of this title;
In February 2008 approval was given for construction of a residence which only
required grading on slopes of 50% and above requiring only required 499 cubic yards of
grading. All but 2.9 % of this current project is on a slope of 35% and above and most is
above 49% and goes up to 80% and requires than 1049 cubic yards of associated grading.
The applicants can propose approval for a project of a far more appropriate residence
requiring much less grading.
2.The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual
relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where
grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be
satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such
that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8) of this title,
is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from
preconstruction (existing) grade;
The proposed grading and construction significantly adversely affects the visual
relationships no less than five neighboring properties, the two adjoining properties, two on
Via Cambron and the neighbor immediately above the proposed construction on Rue
Langlois. In fact it adversely affects all the residences on Via Cambron. It is an enormous
glass structure that has the appearance of a box on top.
* invades the privacy of the two residences on Palos Verdes Drive West and two on Via
Cambron, and at least one on Rue Langlois
* the proposed residence is grossly incompatible with the entire neighborhood.
3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are
reasonably natural;
The proposed grading is required for all but 2.9% of the entire structure and does
nothing to minimize disturbance to the natural contours and the finished contours are
unequivocally not reasonably natural.
4.The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances
by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural
topography;
2
The proposed structure, while it may be beautifully designed for a home on the strand or
elsewhere, will stand out like a sore thumb especially to the residents on Palos Verdes Drive
West and Via Cambron. A similar proposal was recently denied by this City Council for a
structure off P. V. Drive East.
5.For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the
immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-family Residential Districts);
The proposed Grading and related construction is grossly incompatible with the
neighborhood character.
Staff unfairly considered only the two adjoining residences. The neighborhood is
Pointe Vicente and includes Via Cambron, Berry Hill, Via Victoria, Via Rivera, Rue la Fleur, Rue
Langlois, Rue de la Pierre and Rue Valois. This massive glass structure is absolutely
incompatible with the Point Vicente neighborhood which is comprised of award winning
California Ranch Style tract houses, some of which have later incorporated Mediterranean
themes. The five photographs proffered by the appellants depicting residences on Berry Hills,
Via Victoria, are disingenuous in that they do not remotely resemble the residence they pan to
build nor are they representative of our neighborhood which is not "eclectic. 11
Imposing modern glass structure with 678 square foot deck, with a kitchen, dining, and
sofa areas, is incompatible with the neighborhood and the city council has consistently
disapproved roof top decks. The proposed structure does not blend in.
6.ln new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of
plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects
of grading and construction on hillside areas;
Not applicable as a new tract is not proposed.
7.The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives
and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside;
No effort whatsoever has been used to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize
with the natural contours and character of the hillside.
8.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or
wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
This project will clearly damage the adjacent coastal sage scrub which is a habitat for
the gnatcatcher and possibly red tail hawk nests. In fact it appears that roundup or another
weed abatement has been used on this property which has eradicated some coastal sage
scrub on my slope.
For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council not approve the
resolution and provide the staff or applicant with additional direction.
Tara McGuinness
3
Tara McGuinness, Attorney, Mediator, & Collaborator
3424 W. Carson Street, Suite 570
Torrance, CA 90503
Office (310)793-0800
Fax (310)793-0805
A Tara f'1cGuinness ti~ & Associates
NOTE: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE/ WORK PRODUCT. This message and any accompanying documents are for the personal and exclusive use of the
recipient(s) named above. It contains confidential information from TARA McGUINNESS, ATTORNEY & MEDIATOR. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
TRANSMISSION AND ARE NOT THE IDENTIFIED RECIPIENT(S) OR HIS/HER AGENT, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND DELETE
THIS TRANSMISSION. Please be advised that any disclosure, use, review, copying, selling, dissemination publication or distribution of this transmission is
unauthorized and prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE IRS, WE INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE
CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING TAX-RELATED PENALTIES UNDER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL TAX LAW OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR
RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.
4
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Sunday, September 19, 2021 6:30 PM
CityClerk
Fw: Council Meeting 9/21/21 -Item #1 -Revision GGG To The Trump National Golf Club
Project CUP Conditions Of Approval
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 5:45 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council Meeting 9/21/21-Item #1-Revision GGG To The Trump National Golf Club Project CUP Conditions Of
Approval
I am in favor of the approval of Revision GGG to the Trump National
Golf Club Project CUP Conditions of Approval and allow a change in the
maximum building height for Lot #11 of Tract No. 50667 located at 32031
Isthmus View Drive. I urge the City Council to approve this change.
1
L
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Friday, September 17, 2021 10:25 PM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Late corr
From: vlaco5@cox.net <vlacoS@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 9:33 AM
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Hi Ramzi,
Thank you for getting back to me. However, unless the council plans on continuing the agenda item relating to lights
and security, then I am sure you will agree that a meeting on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday will not work.
My intention for reaching out to you on September 8th was to gain an understanding of both the current
lighting/security plan as well as the proposed changes to the CUP far enough in advance of the meeting scheduled for
September 21st so that I could make some meaningful and informed comments about this item.
Ara-is thee really no one that can help with this in a more timely manner?
Thanks,
Jessica
From: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 6:42 PM
To: Vlaco Family <vlaco5@cox.net>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Hi Jessica,
I can meet with you virtually to go over the lighting plan-I am available on Tuesday, September 21 at 2pm or later and
on Wednesday September 22 at 3pm or later. Please let me know if there are times in those windows that work for you.
I look forward to our discussion.
Sincerely,
Ramzi Awwad
1
From: Vlaco Family <v1aco5@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 202110:32 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>;
CC <CC@rpvca.gQY>
Subject: Re: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 15, 2021, at 9:36 AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Jessica,
I will ask Ken or Octavio in planning to reach out to you.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITYOF !~CHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
l his e·rnail messa9e contains information bclon9in9 to the City of kancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential andior
protected from disclosure. Th() infonnation is intended only for use of the individual or entity 11a1r1c1d. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this env:iil in error, or arc not an intcndccl recipient, please notify the sender
irnrm,diately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
2
•
1 Download on tho
AppStore ► G£TITON GoogtePlay
From: vlaco5@cox.net <v1aco5@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 9:25 AM
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Hello again Ramzi,
Is it possible for someone to get back to me on this?
Thanks,
Jessica Vlaco
310.995.0904
From: vlaco5@cox.net <vlaco5@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 202112:02 PM
To: 'Ramzi Awwad' <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Ara Mihranian' <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Hi Ramzi,
I am not an engineer or architect. I don't really know how to read plans and I don't think the lighting
plan was ever discussed in detail at a council meeting. Since lighting (specifically too much of it) has
always been a concern of mine and, as I don't want to be surprised after the fact, I would appreciate it if
someone who is familiar with the lighting plans would schedule a meeting with me in the next couple of
days to review existing plans as well as the proposed changes.
Thank you.
Jessica Vlaco
r:, Scanned by McAfee and confirmed virus-free.
3
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Sunday, September 19, 2021 9:51 AM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: CC meeting 9/21 Public Hearing Item #2
From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 6:50 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>
Subject: CC meeting 9/21 Public Hearing Item #2
Staff's recommendation to install ~57 light standards and bollards (my count may be off) at LLCC is
ridiculous. This amount of lighting by far exceeds the lighting of any other park in all of RPV! This no doubt is
to illuminate the entire area so that the recommended ~20 unsupervised security cams can see during the
night when the park is closed and no one is supposed to be using it. Even if a 24/7 supervised system were
used, the response time is likely so long that criminal activity will be gone long before authorities arrive,
making me wonder how much any of this will deter vandalism and crime. Good luck prosecuting anyone (let
alone finding them) based solely on security cam footage!
The design with high amounts of glass also has resulted in large and expensive security shutters to be
included. The building design has been flawed from the start, but that has not deterred Parks and Rec and the
CC from moving forward. Instead of a more moderately sized and conservatively designed building, the CC has
decided to go "whole hog" on this new de-facto preserve information and tourist center (all the while claiming
it is retaining the "low key neighborhood feel" of the area). By the time the dust has settled, I am sure the
price tag will be well north of $20M. And this does not even consider all the cost of maintaining the facility,
with all the lights, cameras, glass, security shutters, automatic gates, electric vehicle charging stations, solar
panels, full time onsite staff, etc. What will be the true annual all-in operating cost of this facility? Do you
have a figure? Has that figure been clearly presented to RPV residents? (not buried in another 250 page staff
report)
Of course, all of this will be even more "necessary" now that you have decided at the last CC meeting to put
one gate on Forrestal, to be opened every day allowing access to an estimated 300 street parking spacings on
upper Forrestal for preserve parking, attracting more visitors and further more snatch-and-grab criminals to
this remote area for easy pickings. Those criminals will no doubt be casing LLCC, LLHOA, and Seaview HOA
while they are in the area. In order to "secure" the gate at night and prevent vandalism and/or criminal
activity, I suppose we can look forward to another 10-15 light standards and security cams on it.
I predict the traffic implications of opening these new parking areas and the $17M visitor center (oops, I mean
"community center") will trigger a need to revisit the Forrestal/PVDS intersection discussion, with any
solutions likely requiring high amounts of lighting there as well.
1
To be fair, some of the CC members have understood local resident's concerns over the past 6 years (both
current and previous council) and have reflected those in their comments and votes throughout this
process. But, as a body, the current and previous CC have consistently voted against the wishes of the clear
majority of the most local residents to this area, namely Lad era Linda and Seaview HOAs. In the April 2020
meeting, an astounding 70%-80% of all speakers/ letters (and there were over 100) opposed the proposed
design and yet you (as an entire council) voted to proceed anyway.
I am not sure why I am writing this letter, as my full expectation is that you as a body will approve the staff
recommended plan using the argument there are few alternatives and that "we are too far down the path" to
make changes to the park/building design. The standard response residents hear nowadays from CC is that
"we can try it and then adjust down the road." Yes, that can be done, and costs taxpayer's dollars in iterations
when not done right the first time.
I look forward to seeing fewer stars at night, increased traffic, and increased crime in my neighborhood after
this staff recommendation is approved and the park constructed. I will mark my calendar now so I don't
forget to send the CC a thank you note.
Gary Randall
(speaking as an individual 50 year resident of RPV; I am not speaking officially on behalf of the LLHOA)
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Saturday, September 18, 2021 9:31 PM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: September 21 2021 City Council Meeting
From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 202110:52 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: September 21 2021 City Council Meeting
Item 2 Public Hearings Ladera Linda Park
Exhibit A Parking Conditions 48. No fewer than 54 on-site parking spaces consisting of 47
standard parking spaces at a minimum of 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep, one electric vehicle space, one
ADA electric van accessible spac_e, three clean air vehicle spaces and three ADA accessible
spaces.
The city council should reject the staffs parking plan as inadequate for the size of the building as it
would require overflow parking during normal operations.
Assuming 6 staff vehicles and two trailers that are now on site, there will only be 40 standard parking
places available.
This would suggest that at the most only two small events can be held at any one time without
overflow parking.
Any one major event would require overflow parking.
The only available overflow parking would be behind the Forrestal Gate.
This would create a conflict in operating hours between the park and the Reserve. The Forrestal gate
is proposed to be open only one hour after sunset, whereas the Park is open to 9 PM and could be
later for special events.
Since the Forrestal gate would have to be left open every night until at least 10 PM, to assure all cars
are gone, this would open the area to vehicle crimes, dumping of trash, noise, parties and fires which
is why the gate was put there in the first place.
1
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, September 20, 2021 3:46 PM
Enyssa Momoli
FW: Ladera Linda: dog drinking fountains
From: Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 202111:00 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda: dog drinking fountains
CAUTION: This email ori lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Ve l!des.
Dear City Council,
I use the Ladera Linda area daily to exercise myself and my dog Finn.
On Tuesday you will hold a public hearing on the Ladera Linda project. While you have it open, I would like to propose
one more item for your consideration for this project.
My dog Finn is trained to stand up and drink from ordinary public drinking fountains, but many dogs cannot do this. I
have also noted that non-dog owners get upset seeing a dog drinking from a fountain they plan to use for their children .
There are many public drinking fountains which have a special outlet at dog height. Here is an image of one :
There is also an example of such a drinking fountain on Forrestal just past the driveway into the current facility.
If these dog -friendly fountains have not yet been specified for your project, would you please direct the Ladera Linda
project planners and staff to insist on such drinking fountains?
And if dog -friendly drinking fountains are not going to be installed into the new project I would appreciate knowing who
is opposed, and why.
1
2 .
Thank you,
Kelvin Vanderlip
4105 Sea Horse Lane
RPV
(424) 241-0609
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Karina, Katie and Teri,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Friday, September 17, 2021 2:44 PM
Karina Banales; Katie Lozano; Teresa Takaoka
CC; CityClerk; PC; imac
Council Goal 4a. Create a detailed ... of the City's public infrastructure and assets.
D M Criteria July 4, 2012.doc
Apparently, all of the documents on Katie's list of document titles which she claims have been
provided to Alta are "responsive documents". My neighbors and I have a problem with the fact that
our current City Staff Members (other than Ara Mihranian) have not read them and Ara likes it that
way. We have a detailed inventory and maintenance schedule of the City's public infrastructure and
assets. It is so much more costly when our Staff's Time is devoted to working around what they don't
bother looking up because somebody has told them that somebody else is working on it. And,
sending everyone on wild goose chases keeps the unhappy campers focused on the latest search for
errors and omissions.
Since you three are on the payroll to shuffle the "responsive documents", how about you get your
heads together and give Ramzi Awwad the ones that direct him to avail himself of the citizens who
put their blood, sweat and tears into drafting the "responsive documents" which Council has
approved. We can't keep waiting for Staff/Consultants to re-paginate them. Our infrastructure is
deteriorating while the direction in the General Plan is to preserve and enhance it. That is not in
conflict with the NCCP when all three parties get equal seats at the table.
My request for Staff time dated September 10, 2021 was to produce the one thing that everyone in
RPV has been struggling without since 1984. Staff has always had a hard time figuring out where the
trails are. The TRAILS DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 is a
communications tool for negotiating/documenting a detailed inventory of the City's roadsides,
easements, fire roads, utility access, park access, trails, pathways, fords, culverts, bridges and
erosion control devices.
These man-made changes to the earth's surface are infrastructure. When did the Council discuss the
pro's and con's with the people and direct Staff to remove these assets from what is covered in the
use of the term INFRASTRUCTURE in the Council's more recent Goals and Action Items? If there is
no such "resource document" then Staff has unilaterally chosen not to pursue their cost-effective
1
maintenance and enhancement. Withholding a well-vetted tool to facilitate the "holistic" design and
budgeting of these assets needs to stop.
The Western States Trail Foundation (WSTF) was working on it with the National Forrest Service
when the Task Force's Open Space Subcommittee first recommended "The Matrix", Open Space
Subcommittee/Task Force 11 Recommendations and Discussion documents dated May 12,
2004
Then, the finalized version was included November 7, 2012 Staff Report: Policy Direction Related
to "The Update of the City's Trails Network Plan.
It is simply disgusting that so much of Paradise has been lost while Staff rearranges the Councils
Goals and action Items. When is our Emergency Preparedness Coordinator going to get around to
asking both the Fire Department and the PVPLC to agree on which TYPE of trail/dirt road should
restore the Crenshaw Extension (per the PUMP) in conjunction with the PB Landslide Remediation
Project?
Per the General Plan, this is Ramzi Awwad's responsibility but, he can't find a "responsive document".
Give the man a chance. It is on page C-somethings General Plan (2018).
I have hard copies of all of the listed documents. What I don't have is Ara Mihranian's directions to
Staff and various Consultants regarding when these documents are to be used to prioritize and
generate funding for Staff Time to support public participation in the decision-
making/recommendations to Council process.
I look forward to your giving the City Council the opportunity to confirm that what a previous City
Council directed to be available for use within a year will be promulgated immediately and used to
facilitate public assistance with the 4a. Creation of a detailed inventory and maintenance schedule of
the City's public infrastructure and assets and the 12a. . .. provide user friendly trail
descriptions ... illustrating trail routes and uses in a clear and concise manner ...
Completing these two Action Items will facilitate the completion of several more Action Items in a
much more cost-effective and timely manner. I continue to offer my time and expertise as a Facilities
Designer and Trails Advocate, to draft the individual trail narratives per the formatting changes and
polices which Council approved on November 7, 2012. My not being allowed to work directly with
Alta is counter-productive unless the Council's Goals are just a fa~e while Ara and PVPLC eliminate
public access to open spaces one crisis at a time. In the mean-time, Ramzi, Cory and Ken are not
taking care of the City's trails and pathways which are not in the Preserve.
2
Karina, it is your Staff Report. Katie and Teri are providing you and me with conflicting statements.
You have an estimated 45 minutes to explain the delays and help the Council to Receive and File a
Status Report which actually represents doing something about our City's failing infrastructure.
Once again, the concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and assign to a
master plan application, a minimal, ultimate objective and avoid repeated environmental impact
studies, reports etc. prior to when funding becomes available for actual Engineering, improvement or
repair of a trail ... is attached. Sounds like the reason for an NCCP, doesn't it? Per your Staff Report,
we still don't have the State's Permit to implement that, either.
Have a constructive weekend.
SUNSHINE
RPV
310-377-8761
su nsh inerpv@aol.com
Subject: FW: REQUEST FOR STAFF TIME RE: September 21, 2021 Report on Council Goals
Date: 9/14/2021 12:09:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
Staff time to respond to public requests for information is approved. Staff has not been
directed to insert anything directly into the Trails Network Plan. Attached is a list of
documents provided to the consultant. All of these documents together with the consultant's
expertise will be used to formulate a draft Trail Network Plan for public review, and ultimately
City Council consideration. Please let us know if you would like us to provide you with any
document on the attached list. This list was provided to you on July 8, 2021.
Thank you.
3
Teri
Materials Given to Alta Planning for TNP Update
Bikeways Plan (1974)
General Plan (2018)
Local Coastal Specific Plan (2015)
Trail Standards Study (1982)
Trails Network Plan (TNP)(1984)
Parks Master Plan (2018)
Conceptual Bikeways Plan (1996)
Conceptual Trails Plan (1990)
Preserve Trails Plan (2008)
Preserve Public Use Master Plan (2014)
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (2019)
Open Space Subcommittee/Task Force 11 Recommendations and Discussion documents dated May
12,2004
March 29, 2005 Staff Report: Update of the Conceptual Trails Plan and meeting minutes
November 7, 2012 Staff Report: Policy Direction Related to "The Update of the City's Trails Network
Plan
2014 Public Workshop PowerPoint presentations and notes
Terranea Discovery Trail Map
Parcel Map No. 26073 (Terranea)
GIS data on trail locations and attributes
RPV Coastal Vision Plan
Trump National Golf Course trail maps and maintenance agreement
California Coastal Trail Plan
RPV Municipal Code
Rancho Palos Verdes Naming Policy
4
This is a concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and
assign to a master plan application, a minimal, ultimate objective and avoid repeated
environmental impact studies, reports etc . prior to when funding becomes available
for actual Engineering, improvement or repair of a trail.
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4, 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE GRADE PRISM** TREAD***
Average Maximum Distance+ Vertical Horizontal Minimum Width
1 3% 5% 30' 12' 8' 5'
2 5% 10% 100' 15' 12 ' 8'
3 5% 15% 100' 15' 10' 8'
4 10% 15%++ 100' 12' 8' 6'
5 10% 18%++ 100' 12 ' 6' 4'
6 10% 20%++ 100' 12' 5 ' 3'
7 15% 20%++ 100' 12' 4 ' 2'
These "guidelines" are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi-use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another.+++ For instance:
TYPE 1 -Wheelchairs. (ADA compliant.)
TYPE 2 -Large emergency vehicles. (Fire Department compliant.)
TYPE 3 -Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
emergency vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 -Recreation by a large volume of various users .
TYPE 5 -Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 -Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7 -Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Note: Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones
should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism". Any hardscape (such as a
driveway) that crosses a trail tread should have an anti-skid surface. Vertical
obstructions (such as curbs and water bars) should be no more than six inches high .
Access to ADA compliant alternate routes should be provided.
* A criterion is a standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
** A trail "prism" is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread. Nothing
higher than six (6) inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2) linear
feet along the trail. The trail tread need not be centered in the prism particularly
for "line of sight", big old tree, and/or "safety triangle" considerations.
*** The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side with
water drainage considerations.
+ There should be a level distance of at least eight (8) feet or a level turnout
before and after any instance where the trail tread reaches the maximum
grade for the maximum distance.
++ Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination,
it must meet the average for the trail TYPE. (User expectation signage .)
+++ A "destination" is a trailhead, vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE
can change without leaving someone stuck and having to backtrack,
unintentionally . Identify them with GPS waypoints.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, September 20, 2021 3:21 PM
CityClerk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: It is an ethics problem. September 21, 2021 RPV Council Meeting
D M Criteria July 4, 2012.doc
LC for goals item thank you
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:17 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: It is an ethics problem. September 21, 2021 RPV Council Meeting
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; mickeyrodich@gmail.com; info@pvpwatch.com; pt17stearman@gmail.com;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; tom@bergcm.com; bzzask@gmail.com; golisapv@gmail.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com;
cgardnerrpv@gmail.com; momofyago@gmail.com
Subject: It is an ethics problem. September 21, 2021 RPV Council Meeting
RE: Items ... Every single one except Consent Calendar A. Motion to Waive Full Reading.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council,
Disclosure of information has become regulated by authorities outside of our local control. Every
action and every lack of action is subject to potential litigation. What I am experiencing is a lack of
thorough risk management. Mayor Alegria has requested two changes in behavior of the
public... Do not criticize Staff. And, keep your comments brief. That has simply exacerbated the on-
going condition of ... "Staff has no corporate memory." --Mayor Susan Brooks. "Staff has put the
cart before the horse, again." --Mayor Jerry Duhovic. And ... "The RPV General Plan is
unenforceable." --Mayor Ken Dyda.
A new term has been introduced ... Resource Document or, Resource Record. Whatever that
means, the result is that somehow it is unethical for Staff to coordinate any of their proposed actions
with the public unless the City Clerk can find a document directing them to do so. For example:
1
Subject: RE: REQUEST FOR STAFF TIME RE: September 21, 2021 Report on Council Goals
Date: 9/13/2021 2:37:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com, AraM@rpvca.gov, CityClerk@rpvca.gov
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, CoryL@rpvca.gov, rawwad@rpvca.gov, KatieL@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Staff believes they have responded to your inquiry in previous emails. If you do not feel your
concern has been answered can I trouble you to provide a more specific request? Please let us
know what you are looking for and we will attempt to find responsive documents.
Thank you.
Teri
Then, she wrote:
Subject: FW: REQUEST FOR STAFF TIME RE: September 21, 2021 Report on Council Goals
Date: 9/14/2021 12:09:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: TeriT@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Sunshine,
Staff time to respond to public requests for information is approved. Staff has not been directed
to insert anything directly into the Trails Network Plan. Attached is a list of documents
provided to the consultant. All of these documents together with the consultant's expertise will
be used to formulate a draft Trail Network Plan for public review, and ultimately City Council
consideration. Please let us know if you would like us to provide you with any document on the
attached list. This list was provided to you on July 8, 2021.
2
Thank you.
Teri
Notice that the requested/approved document was not provided to Karina Banales in time for it to be
addressed in her Agenda Report on the status of the Council's goals. Maybe she will have it for her
virtual presentation.
I am really, really, really trying to assist our mostly new Staff with coming up with "holistic solutions" to
each of the tasks which they can't seem to pull together. Annual City Council Goals and Action Items
should help Staff focus on what needs to get done, soonest. The Goals and Policies in the General
Plan (unenforceable as it is), paint the bigger picture. I am a property owner and a Trails
Junkie. Why is the City Council prohibited from communicating with me in the interest of pursuing
what is special for Rancho Palos Verdes? Provide and maintain a safe, efficient, and
comprehensive system of roads and trails, and coordinate them with other jurisdictions and
agencies. Is this not infrastructure?
The Western States Trail Foundation's TRAILS DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July
4, 2012 is simply a model for the community to be able to agree on a detailed inventory of the City's
objectives (asset improvements) and existing infrastructure maintenance so that all interested parties
can recognize opportunities.
What the heck is Item G doing on your Consent Calendar? The NCCP is supposed to save private
property owners from having to fund individual Environmental Impact Reports. Back in 1990, Trail A9
was a well-used, unpaved pathway for all sorts of community benefits. As a point-to-point trail, the
Conceptual Trails Plan gives Staff the opportunity to facilitate a negotiation with a development
Applicant to enhance the Peninsula's desired trail connections across the private property in
conjunction with the Developer's objectives as opposed to someone demanding a prescriptive
easement to retain the existing trail route. If only Octavio Silva, Katie Lozano and Ramzie Awwad
had "official" access to the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. If
only there was an Infrastructure and Activities Commission to run interference between all of the
interested parties (i.e. use the CRITERIA tool to inventory our infrastructure). If only the City had
some sort of Community Services Director.
Each of the items on your September 21, 2021 Agenda are missing citizen participation in the
creation of the underlying Staff Recommendations. Each of the items on your September 21, 2021
Agenda is missing Council's request for an analysis of the "downside of doing nothing". If you look
closely, most of Staff's Recommendations are for Council to direct Staff to do more of the sort of
things that they have already explained that they don't have time to do.
3
If you also look closely at Staffs latest version of the Council's Action Items, you might notice that the
many of them are actions that Staff should be doing on a routine basis with citizen
assistance. Drafting new "plans" is something that citizen task forces have always done better and
faster than Staff. Maintaining our existing inventories as "living documents" should be the highest
priority and this is the one thing that is standing in the way of getting anything done well. We have no
valid "resource documents".
The list of documents which Katie sent me on July 8, 2021 is pure junk. Number one, because Staff
will not disclose what Ara, as the Contract Officer, told the Consultant to do with them. Which, if any
of them, are to be simply inserted in the Trails Network Plan has become vague. Which leads to
number two ... Why isn't the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012
on the list?
The primary question is ... Why is nobody using this tool to develop and maintain the trails
which are already in the Conceptual Trails Plan and the Preserve Trails Plan?
Every project should have some sort of citizen involvement with writing the Scope of Work. Every
development application should have some sort of citizen review before it is declared
"complete". What is being presented to the Planning Commission and the Council is fraught with
errors of omission.
This is as brief as I can make it. My only criticism of Staff is that they are prohibited from producing
quality work on behalf of the people who actually live here. Since it is unethical for them to disclose
upper Management's "interpretations" of the City's Codes and our Foundational Plans prior to and
after the promulgation of Agenda Reports, We, the People are under the thumb of the State of
California. I know you may not discuss any of this with me, one on one. That is an ethics issue, too.
I can only hope that this last piece of late correspondence will inspire some sort of effective direction
to our City Manager and City Attorney.
Best regards,
SUNSHINE
RPV
4
310-377-8761
sunshinerpv@aol.com
PS: There is no process in place for anyone to discuss an amendment to the TNP nor the Official
Land Use Map/HILLSIDE Codes in relation to 28160 PVDE.
5
This is a concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and
assign to a master plan application, a minimal, ultimate objective and avoid repeated
environmental impact studies, reports etc. prior to when funding becomes available
for actual Engineering, improvement or repair of a trail.
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT/ MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4 1 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE GRADE PRISM** TREAD***
Average Maximum Distance+ Vertical Horizontal Minimum Width
1 3% 5% 30' 12' 8' 5'
2 5% 10% 100' 15 ' 12' 8'
3 5% 15% 100' 15' 10' 8'
4 10% 15%++ 100' 12' 8' 6'
5 10% 18%++ 100' 12' 6' 4'
6 10% 20%++ 100' 12' 5' 3'
7 15% 20%++ 100' 12' 4' 2'
These "guidelines" are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi-use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another.+++ For instance :
TYPE 1 -Wheelchairs . (ADA compliant.)
TYPE 2 -Large emergency vehicles. (Fire Department compliant.)
TYPE 3 -Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
emergency vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 -Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 -Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 -Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7 -Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Note: Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones
should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism ". Any hardscape (such as a
driveway) that crosses a trail tread should have an anti -skid surface . Vertical
obstructions (such as curbs and water bars) should be no more than six inches high .
Access to ADA compliant alternate routes should be provided .
* A criterion is a standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
** A trail "pr ism" is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread. Nothing
higher than six (6) inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2) linear
feet along the trail. The trail tread need not be centered in the prism particularly
for "line of sight", big old tree, and/or "safety triangle" considerations.
*** The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side with
water drainage considerations.
+ There should be a level distance of at least eight (8) feet or a level turnout
before and after any instance where the trail tread reaches the maximum
grade for the maximum distance.
++ Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination,
it must meet the average for the trail TYPE. (User expectation signage.)
+++ A "destination" is a trailhead, vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE
can change without leaving someone stuck and having to backtrack,
unintentionally. Identify them with GPS waypoints.