20210921 Late CorrespondenceEnyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:56PM
CityCierk
FW: Comments on Ladera Linda Security Plan
From: James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 20214:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments on Ladera Linda Security Plan
Dear Members of Council
I wanted to provide brief comments in support of the Staff recommended Security Plan for the new
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. The proposed Security Plan strikes the right
balance between cost and effectiveness, and takes advantage of more sophisticated
electronic security equipment that may not have been available when the Hesse and Ryan
Park facilities were built using more traditional steel screens.
The one item with which I disagree is the removal of the stairs between the soccer fields and
the Park. The current problem is not the existence of the stairs, which are used by a very small
number of people, and instead vandalism of the fence since the gate is closed during normal Park
hours. Locking the gate only after hours is the solution. Otherwise, we likely will be back in a few
years wanting to rebuild the stairs and finding ourselves having to spend hundreds of
thousands on a new ADA compliant stair case. If it were the access stair to the Center I'd be in
favor of building a new staircase, but this is a little used staircase up to soccer fields.
Here are the main points I believe support the Staff Report:
1. No plan is perfect and the City could spend hundreds of thousands and even millions
more and end up with a plan that was not much better and likely would be subject to additional
and different objections. It is time to move on.
2. The proposed project consolidates programs currently within five existing buildings
into one new building, improving sight lines and eliminating concealed areas and blind
spots between buildings. Vegetation is also proposed to be kept low to improve sight
lines. These changes already will substantially improve security for the building (and should be
maintained). These changes in 2018-2019 were the result of many, many hours of
consideration by the design firms, the residents, LASD, and City Council.
1
1-
3. An Unsupervised Camera System is sufficient because of the historically low level of
crime and the program type. A supervised system is over-kill and will be prohibitively
expensive.
4. Amending the CUP to allow for 16 foot poles makes sense. The total impact is actually
less than adding new poles for the cameras, since the cameras can be co-located. Having
poles of a uniform height also would be visually less disturbing. Given the significant distance
to the closest residences, poles of 16 feet will not be looking down or casting light directly onto
residences.
5. Motorized security shutters at a cost of $210,000 is excessive when combined with the
other security measures.
This is especially true given the change in design which now encloses the Office and
Bathrooms. These areas now can be locked up after hours which will eliminate much of
the security risk for the central part of the facility. This enclosure of the bathrooms and
Office was a reasonable compromise and now it is time to proceed.
Thank you all for your continued diligence in moving this important Project forward.
Jim Hevener
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Teresa Takaoka
Subject: RE: Comments for Consent Calendar Item D
From: C Hall <chsunshine888@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 20214:54 PM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: C <chsunshine888@gmail.com>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.ggy>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments for Consent Calendar Item D
Hello Jaehee,
Please accept these comments for the Consent Calendar Item D into the appropriate categorization for to nights
meeting.
Thank you.
Brgds,
CH
City Council Meeting September 2, 2021
Consent Calendar Item D Comments
We are among 15 or more concerned Point Vicente neighbors supporting two of
The Alternatives:
Alternative 1. Do not approve the resolution and provide staff and/or Applicant
with additional direction.
1
Alternative 2. Identify additional resolution or conditions of approval language to
read into the record.
Sending the topic back to Planning Staff with Planning Commissioner guidance will
allow specific compliance on unresolved aspects of the proposed substantial build
on this "disadvantaged" extreme slope lot.
Before a Final Decision is made we would like to have a commitment entered into
the record from the each of the Councilmembers, stating that they will come to
out to the properties on Via Cambron, Rue Langlois, and PV Dr West, to see
firsthand the impact of the proposed build on the surrounding neighborhood.
A) The Plans to Reroute the Drainage Swale have not been completely resolved
per comments at the Appeal CC meeting made by Council member
Cruikshank, Council member Ferraro, and Councilmember Dyda, and Mayor
ProTem Bradley. This issue remains unresolved which risks impact to health
and safety.
B) Privacy concerns regarding "Party Deck" with glass railing have not been
resolved re: the Landscaping requirement has been identified as
unenforceable by Council member Cruikshank's comment at the Appeal CC
meeting. This eliminates the code viability for privacy re: the roof deck.
2
C) The size and placement of the "Party Deck" has not been resolved re: a
similar size deck was recently denied on Avendia Tranquila {Case No. PLSR-
2019-0365) over various concerns of impact on surrounding neighborhood.
Councilwoman Ferraro's Appeal Comment, "we don't usually permit these
decks."
D) Councilmember Cruikshank also voiced a need to see more privacy concerns
resolved during the Appeal meeting.
E) Mayor Alegria stated that he hopes the applicant continues to correspond
with neighbors. So far, hope has not brought results. There is no incentive to
resolve these issues once the project is approved.
F) This project scope could be downsized: Allowing a house to be build nearly
100% on a slope that is 50% or greater, without precise geotechnical surveys
confirming conditions in advance of CC approval defies thorough project
analysis. Meanwhile, creating a "slippery slope" for other Applicant teams
like this to demand approval from the City in the future.
G) Councilman Dyda commented that when the city was formed they didn't
want steep slopes over 35% except in certain situations.
H) It has not been verified that the General Plan Hazard Update of 2012 did not
modify the build lot status. This might impact developable area of the lot.
I) At the CC Appeal Meeting. The Planning Staff asked for an interpretation of
the Municipal Code re: construction and grading on extreme slopes and
3
deviation from grading criteria as the Planning Commissioners and Planning
Staff. That interpretation was not given. A subjective interpretation defies
the protective umbrella that the code is meant to provide.
J) There is an abundance of sage scrub, which is nesting habitat for the
protected California Gnatcatcher, on the property abutting the build site and
within 500 across PV Dr West in the preserved areas. Neither the biologist
reports nor the Land Conservancy review acknowledge these omissions.
K) Residents above the build site experience property ground movement over
the years. A complete Geotechnical Analysis of the impact of the Extreme
Slope Build on the surrounding properties has not yet been performed to
rule out threat to stability and risk of harm. Councilwoman Ferraro voiced
concerns about destabilizing the hillside, stating the house is too large and
too much grading for the extreme slope. This topic remains unresolved.
L) To enhance privacy the glass railings could be change of smooth stucco to
give privacy to all impacted parties. The project only has enough stucco
railing to protect master bedroom privacy from their deck glass railing.
Please redact personal information.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 21, 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.
D
E
G
L
2
Description of Material
Emails from: Justina Krakowski; rpvresident@gmail.com; Donna Butler;
Jeff Potter; Jeff Potter and the Davoodian's.
Updated Attachment A.
Email from: Sunshine
Letter from: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Foundation and Aleshire & Wynder LLP.
Staff response: Deputy Director of Community Development, Silva
Email exchange between Director of Community Development Rukavina
and Martha Foster.
Emails from: Herb Stark; Diane Mills; Bill Schurmer; Amanda Wong &
Craig German; Patricia Stenehjem; Donald Bell; Mickey Radich; Paul
Barrett
R~spectfu~ submitted,
Cl41z_44~"--'
Teresa T akaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210921 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:18AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West
From: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:46AM
To: justina.krakowski@gmail.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West
Good morning,
Thank you for your email comment.
It will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence regarding the subject item
Thank you.
Jaehee
From: Justina Krakowski <justina.krakowski@gmail.com>
Date: September 20, 2021 at 11:09:47 PM PDT
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West
Dear RPV City Council,
My name is Justina Krakowski and I live within 500 feet of the proposed build at 30504 Palos Verdes
Drive West. I'm writing because I am concerned and astonished that the City of R.P.V. would greenlight
severe grading of our hillsides for a 11 Statement" house after legitimate concerns were communicated by
Planning and by residents who may be impacted. If there is one thing that all residence in R.P.V. can
agree on, (which is rare these days), it's that we as a community have an ever-present mindfulness for
how fragile our "Hill" is to the elements.
Within the last ten years, my husband and I hired a geologist for a soil report for a renovation at our
home. Our report concluded that the area has expansive soil which, while not rare, does swell and
shrink when exposed to water and evaporation-it cracks and separates and then moves. This is evident
with cracks on our street which were beautifully resurfaced not too many years ago and on the street
above the property (Rue Langlois). Our hillsides are inclined to gradually move downwards, and it seems
1
\\
V·
that this property's footprint at 30504 is too large for the slope to need to displace such a radical
amount of earth. The process of this grading may naturally cause problems for us residence above, and
even loss of life below. Deterioration could arise during the build with machinery vibration or years
down the line after a good soaking.
I'm asking the City Council to consider further refinement of this project with less severe grading and a
smaller footprint for the build, as well as a further explanation as to how moisture and rain will be
diverted and drained safely. This property should not be given exceptions and special treatment while
threatening other constitutes who neighbor the brittle hillside. That would be dangerous precedence.
Thank you,
Justina Krakowski
Justina Krakowski
310.387.3741
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
RPV City Clerk,
RPV Resident <rpvresident@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:28AM
CityCierk
September 7 2021 -Conflict of Interest
September 7 2021 -Potential Conflict of lnterest.pdf
Please see attached letter regarding a potential conflict of interest at the September 7th City Council hearing. Please
forward to the City Attorney or any other parties who may be required to review such material. Please let me know if
there are further questions.
Thank you
1
To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Clerk
Via email: cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Date: September 21, 2021
Many neighbors in the Point Vicente neighborhood are very concerned with a potential conflict
of interest Councilman Cruikshank may have had requiring him to recuse himself from voting on
the appeal for the project on 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West.
Discussing this project at the September 7, 2021 meeting, Councilman Cruikshank commented:
"The reason I was asking about how many potential properties we have like this (is) I
wanted to kind of understand what potential downstream effect could be based on our
decision tonight. I actually have to correct the architect, whom I have worked with before,
who said 'it is a vertical slope' actually--100% it is one to one (1 :1), so it's kind of 45
degrees. So just to make sure people are aware of that. He'll probably kill me later but
that's okay (laughs)."
This statement makes it clear Councilman Cruikshank is very well aware the decision he is
making could impact future builds on steep slopes. It is our understanding Mr. Cruikshank's
engineering firm has provided services to recent projects which are also proposed on steep
slopes which means that this decision could have an impact on his future business.
Mr. Cruikshank has also made it clear he has a business relationship with the architect on this
project. We are aware he recently had to recuse himself from voting on another project where
his engineering firm worked with the same architect. Approval or disapproval of this project
could potentially impact his existing and any future business dealings with the architect. Both
the architect and Mr. Cruikshank's engineering firm could stand to profit from this project's
approval as it would set a precedent for other projects like this in the future.
We would like to reference the Memorandum dated September 19, 2017 regarding Conflicts of
Interest and Recusal Procedures.
The Summary of Conclusions states:
A. Statutory law only requires recusal when a decision potentially or actually benefits
defined financial interests of a public official (herein "statutory conflict").
B. Through judicial decisions a somewhat broader "common law" rule has been developed
for recusal where (i) personal or pecuniary interest would create the "appearance of
impropriety", or (ii) where persons are entitled to due process, the decision-maker has
evident bias preventing "fair hearing" (herin "Common law bias").
The potential benefits of financial interests to Mr. Cruikshank are clear by his occupation, recent
work and relationships. These same relationships lead to the "appearance of impropriety" which
would require Mr. Cruikshank to recuse himself from voting on the project.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Donna Butler <donna.butler.cwSg@statefarm.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:25 PM
CityCierk
FW: [EXTERNAL] Powerpoint
Sep 21 -Silhouette.pptx; Sep 21 -Silhouette.pdf
Please let me know if you get these. They are both the same but different format.
Donna Butler
1
Enyssa Momoli
To:
Subject:
Donna Butler
RE : Cubic Yards
From: Donna Butler <donna.butler.cwSg@statefarm.com >
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:44 PM
To: CityCierk <CityC ierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Cubic Yards
CAUTION: This email ar:i i nated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Can you please add to my photos for my presentation,
Thanks so much,
Donna Butler
250 cubic yards 500 cubic yards
1
1,000 cubic yards
D .
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hi City Clerk,
Jeff Potter <jmpotter@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:50 AM
CityCierk
Slides for City Council meeting tonight
City Council Sep 21 -Jeff Potter slides.pptx
Follow up
Completed
I plan to speak in person tonight. Do I need to sign up ahead of time or can I just show up a little early and let someone
know? Also, please find attached slides that I would like to bring up when I talk in person.
Thank you,
Jeff Potter
1
-30504 Property Line (no pole}
_Buildable area (excludes
setbacks: 20' front. 15' back:, S' side)
Synbol ~{%slope)
-0.02<268]Q9 . 30
L_j30 ·40
'!0·50
-50 ·60
-60 ·70
-"'-132.850235
• Although mostly steep, there are portions that are
less steep and portions that are more steep that
could and likely should be avoided
• The geotechnical report identified this lot to have a
postulated slide event that spans a large section of
the lot going towards the north west
• The structure footprint used to perform the
geotechnical report does not reflect the currently
proposed structure footprint
• It has been stated before that this slope information
is not known by the City and was not used to judge
risk to the public health, safety and welfare
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jeff Potter <jmpotter@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:34 AM
Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; CityCierk
Fay & Mike D
Comments regarding Consent Calendar item D-Sep 21 City Council Meeting
Sept 21 -Letter to City Council.pdf
Dear Mayor Alegria, Mayor ProTem Bradley and Councilmembers,
We appreciate your time in reviewing the information associated with the project at 30504 PVDW.
As the closest neighbors to this project, we still have many concerns that we feel have not been addressed and never
will be resolved. We continue to be concerned for the safety and privacy of our house and loved ones.
If you have any time today, I please request that you review the attached letter before approving the resolution tonight.
Thank you,
Jeff Potter and the Davoodian's
1
D ..
I am concerned that the September 7th City Council hearing rushed a decision for the
proposed project at 30504 PV Drive West, especially considering there are substantial concerns
that have been brought up by the neighboring public, Planning Commission and
Councilmembers that have gone unaddressed and which are absent from the Conditions of
Approval for this project.
The opening presentation by the City Planning Department specifically asked the City
Council to provide interpretation and guidance regarding grading and building on extreme
slopes. In watching the hearing multiple times, it is not apparent that this guidance or
interpretation was provided. The grading code (specifically 17.76.040(E)(9)(a) and
17.7 6. 040(E)(9)( d)) remains contradictory and deserves some attention for the sake of all current
and future RPV residents. Please consider providing interpretation or guidance on this subject.
The Planning Department also recommended in their opening presentation that given
guidance and interpretation from the City Council regarding extreme slopes, the site plans should
be remanded back to the Planning Commission to provide advisory direction to address the
outstanding issues (such as neighborhood compatibility, privacy, drainage, etc.).
The idea that a decision was required on the night of the meeting was only introduced by
the attorney representing the appellant. His basis of why a decision was required that night was
because someone was biased on the Planning Commission. From the reaction and remarks from
multiple Councilmembers they did not share this sentiment and objected to the accusations.
However, given this I am not sure how one person's words and request for a decision that night
was so effective in moving the project forward given the large amount of concerns that have
been continuously voiced by affected neighbors, the Planning Commission and multiple
Councilmembers during the actual hearing. To me, there is not one reason why the words of one
person should ever outweigh the concerns and risks of all others. Please help me understand if I
misinterpreted any drivers to push this forward without trying to resolve or provide direction to
any of the remaining issues related to this project. Please help me understand why the
recommendation by the Planning Department and Planning Commission were ignored.
Thinking out loud ...
• This lot is buildable.
• The owners deserve to improve their property.
• A "disadvantaged lot" means it may have more constraints but this does not
mean engineering can't overcome the challenges.
• A "disadvantaged lot" should not unreasonably convert disadvantages to benefits
at the expense of neighbors.
• The biggest question and concern is how this sets a precedent for the current
and future residents of RPV. ..
Proof of public health, safety and welfare:
The municipal code (17.76.040(E)(9)(a)) as written puts the onus of proof on the director
or Planning Commission.
17. 76.040(E)
9. The grading conforms to the following 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.
This onus of proof is important. I heard several comments across several meetings and staff
reports flip this logic and in-tum state that since risks have not been presented then it must be
safe. This flipped logic is dangerous and problematic because it deems every project and every
build as safe unless proven otherwise. We all know that this does not reflect reality.
Since the onus of proof is held by the director or planning commission, what is the standardized
set of information that requires review? It seems like there would be a limit to the breadth that
one needs to search to show this proof at the same time it needs to reflect and adequately address
the potential risks of the build.
In the case of 30504 PVDW:
• I assert that building on a slope that is more extreme than allowed by RPVMC code likely
should trigger someone to review how extreme the slope may be.
• When Councilwoman Ferraro asked how extreme the slopes may be, the Director of the
Planning Department did not know. No one has ever publicly stated how extreme the
slopes are.
• The applicants slope analysis provided three categories (<35%, 35%-50%, >50%), but
maybe they have insight into the actual extremes (see Image 1 and 2).
• I assert that the risk to public health, safety and welfare would likely change if the
building was on slopes 100% (45°), 142% (55°), or 214% (65°) but no one knows this.
• Ifthis information is not important in proving safety, then why is it in the RPVMC in the
first place? Maybe this extreme slope code is more to limit where houses can be built in
support of neighborhood compatibility?
-30504 Property Line (no po le )
_Buildable area (ex cludes
se tbac ks : 20' front , 15' back, 5' side )
Range (% s l ope )
Image 1: Slope map of30504 with property line and buildable area (excludes setbacks)
overlayed in red and blue respectively.
Image 2: Topography of 30504 with property line and buildable area (excludes setbacks)
overlayed in red and blue respectively.
Lastly, the slope map is a critical tool that should likely be used to design a structure that fits into
the hillside to maximize safety. It is clear from the gradient that the majority of the lot is steep,
however it is not a simple binary steep vs. not steep. There are many areas that are less steep
and several specific areas that are very very steep (ranging from 60% to 132%) that could and
should likely be avoided to maximize safety. The fact that the RPV seemingly does not care
about this slope data and is not aware of how extreme the slope really is again points to the lack
of due diligence and lack of findings that prove that there is no risk to the public health, safety
and welfare.
Municipal code, more than just pre 1975 lots:
Although most of the discussion related to grading and building on extreme slopes was
focused on valid lots prior to 1975, I want to point out that the code allowing the grading on this
specific project has nothing to do with lot age. RPVMC 17. 76.040(E)(l 0) is written to override
all grading standards specified in (E)(9). At the end of the day, the extreme slope override is
applicable to every lot in RPV.
17.76.040(E)
10. 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 ofthis section;
c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of this section will not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity; and
d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will not be detrimental
to the public safety nor to other property;
e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property
adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant.
Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission
and the planning commission decision to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title.
Concerns about the current state of plans:
On page 14 of the Staff Report prepared for the September 7th hearing, the staff states:
" ... public health, safety and welfare was demonstrated by reviews of the project geology
report, biology report and drainage plans"
I will share my concerns about the geology report and drainage plans below which leads me to
question how these in their current state can provide the findings that there is no risk to public
health, safety and welfare?
Geotechnical Report:
Performed in October 2019, it appears that the site plans provided to Keith Tucker were
incorrect or misrepresenting the footprint of the structure where grading (cut and fill) would need
to be performed (see Image 3). Curiously there is a large section of the first floor that is
completely missing from this report on the south west portion of the lot (highlighted in red on
Image 4). More specifically, the site plan does not show the building footprint to the west of the
swale. It is also interesting that this section ofthe lot has some of the most extreme slopes, is the
closest point to any neighboring structure, however no soil samples were taken in the area.
""'' ColLUV IUM
T,, M,Oo\1 Te/I..C-J'
Foi'-Mt\OJO/J
Tb Bl\~-tL-1
'•........_ C.CNVI'VC."!
• • • • &v />..1 6-b
II T;;ST HI !?>'/ FE\1-fll
"ioOU<MAI-eb.U ~.-1•/a,
~ AUO.<-R-il&/UrJG, fJ'}
li.l>WI>!<.6k w••.
f?f-lGI/"~-!O/[!i
S ITE PLAN
Image 3: Site plan used for the geotechnical engineering report shows an incorrect structure
footprint (yellow highlighting). Postulated slide activity (highlighted in green).
· ... ·
\
Image 4: Current structure outline shows a much larger footprint (yellow highlighting) then what
was used as the basis for the geotechnical engineering report. Red highlighting reflects structure
footprint absent from geotech report, on some of the most extreme slopes on the lot.
Lastly, the geotechnical report clearly shows (highlighted in green in Image 3) that slide
activity has been postulated on this property. The fact that there has been instability in this
specific hillside, directly under the proposed structure, in my mind deserves more due diligence
and analysis before this can be used as proof that there is no risk to public health, safety and
welfare.
Water Drainage:
The drainage plan has been incomplete from the start and it concerns me that this
drainage plan was used as a basis to find and prove that this project does not cause risk to
public health, safety and welfare. As far as I am concerned, this may provide the most risk to
adjacent properties and the stability of the slope, yet it has gone unaddressed.
As recent as February of this year, the plans had no accommodation of an existing 6ft
asphalt swale traversing the entire property, directly under the proposed structure. The director
of planning was surprised during a site visit in early February to see the swale in person and
realize that the plans had it marked as something to remove without any accommodation.
Everyone who visits this lot sees the swale and asks what are they going to do with that?
Recent plans show swale rerouting in an underground pipe with some sections at
extremely steep angles, several 90° elbows and cleanouts as if it was designed for something
else. I believe the drainage plans in the current state provide direct and easily assumed evidence
that there is a risk to public health, safety and welfare.
• Swale should not be put in a pipe. This has been mentioned multiple times by multiple
professionals in the field including Councilmember Cruikshank at the Sep 7th hearing.
• If the swale is rerouted without being put in a pipe, it would significantly change the
building plans since there is no room to accommodate an open swale as designed today.
• At a June 22 Planning Commission meeting, an engineer supporting staff had no
concerns with putting a swale in a pipe. He did state that an overflow (escape route)
should be added to the plans to account for a blocked inlet. Without this, a blocked inlet
would overflow directly down hill, unobstructed, to the property of 30506 which will
cause damage.
• A clean out within a 90° elbow at the bottom of an extremely steep slope, several feet
from the neighboring house is dangerous at best. This needs to be changed to provide
adequate safety to neighboring houses.
• Water drainage plan today shows ripping up the existing concrete driveway which serves
as the only ingress/egress access to both 30504 and 30506. This will undoubtedly block
access to these houses when there are alternative routes that negate this problem.
Party deck
As recently as August 3rd 2021, the City Council rejected a project application to
construct a 881 sq. ft. roof deck at 30137 Avenida Tranquila. I watched the hearing and took
notes in order to compare the rejected roof deck with the one proposed as part of 30504. To
recap, 30504 proposes a 678 sq. ft. roof deck with outside kitchen, barbecue, dining table,
seating area with two couches and a coffee table, and a fireplace. To date, we have voiced
concerns about the roof deck at 30504 at every opportunity possible citing concerns with privacy
and neighborhood compatibility. Staff provided their reasoning on why those concerns are not
valid in the June 22 Planning Commission staff report stating:
"In terms ofthe balcony and roof deck being incompatible with privacy concerns, staff is of the
opinion that inclusion of these features rather provide visual breaks to the proposed residence
that requires articulation to address bulk and mass concerns. Furthermore, while the size of the
proposed roof deck will be larger than the balcony found on the adjacent property at 30502
Palos Verdes Drive West, the roof deck serves the purpose of a functional private outdoor space
for the project site, which may otherwise not be possible to have at grade for such a steep
hillside lot without conducting excessive grading."
I accept that the roof deck provides visual breaks, but so would not having anything on top of
that area of the first floor. It is not mandatory to turn every roof space into outdoor entertaining
space. And if they wanted to forgo the visual break and build on top of the first floor it would
make the house square footage the largest in the neighborhood and not be compatible.
However, I do not accept that because the project uses all land within the setbacks for the
structure that they somehow get to build a "replacement backyard" however and wherever they
want. Please provide information on how this logic has been used on other projects.
Below are summarized comments from City Councilmembers related to the proposed roof deck
at 30137 Avenida Tranquila on August 3rd.
Neighborhood compatibility is more important than privacy
Decks on roofs is something that is not done in RPV
The deck is "huge" and not compatible
This is a "party deck" and not compatible
This is really really large
The views/privacy are not as important especially because it faces no other homes
So big it is made to hold parties
The deck will be used for more than just enjoying views which is a problem
Council voted 4-0 that it is not compatible. Please explain why these same thoughts and
concerns are not applicable to the roof deck at 30504.
Privacy
The applicant has added foliage/landscaping strips along the south and north property
lines. The appearance that these improve privacy is reflected in the staff report to make a finding
that privacy is not an issue. However, staff also statedt:
"Although landscaping is proposed to mitigate privacy impacts, it should be noted that
because landscaping is subject to maintenance to thrive, it is not recommended to be a
Condition of Approval for privacy screening"
This statement along with comments from councilmembers sums everything up. This proposed
foliage for the sake of "added privacy" is not enforceable and will never be enforceable. Given
this, there is zero merit to use this as a finding that privacy is not being infringed on. Until
something enforceable is written into the Conditions of Approval or the design is changed, the
privacy finding is simply not possible.
Councilmember Cruikshank made it clear that privacy concerns need to be addressed in the
hearing that very same night, summarized as:
We probably need to have a discussion tonight if we do move forward with this. (I)
understand the privacy issue, and concerns with vegetation as a means to privacy. I
don't think that works, it is impossible to enforce. If you are going to have privacy it
should be a more permanent means. If there are opportunities to add some more
privacy I'd like to see that
This is another example where issues with the project are voiced but not addressed or simply
ignored. Neighbor to neighbor conversations to improve privacy at this point no longer have any
incentive or enforcement. Any agreement now is too late, what a shame.
Conclusion
The lot is buildable. As was said in the meeting on September 7th the City must work
with the applicants to improve their property and build something that is reasonable. It is also
true that not every project can be built on every lot.
I urge the City Council to take time to re-evaluate this approval. There is no good reason
or threat that should rush a decision that ignores concerns and has serious issues that remain
unresolved. There is no reason to rush a decision which paves the way for a new precedence in
RPV. This is not just a precedent for pre 1975 lots, this affects all lots that have previously
considered extreme slopes as unbuildable. Many of these large lots could be targets for future
housing due to SB9.
Besides slope and grading this decision sets a precedent where party decks can be built
because a backyard is non-existent or judged as too small by the next City Council. A precedent
that challenges the founding principles ofRPV, principles which have been protected from
countless developers over the years who only think in dollar signs. A precedent which has
protected RPV against developers who don't live in RPV and could care less that they are
disturbing the existing charm of RPV. This is what current RPV residents and future RPV
residents have come to expect and enjoy and surely what they will continue to fight for.
Lastly, this is not just a decision about this project on this lot, this has far reaching
consequences that will perpetually challenge the ability to hold onto what makes RPV special.
This decision forever jeopardizes how living in RPV is synonymous with open space and
privacy. For all those people who don't care about neighborhood compatibility, privacy and party
decks, I know there are plenty of nice homes for sale in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.
There is nothing wrong with this, it is just not what RPV stands for.
For 30504, I hope that the city can find ways to work with the owners to provide them
reasonable options to build and improve their property for their enjoyment. Will this lot be
suitable for every project and design, no. But I do know that there is a house that is possible
while also fitting in with the existing neighborhood and preventing any risk to the surrounding
public health, safety and welfare.
https://www.change.org/SaveRPVNow
Thank you,
JeffPotter and the Davoodian's
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
McKenzie Bright
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:32PM
cc
Ara Mihranian; Karina Banales; CityCierk
Late Correspondence: Consent Calendar Item E -Letter in Support of AB 361
Attachment A (LC)_RPV _Support for Signature of AB 361.pdf
Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
AB 361, which allows cities to continue to utilize teleconferencing for public meetings during declared states of
emergency, was signed by the Governor and will be operative on October 1, 2021.
Consent calendar item Eon tonight's agenda is to consider authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter to the Governor
supporting AB 361 and requesting his signature. Due to recent developments, the Council may consider authorizing the
Mayor to sign the attached letter, thanking the Governor for signing the bill.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
McKenzie
McKenzie Bright
Administrative Analyst
mbright@rpvca.gov
Phone ~ (310) 544-5305
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
i 11ic, rnail n1essagc contains information bdonginq to the City of Rancho l'alos Verdes, vvhich rnay be privileged, confidential anclfor protected from
disclosure, TfH,: information is intendecl only for of the inclividui11 or Pnlity named. Unault'rOrized dissemination, (Jistribulion, or copyin9 is slriclly prohibited. Ii
you rr•ccivcd this email in error, or <H'C' not an intended recipient, please notify the scmicl' inHnccliatcly. Tl1ank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Han please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
1
t.
ERIC ALEGRIA, MAYOR
DAVID D. BRADLEY, MAYOR PROTEM
JOHN CRUII(SHANK, COUNCILMEMBER
I<EN DYDA COUNCILMEMBER
8Ar\13Af\A FERRARO, COUNCILMEMI3EI~
September 21, 2021
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
1303 1Oth Street, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Support for Signature of AB 361
Dear Governor Newsom,
Via Email
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes writes to express our support of AB 361, which will allow cities
to continue to utilize teleconferencing during declared states of emergency, and thank you for
signing the bill.
Since your Executive Order N-25-20 on March 12, 2020, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
been conducting virtual or hybrid virtual/in-person meetings, in accordance with Health Officer
Orders. Members of the public have been allowed to provide live comments to the City Council
via Zoom teleconferencing or call-in information, in addition to limited in-person options.
Utilizing teleconferencing services increases transparency and accessibility for open and public
meetings, and the ability to continue to utilize teleconferencing options is beneficial to democracy.
AB 361 will allow cities to continue to provide essential services while prioritizing health and safety
of their residents and ensuring government transparency, access, and public engagement.
This bill provides local agencies with the flexibility to meet and act efficiently and effectively during
emergency situations. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates your
authorization of the bill, and subsequent Executive Order clarifying the effective date.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
cc. Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Octavia,
Thank you for taking my call.
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:38 AM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina
CC; CityCierk; Ramzi Awwad; Katie Lozano
RPV CC Agenda Item G. Trail A9 and Section 3, trail J2. York properties
2020York easement -155Jpg
Attached is a graphic which may help you get a better grip on the expectations as approved by City
Council. Staff was having a hard time implementing the directive in the 1975 General Plan to
"preserve and enhance the Peninsula's trails network" because nobody on the young City's Staff
knew anything about trails. So, the Council seated a Citizen Committee who drafted the Trails
Network Plan (TNP) which Council adopted in 1984. That document is a grand plan in glittering
generalities, inventories and priorities. Although the Peninsula had over 200 miles of trails, farm
roads and fire roads, none of the ones in RPV were dedicated to the City for public use. That put the
primary burden on the Planning Dept. to negotiate easements and improvements with individual
developers. Staff did not know where the existing trail connections were and had no clue as to how
to make them better. So, Council seated another Committee to draft a trail specific reference
document to be inserted into the TNP as soon as Staff got around to updating the easement
inventories, the implementation programs and the signage concepts. Council Adopted the
Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) Section and the Conceptual Bikeways Plan (CBT) Section in 1990.
Many of the trail connections in RPV have been preserved and enhanced thanks to friendly
negotiations with developers. You might notice that the big difference between the 1990 CTP and the
1993 update is in the "user-friendly" maps. 1990 describes trail infrastructure goals. 1993 describes
user restrictions. Now that the City has acquired a lot of previously developable properties, the 1990
trail infrastructure enhancement directions have been "misplaced".
Please take the time to read the introduction to the CTP. I do believe that the 1990 and 1993
versions are the same. The trail Category definitions have been modified in the 2018 General Plan
update. Just a side note, the trail Category definitions and which City department has the lead
responsibility for implementing each one got added to the General Plan as Amendment 22 because
Public Works just couldn't seem to get the message that maintaining, preserving and enhancing most
of the City's trails was now their responsibility. Particularly in relation to the Nature Reserves, Ramzi
is waiting for Katie to tell him what to do so nothing proactive is being engineered. That explains
much of trails AS, A9 and A10. Rec.& Parks/PVPLC has never designed the Preserve Theme Park to
1
the level of detail that is needed to convert Category II point-to-point trails into Category Ill specific-
course trails.
As to the York Properties, Community Development has dropped the ball. Trail A9 is a point-to-point
trail connection. You now know what that means, right? The attached graphic shows what the PV
Loop Trail Project had in mind as a base point for Staff negotiations should a developer acquire the
Filiorum Properties. The route right along the perimeter of the north and west edge of old Portuguese
Bend would create direct trail access for horse keepers on both sides of the trail. It looks like J2
Annie's Flower Stand Trail connection to Abalone Cove might still be possible except that RPV's Staff
is long past friendly negotiations with Jim York. Trail A9 from the Barkentine Canyon Catch Basin to
the Portuguese Bend Riding Club might be replaced by a different route except that the four dots
under discussion do not produce a trail connection.
RPV should not be in the business of acquiring liabilities for useless properties and easements. RPV
should not be in the business of recommending entitlements that the Planning Commission feels
compelled to deny. "Without prejudice" is a trap door. York's proposal is on land that is in an RPV
Equestrian Overlay District. Have you any idea how to encourage that sort of land use? Like with
28160 PVDE, more than two years have passed and Staff has not looked into the details nor asked
the citizen resources for assistance with making this application into a functioning asset in this region.
I call that errors of omission. I think it is a waste of the Applicant's money to initiate an EIR on this
thoughtless site plan. We'll see what Council has to say come this evening.
Joel Rojas stopped implementing the Trails Network Plan in deference to the pursuit of the draft
Natural Communities Conservation Plan. We still do not have the State's Permit(s). The two do not
need to be mutually exclusive unless you take the term "reasonable development" to mean
eventually, none at all. That is the one policy which RPV's City Councils have not had the opportunity
to weigh in on, specifically, since 2004. Maybe tonight.
You work at the pleasure of the City Manager and the City Attorney. I'm just trying to preserve the
beautiful balance of open space, circulation, public amenities and semi-rural communities which I
bought into 40+ years ago. I grew up in Rolling Hills Estates (free-range child all over The Hill) and
then lived elsewhere for 1 0 years. It was the shock of seeing the changes/loss over those 1 0 years
that made me a "trails junky". The Peninsula Wheel Trails Network as designed by the local Sierra
Club was such a fine concept for preserving the most basic, interconnected corridors. The notion that
someone besides the citizenry, can decide to make it slowly slip away is morally offensive. Your
recommendation to Council on their Consent Calendar Item G is incomplete and misleading as to its
unforeseen consequences.
Please figure out a way to salvage Paradise without forcing Jim York to sue RPV, again. He is not
the enemy .... S 310-377-8761
2
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF ALL ANIMALS
September 1 7, 2021
Mayor Eric Alegria
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthome Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
Via E-mail: eric.alegria @rpvca.gov
Re : Letter Advising Opposition to Proposed Coyote Trapping Program
Dear Mayor Alegria:
I'm writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)-
PETA entities have more than 9 million members and suppotters globally-to
convey om opposition to coyote trapping. It has been brought to om attention that
Rancho Palos Verdes is consideting awarding a contTact services agreement to
Coyote, Wildlife & Pest Solutions , Inc. to conduct coyote trapping. Not only is
coyote trapping cmel and damaging to the environment , but it is also ineffective.
Additionally, any decision to move fmward with a contract to trap and kill
coyotes without conducting the requisite enviromnental analysis arguably
violates the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Indeed, the City of
Arcadia quickly rescinded a similar plan in response to a lawsuit filed by PET A
and Arcadia resident Sarah Rosenberg, which alleged that the city council of
Arcadia had unlawfully voted to approve a coyote-trapping plan without first
considering the impact on the environment, as required under CEQA. After
scrapping the coyote trap and kill plan, settling the above-mentioned suit , and
paying PETA $15 ,000 in legal fees , Arcadia implemented a widely successful
comprehensive coyote management plan focused on education and non-lethal
altematives} For the reasons detailed below, we mge you not to move fotward
with the trapping program.
Trapping devices are notoriously indiscriminate as there is no way to solely target
coyotes . This poses large tisks to companion animals and "nontarget" wildlife ,
including protected species. Animals are left stmggling to escape until they are
overcome with exhaustion, shock, exposme to the elements , and even death . Even
if the traps do not kill them, they are cettain to sustain great injmies and trauma
from being trapped .
In addition to the inherent cmelty of trapping programs, they are also destmctive
to the environment. Coyotes are an impottant part of our environment, as they
help keep many populations tmder control ; without coyotes, rodent populations
are likely to explode. Coyotes also increase bird diversity and abundance . As a
PeT A
FOUNDATION
PE O PL E FOR
THE ETH ICA L
TREATM ENT
OF ANIMA LS
FOUNDAT ION
Washington
1536 16t h St. NW.
W as hington, DC 20036
202 ·4 83 -PETA
los Angeles
2154 W . Sunset Blvd .
los Ange les, CA 90026
323 ·644-PETA
Norfolk
501 Fron t St.
Norfolk , VA 23510
757·622-PETA
PLTA I OUNDM ION IS AN
OPE RATING N AM E O f f OU N DAII O
10 S~PP ORT At\IM Al P~O!E C!IO N
AI .WLS
• Pl TAUS
• PUA Aso
1 See, e.g ., Almakai Geshlider , Repo11 Card: Managing Coyotes Regionwide in the San · PUA tnd ro
Gabriel Valley . Pasadena Star-News (Jul. 6, 2021), http s://www .pa sadena stamew s.com/ · PUA france
2021 /07 /04 /repott-card-managi.ng-coyote s-regi.onwi.de-i.n-the-san-gabtiel-valley/. · PETA Avsl•ol a
• P[ fA Gelfnony
• P[TA Nelhc r•o·los
• PUA f oundo l oo IU .K I
L .
consequence of coyote trapping and death, coyote s reproduce at fa ster rates resulting in doubling
or tripling of the number of pups who all need to be fed. This lead s to larger animals such as deer
becoming prey rather than the usual rodents and rabbits, further disrupting the ecosystem.
Additionally, through preying on rodents and other animals, coyotes help control disease
transmission by reducing the spread of diseases such as plague, hantavirus, and Lyme disease.
In light ofthe important role coyotes play in the maintenance of a healthy ecosy stem, the proposed
commencement of trapping conflicts with Rancho Palos Verdes' Natural Community
Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan ("NCCP/HCP")-a "comprehensive habitat
protection program that addresses multiple species habitat needs and the conservation of natural
communities in the City ofRancho Palos Verdes."2 This important Plan seeks, in part, "to maintain
biological values ofthe Preserve over time by reducing human-related impacts to Covered Species
and their habitats," and to "ensure that the biological values of natural resources ... are maintained
over time."3 To achieve the biological objectives of the NCCP/HCP, the Plan mandates, in part,
"institu[ting] an educational program to explain the role and necessity of large native predators
within the ecosystem and the need to protect them from disturbance."4
Not only does Rancho Palos Verdes' proposed plan conflict with the City's NCCP/HCP, its
significant effects on the environment arguably require the preparation of an environmental
analysis under CEQA. 5 As noted above, in 2017 the City of Arcadia paid $15,000 to settle a lawsuit
that contended that Arcadia's city council approved a coyote-trapping contract without an
environmental report mandated by CEQA.6 In response, Arcadia successfully adopted non-lethal
programs to address concerns about coyotes and, according to a City of Arcadia Staff Report,
"[t]he evidence suggests that human/coyote . interactions are becoming less frequent , less
concerning, and that fewer residents are expressing concerns about how to interact with a coyote
when one is seen near a residential neighborhood."7
Trapping and killing coyotes is not only cruel and detrimental to the environment, it is ineffective .
Trapping and killing initiatives are ineffective at controlling coyote populations, as surviving pack
members simply breed to replace coyotes that were killed and additional coyotes move in from
neighboring areas due to the increased availability of food . Researchers from The University of
Nebraska, Lincoln found that after randomly removing 60% of coyotes from the population, coyote
2 Rancho Palos Verdes , Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan 140 (Nov .
19, 2019), https://www.rpvca.gov /DocumentCenter/View/17121/NCCPHCP .
3 !d.
4 !d. at 149 .
5 See, e.g, 59 Ops. Cal. Att'y Gen. 173 (Mar. 30 , 1976) (then-Attorney General Evelle Younger 's opinion,
which found that Mendocino County's annual budgeting and expenditure of funds for trapping predatory
animals, including coyotes , was a "project" that may have a significant effect on the environment under
CEQA, and therefore required the preparation of an environmental impact report prior to any expenditures).
6 City of Arcadia, Arcadia History Collection, https://arcadiahistory.andornot.com /en /permalink /
newspaper34928 (last accessed Sept. 17 , 2021 ).
Dominic Lazzaretto , Arcadia City Manager , Staff Report (Sept. 4, 20 18),
http:/ /laserfi che.ci .arcadia. ca. us /W ebLink/0/ edoc/77 5091 /I tem%20 12a%20-%20Coyote%20Management
%20P ian%20Update .pdf.
2
populations recovered within one year. 8
There are much more hlmlane , enviromnentally fiiendly , and effective ways to work to alleviate
issues associated with coyotes . Making areas lmappealing via detenents and cm1ailing food
sources will encourage coyotes to move on naturally. Ammonia-soaked rags placed in dens will
successfl.tlly repel coyotes, as they dislike the smell . T1imming vegetation away fi·om buildings ,
trails , and fence lines will eliminate or at least reduce the number of hiding places for coyotes as
well as their prey. Sonic detenents , motion-activated sprinklers , flashing lights , and outdoor radios
also work effectively to deter coyotes and their prey.
This integrative approach is the on~y effective means of coy ote control, and its nonlethal nature
makes it acceptable to the public. We hope to hear soon that Rancho Palos Verdes has not awarded
a contract services agreement to conduct coyote trapping and will look into some of the altematives
suggested in this letter.
Thank y ou for your time and attention to this imp011ant matter, and if there are any questions please
don 't hesitate to reach out.
Very tmly yours ,
Zeynep J . Graves , Associate Director of Litigation
323-210-2263 I ZeynepG@ petaf.org
8 W .C. Pin et al., A new approach to understanding canid populations using an individual-based computer
model: PreliminaiJI results , 18 Endangered Species 103-106 (2001).
3
ALESHIRE&
WYNDERLLP
William W. Wynder
wwynder@awattorneys.com
(31 0) 527-6667
2361 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
ATTORNEY S AT LAW
September 21 , 2021
SENT VIA E -MAIL ZeynepG@petaf.org ONLY
Zeynep J. Graves , Esq.,
Associate Director of Litigation
PETA Foundation
2154 West Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles CA 90026
Subject : Your Letter of September 17, 2021
Counsel:
p (31 0) 527-6660
F (310) 532-7395
We are the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As noted in my e -mail to
you of September 17 , 2021 , your letter to the Mayor has been forwarded to us for review and a
response. We are directed to advise you that the concerns raised in your letter are addressed in the
City 's comprehensive "Coyote Management Plan" (the "Plan "), and that your legal objections to
the agenda item proposing to augment the City 's ex isting program(s) are without legal merit.
First , your letter conflates objections to widespread , indiscriminate trapping of coyotes,
with the focused augmentation program that the City Council will be asked to consider. In
response to numerous citizen concerns, the City Council will consider entering into a contract with
a certified and licensed trapper for selective "catch and removal" of coyotes based on the Plan 's
tiered response and who meet one or more of the following specific criteria:
(1) coyotes who have engaged in a take (resulting in injury or death) of
domestic pets whether on a leash or in a yard ,
(2) coyotes who are so habituated to human interaction as to lose the natural
aversion to such interactions and who have exhibited aggressive behavior, including showin g
teeth , back fur raised , lunging, or nipping, and/or
(3) coyotes who have attacked a human being.
As we trust you are aware, the City has a long-standing, yet targeted , coyote trapping
program through its contract with the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner. The
contract that will be presented for City Council consideration simply supports the Agricultural
Commissioner in the tiered response in implementation of the Plan. Your objections seem to
assume that the City will be engaged in large scale coyote population reduction or that coyote
trapping is a new program for the City. Neither of these assumptions are accurate.
Il l
01240 .0001/7404093
AWATTORNEYS .COM ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY I BAY AREA I SAN DIEGO
L ·
Zeynep J. Graves
September 21, 2021
Page2
As already noted, the City currently engages in coyote trapping through a contract with the
Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner. This trapping is conducted in accordance with
the protocols and procedures in the Plan. 1 Under this existing program, eight traps were set in the
past year and one coyote was trapped. The contract that will be presented for City Council
consideration will simply support this effort by responding to residents reports that meet the
specific criteria noted above. There will be no wholesale coyote population reduction.
Second, the traps that will used are humane and have been approved for depredation by the
State of California. Specifically, the trapper will use snare traps, which is a legal method for
trapping coyotes. (See 14 CCR §§ 465.5 & 475.) Traps will be checked every 24 hours at a
minimum and will be disabled on weekends.
While it is possible that non-targeted animals will be caught in the traps, the proposed
trapper has informed the City that this is incredibly rare, based on its substantial and professional
experience. PETA may believe that all trapping programs are "inherently cruel;" however, your
letter fails to acknowledge the terror and trauma experienced by residents and their domestic pets
who are attacked and sometimes killed by coyotes, not to mention other wildlife found in the City.
Third, the City fully concurs with PETA that a spectrum of approaches are needed for
successfully managing coyotes in areas populated by humans. That is why the City began
implementing its Plan back in 2013. Trapping is only one of a number of strategies identified for
use of the City in the Plan. The opening section of the Plan, entitled "Goals," lays out this
comprehensive outlook:
"The goal of this Management Plan is to support coexistence with urban coyotes
using education, behavior modification and development of a tiered response to
aggressive coyote behavior. The tiered response requires active participation on the
part of the entire community including residents, homeowners associations,
volunteers and city personnel.
This Management Plan is based on research and best known management practices
and includes a full spectrum of management tools. Basic principles that guide this
Plan are based on the following:
1. Urban wildlife is valued for biological diversity, as members of natural
ecosystems, and reminders of larger global conservation issues.
2. Urban wildlife and wildlife habitats are important to Rancho Palos Verdes
residents. Although urban environments are more favorable to some species than
Available at rpvca.gov/coyotes.
01240.0001/740409.3
Zeynep J. Graves
Septem her 21, 2021
Page 3
others, coexistence is the foundation of City's general wildlife management
programs.
3. Human safety is a priority in managing wildlife/human conflicts that pose a
danger to people.
4. Preventive practices such as, reduction and removal of wildlife attractants,
habitat manipulation (e.g. removal of potential coyote denning areas), and
responding appropriately during human and wildlife interactions when interacting
with wildlife are key to minimizing potential human conflicts.
5. Rancho Palos Verdes management techniques and decisions are based on a
thorough understanding ofthe biology and ecology of urban wildlife species.
6. Education and communication are essential in supporting human and animal
needs and coexistence.
7. Emphasis of this Management Plan is placed on preventative measures and
nonlethal controls."
We invite your careful review of the City's Plan, which discusses the importance of public
education, public outreach, and hazing, in addition to the option of trapping in limited
circumstances. The City's Coyote Management Website2 also includes links to multiple
educational brochures from the Humane Society, including "Coyote Hazing Guidelines: How to
Haze for Effective Reshaping of Coyote Behavior," "Preventing Coyote Conflicts: How to Keep
Coyotes Out of Your Yard and Keep Your Pets Safe," and "Solutions for Coyote Conflicts: Why
Killing Does Not Solve Conflicts with Coyotes."
Fourth, the City Council-adopted Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan ("NCCP/HCP") was created in partnership with the U.S. Department of Fish
and Wildlife, the California Department ofFish and Wildlife, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy. The NCCP/HCP covers I 0 species consisting of 4 animals and 6 plants. The 4
animals protected by the NCCP/HCP include the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, El Segundo Blue
Butterfly, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and the Cactus Wren. Contrary to your letter, coyotes
are not protected by the NCCP/HCP.
Finally, unlike the City of Arcadia, City staff have conducted, and the City Council of
Rancho Palos Verdes will consider, appropriate environmental review of the contract that will be
presented for possible City Council action. As best we can determine, the Arcadia City Council
2 Available at rpvca.gov/coyotes.
01240.0001/7404093
Zeynep J. Graves
September 21, 2021
Page4
did not consider its trapping contract to even be a "project" within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requiring any environmental review. Neither did Arcadia
have a coyote management plan in place when that city initiated its trapping contract. The folly
of that approach is evidenced by the litigation to which your letter makes reference.
On the other hand , the City, acting through its staff, has acknowledged that the proposed
contract is a "project" for purposes ofCEQA review. City staff have concluded , following review,
the project is exempt from CEQA under the Guidelines. The grounds for this recommendation are
detailed in the staff report, including our office 's independent analysis of the applicable CEQA
exemptions, for this agenda item. Your letter fails to address any of these identified exemptions ,
nor does it cite to any legal authority holding such exemptions would not apply under the
circumstances of this proposed contract.
The City shares PET A's "dedication to the protection of all animals ." We feel certain that
your members will appreciate the City's "Coyote Management Plan ," its current trapping
protocols, and its proposed selective targeted "catch and removal" of coyotes meeting specific and
narrow criteria represents both the "ethical" and "legal" balance required by the interaction of
humans, their pets, and the wildlife population of coyotes.
Copies:
01 240.0001/740409 .3
Very truly yours,
w.a~~ w~~
William W. Wynder
of ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
(v/e-mail only)
Honorable Mayor & Councilmember,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mr. Ara Mihranian, AICP
City Manager
Mr. Ken Rukavina,
Community Development Director
Mr. Ramzi Awwad ,
Public Works Director
Elena Gerli ,
Assistant City Attorney
Enyssa Momoli
From: Octavia Silva
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:22 PM
Subject: City Council Meeting_9-21_Agenda Item No.2
Good Afternoon Mayor Alegria and Council Members (please remember to not reply to all),
Staff has reviewed late correspondence received from residents regarding Agenda Item No. 2 on tonight's City Council
Agenda. In response, Staff is providing this additional information so as to provide clarification to some of the lighting
issues being raised.
As you may know, the project's conceptual lighting plan and related improvements were previously considered and
approved by the City Council in April. Tonight, the proposal focuses on approving a Safety and Security Plan for the
Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project and consideration of amending the City Council-adopted Conditions of
Approval to increase the height of on-site light standards and poles to 16 feet to accommodate colocation of closed
circuit cameras. As part of the project approval, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-13 (Attachment C of the
City Council staff report regarding this matter {tic~re)), which included a comprehensive list of Conditions of Approval
that include regulations related to, but not limited to, safety, operations, construction and site lighting.
The lighting concerns raised by the residents are valid and there are conditions of approval intended to address lighting
to mitigate potential impacts to surrounding properties. Specifically, the Site Lighting Conditions of Approval include
provisions that require the installation of an illuminated light standard mock-up for review by the Director of Community
Development. This type of requirement has proved to be useful in assessing lighting impacts on other projects like
Marymount University site improvements. In addition, the Conditions of Approval also require that there be a 30-day
monitoring period after installation of lights and adjustments to lighting made as needed to mitigate any impacts; and,
that the design of site lighting incorporate shields in order to reduce any spillover or glare. Further, the lighting design
will be based on appropriate photometric {lighting) design standards in order to install the necessary number of lights
standards for public safety. Lastly, the Director of Community Development will be required to review the final Lighting
Plan before Building Permit issuance to ensure compliance with code requirements and incorporate any additional input
based on site and as-built conditions. Typical to other components of this project, staff will work with the surrounding
neighbors to ensure their concerns are considered in the final lighting plan provided that on-site security and safety is
not compromised. It is important to note that the proposal to increase the height of light standards and poles to 16 feet
will actually reduce the overall number of proposed light standard and poles from 54 to 41 fixtures.
The intent is not to light the entire park all night long. The parking lot will be illuminated during community center
operations, and then the lighting levels will be reduced to the minimum required to maintain park security.
If you have any questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at the information listed below.
Thank you,
1
Octavia Silva
Deputy Director/Planning
Manager
octavios@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5234
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Conn~d WJ~h ilw City fu;lln 't'OVr phcmli:' or toblut!
..... GETITON
.....-Google Play
I hi:> mail message contains information belongine~ to \he City of 1\ancho Palos Vortil,s, which may be privile~wcl, confidential and/or protected from
di,;closurc. I he information is inter1dcd only for usc of the i11dividual or entity narncd. Unauthori7(;cl diss('ITiination, dbtribution, or copyirHJ is strictly prohibited. II
you received tiJic; email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, ple;J.sc notii'y tile sender immediately, Thank you fm your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0-19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:26AM
CityCierk
FW: Lighting, poles and cameras
From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:47 PM
To: martycrna@gmail.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE : Lighting, poles and cameras
Dear Ms. Foster,
Thank you for your correspondence and concern regarding the lighting design at Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park. It will be provided to City Council as late correspondence regarding the Safety and Security Plan for the Ladera
Linda Park and Community Center Project and consideration of amending the City Council-adopted Conditions of
Approval to increase the height of on -site light standards to 16 feet.
The City Council-approved conditions of approval of the project stipulate, amongst other lighting conditions, that
lighting shall comply with the City Residential Lighting Ordinance; there will be a 30 day monitoring period after
installation of lights and adjustments to lighting made as needed to mitigate any impacts; and, parking and security
lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards. The full set of Site Lighting Conditions can be found in Attachment C
of the City Council staff report regarding this matter {here ). Further, the lighting design will be based on appropriate
photometric {lighting) design standards in order to install the necessary number of lights standards for public safety.
Lastly, the matter before the City Council on September 21st is review and consideration of the security plan and to
increase the height of the light fixtures to accommodate security cameras, which actually results in less lighting fixtures.
Sincerely,
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
~ City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visitors are
required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines . Some employees are working on rotation
and may be working remotely . If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the
appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time.
Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed . For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff
Directory on the City website .
1
1 .
DOWNLOAD
'#t:r ;;lPV
~ (J '1111i11,td Ofl trH•
• AppStore
, ~r , I'" 1 ~1i
• Google Play
From: martha foster <ma rtycrna@gmail.com >
Sent: Monday, September 20, 202110:30 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Lighting, poles and cameras
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The plans call for an excessive amount of poles and lights and cameras. The light pollution emanating from these
plans is unacceptable. Please take a close look at these plans and find a less intrusive way to provide appropriate
lighting and security.
14 F
16FT
Sent from my iPad
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:59AM
CityCierk; CC
September 21 City Council Meeting Public Hearing Item 2
Ladera Linda Park Lighting and Security Plan
I am recommending that the City Council reject staff's recommendation for both the lighting and security plans
proposed for the Ladera Linda Park as they are inconstant for a park embedded in a residential area and a
passive camera security system that will fail to prevent crime but only record it.
'}
Staff proposed a grass roof for the massive footprint of the building out of concern for the visual pollution of
residents looking down on the park but showed little concern for the light pollution for these same residents. Why
are areas that are supposed to be closed at dusk lighted? No other park in the city has anything close to this
number of lights as proposed for Ladera Linda Park. The present lighting plan will only create a massive lighting
pollution in a dark-sky neighborhood that has traditionally had no street lights.
Certainly, the security cameras are not going to prevent crime. They will only capture images to be reviewed
after the crime has occurred. Staff makes the point that cameras and glass breaking sensors are more cost
effective as there is nothing of value in the building. But people are told over and over not to leave anything in
their cars, even an empty paper bag, as it will cause a smash and grab crime. Is a building with all that glass
any different? Park security should focus on prevention of crimes with security shutters on the building.
The lighting and cameras are not in keeping with the city's promise of a low key neighborhood park. It is more
representative of an entertainment center planned for rentals and night activities.
The city lowered the height of the light poles in the parking lot of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center to reduce
the light pollution of the residents looking down on the center. The plan for Ladera Linda recommends increasing
the height to 16 feet from 10 feet. The City Council should reject this request.
Staff says that the amount and location of lights and cameras are based on "best practices". What does that
mean? Looking at the plan there is a lot of focus on the Forrestal entrance, but what about the back stairs from
Seaview?
A more appropriate lighting and security system for the park would be to eliminate all lighting and cameras in
areas that are supposed to be closed at dusk. Use this cost saving to add security shutters to the building. Add
security lights to the building so that the sheriff can visually inspect the area. Install parking area lighting similar
to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Any cameras should be focused on the community center structure and
parking lot, which is where we can expect any crimes to occur. What crimes could happen to the basketball
court? Maybe some graffiti? Does that warrant the cost of lights and cameras?
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
1.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
stearman@juno.com
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:33 PM
cc
CityCierk
Ladera Linda Park Lighting
As the extensive lighting proposed for Ladera Linda Park will impact the views of the surrounding communities I believe
that the issue of lighting should be brought before the View Restoration Committee before the Council votes on the
issue.
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
1.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:17AM
CityCierk
FW: Ladera Linda Security
From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:45AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; John
Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net>
Subject: Ladera Linda Security
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Members of the City Council,
After going over the plans for security and lighting for the Ladera Linda Community Center, I cannot help but feel that
once again it is being over designed to become a center that is out of place in our neighborhood. We are concerned that
the resulting light pollution will negatively affect the neighborhood. Will these lights be on all night? Will they be on a
timer to go off after the park is closed? The proposed park hours of 7am to 9pm seven days a week also seems
excessive. I thought the park was to be closed at dusk except for specific events.
Amanda Wong has written a long letter detailing our concerns about the lighting and camera poles and I agree with her.
I look forward to checking out the sample 16 foot light pole that will! be installed. I hope in the future, the staff will be
forthcoming on informing the public of the plans as proposed in advance.
Sincerely,
Diane Mills
President LLHOA
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:19AM
CityCierk
FW: LL Park Light and Security
From: Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:13AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Amanda Wong
<kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net>; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Herb
Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>; Patrucia Stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>
Subject: LL Park Light and Security
Dear Council members,
RE, agenda item #2
Yesterday, I attended an on-line meeting comprised of concerned members of our Ladera Linda neighborhood.
Represented in that group were three family's who live in the closest proximity to the corner of Pirate Dr. and Forrestal,
the residents that can be the most adversely affected by your decisions in the remake of the Ladera Linda Park. The
concern, excesses in both the number of lighting and security/surveillance cameras. While I do not live in the close
proximity of the park, I do not minimize their concern, I amplify upon it, (if that's possible). If your actions in these matters
come from a security consultant, who base their recommendations on "best practices", I come to you from the real world,
that of the folks who will reap the possible negative result of your decisions, the close Ladera Linda citizens that you
represent.
I can't be strong enough as I write to you this morning. Your plan, as I view it, (thirteen 16ft camera poles and over 50
light standards) when compared to other local parks is over the top. Explore what is it you are lighting and what is the
scope of your surveillance. Is it the excessive lighting in the surrounding neighborhood, the monitoring of open playing
fields? I see other RPV parks (Hesse, Ryan, PVIC) with subdued necessary lighting, yet non lit open spaces and nothing
spilling into adjacent neighborhoods. I ask, do we have a crime problem at these parks? If not, why is Ladera Linda the
subject of such overkill?
WHAT YOU RISK DOING IS POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE, FOR THOSE ON THE CORNER IN QUESTION AND
OTHERS ON THE SEARAVEN DR. RIM, WITH A SEA OF AMBIENT LIGHT BY NIGHT AND A BANK OF UNSIGHTLY
16FT. CAMERA POLES BY DAY (AS WELL AS NIGHT).
No one argues that electronic surveillance isn't necessary, and that proper placed cameras and non obtrusive security
lighting in public areas (parking lots etc.) is needed. However, be reasonable, consider all the players, include those most
affected both in your initial planning and ultimate decision making. Balance the mechanics and the people, its a delicate
balance, but it must be thoughtfully done. Don't operate in a vacuum. You need all available information from all involved
parties, the planners as well as the residents ... as they live next door 24 hours a day.
Many of the concerns of the Ladera Linda community, over the past 6 years, have been politely listened to and yet, for the
most part, council has yielded to the wishes of non-residents. You have tough decisions, this is serious business, don't let
this one slip by. Do the right thing; please do not proceed with the lighting/security plan as designed, carefully assess
what you have and re-evaluate. Make a high priority the well being of the families in the neighboring homes.
1
Bill Schurmer
32468 Searaven Dr
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:19AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting 9/21/21 -Item 2 Ladera Linda Safety & Security Plan
From: Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 202111:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Cc: German Tig <craig_german@hotmail.com>
Subject: City Council Meeting 9/21/21-Item 2 Ladera Linda Safety & Security Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Members,
We live directly adjacent to the Ladera Linda Community Center entrance and right next to the Forrestal
Nature Preserve. Our neighborhood is characterized by its proximity to nature and in the evening, its dark
skies. Our neighborhood has no streetlights, and very few outdoor lights. We are lit by the moon and the
stars, with the exception of one streetlight at the entrance to Ladera Linda, and the lights illuminating the
Ladera Linda entrance sign. On clear evenings we can see the lights on Catalina.
So it is with some horror that we examined the lighting plan proposed by staff for the re-designed Ladera
Linda community center. The plan calls for a variance to place 16-foot high light poles near the courts and
playground areas, even though these areas are supposed to be closed at dusk. This variance is necessitated by
an excessive security camera plan which would mount (13) pole cameras on the same poles as pole lights-
requiring the light poles to be raised from 10 to 16 feet. The plan further calls for a row of 10-foot high light
poles leading from the lawn area to the building-where there currently are none--these would be directly in
the line of sight of my neighbors on Searaven. I note also, that the plan calls for shorter bollard -style lights on
a track encircling the grass in an area where there is currently no light. The resulting light pollution and sky
glow would also affect our home and view.
In our review of the proposed lighting plan, we count:
{17) 16-foot pole lights
{8) 16-foot pole lights with arms
{11) 10-foot pole lights
(21) 42-inch bollard lights
As a threshold matter, why are so many unmonitored security cameras necessary? The report itself states
that there has been very little incidence of vandalism and only few incidents of theft from vehicles and
burglary at Ladera Linda. Yet the proposed plan calls for 13 pole cameras many of which are recording lawn
and play areas, two of which aim out into the neighborhood, and still fails to cover half the parking
lot. Cameras should be focused on the community center structure and parking lot -which is where we can
expect any crime to occur. We object to the cameras mounted on 16 foot pole lamps at the Forrestal
1
driveway and the Forrestal gate pointing at our homes. What is the purpose of these cameras? Far more
useful would be an ALPR camera at the driveway. When my house was burglarized, it was the low-mounted
Seaview ALPR camera that provided a clear shot of the license plate, driver and decals on the vehicle which
provided the lead which resulted in a successful prosecution. Sufficient security coverage could be
accomplished by mounted cameras on the buildings, an ALPR camera at the driveway, and a couple on stand-
alone poles covering the parking lot. This would remove the need for a variance to raise the pole lights to 16
feet. The variance simply is not necessary for "the preservation and enjoyment" of the park if we think
critically about the proposed placement of the security cameras.
Further, the proposed plan disturbingly glosses over the potential impact of all this lighting on the surrounding
properties and Nature Reserve. Only one illuminated mock up of a proposed 16 foot taillight pole will be
placed. Will this mockup be placed so the affected community can have notice and some real input? It needs
to be a high visibility area so that more potentially affected community members have the opportunity to be
heard before these changes are made without their knowledge. More importantly, this single mock up light
fails to account for the cumulative light pollution and skyglow effect of (17) 16 foot pole lights, (8) 16 foot
pole lights with arms, (11) 10 foot pole lights and (21) 42 inch ballard lights both to our neighborhood and the
Nature Reserve.
The proposed lighting plan is grossly out of character with our dark-sky neighborhood and other local
parks. Eastview park has no lights, Hesse Park has (12) 16 foot light poles and (8) small ballard lights bordering
the driveway off Hawthorne-a major thoroughfare --and a few small bollards lining the ADA ramp, and there
are no lights at all on the grounds or walking paths or playgrounds. There are some lights mounted on the
building. Pt. Vincente has (7) tall light poles in its parking lots and some lights mounted to the building, and a
2
few 3-4 foot bollard lights around the walking areas and parking. Tiny Ladera Linda has a proposed 3-4x the
lighting of any other park! Moreover, Ladera Linda is directly adjacent to a Nature Reserve, and this amount
of lighting can be injurious and disorienting to nocturnal animals. Granting this variance would also be
materially detrimental to properties in the area. The inevitable skyglow and glare would diminish our dark
skies and it would likely interfere with my nighttime view of Catalina.
Best practices for lighting to minimize the harmful effects of light pollution include: (1) lighting should only be
on when needed; (2) to only light the area that needs it; (3) light should be no brighter than necessary; (4)
minimize blue light emissions; and (5) be fully shielded (pointing downward)-and keeping the lights lower to
the ground will reduce light pollution to the surrounding neighborhood. Most importantly, the majority of the
proposed lighting at Ladera Linda is not necessary because the park is supposed to be closed at dusk.
On that point, we were disturbed to note that Condition 42 states that the Ladera Linda Park and Community
Center hours are open until9pm 7 days per week. In the multiple meetings community members have
attended -expressing our concern over late night rentals and loud amplified activities in the park-we have
always been assured that the park closes at dusk, with a limited number of exceptions for evening
rentals. This is the first time we have seen the City suggest that Ladera Linda park, located in a residential
neighborhood, should be open until 9pm 7 days per week. We hope and trust (but verify) that this is a
typographical error.
Thank you for your consideration, and we hope that the City Council will direct staff to consult with the
affected neighbors and community first, before approving a variance which will have such a profound and
lasting effect on the character and value of our neighborhood and properties.
Amanda Wong & Craig German
3
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:25AM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Park Lighting
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Stenehjem <patsyanntoo@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:12 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Lighting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a 48-year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, and am very concerned about the
lighting and security cameras under consideration for Ladera Linda Park. My home is directly east of the park, and I am
sure that the proposed lighting will have a negative impact on my daytime view, and would just create a "sea of
(artificial) light" at night, and interfere with a view of the moon and stars. I don't think the extent of lighting planned is
at all necessary or compatible with our quiet neighborhood, and should not be installed! It will simply create light
pollution for the entire neighborhood, and possibly beyond! Nor do we need security cameras on the Forrestal side of
the park . I don't see what good the high poles will do, other than to present a view impairment. Our neighborhood has
already installed an ALPR camera which should capture the license plate of any traffic entering the area (especially since
there is only one road in and out of the neighborhood). The seating areas proposed on the latest diagram should be
removed, as well; we were assured during the earlier planning meetings that no seating areas would be located near
homes facing Forrestal Drive, thus preserving a peaceful atmosphere. The extensive lighting seems superfluous, also, as
the park grounds were supposed to be closed at dusk.
I've lived here since 1973, during the drive for city hood, and have until recently felt our city council members were
great public servants, and devoted to doing what's best for their constituents. After months( & years) of the planning
process & promises not kept regarding Ladera LindaPark, sadly I am feeling discouraged and less confident of some
council members' diligence.
Sincerely,
Patricia Stenehjem
32215 Searaven Drive
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
DearCoundiMembeffi
Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:31 AM
CC; CityCierk
Home Bell
RPV City Council Meeting 9/21/2021 Agenda iltem 2
I am commenting on Agenda item 2. My family opposes the staff recommendations.
There is no existing dty park that matches Ladera Linda for residential density constraints. We ask why are designs
presented that increase lighting and surveillance magnitudes greater than any other city park and building?
The designs are not based on least cost. You are not being provided with options to determine if a good, better or
best design makes fiscal sense.
Staff and consultants will say the designs are based on best practice. You should demand to know exactly where a
similar location and development exists using these practices.
I suggest you consider a different approach. The park should be protected during daylight by a smiling, foot patrol
ambassador, who like a National Park Ranger, is empowered to issue citations to enforce the sign rules.
Please consider new ideas for after hours. You should depend on the perimeter fencing and gates to secure the
site. Lights and unmonitored video surveillance will not deter anyone who is determined to enter the property by
breaching the fencing.
Eliminate all the glass break sensors. There is no way a glass break sensor can provide response to stop any
vandals.
Add impact protection film on the interior of all exposed glass surfaces. Security and safety film will impede
entrance into the building. Better yet, add roll down shutters.
We do not support light pollution in our neighborhood. Insure that the park areas are closed no later than dusk to
eliminate need for the walkway and activity areas lighting. The dty should not encourage after dusk park area use
by providing light for intruders. Remove all the lighting from the lower and upper terrace areas.
Add limited, hooded, down directed, warm color flood lights to the roof of the building to cover the parking area and
remove all of the pole lights. I do not want to see the glow of the parking area from my home blocks away.
Remove the cameras from the lower and upper terrace areas. Simplify the middle terrace camera mounting by
attaching two cameras on the roof ends of the 16+' building. That is all you need for illusion of surveillance. Your
best tool is the new Flock ALPR capable camera added now to Forrestal by the Ladera Linda Homeowners
Association.
If you approve the staff recommendations you will be introducing a maximum prison security look and feel to our
neighborhood. Please respect us!
Please make your determination as if you lived across the street from your new project.
Donald Bell
1
'L.
Ladera Linda
Submitted during the meeting by Recorded Message 9/21/2021
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:42 AM
CityCierk
FW: City Council Meeting 9/21/21: Agenda Item #2 Ladera Linda Park Lighting
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 202111:29 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 9/21/21: Agenda Item #2 Ladera Linda Park Lighting
This Agenda Report is missing critical information necessary to make
intelligent decisions on the changes to 16' light poles from the original10'
light poles as well as the surveillance cameras. Incomplete information
has been the staff's mantra throughout the new Ladera Linda Park
controversy.
Because of the financial as well as esthetic issues, I also strongly feel
that any approval of these issues should only be conducted when all City
Council members are present.
1) I am not in favor of increasing the height of the lighting poles from
10' to 16' just for the surveillance cameras . Furthermore, you do not
need 13 surveillance cameras for this park and the 16' lighting poles will
create an unnecessary additional amount of light pollution at night. I did
not see any mention of the cameras needing nearby lighting in order to
record any activity taking place at night which may mean that the 16'
light poles will be lit all night long. Take a look at Hesse Park, Ryan Park or
the PVIC at night. There are very few lights around the building and in
the park itself that are lit up at night when those parks are closed.
This staff report does not state how many of each type of light are used
throughout the park. To make an intelligent decision one would also need
to know which lights will be lit during the night time hours when the park
1
is closed. Who will be watching these 13 cameras 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The whole purpose of surveillance cameras is to view some activity
after the fact and then trying to reconstruct what happened. Think of the
Boston Marathon bombing? What can you reconstruct when someone is
wearing a hoodie and mask?
If someone breaches the security fencing at night, no one will be
watching the cameras at that moment, so a City employee will arrive at
the park the next morning and maybe notice if some incident has
happened the night before. If so they call the Sheriff to report an
incident. And as you know, the Sheriff has stated that it would take them
up to 6 weeks to analyse any activity from these cameras. Someone at
the City will then start to review the surveillance film from all13 cameras
to find out what happened. If they find something on the film, it will
probably be a suspect with a hoodie and wearing a mask or maybe a
homeless person looking for shelter. How do you apprehend anyone with
that minimal amount of information? Since our legislature passed the AB
47 bill and others, if someone is located and arrested, they will go to the
station and be immediately released. So what do the 13 surveillance
cameras provide you with? Nothing. Are the fence and wrought iron gate
cost included in the original budget estimates?
The glass breakage sensors are not a formidable deterrent. If someone
breaks a glass, I assume a signal is sent to the Sheriff's Dept. By the time
the Sheriff responds to the alarm, the perpetrator is long gone and the
cameras will show you someone with a hoodie and a mask. Good luck.
Because of the park's geographic location, If someone is intent on
damaging the park buildings or other outdoor amenities, I don't think
they will be walking any great distance to get to the park. In all likelihood
they will be driving a vehicle and either park their vehicle in the red curb
area on Forrestal, or else in the LLHOA neighborhood. Our HOA has just
paid to install 2 ALPR cameras in our area and one of them faces south
on Forrestal. That ALPR camera will record every vehicle leaving the
Preserve, the park and our neighborhood and this ALPR camera can be a
2
better source of information, to locate any perpetrator, than the 13
cameras located in the new park.
As best I could count, there were over 50 poles or bollards spread
around the park. It would be nice if staff would provide the exact
numbers for the lights, cameras and cameras so that the public does not
have to physically count them by themselves. At an estimated cost of
$5,000 each, that amounts to more than $250,000. I notice that there are
numerous lights on the upper level illuminating the basketball courts and
the children's playgrounds, but none above the paddle tennis courts. Is
there a reason for that? Is it necessary to have these lights on all night
long?
Another missing bit of information is there is no mention of the existing
stairway from Sea View up to the park. Will that stairway be maintained?
I can't see a gate for that stairway shown in the fencing diagram.
2) I, along with many others, feel that there should be roll down metal
shutters covering all glazing around the building. Based upon the success
of the shutters at Hesse Park, I think it will be well worth the added
expense. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
I don't see any mention of it, but I remember discussion of at least
providing the space for the shutters to be included in the roof design so
that they can be added at a later date.
3} There is a conflict between Condition #41 and Condition #42.
Condition #41 states that the parking lot be open between 8:00AM and
dusk. Condition #42 states that the park building be open between 8:00
AM and 9:00PM. If the building is open till 9:00 PM then the parking lot
should be open till 9:00 PM.
4) Something that I think is missing for this project is the current cost
estimate for all cost increases or decreases including landscaping,
consulting fees etc. beyond the original $15.7 million cost estimate. I
think that staff should report any changes in the overall park budget cost,
as they occurr, beyond the original cost estimate of $15.7 million and
keep it updated with any changes. That should include all consultant fees
3
as well as any other hard cost additions or subtractions. Residents should
know what these increases are as they change.
4
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greetings RPV Council Members,
Paul Barrett <revpaullyb@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1 :45 PM
CC; CityCierk; Cc: Home Bell
Devon Singh-Sarrett
RE: RPV City Council Meeting 9/21/2021 Agenda iltem 2.
My family and I are residents of Ladera Linda and live two houses in on Pirate Drive from the intersection of Forrestal Drive
and Pirate Drive. It has been brought to our attention that you plan to vote on an external lighting proposal for the Ladera
Linda Park remodel that will directly impact surrounding neighborhoods, and perhaps most significantly, bordering neighbors
like us. We have sought to be collaborative and supportive neighbors to you in what feels like years of planning efforts for this
remodel, but we are surprised that you would vote on a proposal without input from surrounding neighbors for something as
sensitive as external lighting that will certainly raise concerns of nighttime skylines, visibility, intrusion, traffic and light
pollution. I am a pastor of allocation congregation. As a pastor of a local church we have had to recently reduce, change
and/or eliminate external lighting on our church campus due to community concerns enforced by your departments. We
have cooperated in every way with the intention to always be good neighbors in our community. The concerns about our
campus lighting were largely raised by neighbors "up the hill" from us so you might be positioning yourselves for like concerns
from neighbors not confined by immediate proximity to the proposed remodel.
We would ask that you defer any consideration and vote of this matter until you have actively sought input from neighbors
who border the park (like us), and other interested/concerned neighbors as well. We hope you will consider doing so in the
best interest of neighborly relationships as well a~ reciprocating the support that many of us have sought to offer your
efforts.
Sincerely,
Paul Barrett
3849 Pirate Drive, RPV
(206) 459-2534
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO 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~nz:::J~~/
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
CityCierk
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
D.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Friday, September 17, 2021 6:54 PM
CityCierk
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
CityCierk
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 9:37PM
CityCierk
Subject: Fw: No Me Mansions & Extreme Slope buildings
From: Karla Amber <keao8888@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 8:16AM
To: CC <CC@rpvea.gov>
Subject: No Me Mansions & Extreme Slope buildings
Please do your duty & do not allow Me Mansions & Extreme Slope buildings ruin our neighborhood. Bad
environmentally & visually!
1
D
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, September 20, 2021 8:54AM
CityCierk
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 D.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tara Mcguinness <tara@taramcguinness.com>
Monday, September 20, 2021 4:01 PM
CityCierk; CC
Item D on 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 Ia Fleur, Rue
Langlois, Rue de Ia 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."
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.
6.1n 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.
?.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.
S.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 (31 0)793-0800
Fax (310)793-0805
JjA_), Tara r'1cGuinness ~~ & AssOCiates
NOTE: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE I 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 6:30PM
CityCierk
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
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Friday, September 17, 2021 10:25 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Late corr
From: vlacoS@cox.net <vlacoS@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 20219:33 AM
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavia 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 <vlacoS@cox.net>
Cc: Octavia 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,
1 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 <vlacoS@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 202110:32 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.g.QY>
Cc: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS~>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>;
CC<~~~>
Subject: Re: Changes to the CUP for lighting/security
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 15, 2021, at 9:36AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Jessica,
I will ask Ken or Octavia in planning to reach out to you.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
I his e--mail messaqe contains information to the City of Rancho !'a los Verdes, which be priviloqed, confidential and/or
""'"'''0("'''n from disclosure. The inforrnation is only for usc of the individual or entity Unauthorized dissemination,
or copyinq is str·ictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or arc not an intcndccl recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance ilnd cooperation.
2
•
, Downlo<ad on tl'le
AppStore
1111rt.... GCTITOtf r Google Play
From: vlacoS@cox.net <vlacoS@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 9:25AM
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: vlacoS@cox.net <vlacoS@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
Scanned by McAfee and confirmed virus-free.
3
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Sunday, September 19, 2021 9:51AM
CityCierk
Subject: Fw: CC meeting 9/21 Public Hearing Item #2
From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 6:50AM
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 ma!ntaining 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 Forrestai/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 Ladera Linda and Seaview HOAs. In the April 2020
meeting, an astounding 70%-80% of all speakers I 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
CityCierk
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>; CityCierk <CityCierk@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 staff's 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 3:46PM
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: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda: dog drinking fountains
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
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 2:44PM
Karina Banales; Katie Lozano; Teresa Takaoka
CC; CityCierk; 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 tore-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 I 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
3.
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
sunshinerpv@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 I 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 Memoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, September 20, 2021 3:21 PM
CityCierk
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 3:17PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@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>; CityCierk <CityCierk@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; ieanlongacre@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, CityCierk@rpvca.gov
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, CorvL@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 I 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 Octavia Silva, Katie Lozano and Ramzie Awwad
had "official" access to the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT I 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 Staffs 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 I 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
31 0-377-8761
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 I 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.