The URL can be used to link to this page

20250218 Late Correspondence1 1 Subject:FW: FEB 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RE SILVER SPUR CANYON PROJECT Attachments:letter to Planning Commission.docx From: Mira Wolff <mswolff@twc.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:56 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Cc: Diana Wolff <dewolff@earthlink.net>; Mira <mswolff@twc.com>; Amy Wolff <Alwolff@earthlink.net>; Mike Petereon <PetersonMike123@msn.com> Subject: FEB 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RE SILVER SPUR CANYON PROJECT EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. My mother, Diana Wolff, submitted the attached letter and email below to the wrong email addresses for tonight‘s City Council meeting. Please read the attached letter and her email and also include both in the official report. Begin forwarded message: From: dewolff@earthlink.net Date: February 11, 2025 at 3:34:33 PM PST To: cc@rpv.gov Cc: cityclerk@rpv.gov Subject: FEB 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RE SILVER SPUR CANYON PROJECT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Since my letter of 9/24/23 there have been major firestorms. RPV was in a red-flag warning zone. Mr. Jha’s plan is an accident waiting to happen! Allowing him to build in the SS Canyon would be the HEIGHT OF INSANITY. For all the MANY reasons listed in my letter, I urge you to deny his appeal. Diana E. Wolff 5333 Ironwood St. Rancho PV, CA 90275 310 990 2248 Some people who received this message don't often get email from mswolff@twc.com. Learn why this is important 5333 Ironwood St. Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 dewolff@earthlink.net (310) 990-2248 Ms. Jessica Bobbett, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA September 24, 2024 Dear Ms. Bobbett, This letter is in opposition to: 1) The appeal by Mr. Jha to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ denial of the Builder’s Remedy, and 2) Mr. Jha’s request for an expedited review of his application to build 482 condos in the Silver Spur Canyon. My name is Diana Wolff. I am 87 years old. For the past 53 years I have lived at 5333 Ironwood Street, which is one house down from the entrance to the proposed project by Mr. Jha, in Silver Spur Canyon. Mr. Jha’s proposed development is poorly planned, will create severe safety issues and crushing traffic, and endangers everyone in the community. It is a disaster waiting to happen. My major concerns have to do with safety, property damage, and even loss of life. First, the project that is proposed by Mr. Jha in Silver Spur Canyon -- 4 eleven story buildings holding 482 condos in an area zoned for single family residences, is in a high-risk fire zone. Second, since there are only two very narrow access routes in and out of the proposed project, there is insufficient access for fire response, emergency services, or escape routes, creating substantial risk of harm to the local residents and those who would come to live in the 482 condos. There is an elementary school on my street that already causes bumper to bumper traffic in front of my house. Adding four hundred to nine hundred more cars will most certainly create insurmountable gridlock. Third, the project will be built on unstable canyon land and has the very real potential to cause landslides similar to those in other parts of Palos Verdes (like Portuguese Bend), creating additional risk to the homeowners in the area around the Silver Spur Canyon. Fourth, the neighborhood has many senior citizens, like myself, who are depending on the equity in our homes to cover our golden years. This project has the strong potential to materially reduce our home values, putting us at risk of financial ruin and potential homelessness. Since I am on a fixed income, if my home equity diminishes, I have no money to live on. And lastly, the cost of the infrastructure to support the project (e.g., water supply, sewers, sidewalks, electrical, etc.) will fall on the local homeowners who, in my case, cannot afford this extra expense. There are only two entrances to Silver Spur Canyon and one of them is on my street. A large development with only two, very narrow, pinch-point access routes in and out of the development is a terrible idea. The proposed development in Silver Spur Canyon will directly impact my and my family’s ability to get in and out of our own driveway. Just up the street from my house on Ironwood, is Silver Spur Elementary School. There are about two hours each weekday when my street comes to a complete halt due to the long line of cars waiting to reach the School. The proposed development would add between four hundred and nine hundred more vehicles on my street. Ironwood Street is not designed for such capacity. The gridlock will create a danger to all residents – especially if there is a fire, landslide, or other disaster. Below is a picture of what my street (Ironwood Street) looks like for several hours each day during the drop off and pick up of students at Silver Spur Elementary School. During that time, getting in or out of my driveway or entering or exiting my neighborhood by car is nearly impossible. I have already experienced being unable to leave my house to get to a doctor appointment due to the number of cars waiting in line to reach the school. My driveway is blocked during this time. In the picture below, the first red arrow is pointing to the narrow driveway that leads down to Silver Spur Canyon where Mr. Jha wants to build 482 condos. The second arrow is the driveway to my house. Silver Spur Elementary School is at the top of the street. Mr. Jha’s plan to build in the Silver Spur Canyon will bring between 480 to 900 additional cars (especially if each of the 480 condos has more than one adult resident) to this exact same spot to enter and exit through this narrow driveway. Since the proposed project does not have parking available for the 480-900 cars, the residents of the 482 condos will end up needing to park a minimum of 400-500 cars on Ironwood Street, the same street where they will enter Silver Spur Canyon. In other words, the street congestion that normally occurs several hours per day would be a 24 hour per day condition. Every inch of the street would be filled with parked cars from the 482 condos, leaving no room for the homeowners who live on Ironwood Street or their family, guests, or visitors to park near their homes. Plus, the influx of the 800-900 additional cars added to the already existing traffic around Silver Spur Elementary School would make the area impossible to enter or exit. Being a senior citizen with congestive heart failure, I have been rushed from my home to the hospital in an ambulance several times, as was my husband before he passed away. Had the addition of the 800-900 cars to Ironwood Street already occurred, the ambulance would have been unable to reach my home during our times of emergency. This additional congestion would mean that an ambulance, police car or fire truck could not reach me or other neighbors needing emergency help during a crisis. Remember the recent fire tragedy in Lahaina, Hawaii in August 2023? Over 100 people died. Over 2,200 structures were damaged. More than $5.5 billion in damage. The same thing will occur in Rancho Palos Verdes if this project is approved due to the lack of proper access, traffic capacity and dangerous traffic congestion. Ironwood Street and the Silver Spur Canyon are already in a high- risk fire zone. If there were a fire in the Silver Spur Canyon, fire trucks and firefighters would have difficulty accessing the canyon to fight the fire due to (1) the two limited, very narrow access points, (2) the existing traffic congestion from Silver Spur Elementary School, and (3) the addition of 800-900 cars using Ironwood Street to enter and exit the proposed Silver Spur Canyon condo development. With all those people in the 482 condos trying to escape a fire through the two narrow access roads (one on Ironwood Street, which would already be blocked by the 800-900 additional cars), many people would die trying to escape. This would include the residents on Ironwood Street. Since the fire fighters would have difficulty getting to the fire in the canyon in time to prevent the spread, the homes on Ironwood Street and the adjacent areas would likely burn as well. This disaster will be on your hands. You have a chance to stop it now. The risk of fire and inability to escape would start during the construction. In order to build those 4 eleven story buildings, large numbers of trucks carrying building materials would have no other way to get there except up Silver Spur Road. The traffic would be constant and slow. Silver Spur Road would become impossible to use. And then, of course, those trucks would also be using Ironwood Street to enter the Silver Spur Canyon through the narrow alley that is one house away from my home. If a fire broke out in the canyon, the trucks would slow or block the fire fighters’ access to the area. I and my neighbors would be trapped and unable to escape the area during a fire. If an ambulance was needed, it would be unable to reach me or others in need of assistance. Rancho Palos Verdes is already experiencing landslides and the Silver Spur Canyon is not a safe place to build large, multi-unit condominium complexes. After what we see happening in Portuguese Bend and Rolling Hills, why would the City allow Mr. Jha to bypass safety and zoning requirements and have an expedited review of his plans when these risks are foreseeable based on actual recent events that are happening nearby in the same area? Why would the residents and homeowners around the Silver Spur Canyon be forced to bear the risk of landslides and damage to their homes just so Mr. Jha can move faster and avoid any evaluations of soil stability and seismic safety? What about the infrastructure that will be needed to support this massive project that is planned for an area that is zoned only for single-family residences? Who will pay for that? The city of Rancho Palos Verdes? Who is going to pay the city? It will obviously come from additional local tax assessments. In other words, the people of Rancho Palos Verdes will be subsidizing the building of those 482 condos. For those of us who are senior citizens on fixed incomes, we did not budget for this project. We never planned to fund this extra expense in our golden years. We never planned to have to pay for this project, a project from which we receive no benefit, only harm. What will happen to us when we can’t afford the increased local taxes that will be required to fund this new infrastructure? Will the City place liens on our homes? Will our homes be foreclosed on by the City? Will we be forced to sell our homes at a loss? I have lived in my home on Ironwood Street for 53 years. I am retired and a widow. I relied on the fact that my home would increase in value and the equity would carry me through my golden years. But now I am at risk of my home value being destroyed by Mr. Jha’s Builders Remedy project. I have read about the impact on homeowners in single family neighborhoods where large, multi- unit structures were built on their street due to Builders Remedy projects. In many instances, their home value dropped by 50% or more. There was no recourse. Their property value was literally stolen from them by the developer through the loophole of the Builders Remedy. The developer profited while the homeowner lost the equity in their home as a result of the Builders Remedy project. This was essentially a case of Eminent Domain, where their property value was taken by the government, but without the required compensation. That is what will be happening to me and the other homeowners near the Silver Spur Canyon if Mr. Jha’s Builders Remedy application is approved. The loss of the equity in my home of 53 years means I will have nothing to live on. I will lose my home, have no place to live, and will be a senior citizen with no money to support myself. That will be the outcome if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approves Mr. Jha’s Builders Remedy application. Mr. Jha stands to make millions of dollars in profit at the expense of the local homeowners. His project will put the lives of many at risk of harm or even cause their death. This whole project is going to be a disaster if you allow it to happen. His appeal and his request for expedited approval must be denied. Thank you. Diana Wolff 1 1 Subject:FW: Against to the 5323 Ironwood Street, RPV condo project Attachments:Lee-5520-Eau-Claire-Dr-City-Council-Letter 2-18-25.docx From: Erica Lee <dragonfly1868@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:32 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Cc: Erica Lee <dragonfly1868@gmail.com> Subject: Against to the 5323 Ironwood Street, RPV condo project EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. I'm against the 5323 Ironwood Street condo project. Eric Lee 5520 Eau Claire Dr RPV, CA Some people who received this message don't often get email from dragonfly1868@gmail.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder’s remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Eric Lee 5520 Eau Claire Dr, RPV, CA TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2025 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA _____________________________________________________________________ Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight’s meeting. Item No. Description of Material I Attachment A (PSA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.) 1 Emails from: Evelyn & John Granacki; David Robertson; Sandy Riggs; Lai Penny; Jenny and Aken Chocholek; Dennis Thieret; Ann C. Lynch; Robin Riggs; Diane Kuhrt; Judy Truong; Khanh Do; Morgan & Danielle Cobourn; Mike Hagerthy; Leslie Lulka; Chris and Dale Ward; Mrs. Valerie R. Cole; Terry and Bill Griggs; Sheree Nixon; Wendy Keller Letters from: Barbara and Kim Hee; William (Bill) and June Conrad; Martin and Lora Dodell; John Baricevic and Carolyn Heth; Brent Pace 3 Email from Madeleine McJones ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, February 17, 2025**. Respectfully submitted, _________________ Teresa Takaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Coversheets\20250218 additions revisions to agenda.docx CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT By and Between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 01203 0006/873094.2 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("Agreement") is made and entered into on February 18, 2025, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and KIMLEY-HORN AND ASOCIATES, INC, an American planning, surveying, engineering, and design consulting firm ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as "Party" or "Parties." RECITALS A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement. B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services. C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement. D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT 1.l Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services", as stated in the Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or "work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For Ol 203.0006/873094.2 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A38E-5090EB106781 purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "professional standards" shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more firms performing similar work under similar circumstances. 1.2 Consultant's Proposal. The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's Proposal which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such Proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 1.3 Compliance with Law. Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered. 1.4 California Labor Law. If the Scope of Services includes any "public work" or "maintenance work," as those te1ms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws, including the following requirements: (a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be performed under this Agreement is a "public work" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts and the rules and regulations established by the Department. of Industrial Relations ("DIR") implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. (b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773 .2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job site where work is performed under this Agreement. (c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $200 (two hundred dollars) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for 01203 0006/8730942 2 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor. ( d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of pe1jury, as specified in Section 1776; ce1iify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records. (e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 (sixty) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. (f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that 8 (eight) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. (g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $25 (twenty five dollars for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 (eight) hours in any one calendar day and 40 (forty) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of 8 ( eight) hours per day, and 40 (fo1iy) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one and 1 ½ (one and one half) times the basic rate of pay. (h) Workers' Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3 700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract." Consultant's Authorized Initials ---- 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 3 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 (i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor. 1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder. 1.6 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant affirms that Consultant (i) has thoroughly considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order. 1.7 Care of Work. The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. 1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties. Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes 0l 203.0006/8730942 4 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other. 1.9 Additional Services. City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written Change Order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to 15% (fifteen percent) of the Contract Sum; or, in the time to perform ofup to 90 (ninety) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer through a written Change Order. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed. If in the performance of the contract scope, the Consultant becomes aware of material defects in the scope, duration or span of the contract or the Consultant becomes aware of extenuating circumstance that will or could prevent the completion of the contract, on time or on budget, the Consultant shall inform the Contracting Officer of an anticipated Change Order. This proposed change order will stipulate, the facts surrounding the issue, proposed solutions, proposed costs and proposed schedule impacts. 1.10 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern. ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. 2.1 Contract Sum. Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed $93,280 (Ninety-Three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9. 01203 0006/873094.2 5 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 2.2 Method of Compensation. (a) The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, and (b) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. (b) A retention of 10% shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory and timely completion of services. This retention shall not apply for on-call agreements for continuous services or for agreements for scheduled routine maintenance of City property or City facilities. 2.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City. Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings. 2.4 Invoices. Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template, or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person. City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed, and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within 45 (forty-five) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law. 01203 0006/8730942 6 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 2.5 Waiver. Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant. ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer through a Change Order, but not exceeding 180 ( one-hundred-eighty) days cumulatively. 3.3 Force Majeure. The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within 10 (ten) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section. 3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding (1) one year from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by one (I) additional 6-month extension. ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK 4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant. 0I 203.0006/873094.2 7 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith: Jean Fares (Name) Laura Forinash (Name) Principal-in Charge; Senior Vice President (Title) Project Manager/Traffic Engineer (Title) It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only the personnel included in the Proposal to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance. City shall have the right to approve or reject any proposed replacement personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4.2 Status of Consultant. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights. 4.3 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be Ramzi A wwad, Public Works Director, or such person as he may designate. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 01203 0006/8730942 8 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 4.4 Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant. 4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City; all subcontractors included in the Proposal are deemed approved. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more 25% (twenty five percent) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant ofany liability hereunder without the express consent of City. ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION 5.1 Insurance Coverages. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. (a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language will not be accepted. (b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and 0 l203.0006/873094.2 9 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. (c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement. (d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000). (e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B". 5.2 General Insurance Requirements. (a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. (b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. ( c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non- contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. (d) City's rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain and continuously maintain the insurance it deems 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. ( e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. (t) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. (g) Enforcement of contract prov1s1ons (non-estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant ofnon-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. (h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. (i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a 30 (thirty) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a 10 (ten) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. (j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. (k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 11 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 (l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. (m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. (n) Agency's right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant 90 (ninety) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant's compensation. ( o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City. (p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. ( q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 5.3 Indemnification. To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein "claims or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity to the extent arising out of or in connection with Consultant's negligence in the performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors' negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith: 0l 203.0006/873094.2 12 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 (a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith; (b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom; (c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims to the extent arising out of or in connection with Consultant's negligence in the performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys' fees. Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This indemnification applies to claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities to the extent arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION 6.1 Records. Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 13 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act. 6.2 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed. 6.3 Ownership of Documents. All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials") prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City. 6.4 Confidentiality and Release oflnformation. (a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer. (b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, 0] 203.0006/873094.2 14 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. ( c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct. ( d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any patty regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION 7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7.2 Disputes; Default. In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is 15 (fifteen) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement. 7.3 Retention of Funds. 01203.0006/873094.2 15 Oocusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein. 7.4 Waiver. Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 7 .6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement. 7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. Upon receipt of any notice of 01203.0006/873094.2 16 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the City need not provide the Consultant with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2. 7.8 Termination for Default of Party. If termination is due to the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement: (a) City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated. (b) Consultant may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7 .2, terminate the Agreement upon written notice to the City's Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to payment for all work performed up to the date of termination. 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION 8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement. 8.2 Conflict oflnterest. 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 17 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. 8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class. 8.4 Unauthorized Aliens. Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City. ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.l Notices. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 18 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in 72 (seventy two) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section. 9.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 9.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9.4 Integration; Amendment. This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void. 9.5 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless. 9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion. No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of "financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be "remote" or "noninterests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 19 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect. Consultant's Authorized Initials --- 9.7 Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 01203 0006/873094.2 20 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written. ATTEST: Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP William W. Wynder, City Attorney CITY: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation David Bradley, Mayor CONSULTANT: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC rDocuSigned by: By: L~5~ (/, (½ Name: Jean Fares Title: SCTiooiBresident / PE (TR2097) Svi ()ukv~ By: 0019A53198004FO Name: Sri Chakravarthy Title: Sr. Vice President/ PE 73629 Address:180 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY. 0 l 203.0006/873094.2 21 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On . 2023 before me, , personally appeared _______ , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: _______________ _ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER 0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORA TE OFFICER □ □ □ □ □ □ TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER ------------- SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 0 I 203.0006/873094.2 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE Docusign Envelope ID: E72871 E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On ____ , 2023 before me, _______ , personally appeared _______ , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: _______________ _ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER 0 INDIVIDUAL 0 CORPORATE OFFICER □ □ □ □ □ □ TITLE(S) PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR OTHER. ____________ _ SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)) 01203 0006/873094.2 DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DA TE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES I. The following scope of work is intended as a guide only, additional services may be required which are not listed below but need to be completed. Consultant shall complete other tasks deemed necessary for the accomplishment of a complete and comprehensive outcome as described in the project objective. Consultant shall expand on the below-noted tasks, where appropriate, and provide suggestions which might lead to efficiencies and enhance the results or usefulness of the work. City staff may request that check-sets or working versions of documents be submitted for ongoing routine review. City staff will review all deliverables, including preparatory or record materials for service deliverables and provide comments. Consultant is required to revise draft deliverables to address City staff's comments. The project team and identified consultant staff as indicated in the consultant proposal shall not be substituted without the written authorization of the City for the duration of the project. A. TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ ADMINISTRATION/ MEETINGS 01203.0006/873094.2 Consultant will be required to attend a kick-off meeting with City representatives and patticipating stakeholders to review the project and participate in ongoing project coordination. In consultation with City representatives, the Consultant will determine relevant issues specific to the Project and governing standards to be applied. Up to six virtual progress meetings will be held, with City staff, and other stakeholders as needed. Consultant shall prepare agendas and meeting minutes with an action item matrix and distribute to the City and other attendees, as required. a. Attend a kick-off meeting with City representatives and other stakeholders as required to review the Project. b. Maintain continuous communication with the City Project Manager, including meetings to review project status at desired milestones. c. Provide agendas of special items for discussion, and minutes listing actions. d. Provide a detailed project schedule with updates on a monthly basis. e. Maintain continuous awareness of the status of each task as it proceeds and make provisions to expedite and resolve any difficulties that may impede progress. f. Proactively initiate communications efforts between the technical team and City to address key issues in a timely manner. g. Coordinate the Project, including approvals with the City. h. Prepare and deliver up to 2 presentations to the joint sessions of Traffic Safety and Infrastructure Management Committees. i. Prepare and deliver up to 2 presentations to the City Council. j. Perform all required project management and administrative services to obtain A-1 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 all Encroachment Permits required to perform various activities within City's Right of Way. B. TASK2: INTERSECTION EVALUATION 01203 0006/873094.2 This task includes the objective evaluation and comparison of implementing the following traffic control measures: a. Existing stop control (side street) b. Proposed all-way stop control c. Traffic signal (including left-turn phasing) d. Roundabout intersection control e. Other innovative control alternative such as Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT, etc.). The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an objective analysis that will allow the City to make investment decisions based on the optimal traffic control and operational strategy for the design life of the intersection. All three Project intersections (Palos Verdes Drive South at Forrestal, Palos Verdes Drive South at Conqueror, and Palos Verdes Drive South at Schooner) shall receive an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) screening, and if warranted, a comparative analysis of the benefits of roundabouts versus signalization. 2.1 Data Collection and Analysis: a) Traffic Volume Collection & Analysis: Conduct ADT and through and turning movements counts (TMCs) to assess current traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS) at each intersection. The Consultant will collect 24-hour ADT counts to identify weekday and weekend peak periods, and TMCs, including vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and heavy vehicle counts, will be collected during peak hours. TMCs will be collected in two-hour windows for the weekday AM peak, PM peak, and weekend peak hour (i.e. 7:00am-9:00am, 4:00pm-6:00pm and I I :00am-1 :00pm). b) Crash Data Analysis: Review multi-year historical crash data to identify safety concerns and patterns. The multi-year analysis shall include crash data available from, at a minimum, the most recent three years excluding the pandemic period. The multi-year analysis will include crash data available from January l, 2019, to December 31, 2019, and from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2023 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS) crash data will be utilized. c) Site Surveys: I. Conduct field visits of the project area to perform site assessments. Record existing site conditions in photographs and/or video. Assessment will include but not be limited to road geometry, existing signage, and surrounding land use. II. Verify if right-of-way (R/W) acquisitions and/or vacations will be necessary. A-2 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871 E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 01203 0006/873094.2 2.2 Modeling Tools Overview & Integration: Describe the purpose of using modeling tools in the feasibility study to simulate traffic conditions, assess performance, and visualize proposed designs and the outline of how these tools will be applied throughout various stages of the study such as: a) Initial Analysis for preliminary capacity and safety assessments. b) Design Iterations to analyze various design alternatives and optimize performance. c) Visualization for mapping and visual presentations to stakeholders. Consultant will prepare an ICE screening methodology memorandum. Consultant will review the ICE screening methodology and criteria with the City. The screening methodology will include both quantitative performance measures described in Task 2 as well as qualitative performance measures developed by the project team (i.e. aesthetic opportunities or alternative intersection design). The memorandum will identify the source and proposed values to be used in determining the benefits and costs. If needed, Consultant will adjust the criteria to better fit the City's goals and objectives. Consultant will prepare a draft ICE screening methodology memorandum for review and concurrence by the City. A final memo will be prepared after the results of the initial screening process are reviewed with the City. 2.3 Design Year Scenario (2025): For the Design Year scenario (2025), Consultant will include weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend peak hour turning movement volumes that will be used to establish operations for the design year scenario. Existing conditions year (2025) shall be the same as the design year (2025); therefore, only 2025 conditions shall be analyzed. 2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant: Consultant will perform a traffic signal warrant analysis for each of the study intersections using the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (latest edition of CA MUTCD) traffic signal warrant worksheets. Consultant will analyze all nine warrants for the analysis and determine for each intersection, which warrants are met. Consultant will analyze the traffic signal warrant using the existing (2025) conditions. 2.5 Concept Traffic Operations Analysis A-3 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 01203 0006/8730942 Consultant will use the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to perform a peak-hour operations analysis of the traffic control options for each project intersection. Operations will be evaluated for weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend peak hour. Existing conditions year (2025) shall be the same as the design year (2025); therefore, only 2025 conditions shall be analyzed. Stop and signal control analyses will be conducted with Synchro using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies as defined by the City at the start of the project. Roundabout control evaluations will be performed using the Sidra software based on the HCM 6 capacity model. The Sidra Standard capacity model may be used to check the sensitivity of the roundabout operations. Consultant will complete the following as part of this task: a) Perform peak-hour intersection Level of Service (LOS) and queuing analysis for existing traffic control condition, roundabout control, all-way stop control, traffic signal for existing traffic conditions (weekday AM, weekday PM, and weekend peak hours only). b) Report the peak hour average control delay, LOS, and 95th percentile queue length for each approach by movement Queue estimates will be examined relative to existing storage lengths and left turn storage requirements. 2.6 Safety Considerations: Consultant will document the three-year crash history of each intersection based on crash data available from January l, 2021, to December 31, 2023, via Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The crash history will be used to inform the study of the relative safety of the existing intersection. Consultant will predict the future frequency and severity of crashes per year using predictive Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methods and the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (THSDM). II--ISDM will be used to predict crash data for each feasible intersection control alternative, including the existing condition, for the design life. The predicted number and severity of collisions over the defined design life will be used to calculate the societal cost of safety. 2.7 Operations and Maintenance Considerations: Consultant will collect and summarize annual operations and maintenance costs provided by the City. We assume the costs provided by the City include annual pmver consumption for lighting and signals, average annual signal retiming and maintenance costs, and estimated landscape maintenance costs. If costs are not known, average unit costs from previous studies and/or national averages will be used. 2.8 Qualitative Assessment: A-4 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 01203.0006/873094.2 Consultant will conduct a qualitative assessment of each intersection traffic control type at each project location. The qualitative assessment will be conducted per the agreed methodology documented in the Draft ICE Screening Methodology Memorandum. 2.9 Develop Concept Level Layouts The primary purpose of this task is to establish an approximated footprint of the study intersection, including the number of approach, departure, turn, and circulatory lanes. Conceptual layouts will be prepared for a roundabout control intersection and either a stop control or traffic signal control alternative for the design year traffic scenario. Layouts will be developed in CADD using aerial images and available topographic mapping received under Task 1. Concept layouts will depict intersection features and geometric design elements based on the traffic operations analysis. The layout will include colored pavement markings consistent with the MUTCD, color-coded areas identifying landscape opportunities, and the potential for vertical obstructions based on estimated sight lines. Key features evaluated during this phase typically include: a) Size and location of required intersection control relative to right-of-way and geometric constraints b) Design speed, design vehicle, and sight line and sight distance considerations (design check calculations, other than design speed, design vehicle, sight line, and sight distance, will not be conducted with task order). c) Local access/access control considerations d) Alignment of approaches and departures e) Number of approach, departure, turn, and circulatory lanes f) Channelization of turning movements g) Travel paths for bicyclists and pedestrians h) Right-of-way impacts 2.10 Capital Cost Estimates Consultant will prepare cost estimate for the initial capital costs needed to plan, design, and construct each of the proposed intersection improvements. For each improvement, the initial capital costs will be provided as an order of magnitude range based on similar project improvements. 2.11 Intersection Control Evaluation A-5 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 This task includes a high-level screening of potential intersection control alternatives. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an objective analysis that allows the City to make an investment decision based on traffic control and operations strategy for the design life of the intersection. The objective of the evaluation is to identify intersection control alternatives that merit further consideration. Consultant will prepare a cost sensitivity chart comparing the improvements. The chart will plot the benefit-cost inflection point between each alternative assuming the delay, safety, and operations and maintenance costs remain constant. Order of magnitude costs for each alternative will be plotted on a chart to illustrate a likely range of benefit-cost ratios that will assist in the identification of control alternatives that merit further consideration. Consultant will prepare a cumulative cost chart comparing the accumulation of costs, by control type, over the life cycle of each intersection. Qualitative performance measures will also be evaluated and summarized in the analysis. These measures include active transportation links, transit service, corridor and regional context. Additionally, ICE will evaluate various alternatives for the following strategies to determine appropriate safety enhancements: a) Minimizing and modifying conflict points b) Reducing speed of vehicles c) Improving visibility at intersections d) Providing space and protection for pedestrians and bicyclists 2.12 Documentation: Consultant will prepare an ICE report summarizing the results of Task 2. The report will include concept layouts for each of the traffic control alternatives, as well as a summary of the ICE performance measures and Benefit-Cost analysis. The report will be presented in a non-technical format using graphics and charts, with explanations of the performance measures and methodology used to calculate each of the measures and the Benefit-Cost scoring. After staff review, a final report will be prepared. C. TASK 3: Public Engagement 01203. 0006/873094 .2 Consultant will conduct up to 4 stakeholder meetings. The first meeting will be held to receive input from the joint committee members (Traffic Safety and Infrastructure Management Committees) and members of the public. The second A-6 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 meeting will be held to return to the joint committees to present the project with comments incorporated. The third meeting will be for a presentation to the City Council to gather input and directions from the City Council, and the final meeting will be to present the final results to the Council. Consultant will prepare materials for up to 4 PowerPoint presentations to communicate findings and gather feedback at each meeting. D. Task 4: Optional Task 4.1 Rendering oflntersections: Consultant will develop 3D renderings of three intersections, showing the proposed lane configuration and limits of construction. The image will include colored pavement markings in accordance with the MUTCD as well as features such as landscape opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. II. As part of the Services, Consultant shall prepare and deliver the following minimum tangible work products to the City: A. Meeting Schedules, Agenda and Minutes, Detailed Project Schedules B. Documented description of the modeling tools used in the analysis and the outline of how these tools have been applied in various stages of the Study C. ICE Report: a) Documented Results of Data Collection 1. Documented Results of Traffic Volume Collection and Analysis" 11. Documented Results of Crash Data Analysis iii. ICE Screening Methodology Memorandum b) Documented Results of Design Year Scenario c) Documented Results of Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis d) Documented Results of Concept Traffic Operations Analysis e) Documented Results of Safety Considerations f) Documented Results of Operations and Maintenance Considerations a) Documented outcome of Qualitative Assessment 01203.00061s13094.2 A-7 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 b) Concept Level Layouts c) Documented Results of Capital Cost Considerations d) Documented ICE i. Documented Results of Quantitative Analysis 11. Documented Results of Qualitative Analysis iii. Documented Results of Recommended Safety Enhancements D. Renderings for 3 Intersections in .jpg format E. A total of 4 PowerPoint Presentations F. Documentation of feedback received at each of the 4 Stakeholders Meetings. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City. Consultant shall utilize the personnel stated in its proposal to accomplish the Services, unless otherwise approved in writing by the City's Contract Officer. Ol 203.0006/873094.2 A-8 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871 E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 0!203.0006/873094 2 EXHIBIT "B" SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (Superseding Contract Boilerplate) Added text indicated in bold italics, deleted text indicated in strikethrough. [INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] C-1 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871 E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates: City of Rancho Palos Verdes RoundabotL feasibtli;y Study on Palos Ver,:res Drive Somn at fvrresrn! Drive. Conqueror [,ri're, and Schoonff Drive t-----~---j---'---~---+---~~---t-'----+------t-'----------1TOTA!cHOURS TOTA!., COST Tatk 1 Prnjectlni!ia!ior. Meeti11~s.am:!Man3{1em&nt I 12 I ll I 5 I I I l 39 S 9,740 11 Prcj,;-c:t trv:la-;;0~1 .anc. Meect"nQS 1: 12 :4 6,5'10 12 F':'cjes-: V12nag€-n-,en~ 1G 5 "5 s 3,2[0 Ta$k 2 j tntersecho-n Control Evalustic,n 32 46 4 106 144 :l 337 "2.700 2 1 I l)a1a CcH,sct-on 2 4 7 2 ·,; 3-.2~0 2.2: Desi91 {e._:>;r Scenajos 1.5ED 2.3 '"':r:ccfn,: s~~{l3 '1)i3:i&.,fJt 4 4 '5 2730 24 {:;:O;-;e:::.p: Trntfti:: Cpen.~:!icns 4 ,;i 15 Z'. 47 s.6:o sa:et; Cons-k:tern1cr,s 6 s 1 OEO :::e Poi!ut1.nt Enlssic;1s Co0,.s,der.:mors 17 Operations .;::--ric r..,lai;1te-nan::e Ccrtif.i~ntt::.:irs 6 r OEO 2E Quah:atv:e .4s.sessrne--:t 7 4 ·1 s 37=5 2$ Den;Op Concept Live! L..l:muU 15 15 D €j ~39 5 ::5725 2H C a;:i1at Ccsr. Ci:~nsi-derat1om 6 .5 1 l4[5 2.1' l>tersectl.cn Co1trc1 E'iJ!uetioo 4 6 11 --1 3,S:35 2. i:: l D0c.uneniatbr 2 6 2:1 59 $ '02SJ r ask 1 I Fr H,ffitatioM H 18 15 51 12.0ffi T<rfl\t.ll◊UR$ 62/ 81>' '\). '1$~ •:'.¼ .· 427 Subtotal labor: $20,1&, $13,%2(! $1-500 $19,440 Ottii,;r mm:tC1>ats I $2~ -$420 lL= ,e4.5[t)I $ • • • t,600 :r::.ifffc Co.im:s $ 15[!] TOTAf.,;CQST; $ ~(180 Task 4 I Optional Tasks 36 36 S 7.200 4. 1 ] Re~derins D~ 3 ln:eeectiors 36 36 $ 7,2CO 01203.0006/8730942 C-2 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 II. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.9. III. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include: A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate. B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services. C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation. D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services. E. Line item current amount, amount to date, and remaining amount. IV. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. V. The Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1. NOT APPLICABLE 01203.0006/873094.2 C-3 Docusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 EXHIBIT "D SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule: Traffic Signal Warrants Concept Traffic Operations Safely Considerations 2.7 Operations and Maintenm,ce 2.8 OualitHtiveASSBssment 2,9 Develop Conceptual level Layout Drat 0JnceprJa! WS:gn City Review 2.10 Cnpilal Gos1 Gonsidemllons 2.11 lntersectim Control Evaluation 2.12 Documentation Jra~ internecibn Control Evahm\ion Rep0rl Final intsnection Control Evaluation Re;ort 3 Presentations Traffic Safew Corr:rnitt&e Presenttio;f 1 = 2rd 1~ 1onday of lj7e month 2 ;:;: 4th A-tonday of tha month 3 = 1 s: and 3rd Tuesday of Ure month 0 l 203,0006/873094,2 D-1 Oocusign Envelope ID: E72871E4-9628-4038-A3BE-5090EB106781 II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates. Project Management (ongoing work product through duration of the Project). Intersection Control Evaluation Draft Report (April 2025). Intersection Control Evaluation Final Report (May 2025) Presentations and other materials for the Traffic Safety Committee, Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee, and City Council (March and May 2025). III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2. Any further extensions require City Council approval. 01203.000G1s13094.2 D-2 Teresa Takaoka From: Evelyn Granacki <egranacki@cox.net> Monday, February 17, 2025 4:23 PM CityClerk Sent: To: Subject: Letter opposing the Silver Spur Canyon project proposed by Mr.Jha Some people who received this message don't often get email from egranacki@cox.net. Learn why this is important Dear City Clerk, My husband and I have have a home in Rollingwood, Rolling Hills Estates, in the Silver Spur area. We are beyond adamantly opposed to the Silver Spur Canyon affordable housing project under consideration. Our reasons for opposition revolve around six major categories: Safety, Fire, Ecology, Geology, Impact on existing residents, and costs to be born by the city passed on to the residents. Please refer to specifics outlined below. 1. A city has the responsibility to protect the safety of its residents. More traffic resulting on an already congested local thoroughfare-Silver Spur Road -does not fulfill that responsibility ... more and more traffic means more accidents! Even more critically, should a fire break out in the canyon project, 500 + people in the proposed project will try to evacuate as well as existing neighborhoods like Rollingwood, Shadow wood and Miraloma which will result in gridlock ... just as happened in the recent fires in the Pacific Palisades. cars will be abandoned-and on foot you can't outrun a fire much less if you're carrying children or pets. And what about the horses, goats etc in the neighboring equestrian community of RHE across the street from this proposed development?! We also have a high population of seniors in this area who will be helpless! Countless lives could be lost ... 2. The canyon is home to many animal and plant species some of which are endangered. Construction will destroy this ecosystem forever. From a geological perspective, the canyon may prove to be unstable for this massive project potentially causing slides ... 3. This canyon project destroys the quality of semi rural life not to mention the views that people moved to Palos Verdes to experience. And for that environment. residents pay a high housing cost. Where are the rights of property owners if the government allows a development in an area whose utility infrastructure ( electrical, water, sewer) is already maxed out? And cities are mandated to pay for additional utility and infrastructure expansion which of course residents will be taxed for! Plus can schools absorb more students?What about even more crowding in the parking lots of local stores and the malls? 4. Destroying the character and ambiance of a neighborhood to accommodate this canyon development project makes no sense! 5. The heavy construction planned over a period of years will be beyond noisy and also destroy local roads 6. If by some insane rejection of logic and reason this project is approved, we suggest that Mr. Jha and his family have to live through it too in a home impacted by his creation .• Respectfully, Evelyn & John Granacki Sent from Yahoo Mslil foriPr1one 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Ashamed Human <dvdr12000@yahoo.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 10:39 AM CC; CityClerk Save the Canyon Silver Spur [Some people who received this message don't often get email from dvdr12000@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear RPV City Council, I am a 53 year lifetime resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I grew up on Basswood Ave. across the street from Silver Spur Elementary school. My siblings, friends and I often played and adventured through this very canyon. It was quite wild, natural and undisturbed throughout my entire childhood. The thought of this being turned into high-rise buildings is just heartbreaking. Setting my emotional reaction aside, this is just an absolute insult and tragedy to the many residents living in this neighborhood and surrounding area. This would absolutely destroy the small town family oriented feel of this community. The property values will plummet. The roads are not sufficient to handle the resulting increase in traffic volume. It's not just an inconvenience, it is an actual safety hazard. If this construction is allowed to move forward, I truly believe it would rival the tragedy of the Portuguese Bend slide area. The difference being, Portuguese Bend is an act of nature, where this is a preventable act of Human greed. Sincerely, David Robertson 28121 Highridge Rd. #208 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 1 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David, David Bradley Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:06 AM Ashamed Human Ara Mihranian; Teresa Takaoka Re: Save The Canyon Silver Spur Thanks for your email and your thoughts on the potential development project. Regards Dave David L. Bradley Mayor and Councilmember City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov From: Ashamed Human <dvdr12000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 4:08 AM To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov> Subject: Save The Canyon Silver Spur [You don't often get email from dvdr12000@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAbQu~eruierJdantitication] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear Mayor Bradley, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and I am alarmed at the proposal put in by Akhilesh Jha, which endeavors to build -500 units, in four 11 story towers, ruining our beautiful natural environment. This is the opposite of what it means to live in RPV. RPV is about nature as we all know. There are a ton of other, far better places to put in low-income housing. This is merely a developer taking advantage of the Builder's Remedy for a windfall in profits off of our failure to have our housing element approved I realize that currently your tools are somewhat limited, but I hope you use absolutely every tool at your disposal to prevent this from happening. This would be an eyesore of epic proportions, it would severely damage property values, increase traffic and pollution in an already extremely high traffic area, and we'd be reminded on a daily basis of how greedy developers took advantage of our City. Please do not let this happen. 1 I I I am a 53 year lifetime resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I grew up on Basswood Ave. across the street from Silver Spur Elementary school. My siblings, friends and I often played and adventured through this very canyon. It was quite wild, natural and undisturbed throughout my entire childhood. The thought of this being turned into high-rise buildings is just heartbreaking. Setting my emotional reaction aside, this is just an absolute insult and tragedy to the many residents living in this neighborhood and surrounding area. This would absolutely destroy the small town family oriented feel of this community. The property values will plummet. The roads are not sufficient to handle the resulting increase in traffic volume. It's not just an inconvenience, it is an actual safety hazard. If this construction is allowed to move forward, I truly believe it would rival the tragedy of the Portuguese Bend slide area. The difference being, Portuguese Bend is an act of nature, where this is a preventable act of Human greed. Sincerely, David Robertson 28121 Highridge Rd. #208 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Sandy Riggs <sandyriggs@cox.net> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:35 AM CC; CityClerk Subject: Fw: save our canyon Some people who received this message don't often get email from sandyriggs@cox.net. Learn why this is important -----Forwarded Message ----- From: Sandy Riggs <sandyriggs@cox.net> To: john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov <john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 at 06:18:40 PM PST Subject: save our canyon John Cruikshank Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 John.cruikshank@rpvca.gov Dear Mayor Cruikshank, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and I am alarmed at the proposal put in by Akhilesh Jha, which endeavors to build ~500 units, in four 11 story towers, ruining our beautiful natural environment. This is the opposite of what it means to live in RPV. RPV is about nature as we all know. There are a ton of other, far better places to put in low-income housing. This is merely a developer taking advantage of the Builder's Remedy for a windfall in profits off of our failure to have our housing element approved. I realize that currently your tools are somewhat limited, but I hope you use absolutely every tool at your disposal to prevent this from happening. This would be an eyesore of epic proportions, it would severely damage property values, increase traffic and pollution in an already extremely high traffic area, and we'd be reminded on a daily basis of how greedy developers took advantage of our City. Please do not let this happen. All my family and in laws are original owners in Rancho Palos Verdes (Palos Verdes Peninsula) This is horrific and unbelievable that this is happening! I grew up on Basswood and my husband on Diversey. These canyons are vital to our wildlife. We are R1 single family. Not condos One person is wanting to absolutely ruin our peninsula for his gain and all the residents loose. There is no 1 infrastructure for this kind of project. Plenty of other areas for him to build condos. He is very evil to do this and has no respect for wildlife or others. Only himself. The must be stopped at all costs! Sincerely, Sandy Riggs 26845 Springcreek Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, {YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE] 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Sandy Riggs <sandyriggs@cox.net> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11 :06 AM CC; CityClerk Save the canyon Some people who received this message don't often get email from sandyriggs@cox.net. Learn why this is important ity of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: My family are original owners on Basswood and Diversey Dr. These canyons are why they moved there. This provides immense area for wildlife, plants and stability to the houses above. I cannot imagine digging and making all the ground unstable let alone 482 condos! We have plenty of condos and apartments on the peninsula. This is a horrific situation by a very evil person to try to ruin all the other peoples property value and peace. He can build other places. Plenty of opportunity for him in other cities. The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing 1 I Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Sandy Riggs 26845 Springcreek Rd. Rancho Palos Verdes 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: lai penny < pandapenny@yahoo.com > Tuesday, February 18, 2025 7:42 AM CityClerk Subject: Fw: Letter opposing the Silver Spur Canyon project proposed by Mr.Jha Some people who received this message don't often get email from pandapenny@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important Subject Fw: Letter opposing the Silver Spur Canyon project proposed by Mr.Jha Dear City Clerk, As a new resident of the Rollingwood area I oppose the Silver Spur Canyon project. Recent events have shown that California does not have the resources in place to provide adequate resources or safety to our firezones. With few route options to evacuate, further housing density would be a disaster for all. Please refer to specifics outlined below. 1. A city has the responsibility to protect the safety of its residents. More traffic resulting on an already congested local thoroughfare-Silver Spur Road - does not fulfill that responsibility ... more and more traffic means more accidents! Even more critically, should a fire break out in the canyon project, 500 + people in the proposed project will try to evacuate as well as existing neighborhoods like Rollingwood, Shadow wood and Miraloma which will result in gridlock ... just as happened in the recent fires in the Pacific Palisades. cars will be abandoned-and on foot you can't outrun a fire much less if you're carrying children or pets. And what about the horses, goats etc in the neighboring equestrian community of RHE across the street from this proposed development?! We also have a high population of seniors in this area who will be helpless! Countless lives could be lost ... 2. The canyon is home to many animal and plant species some of which are endangered. Construction will destroy this ecosystem forever. From a I geological perspective, the canyon may prove to be unstable for this massive project potentially causing slides ... 3. This canyon project destroys the quality of semi rural life not to mention the views that people moved to Palos Verdes to experience. And for that environment. residents pay a high housing cost. Where are the rights of property owners if the government allows a development in an area whose utility infrastructure ( electrical, water, sewer) is already maxed out? And cities are mandated to pay for additional utility and infrastructure expansion which of course residents will be taxed for! Plus can schools absorb more students?What about even more crowding in the parking lots of local stores and the malls? 4. Destroying the character and ambiance of a neighborhood to accommodate this canyon development project makes no sense! 5. The heavy construction planned over a period of years will be beyond noisy and also destroy local roads 6. If by some insane rejection of logic and reason this project is approved, we suggest that Mr. Jha and his family have to live through it too in a home impacted by his creation .• Respectfully, Penny Lai 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Jennifer Chocholek <jenniferchocholek@yahoo.com> Monday, February 17, 2025 9:03 PM CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street. Rancho Palos Verdes m, CA Some people who received this message don't often get email from jenniferchocholek@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important I ••·. " . .. . ·. ... ·· .. ••• .·. • . •·· •••• ••.•.• • ••••<v •···••. ••·. <<·'~::~~~:.-;·: •. :•.:••••·•••·•·• '•>0:'··••·1::••'C'·:'V:••i•.:• .. ··.,·•··· • ...... ,. I EXT~ .. ~!'!AL EMAi.L: [)o not clic~ liok~ or open any attcJCh.merits·unleS~\IQU•r~c()gnife;tne s,,mdtlr ilr;iq ~n()YJtfi~JgtltE?p\jssaf~!!I( .. February 17, 2025 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Jennifer and Ken Chocholek 5408 Eau Claire Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. 90275 SentJromYaboo MaiLtor iPhone 1 / I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: dennis thieret < d_thieret@yahoo.com > Monday, February 17, 2025 3:53 PM CC; Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov dennis thieret The Proposed Development and Construction at 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Council Letter on Deveopment 2-17-25.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from d_thieret@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 16, 2025 Subject: The Proposed Massive Development and Construction at 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: I have major concerns with the massage construction of the proposed 482 condo unit construction and the devastation it will have on the neighborhood, traffic, environmental issues, and the loss of value of our homes (as noted by Real Estate agents at previous meetings). I am opposed to this proposed development for the following reasons. This proposed project at 5323 Ironwood Street will disrupt the flow of traffic significantly. During the school year, it can take me 20 minutes just to get down the hill from school traffic. Just think if you add a minimum 500 more cars onto Silver Spur Road. I say minimum, because most homes are 2 car families. Also, where are the additional 500 cars going to park? I also, have concerns during the construction time with all the large construction vehicles and construction trucks 1 I additionally slowing down traffic coming up or down the hill. The amount of dirt that will be churned in the area will impact residents, school, domestic and wildlife animals during a construction phase. We all know the experts identified that this area is in a high landslide, area. We all have been notified by the County that we are also in a high fire risk area. The wildlife area must be preserved and prevent the environmental devastation of the proposed development. This and any massive development like this, needs to have the support of the RPV City and the City Planning Department to do a complete and thorough review process. The impact of this proposed development on our community will be immense. If this project goes forward, the Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Since, the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, Mr. Jha's appeal should not considered. No expedited review should be allowed for a development that will have such a devastating impact on the community, residents, wildlife, fire danger risk, and in a noted landslide area. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Sincerely, Dennis Thieret 5458 Whitefox Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 16, 2025 Subject: The Proposed Massive Development and Construction at 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: I have major concerns with the massage construction of the proposed 482 condo unit construction and the devastation it will have on the neighborhood, traffic, environmental issues, and the loss of value of our homes (as noted by Real Estate agents at previous meetings). I am opposed to this proposed development for the following reasons. This proposed project at 5323 Ironwood Street will disrupt the flow of traffic significantly. During the school year, it can take me 20 minutes just to get down the hill from school traffic. Just think if you add a minimum 500 more cars onto Silver Spur Road. I say minimum, because most homes are 2 car families. Also, where are the additional 500 cars going to park? I also, have concerns during the construction time with all the large construction vehicles and construction trucks additionally slowing down traffic coming up or down the hill. The amount of dirt that will be churned in the area will impact residents, school, domestic and wildlife animals during a construction phase. We all know the experts identified that this area is in a high landslide, area. We all have been notified by the County that we are also in a high fire risk area. The wildlife area must be preserved and prevent the environmental devastation of the proposed development. This and any massive development like this, needs to have the support of the RPV City and the City Planning Department to do a complete and thorough review process. The impact of this proposed development on our community will be immense. If this project goes forward, the Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Since, the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, Mr. Jha's appeal should not considered. No expedited review should be allowed for a development that will have such a devastating impact on the community, residents, wildlife, fire danger risk, and in a noted landslide area. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this / determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Sincerely, Dennis Thieret 5458 Whitefox Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: anncll@aol.com Monday, February 17, 2025 2:20 PM CityClerk Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from anncll@aol.com. Learn why this is important EMAIL: '·[)o l'lOt clfol< Unl<sor cipert any at;~~hrr\ettts urile~lyc;ti re¢c,gtlizethe.sen~eriantf~ndvJ the'~g~feint is safe!!(: ••• "~ ----------------------· - City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 16, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: There are MANY reasons to deny the request to build 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street, in the heart of a strictly one-family residential neighborhood. Most have been mentioned to you already. One thing that is very scary is that this project would cover the fire Road on that side of the canyon, cutting off any access to the backs of all of those houses and to the Canyon itself. Many months ago I spoke to Uni Warrior, Jha's partner, and he was not aware that there was a fire road!!! I purchased my house in 1969. My children all walked to school at Silver Spur Elementary School. There is limited access to the school. One is from the traffic signal at Montemalaga, off of Silver Spur Rd. The other is through the service road for Silver Spur, which happens to be in front ofmy house. During before and after school hours, the traffic on Silver Spur and especially on the service road is astronomical already, both from the elementary school and from Peninsula High School up the street. If this project is approved it will no longer be safe for neighborhood children to walk to school with the increase of traffic so close to the school. Please do not allow the continued push by this company to put this project in place in our canyon. Sincerely, Ann C Lynch 26363 Silver Spur Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Robin Riggs <robinriggs@cox.net> Monday, February 17, 2025 1 :37 PM CC; CityClerk City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from robinriggs@cox.net. Learn why this is important Do .not click link$ or open ~ny attµchrntmts unless you recogniz~ t1'e se11defiarid l<nJ>IN. the c~rttent IS saf~ ! ! !. -,•• •-,w,,,>=<""~"-'"='= .. •,•,wm='"-"""==-=mm,•, Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Robin Riggs 26845 Springcreek Rd. RPV 1 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Diane Kuhrt <ms.dianekuhrt@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11 :47 AM cc Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov; Diane Kuhrt 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from ms.dianekuhrt@gmail.com. Learn why this is important ) "' -"''"-.>¥-V----~~•~=---~----•~if, I EXTERNAL Op not -click linkfol"open an,y it(a~~ment~'unies~ y9t(r'ecogniz~ti~i s~ricfer ~rlif ~ne>~th~ ~~ni~ri(lfiafe! H.: ...... << L.,_ ______________________________________________ _ Dear City Council: My husband and I are 100 percent against the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We live on the block adjacent to the proposed development and are appalled at the thought of this massive project being built at the bottom of steep canyon. Besides the threat of fire, landslides, flooding, and destruction of endangered wildlife, the impact of hundreds of more residents along with 900+ additional vehicles(~2*482) would be life threatening for such a small community with limited access to a major roads. Traffic is already bogged down every school day as children are dropped off and then again picked up. Widening Silver Spur to PV Dr North along with adding concrete traffic dividers and signals, converting Montemalaga back to a 2-lane road, requiring more onsite parking, adding more frequent/7-day per week buses, and establishing no overnight street parking are all doable if the funds were there to make it all happen and other cities agree to widen the roads. But then the next hurdle is where are the overflow vehicles going to park? Up Silver Spur or onto Birchfield and Diversey? Accidents/Injuries would increase and navigating the school dropoff/pickup traffic would get worse. Our biggest concern would be in an emergency, like the recent Palisades fire. The Grandview area would be in gridlock almost immediately and especially horrific if it happened during school hours as everyone is driving in to pickup their loved ones and then trying to exit. If the emergency impacted Grandview Estates and PVE as well, Montemalaga could be gridlocked too. Many more residents would be trapped. The impact of this project on the Silver Spur neighborhood besides destroying this community and creating an eyesore for all to see, would impact adjacent neighborhoods and cities with pollution, noise, and horrific traffic. Since the city of RPV is already in compliance with the Housing Element, we urge you to deny this development at your next council meeting. Thank you for your time and your service to our community, Diane and Martin Kuhrt 5502 Elmbank Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes. I 0 :-,,,'"'! Virus-free.www.avg.com 1 I I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Judy Truong <truongjd@gmail.com > Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1 :05 PM CC; CityClerk Re: Feb 18th City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from truongjd@gmail.com. Learn why this is important <https://a ka.ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentification> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 18, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Fellow City Council: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development project at the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. While I understand the necessity for growth and development, the potential adverse impacts of this project on our community and environment cannot be overlooked. My young family and our elderly neighbors will be gravely and directly affected by this development as we live on Rolling Meadows Road which abuts Silver Spur Road. I have several significant concerns that I urge you to consider before moving forward with this project: 1. Traffic Congestion: The influx of new residents (1000+) and increased vehicular traffic will inevitably exacerbate congestion in our area. Our current infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle such an increase, leading to longer commutes, heightened stress levels for residents, and potential delays for emergency services. We live up against Silver Spur Road and even at high commute times, the road already backs up. When there is no traffic, drivers go DANGEROUSLY fast 1 / around the bend on the single lane roads. Even a small increase in traffic would significantly impede emergency services such as EMS/Firetrucks. 2. Fire Risk and Evacuation Hazard: RPV is prone to wildfires. With more structures and people in this high-risk zone, the difficulty of evacuating during a fire emergency escalates considerably. The safety of current and future residents must be a paramount concern, and it is crucial to evaluate whether adequate fire evacuation plans and infrastructure are in place to manage such risks effectively. We need to learn from our fellow Angelenos who lost their lives and homes in the PALISADE FIRE-given similar topography and limited routes up and down the hill. 3. Destabilization of Hillside: The development site is located in Silver Spur Canyon, which raises serious concerns about soil erosion and landslides. Construction activities could destabilize the hillside, posing a significant threat to both the new development and existing properties below. The increased congestion of heavy machinary and construction materials will also contribute to destabilizing and destroying our roadways and hillside. The Peninsula is already in crisis due to the shifting landslide from the Portuguese Bend. We already saw how ONE season of exceptional rainfall destabilized roads and landscape, we do not want to further exasperate this situation. 4. Disturbance of Habitat: The proposed development site is home to a diverse array of wildlife and plant species. Construction will lead to the destruction of natural habitats, threatening local biodiversity. The environmental impact of such habitat disruption needs to be thoroughly evaluated, and measures should be taken to mitigate harm to the ecosystem. In light of these concerns,! am urging the City of RPV and the planning commission on the behalf of myself, my young family, and tight-knit community of friends and neighbors-PLEASE do NOT permit Mr. Jha and his investors to harm our community through this development of Silver Spur Canyon. Please deny the proposed development since the current remedies are short sighted. Sustainable and responsible development is essential for the well-being of our community and the environment. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope that you will take appropriate action to ensure that any development in our area is done with the utmost regard for safety, environmental preservation, and quality of life for all residents. Sincerely, Judy Truong & Jared Chow 4916 Rolling Meadows Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (Cell) 714-589-6771 truongjd@gmail.com <mailto:truongjd@gmail.com> 2 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Khanh Do <khdo@verizon.net> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1 :11 PM CC; CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from khdo@verizon.net. Learn why this is important Dear City Council: The inetent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482 unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposal development and I join Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Comission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. However, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact of landslide history of Ironwood valley, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing habitat, his request should be denied. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, especially the Sliver Spur community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a stremlined review. Sincerely, Khanh Do 5037 Silver Arrow Dr. CA, 90275 1 / / Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Danielle Cobourn <dcobourn1@outlook.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1 :08 PM CityClerk; CC Subject: Letter for Feb 18th City Council Meeting re: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 [Some people who received this message don't often get email from dcobourn1@outlook.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Morgan & Danielle Cobourn 27515 Fawnskin Dr, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mike Hagerthy <mjhagerthy@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1 :23 PM cc CityClerk 5323 Ironwood St, RPV CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from mjhagerthy@gmail.com. Learn why this is important r,·, =-,·•~o~~~--•-=m~ I EXTER NAt.E Mtxl L,i Do not dick iinktor opetl at1yittachni~~#t'.inlesivo1,1:iecog11lte):~~)s~ndef ~H~ krt~wJtii"cqfifeij!C,isafeJJI~ /'?:' Dear City Counsel, I have only recently become aware of this insane attempt to build a 482 Condominium complex. I DO NOT support this proposal. The land in the peninsula is unstable enough, we don't need unstable developers thinking they can "build it right". That's what the developers in Portuguese Bend and The Park said. From what I can see the development puts the "ug" in ugly. It is too large, doesn't fit the area and will destabilize the houses above it. I hope the City Counsel will deny this unstable proposal. Mike Hagerthy 40 RPV resident Sil 7 pt 1 / Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Leslie Lulka <emievan6@hotmail.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:10 PM cc Ironwood proposed project [Some people who received this message don't often get email from emievan6@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear City Council I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed 482 unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am concerned about negative environmental impact and risk to the existing wildlife and their habitat. I am also opposed to the increased traffic in an area that has limited road access especially with the recent landslides and fire risk. Sincerely, Leslie Lulka 6918 Abbottswood Drive RPV Sent from my iPhone 1 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: chrisanddaleward@verizon.net Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:13 PM CC; CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 -Letter in Opposition To f EXtERNALEMA!r.:·Dc>ridt'clicf(ltnk"s;OropetjanyaHac:~mtll'tts'~nl~$fyijt.!'recbgllize•·the's,eij'gef'ancfknoV:,th'3¢0rit~nt;l~~ar~ilt•;;·•··· '···-------------------------------------------- Dear City Council: We would like to express our strong opposition to the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We are grateful that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy and strongly encourage the city to stand firm and continue to deny approval for this project. The developer is taking advantage of state laws and regulations to bypass the normal processes and reviews that a development of this size would have, and by doing so, is trying to get approval for a development that would otherwise be rejected. Since we are in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will be permanently adversely affected. The recent fire in the Pacific Palisades should be a wake up call to all peninsula residents. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is a high fire risk zone with limited escape routes. The addition of any large multi-unit project needs to take this into consideration. The addition of 482 more residences in this small area puts these residents, along with all current residents at risk of being trapped during a major wildfire. Furthermore, the traffic along Silver Spur a Since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, Mr. Jha's appeal should not even be under consideration. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Chris and Dale Ward 691 O Starstone Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 1 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Cc: valerie cole <valeriecole111@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:17 PM cc CityClerk Subject: Feb 18th City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from valeriecolelll@gmail.com. Learn why this is important John Cruikshank Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 John.cruikshank@rpvca.gov Dear Mayor Cruikshank, My husband and I have been home owners in Rancho Palos Verdes for over 30 years, enjoying the beauty of the entire peninsula, especially the land preserved by The PV Land Conservancy. I am also an equestrian owning horses RHE and have many concerns about increasing density and the loss of our beautiful walking and equestrian trails. NOW I am appalled and alarmed at the proposal put in by Akhilesh Jha, which endeavors to build -500 units, in four 11 story towers, ruining our beautiful natural environment. Not to mention the increase in traffic and the horrendous car accidents I have personally witnessed due to this increase in density. I'm passed on right, where there is no lane on Hawthorne. I'm tailgate, honked at and flipped off doing the speed limit in my neighborhood! I don't dare cross a street on horseback anymore as 60 mph seems to be the new speed limit everywhere in PV. And heaven forbid if ANYONE stops at a stop sign or even a signal! We already have so many high density apartments and condos at the top of the hill between Hawthorne and Crenshaw! Now you want to add how many more cars to this equation pouring into the intersection of Silver Spur and PV Dr. N.? If we wanted to live in a high density neighborhood we would have bought in West LA or Hollywood 35 years ago. We bought in PV for a different lifestyle which this development is definitely the opposite of. RPV is about nature as we all know. There are a ton of other, far better places to put in low- income housing. This is merely a developer taking advantage of the Builder's Remedy for a windfall in profits off of our failure to have our housing element approved. 1 I I realize that currently your tools are somewhat limited, but I hope you use absolutely every tool at your disposal to prevent this from happening. This would be an eyesore of epic proportions, it would severely damage property values, increase traffic and pollution in an already extremely high traffic area, and we'd be reminded on a daily basis of how greedy developers took advantage of our City. Please do not let this happen. Sincerely, Mrs. Valerie R. Cole 28117 Golden Meadow Dr. RPV, CA. 90275 2 Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: BILL and Terry GRIGGS < btgriggs@cox.net> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:45 PM cc Fwd: Oppose Silver Spur 480 condo development [Some people who received this message don't often get email from btgriggs@cox.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. > I just wanted to let you know that my family and friends all oppose the development of the 480 units multi 11 story buildings in the Silver Spur canyon. > > It is unbelievable that such a monstrosity would be allowed in the beautiful single family home neighborhoods with views from the canyons. What happened to the protection of people's views. In addition, the 11 story buildings are out of this world for our community on the hill. How could this have ever been allowed to be a thought in the RPV city? > Please vote tonight against letting this development continue and do not allow the developer to appeal such plans!! He should only be able to build single family homes like the rest of the neighborhood! Please keep the beautiful design of RPV!! > Please vote No!! > > Thank you > Terry and Bill Griggs > > > Terry H. Griggs > 1 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Sheree Nixon <shereehnixon@yahoo.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:04 PM cc SAVE the Canyon-and our KIDS Some people who received this message don't often get email from shereehnixon@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important I'm writing in protest of the proposed build in Silver Spur Canyon. I live on Marloma Dr, which backs up to PV Dr N and Silver Spur. I want to share what happened this morning while dropping my kids to school. Building these units will make emergency vehicles' access to our citizens nearly impossible. This morning on PV Drive north and Silverspur a school bus engine caught fire. The bus driver acted bravely and quickly and was able to evacuate all the children onto the side street and ran back in to get a fire extinguisher to extinguish the flames. I saw all this happen and pulled off to the side to assist this worried bus driver and children. I was the one who called 911 and alerted emergency response to the scene. It was during busy school traffic when the accident happened, so you can imagine the intersection of PD Drive north and Silver Spur. It was chaotic. Police were diverting traffic and Silverspur was backed up all the way up the hill toward Peninsula high school. The fire truck had difficulty coming down the hill to help the children and bus driver. The flow of traffic was disrupted as all avenues away from the area were completely affected and shut down, causing emergency vehicles a difficult time to access the area. If you allow 500 units to be built in this high traffic canyon, I worry it will be near impossible for our emergency services to access the roads when needed during rush-hour. Morning, afternoon and evening are thoroughfares at PV Drive north and Silverspur and adding thousands of residents and hundreds of cars will only make this area more congested, resulting in a dangerous situation. Bringing more congestion to the area will be a detrimental change to our community. Can you imagine an evacuation order going out and that many more people needing to access the roads? It would be a death trap. Say NO. STOP the build .• Gratefully, Sheree Nixon Silver Spur Resident Sentfrom Yahoo Mail for iPhone 1 / Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Wendy Keller <wendyakeller@me.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:30 PM CityClerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes [Some people who received this message don't often get email from wendyakeller@me.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 18, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: Although part of this is form letter, there is more below. The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. I have lived in RPV since 1967; grown up here and raised my own family here, marrying someone who has live here since 1964. We have grave concerns, including the above, about the riskiness of so many people in one place with one way in and one way out. What happens if there are fires like Pacific Palisades had and we have so many people attempting to evacuate and the roads are too congested? There will be loss of life. And it's so close to a school where there are little children. How tragic it would be. 1 I Please block this massive project. It's unwanted by so many. Thank you Sincerely, Wendy Keller 6979 Grovespring Dr. Ranch Palos Verdes CA.90275 Sent from my iPhone 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 11, 2025 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEB 14 2025 CITY CLERK'S OFF IC E Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: As local residents for over 40 years, we would like to express our serious concern regarding the proposed 482 -unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We are opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. This is not our first letter to you about this subject. We were very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently we learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. Please do not permit it. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that our area is in a high landslide, high fire risk area, plus the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, Jha's request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immensely detrimental to the Palos Verdes peninsula. The fact that since the City of RPV has a Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. We do want smart plans of increased housing, including low-cost units, that enhance our area and do not stress the existing environment or infrastructure. Sincerely, 2 ;)/-_, ✓~\~ 'JdJ:;-ex: ~ {__ Barbara and Kim Hee 5528 Ironwood St., RPV I City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 11, 2025 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEB 14 2025 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: As local residents for over 24 years, we would like to express our serious concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We are opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. This is not our first letter to you about this subject. We were very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developerthe builder's remedy. Recently we learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. Please do not permit it. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that our area is in a high landslide, high fire risk area, plus the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, Jha's request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immensely detrimental to the Palos Verdes peninsula. The fact that since the City of RPV has a Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. We do want smart plans of increased housing, including low-cost units, that enhance our area and do not stress the existi Sincerely, ~ William (Bill) and June Conrad 5432 Ironwood St., RPV City of Rancho Palos City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEB_ 14 2025 cny CLERK'S OFFICE Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street Ranchp Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Council: On September 26, 2024, my husband and I sent a letter to the Planning Commission stating that we opposed the proposed 482 unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street and that we had joined in opposition with Neighborhood Voices of Sliver Spur to oppose this project. We were very pleased to learn that the Planning Commission and the Council had denied the developer the Builder's Remedy. We now understand that the developer is appealing this determination and is requesting an expediated review of this project. We believe that Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the City's zoning laws. As we stated before, a project of this size has a detrimental impact on the City's infrastructure along with the environmental impact. The City is now in compliance with the Housing Element and this project and Mr. Jha's appeal should not even be considered. Without the Builder's Remedy, Mr. Jha cannot build this massive development and we are requesting that the City deny Mr. Jha's appeal. Sincerely, Martin & Lora Dodell 5751 Capeswood Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 4553 Marloma Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 • .. ,. RE CE IVED •.An' OF RANC HO PALOS VER Gf?• FEB l8 2025 Subject: Feb 18th City Council M eeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project) Dear City Council: We are members of the neighboring community of Rolling Hills Estates and have grave concerns regarding the proposed 482 -unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We are opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. We were very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, we learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. The project itself defies common sense and has a complete disregard for public safety . . Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling must be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on the area is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element,the city should-not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf the Palos Verdes penisula communities, as well as the potentially impacted neignhboring beach communities, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, John Baricevic & Carolyn Heth Residents, Rolling Hills estates I RECEIVED C ity of Rancho Pa lo s Verdes C ity Council Members CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERD FEB ~-8 2025 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Pa los Verdes, Ca li forn ia 90275 CITY CLERK'S OFFIC February 12, 2025 Re: 5323 Ironwood Street Condo De velopm ent Dear C ity Counc il Members: I oppose the approva l of the "tC~ _ . _.:: :,·onwood Street. While there are many reasons to oppose th is project , I will focus on two risks th is project in tens ifi es to the residents of Ranc ho Pa lo s Verdes. F irst, the location of this project is in an area designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone by CAL FIRE. If the neighborhood is evacuated due to a wildfire and if th is project goes forward, the resu ltin g population in crease will imp ede the evacuat ion of res id ents by overload in g the egress routes. The recent Pac ifi c Pa li sades fire in the C ity of Los Angeles demonstrated the danger traffic congest ion br in gs to evacuat in g families. In the Pal isades some evacuat in g people were forced to abandon their cars. The evacuating traffic also obstructed the fire department's response, which lead to spread of the wildfire. Aga in, this proposed development is in a Very High Fired Hazard Zone and it is not safe to have such a massive project in th is neighborhood. Second, this proj ect proposes to build in a canyon with steep walls whi ch will require digging, cutting and building reta inin g walls. Using Goog le searches, I learned that this area is shown on a map from the Ca liforni a Department of Conservat ion as an area of Deep-Seated Lands lid e Susceptibility. Additionally, a Ca liforni a Geo log ica l Survey map shows a probable dormant o ld/re li ct lands lid e act ivity a short d istance downhill and to the northwest of th is proposed proj ect's lo cat ion . Th is proj ect will in crease the lands lid e risk. In summary, I oppose the approval of th is proj ect because it is not safe. Regards, ~~rh,<- Brent Pace 5306 Bayrid ge Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca li fornia 20275 I Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Madeleine McJones <homecoding@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 18, 2025 12:16 PM CC; Madeleine McJones WEST SIDE Landslide Dewatering Well Discussion Please change the name of this meeting to clarify what is getting dewatered. This is the ONLY WEST SIDE landslide dewatering well discussion. Based on logic and lawsuits I have given up on any hope for deep dewatering solutions or runoff mitigation and ishabahi and indian canyon management in the East side Portuguese Bend landslide complex. The few voices are not enough to move your fiscal pointer. Also it has been made clear the City of RPV do not want to engage the other Rolling Hill cities regarding on the run off our East sides behalf. Our needs cannot rise above the "ease" of using ACLAD to shoulder the burden of legal liability and project management, so because we're not part of their boundaries and thereby the East landslide as shown gets generally removed from the map. So remove the east side and the old portuguese landslide complex from the title that is false political advertising. You are not mitigating our landslide. We in this landslide are now moving worse now than before your deep dewatering wells. I am amazed that even though we got a BRIC grant that was dedicated to only our smaller landslide, magically we have received only one poorly producing well and no canyon mitigation. None of that money was used to restart any 9 wells that the city has easements for in our East side community, but you do not release these easements either. Now, no more money will be spent on the middle slide as per the proposed map. As of the last two storms now have a new lake percolating into the landslide at the top, and are experiencing the fun of moving over the homes in front of us which have been slowed by the abundant Sea View Wells. We are NO CLAD, we used to have city wells but we have nothing and we got very little and are going to get nothing from all the plans I have seen. TRUTH Right now 40 Eastside homes are sliding faster and are having more damage here than before your deep dewatering well investment. I cannot fight the golden ring the city gets from off loading the management and the liability of this dewatering well projects on to AC LAD. TRUTH this slow slip will not stop piecemeal solution you have to stop water going into the middle landslide. It is easy that you all just assume our EAST side will always just manage. Well now, the east side has not sued the city! unlike the West and Seaview have. The squeaky wheel gets the wells. We are the Have 1 ,·7 ) ""~~"'"' Nots except for the destructive land movement that we HAVE. Yes we are all having damage on the EAST side also. Madeleine McJones 3102134392 3 Tangerine (or Where ever you put us. we do no have legal property lines.) 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 17, 2025 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, February 18, 2025, City Council meeting: Item No. 1 Description of Material Updated Resolution (Typos Corrected) Emails from: Dr. Marcia Lee; Patricia Ericson; Mindy and Cory Webster; Victoria Kratz; Nancy Kelly; Ronald Reta; Heidi Bennett; Louise and Carlo Sans; Don Mccurry; Mary Schaal; Jane Oh; Linda Cummings; Michelle Meese; Susan MacShara; Sharon Yarber; Richard Gary Morrow; Gregory Gershuni; Wendi Russell; Joan Davidson; Brent Pace; Olivier Enders; Robin Riggs; Mark Mitchell; Ann Lynch; Totran Radke; Tracey Thomasson; John & Judy Yamashita; Rich Millard; Anita Garner; Ricardo Yosy; Frank Semelka; Greg Miguel and Christine Quinn; Ali and Nahid Mazhin; Karen and Fenton Mitchell; Meredith and Lou Grenier; Steve Saporito; Colleen and Greg Teles; Gilberte Faurite; Wayne & Stacie Motoyasu; Jo Clark; Dana Adams; George Kettel; Susan Kettel; Wayne Wang; Howard Bush; Meredith and Lou Grenier; Gustavo Cardenas; Bryan Kasm & Michael Nguyen; Melody Colbert; John Baricevic & Carolyn L. Heth; Li "Linda" Sa; Sean and Cathy Rucker; Jason Foster; Mike Peterson; Michelle Friedman; Christine Pearson; Bruce Bitman; Ron Matsuda; Jon Jones Respectfully submitted, ~~ Tere?fakaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Coversheets\20250218 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx Subject: Attachments: FW: resolution in Word format please 2025-11_Updated.docx From: Jessica Bobbett <ibobbett@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 11:06 AM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: resolution in Word format please I'm happy you sent it back to me, I noticed a couple of typos/fixes. Here is the updated version (attached). Would we be able to replace it on the website as well? THANK YOU! Jessica Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner jbobben@rpvc;;LgQY Phone -(310) 544-5224 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.tp_vca.gov - ~ GrtfTON F'' Google Play c 1Pr-n! incs~:.a~Jc contains !nfonr-iation belonQinq to Hie Cit:y of Rancho Palos Verdes, vvhich rnay be confidcntiai, and/or frorn clisc!ostirc, T!·:c inforrnation is intended for use of the individual or entity Unauthorized d!sscrnlnatlon, r.!i:).rL)ution, or copyinq is st.r!<:Uy prohihitcd .. ff you this crnaii in Q!Tor, or arc not dn Intended recipient, please notify the wnn:c:cL1tc!y. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation, 1 /. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES 482 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1,173,927 SQUARE FEET) DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR SB35/423 MINISTERIAL REVIEW OR THE EXEMPTION FROM CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OR ZONING SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 65589.5(0)(5) THEREFORE REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE, ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW AND MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5323 IRONWOOD STREET (CASE NO. PLZC2024-0002). WHEREAS, on January 22, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant, Verde Estates Inc. submitted a Preliminary Application, proposing 482 units (385 market rate and 97 affordable units, i.e. 20% of the total units) comprised of 641,193 square feet of building area. At the time of this submittal the City was still in the process of revising its Housing Element and had not adopted a Housing Element that was in substantial compliance with state housing laws, according to the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"); and, WHEREAS, on February 7, 2024, after the required seven-day posting and circulation of the document, the City submitted the final revised Housing Element to the HCD for its formal review; and, WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the City commenced the Tribal Consultation process pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, commonly known as SB 35 (Gov't Code§ 65913.4(b)); and, WHEREAS, on March 14, 2024, HCD staff sent an email to the Director indicating that HCD has no further comments regarding revisions to the Revised Housing Element; and, WHEREAS, on April 5, 2024, the HCD provided a letter to Staff detailing that the Housing Element addressed most of the statutory requirements but cannot be found in full compliance until the City has completed the Zone Amendments required to implement certain programs in the Housing Element; and, 01203.0049/1049858.1 Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 1 of 10 WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the City Council adopted a revised Housing Element containing modifications requested by the HCD. On that date, the City Council also adopted as an urgency measure an ordinance to establish the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and the Residential Overlay Zone and to rezone two properties. This urgency ordinance, which became effective immediately upon its adoption, served to rezone the necessary properties to implement the revised Housing Element. Accordingly, the City had adopted a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the applicable state housing element laws; and, WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application, proposing 482 units (385 market rate, 97 affordable units) comprised of 1,173,927 square feet; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2024, the Applicant emailed staff for clarification on the SB35 submittal checklist; and, WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, Staff emailed the Applicant, noting that the Tribal Consultation was still in progress and to provide a list of questions in writing regarding the submittal requirements; and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024, the Applicant noted that the Preliminary Application was submitted on April 17 1 [sic] and therefore the 30-day deadline for the City to notify any affiliated Tribes had now passed. Additionally, the Applicant inquired about the requested format for the application submittal; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, Staff emailed the Applicant inquiring if the Preliminary Application submitted April 18 was a new application or a modification to the existing Preliminary Application; and, WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff noting the April 18 was a new Preliminary Application and Staff emailed the Applicant to confirm if the earlier Preliminary Application was being withdrawn and replaced with the April 18 application; and, WHEREAS, on May 23, 2024, the Applicant confirmed via email the Preliminary Application dated January 22 was withdrawn; and, WHEREAS, on June 3, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff requesting to use the Preliminary Application submitted January 22; and, WHEREAS, on June 5, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant via email, stating the Applicant withdrew the Preliminary Application dated January 22, per Applicant's correspondence provided on May 23 and due to the new Preliminary 1 The email from the Appellant submitting the new Preliminary Application was actually dated April 18, 2024. Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 2 of 10 Application being significantly different with regard to the square footages for each building; and, WHEREAS, on June 7, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff requesting that the Preliminary Application submitted April 18 be considered a modification to the January 22 Preliminary Application, along with supplemental information; and, WHEREAS, on June 12, 2024, HCD provided a letter to Staff confirming that the City's Housing Element adopted April 16, 2024, and completed actions (Zoning Amendments to Increase Housing Development Potential) met the statutory requirements as described in the April 5, 2024 HCD letter, and therefore is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and, WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the Applicant met with staff at the public counter. Staff noted that the Tribal Consultation was still in progress; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff regarding requesting the status of the Tribal Consultation and Staff emailed the Applicant that the Tribal Consultation was still in progress. Staff noted that should the Applicant wish to submit an application prior to the conclusion of the Tribal Consultation, the project would be processed per the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Staff provided a project fee statement and relevant submittal materials. Staff noted that following the conclusion of the tribal consultation, should it be determined that the proposed project meets all SB35 requirements, the pertinent fees would be refunded; and, WHEREAS, on July 15, 2024, the Applicant emailed Staff noting the project was based on SB35/423 and Housing Accountability Act Builder's Remedy, therefore certain planning entitlements and discretionary reviews would not be required. The Applicant provided an updated copy of the fee statement with strikethrough for the fees they felt were not applicable; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant reiterating that the Preliminary Application submitted on January 22 was withdrawn and resubmitted as a new Preliminary Application on April 18. Staff noted that at the time of the April 18 submission, the City had adopted Housing Element that was substantially compliant with housing element law, thus the project does not qualify for Builder's Remedy protection. Additionally, the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Staff noted the Applicant can submit the project for review by the Planning Division, pending payment of the unedited City invoice provided on July 11, 2024; and, WHEREAS, on July 29, 2024, the Applicant emailed staff requesting to appeal the decision outlined in the July 18, 224 correspondence; and, Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 3 of 10 WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant via email instructions to process the appeal; and, WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with fee from the Applicant/Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street; and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2024, Staff provided a letter to the Applicant/Appellant via email, noting Staff is in receipt of the filed Appeal; and, WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a letter via email with supplemental Appeal information; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) §17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set within 90 days of the filing of the appeal, or no later than November 6, 2024; and, WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public notice announcing the Planning Commission's consideration of the appeal on October 8, 2024, was provided to the Applicant/Appellant, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant requested a link to pay the invoice dated July 10, 2024; and, WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a letter via email with supplemental Appeal information; and, WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, Staff provided the link for payment via email and the Applicant/Appellant paid the fee for consideration of the required project applications. However, the appeal request was not withdrawn; and, WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The Planning Commission denied the appeal without prejudice thereby upholding the Community Development Director's determination; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter with fee from the Applicant/Owner at 5323 Ironwood Street; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter via email acknowledging Staff received the filed Appeal; and Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 4 of 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before City Council shall be set within 90 days of the filing of the appeal, staff schedule the appeal for February 18, 2025; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2024, Staff issued a letter of incompleteness for Case No. PLZC2024-0002; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant requested via email to place the application for Case No. PLZC2024-0002 on hold until the appeal process conclude; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2024, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter via email noting the project review can be placed on hold till such time the Appeal is finalized providing a new resubmittal deadline of March 20, 2025; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, pursuant to RPVMC §17.80.090, a public notice announcing the City Council's consideration of the appeal on February 18, 2025, was provided to the Appellant, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site, interested parties and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The City Council has considered the basis for the appeal offered by the Appellant, and finds that they are without merit for the reasons described below: A. The Appellant asserts that Staff is selectively interpreting the communication regarding the filing date of the preliminary application to achieve a predetermined outcome, however, staff has been clear in all correspondence with the Appellant, and the complete email correspondence from May 12 -October 1 is included in the staff report record. There is nothing selective about how Staff interpreted these communications, the Appellant was very clear and unequivocal about their intentions to submit a new preliminary application on April 18, 2024 and withdraw the preliminary application submitted on January 22, 2024. B. While the Appellant alleges that the project as submitted should qualify for the exception to the requirement that a project having to be consistent with the applicable zoning and general plan set forth in Government Code, section 65589.5(d)(5), "the Builder's Remedy" and the ministerial review, and approval Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 5 of 10 process set forth in Government Code, section 65913.4 ("SB 35/423"), the project does not qualify because at the time the Applicant submitted the operative Preliminary Application, the City had adopted a Housing Element and the required zoning to implement the Housing Element all of which was in substantial compliance with state Housing Element law. Based on HCD's letter of April 5, 2024, which indicated that the City's draft Housing Element met the statutory requirements but would not be in substantial compliance until the requisite zoning code amendments are adopted, on April 16, 2024 the City Council determined that the Negative Declaration adopted on August 11, 2022, as amended by Addendum No. 1, adequately analyzed the impacts from the adoption and implementation of the Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, and following the public hearing adopted Resolution No. 2024-16 approving a General Plan Amendment for the City's Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element, a General Plan Amendment for the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, and a Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendment to effectuate the 2021- 2029 Housing Element. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2024-17 to forward to the California Coastal Commission the amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Specific Plan and zoning map related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element actions in the Coastal Zone, consistent with State Law. Additionally, in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, on April 16, 2024 the City Council unanimously adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 678U approving zoning amendments inclusive of Zoning Map amendments and development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), to immediately effectuate the Housing Element, including rezoning sufficient sites to accommodate the City's regional housing needs allocation by adopting the implementation actions to effectuate the City's Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element. As such, the Housing Element was in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law on April 16, 2024, as indicated by HCD on April 5, 2024. Therefore, at the time of the Applicant/Appellant's April 18, 2024 submission of a new preliminary application, the City's Housing Element was substantially compliant with the relevant state housing element laws, thus the preliminary application submitted on April 18 does not qualify for Builder's Remedy protection. Additionally, the project does not qualify as an SB 35 project, as it is not compliant with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Based on the Preliminary Application materials submitted on April 18, the City Council has determined the proposed project does not qualify for the ministerial review and approval process set forth in Government Code, section 65913,4 or the Builder's Remedy exception set forth in Government Code, section 65589.5(d)(5). Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 6 of 10 C. The Appellant asserts the Preliminary Application submitted on April 18 was supplemental to the January 22 Preliminary Application. However, the preliminary application submitted on January 22 provided for 637,042 square feet of residential and 641, 193 total square footage, while the one submitted on April 18 changed the anticipated square footage to 765,283 of residential space and 1,173,927 total square footage. The increase in construction square footage in the April 18 preliminary application is 54% over the construction square footage in the January 22 preliminary application, necessitating a new Preliminary Application pursuant to Government Code, section 65941.1 (c). D. The Appellant asserts the City is violating the Permit Streamlining Act by denying this housing project. The Appellant notes that, "once a development project application is submitted, an agency must first determine whether the application is complete and provide an exhaustive list of incomplete items. The City has not determined whether the application is complete and has not provided an exhaustive list of incomplete items as required by state laws." As the Applicant/Appellant paid the fees for consideration of the required project applications. As such, staff provided a letter of incompleteness on October 29, 2024 in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. Subsequently, the Applicant/Appellant requested via email to place the application review on hold until the appeal process concluded. Following, Staff provided the Applicant/Appellant a letter via email noting the project review can be placed on hold till such time the Appeal is finalized providing a new resubmittal deadline of March 20, 2025. On November 15, 2024, the Applicant/Appellant provided a written agreement to place the project review on hold. As such, staff has complied with the Permit Streamlining Act. E. The Appellant asserts that the City violates the affordable Housing Streamlined process by denying this housing project, specifically by failing to act within the required timelines for Tribal Consultation and not providing details regarding the tribal consultation. Upon the submittal of the preliminary application dated January 22 Staff commenced the Tribal Consultation on February 13, 2024. Staff sent a letter requesting 10 local tribes to engage in the tribal consultation process. As a result, two tribes, Tongva Nation and Kizh Nation requested to engage in the tribal consult. The Kizh Nation requested to engage in tribal consult on February 23. Thereafter, on February 29 Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the developer included in the consult process. Additionally, the Tongva Nation requested to engage tribal consult on April 2, on April 22 Staff emailed to inquire if the tribe would like the developer included in the consult process. Neither tribe approved the developer's participation in the Scoping Consultation, as required by Government Code, section 65913.4(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, staff proceeded with the required consultation process without the participation of the Appellant. City staff provided the Appellant an update via email on July 11, 2024 noting that the Tribal Consultation had not yet concluded with the Kizh Nation, but provided the conditions requested by the Tongva Nation. Additionally, as Staff has Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 7 of 10 determined that the project does not qualify for SB35/ministerial approval, Tribal Consultation would not be required as a part of SB35. F. The appellant asserts the City is violating the Housing Accountability Act by denying this housing project, However, the Planning Commission's and Director of Community Development's determination that the project does not qualify for builders remedy/ministerial review process does not constitute a disapproval of the project pursuant to HAA and therefore no additional findings are required. G. While the Appellant alleges that the City's actions are in clear violation of State Density Bonus Law, The City has not denied any incentives or waivers of development standards provided for under state Density Bonus Law. Furthermore, Appellant's claims regarding the City allegedly violating state Density Bonus Law are irrelevant to the Planning Commission and Director's determination that the project does not qualify for the SB 35 ministerial review process or the Builder's Remedy. H. The appellant asserts the courts have decided on very similar matters in the favor of housing development. However, none of the cases cited are binding authority and the facts in the cases are significantly different than the subject of this matter. I. The Appellant claims per Assembly Bill (AB) 1886, "a jurisdiction is in compliance as of the date of the Housing and Community Development department's (HCD) letter finding the adopted housing element in substantial compliance. Any other letters do not constitute a finding of substantial compliance. Section 65585.03 of the Government Code, as added by Section 1 of this act, is declaratory of existing law and does not represent a change." However, the legislation does not apply in the circumstance were a city, first submits its Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for its review and approval before adopting the Housing Element. The City submitted the revised Housing Element to HCD for its review and approval which was obtained on April 5, 2024 before it adopted the Housing Element on April 16, 2024. J. The Appellant asserts the City has not sought a court order regarding the compliance of the Housing Element, stating, "despite ample time and opportunity, the City has not sought a court ruling to establish April 16, as the compliance date. Without contesting HCD's determination, June 12, remains the official compliance date." Currently, there is not legal mechanism for the City to obtain a court determination as to whether its Housing Element is in substantial compliance with state housing element law. Furthermore, as stated above Government Code, section 65585.03 is intended to be declaratory of existing law. As such, should the City's housing element be challenged through litigation a Court may determine that as of April 16, 2024 the City's Housing Element was in substantial compliance with state housing element laws. Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 8 of 10 K. A Biological Assessment prepared by Michael Baker Inc. dated December 18, concluded that the project site contains habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).As such, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J), this disqualifies the project from utilizing streamlined ministerial zoning and permitting processes pursuant to SB 35 .. Section 3: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2025-_, denying the Appellant's appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's determination that the proposed project which includes 482 units (1,173,927 square feet) does not qualify for SB35 ministerial review or falls within the Builders Remedy exception and therefore requires the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Certificate of Compliance, Major Grading Permit, Variance, Environmental Review and Major Site Plan Review as required by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for the proposed project, as described herein, for property located at 5323 ironwood street (Case No. PLZC2024-0002). Section 4: Any challenge for judicial review of this Resolution and the findings set forth therein, must be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6 and §17.86.100(8) of the RPVMC. Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and the City Clerk's certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18 th day of February 2025. Attest: Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) David L. Bradley, Mayor Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 9 of 10 I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2025-11, was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on February 18, 2025. Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk Resolution No. 2025-11 Page 10 of 10 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Marcia Lee -MD <Marcia.M.Lee@kp.org> Monday, February 17, 2025 9:25 AM CityClerk; CC For Feb 18 2025 City Council meeting re Silver Spur Development 2025 2-17 Voices Silver Spur Opposition letter.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from marcia.m.lee@kp.org. Learn why this is important Please see attached letter. Dr. Marcia Lee South Bay Kaiser Department of Anesthesiology 25825 S. Vermont Ave. Harbor City, CA. 9071 O NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. v.173.295 Thank you. 1 I. City of Rancho Palos Verdes I City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 17, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: This is the second (or third) letter I have written in vehement opposition to the project slated at 5323 Ironwood Street. Thankfully I have been kept abreast of the developments (no pun intended) due to the mighty efforts of Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur. THEY represent the people who constitute this are and THEY should be listed to by their elected representatives. Please continue the decisions of RPV City and Planning departments in denying the "builder remedy". We should be more responsive to the community remedy. The Peninsula is already overbuilt for the natural environment. Witness the landslides, traffic and school conditions. Adding more housing in such a dense way is adding insult to injury. Already the hiking trails that brought joy to residents and provided habitat to native plants and animals has been destroyed by the water pumps designed to "help" Portuguese· Bend. The developer should NOT be given an expedited review; he should not be given a review of any kind. The proposal was denied. Decision made. Thank you for your time. 26 Clear Vista Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA. 90274 From: Jessica Bobbett Sent: To: Monday, February 17, 2025 7:40 AM CityClerk Subject: Attachments: FW: CASE PLZC2024 & PLSR2024-0225 City of RPV.docx Please see the attached letter to be distributed as late correspondence. Thank you, Jessica Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner jbob_bJ;'!tt@Jpvc~a,goy Phone -(310) 544-5224 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov ~ GETITON ~ Google Play ,,) mail mcssacJc contains ;nfonnat,on bclonqincJ Ill the City of R;,mcho Palos Vcrcics, which rmiy be privilc9ed, confidcntiz;I, ,nd/or pro~:t~ctf:':d froin disclor.~ure. 1 he !nfonraUon is intr:ndcd o!l!y for use of the individua! or entity narnccL Unauthon1ed clisscn-1inadon, or cnpyinq is :.:11.rict!y prohibited, If you recdv(:cl this <.~rnail in error, or dn~ not dn lntencled recipk?nl, please notify Che fh21nk you fc1r yo\ir as:;lst:ancc and cooperation, From: PATRICIA ERICSON <patericson@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 2:04 PM To: Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: CASE PLZC2024 & PLSR2024-0225 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Patricia Ericson <patericson(dlverizon.net> Date: October 1, 2024 at 10:10:19 AM PDT To: jb_obbBtt@r_p_vca~g_oy Subject: CASE PLZC2024 & PLSR2024-0225 1 /. October 1, 2024 Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner I am sending my comments for the appeal Case NOS. PLZC1014-0002 & PLSR2024- 0225. I purchased my house because of the wonderful view of the canyon and ocean beyond. It is peaceful and healthful for me. With this new development all this will disappear and no longer exist. It makes me very stresses and upset; however, I realize no one cares about quality of life but it is enormous to me. Obviously beyond my personal stresses there are some real concerns about the new development beyond the noise of building and such: • Silver Spur road from Hawthorne Blvd to PV Drive North has a tremendous amount of traffic; over 60,000 cars both ways per day. This development will just add approximately 2,000 more cars to an already busy street. • How many large trucks and equipment will be using Silver Spur during the building? Not to mention the noise level. • Emergency vehicles go down this street every day and it is one lane only going North. • What happens in an emergency when there is an evacuation or fire. Fire trucks will not be able to reach fires. Is the Fire Department able to get up to these tall condos? • In an evacuation no car in Rollingwood Development will be able to get out onto Silver Spur. • Are the utility companies able to handle this extra load: gas and SCE • Noise level for the building will be excessive for a long time • Geology is another big issue. Is there any guarantee that the development will not cause landslides? From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, February 17, 2025 7:23 AM CityClerk Fw: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Mindy Webster <mindymwebster78@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 8:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from mindymwebster78@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Mindy and Cory Webster Grayslake Rd 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, February 17, 2025 7:22 AM CityClerk Fw: Submitting for the Feb 18th City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project From: Victoria Kratz <ismihalu1@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 4:48 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov <Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov> Subject: Submitting for the Feb 18th City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from ismihalul@gmail.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 15, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. 1 /. Here are a few of my concerns: (1) traffic up and down Silver Spur -vehicles hit the guardrail by the Ascension Lutheran church quite frequently already. Almost as soon as it's repaired each time, it gets hit again. How will having more traffic help? -what about the intersection at PV North and Silver Spur? Will a light need to be installed to aid traffic flow? -what about egress in and out of the community to/from Silver Spur on a regular day? What about during an emergency? -safety of bicyclists and pedestrians both during construction and after with increased traffic and poor traffic flow (2) possible destabilization of the hillside/canyon in the construction zone. How will this affect surrounding homes? (3) Damage to road surfaces from frequent and heavy construction equipment travel ( 4) ability to accommodate possible sudden increase in school enrollments at all grade levels (student:teacher ratios, facilities, services for families) The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Victoria Kratz 26113 Basswood Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 99275 "We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. "--Dakota proverb 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, February 17, 2025 7:20 AM CityClerk Fw: Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Nancy Kelly <yokokelly@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 6:05 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from yokokelly@gmail.com. Learn why this is City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. 1 / Sincerely, Nancy l<elly 5422 Bayridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Nancy Yoko Kelly 702-203-1178 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Ron R < ronreto@verizon.net> Sunday, February 16, 2025 4:15 PM Teresa Takaoka; Enyssa Sisson; Nathan Zweizig; CityC\erk My letter for opposing the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street (attached MS-Word File) 2025-02-16 482 Unit on 5323 Ironwood -City Council Letter 2-18-25.docx My letter for opposing the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street (attached MS-Word File) 1 (. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Ronald Reto 5763 Capeswood Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning and Zoning 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Heidi Bennett <missheiditc@gmail.com> Sunday, February 16, 2025 11 :23 AM CityClerk; CC Save the Canyon! Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 September 24, 2024 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Planning Commission: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV had denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Heidi Bennett 26803 Fond Du Lac Rd RPV, Ca 90275 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Louise Sans <louisesans@outlook.com> Sunday, February 16, 2025 9:32 AM CityClerk Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from louisesans@outlook.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Louise and Carlo Sans 5177 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Get Outlook for Android 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Mccurry <don_mccurry@yahoo.com> Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:10 PM CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 ,, Some people who received this message don't often get email from don_mccurry@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important 1 ···. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 15, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. 1 /. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Don Mccurry Neighborhood Watch Grandview Estates Block Captain Area Coordinator 5703 Wildbriar Drive, RPV 2 From: David Bradley Sent: To: Saturday, February 15, 2025 8:16 AM AOL Email Support ® Cc: Ara Mihranian; CityClerk Subject: RE: PLAN FOR SILVER SPUR Mary, The RPV City Council will be discussing the mater on Tuesday 18 February 2025. Regards Dave David Bradley Mayor & Councilmember -Rancho Palos Verdes david.bradley@rpv~ov (310) 487-2418 Cell Phone City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: AOL Email Support® <schaals@verizon.net> [0\NCIIOl1\LOSVERDES Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 202512:21 PM To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov> Subject: PLAN FOR SILVER SPUR You don't often get email from schaals@verizon.net. Learn why this is important Attn: Mayor Mr, Bradley, We who live near Silver Spur School want to know if their is any planning to build 482 condo 's in the Canyon??? I thought that this idea was canceled. and now we hear about this project again. Please let me know when the Council is having a meeting to discuss this item. Thank You Mary Schaal schaa ls@verizon.net 1 From: Sent: To: Attachments: Jane Oh <ohmobile@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 4:57 PM CityClerk City Council Letter 2-18-25.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from ohmobile@gmail.com. Learn why this is 1 /. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Jane Oh From: Sent: To: Subject: Steve and Linda C <steveand1inda45@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 4:34 PM CityClerk The Ironwood Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from steveandlinda45@gmail.com. Learn why this is important I strongly urge the City Council to reject developer Jha's appeal. Approving his plan will devalue the properties in our communities by adding 482 more residences, adding to overcrowded roadways and pollution, and destroying our small town semi-rural atmosphere. The looming overcrowding this project will bring will endanger all in our communities. In an emergency like earthquake or fire we have few roadways and they will be impassable. We will all be cut off from aid and have no way to escape. Allowing him to use the Builder's Remedy will allow him to ignore sensible building codes and public protections. These are in place to keep people safe. Please do not cede to his demands. This project will hurt all of us. Reject his plans for this monstrosity. Sincerely, Linda Cummings 1 (. From: Sent: To: Subject: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., michelle meese <michelle.preh@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 2:05 PM CityClerk; CC 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 14, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, t1igh fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Michelle Meese 27115 Fond Du Lac Rd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan MacShara <susan.macshara@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 12:52 PM CC; CityClerk 5323 Ironwood St., RPV,CA. 90275 Dear members of The City Council of RPV, I am writing this letter to express my grave concern and to let you know how much I vehemently object to the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood St. I have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur along with over 400 of my neighbors to speak out against it. I am very pleased that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. I have recently learned the developer is appealing this decision and is requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha must be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide area and a high fire risk area, this project presents safety issues that cannot be ignored. In addition to the safety issues caused by a massive influx of traffic in an already extremely congested elementary school area, if there was ever a need to evacuate quickly due to fire,we could find ourselves in the same dilemma of traffic standstill that the recent Palisades fire caused -With the same devastating results. It was also brought to my attention that the city's Biologist reported findings that the canyon in which this project is to be built and would destroy, is a habitat for endangered species. Due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, Mr. Jha's request for expedited handling needs to be denied. In fact, the entire project should be denied. At the VERY least a massive project such as this has to require intense scrutiny, and an extremely thorough review process, not an expedited streamlined review. WHY would our city even consider such a thing given the long term devastating impact this project will have?? Once this project is put in motion, there is no recovering the devastation on our community and on the environment. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The impact on the environment is immense. The impact on the infrastructure is immense. The consequences, both intentional and those unforeseen, are not recoverable. Mr. Jha will be nowhere around to experience the consequences. The fact of the matter is since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, The City Council should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Mr. Jha's appeal. 1 / • Sincerely, Susan MacShara 5329 Bayrid e Rd., RPV. I G] ~,~ Re.plyForward •• Add reaction 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sharon Yarber <sharon@sharonyarber.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 11 :55 AM cc CityClerk; Ara Mihranian Verdes Estates Appeal to be heard 2/18/25 Dear Members of the City Council: The appeal filed by Verdes Estates (the "Applicant") regarding the Planning Commission's denial of its appeal of the staff's determination that its proposed project at 5323 Ironwood does not qualify for Builder's Remedy should be denied. By way of brief background, the Applicant filed its original application in January of 2024, at which time the City was not in substantial compliance with the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), as it had not yet adopted a Housing Element ("HE") that was deemed by the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") to be substantially compliant with the HAA. As such, the original application was filed at a time when the Applicant was entitled to Builder's Remedy provided it submitted a final application timely and otherwise complied with all applicable housing laws and requirements. The Applicant subsequently made it very clear in its communications with staff that the January application was withdrawn and was superseded by its second application submitted on April 18, 2024. As you are fully aware, extensive negotiations between the City and HCD ensued over the course of a few years, with all of the revisions required by HCD ultimately being incorporated into the final draft of the HE. By letter dated April 5, 2024, HCD informed the City that if the last version of the HE submitted to HCD for pre-approval was adopted by the Council without any further revision AND provided the required rezoning was accomplished with respect to the sites identified in the HE, the City would be in substantial compliance with the HAA. On April 1 fr 2024 the City adopted the identical version of the Housing Element to which HCD referred in its letter, AND passed all necessary zoning ordinances on an emergency basis to accomplish the required rezoning. As such, the City was, according to HCD, in substantial compliance on April 16th. The application submitted by the Applicant on April 18th was submitted AFTER the City was in substantial compliance and the staff's determination that the new application was not entitled to Builder's Remedy was and is correct. The Applicant's appeal to the Planning Commission of that staff determination was heard on October 8, 2024 and denied by the PC. Such denial is now the subject of the instant appeal. Applicant misplaces reliance on the ruling in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Case entitled 600 Foothill Owner vs. City of La Canada where Judge Chalfant held that a city can neither self certify compliance when HCD has not approved of the HE, nor, following eventual confirmation by HCD of compliance, backdate the date of compliance to the date a disapproved prior version of the HE was adopted. While the holding in the case, which is not precedential, suggests that formal written approval by HCD confirming compliance is required, the facts in the 600 Foothill case differ materially from the facts in the case of the Applicant. Here the City had written confirmation on April 5, 2024 from HCD that RPV's HE was acceptable and that the only conditions precedent to our being in substantial compliance were (i) adoption by Council of the final version without any amendments, and (ii) rezoning to comply with the HE. Both conditions precedent were satisfied on April 16, 2024. Thus, further redundant confirmation from HCD of substantial compliance was not necessary, and the Applicant's application on April 1 B'" was post substantial compliance and not en:itled to Builder's Remedy. This position is supported by/ • the opinion of Judge Frank in the New Commune DTLA v. Redondo Beach case where, like here, the City had extensive negotiations with HCD and adopted the version of its HE that had been blessed by HCD. Judge Frank held that substantial compliance was achieved on the date the City Council adopted the HE that met all conditions previously laid out by HCD, and not on the later date that HCD issued its final letter confirming compliance. The Applicant also wants the Council to read the minds of the principals of the Applicant and accept that their clear and unequivocal withdrawal of the first application was a simple mistake. The only reason that the Applicant is now trying to backpedal and say their withdrawal was an unintentional error is because they have caused irreparable harm to their position. They should not be allowed to change their story just because they do not like the consequences of their decision. Indeed, no doubt the reason the Applicant took the position that, based on its assumption that the City remained non -compliant on April 18th and that the Builder's Remedy window remained open, the first application was withdrawn and the second application was a separate and new one was to get an additional 180 days to complete submission of the formal application with respect to the second application. Such playing of games should not be indulged or rewarded. I will not belabor all of the arguments made in the staff report in support of the denial of this appeal. You have ample grounds on which to deny this appeal. Finally, the findings of the City biologist support the finding that the project is not entitled to the remedies sought. While the only substantive issue before you for this next appeal to be heard on February 18, 2025 is whether or not the Applicant's April 18th submission is entitled to Builder's Remedy processing, I do wish to state that there are many significant environmental as well as safety issues associated with this project, and in the unlikely event the project does at some point come before the PC and/or Council to be evaluated on its merits, please know that I will be vigorously opposing the project for numerous reasons. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Yarber 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Gary Morrow <gary@marmaladecafe.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 10:05 AM CityClerk; CC Please Read The Attached Letter City Council Letter 2-14-25 Regarding 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.docx 1 / City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 14, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Richard Gary Morrow 4309 Via Frascati Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Friday, February 14, 2025 9:47 AM CityClerk FW: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: wendi russell <wkr5@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 9:31 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never 1 ( recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Gregory Gershuni 26132 Birchfield Ave. RPV, CA 90274 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Friday, February 14, 2025 9:31 AM CityClerk FW: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: wendi russell <wkr5@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 7:18 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from wkr5@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our communityis immense. The Silver Spur community along/. with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Wendi Russell 26132 Birchfield Ave RPV, CA 90274 [Your Address] 2 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Friday, February 14, 2025 9:26 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: Please vote no to JHA project on Silver Spur Road From: Joan Davidson <j135cooper@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 9:25 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; cc@rpv.ca.gov Subject: Please vote no to JHA project on Silver Spur Road Dear Council Members, I am urging you to vote no to the Jha project on Silver Spur Road. This enormous and invasive project simply does not belong in Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Jha is well aware of that, as his RPV house enjoys a beautiful RPV hillside view. The canyon in question for this project is a sanctuary for animals and flora. I believe that if RPV was a city at the time this land was zoned, it would be a park. I am urging you to use any/all city efforts to refuse the plans of Mr. Jha to avoid dangerous ingress and egress along Silver Spur Road. The canyon is not meant for an enormous apartment complex. Please keep the RPV paradise that we all enjoy. Mr. Jha either has to go back to the drawing board or leave. Thank you Joan Davidson 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Brent Pace <brpsurf@gmail.com> Friday, February 14, 2025 9:07 AM CityClerk Letter Attached -5323 Ironwood Street, RPV Some people who received this message don't often get email from brpsurf@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Clerk, I mailed the letter below to the City Council and I am providing you a copy in case it isn't delivered before the upcoming city council meeting. Your help is greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Brent Pace 1 (. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 February 12, 2025 Re: 5323 Ironwood Street Condo Development Dear City Council Members: I oppose the approval of the 482 Unit Condo project at 5323 Ironwood Street. While there are many reasons to oppose this project, I will focus on two risks this project intensifies to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. First, the location of this project is in an area designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone by CAL FIRE. If the neighborhood is evacuated due to a wildfire and if this project goes forward, the resulting population increase will impede the evacuation of residents by overloading the egress routes. The recent Pacific Palisades fire in the City of Los Angeles demonstrated the danger traffic congestion brings to evacuating families. In the Palisades some evacuating people were forced to abandon their cars. The evacuating traffic also obstructed the fire department's response, which lead to spread of the wildfire. Again, this proposed development is in a Very High Fired Hazard Zone and it is not safe to have such a massive project in this neighborhood. Second, this project proposes to build in a canyon with steep walls which will require digging, cutting and building retaining walls. Using Google searches, I learned that this area is shown on a map from the California Department of Conservation as an area of Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility. Additionally, a California Geological Survey map shows a probable dormant old/relict landslide activity a short distance downhill and to the northwest of this proposed project's location. This project will increase the landslide risk. In summary, I oppose the approval of this project because it is not safe. Regards, I 1 Brent Pace 5306 Bayridge Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, California 20275 From: Sent: To: Subject: olivier j_enders <olivier j_enders@yahoo.com > Friday, February 14, 2025 8:13 AM CityClerk 5323 ironwood, 2-18-25 meeting Some people who received this message don't often get email from olivier_j_enders@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Olivier Enders 5319 Bayridge Rd 1 /. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council: Robin Riggs <robinriggs@cox.net> Monday, February 17, 2025 1 :37 PM CC; CityClerk City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Robin Riggs 26845 Springcreek Rd. RPV 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: City Council Members, Mark Mitchell <markmitchellpv@gmail.com> Monday, February 17, 2025 12:36 PM CityClerk Opposed to proposed Silver Spur Condo Project As a 48 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am adamantly opposed to the massive 482 Condo development proposed for Silver Spur Canyon. My mother-in-law was an integral part of the team that fought for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes back in the early 1970's. Had Rancho Palos Verdes not incorporated back then, massive condo developments such as this proposed condo project would exist everywhere. Our city founders, along with our council members that campaign and hope to be elected or re-elected to represent their constituents, would never approve a project that would change the character of our rural city. The country is changing back to a time when common sense prevails. Everyone is not entitled to live in every location. Degrading conditions for some in order to enhance conditions for others is not an acceptable solution for more housing. The nonsense directives from the state must be opposed. Eventually these short sighted politicians and bureaucrats will be replaced. Please use good judgement and vote no on this massive condo project. Sincerely, Mark Mitchell 28205 Hazelridge Drive, RPV Mark Mitchell 31 0-493-9498 markmitchellpv@gmail.com 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 16, 2025 anncll@aol.com Monday, February 17, 2025 2:20 PM CityClerk Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: There are MANY reasons to deny the request to build 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street, in the heart of a strictly one-family residential neighborhood. Most have been mentioned to you already. One thing that is very scary is that this project would cover the fire Road on that side of the canyon, cutting off any access to the backs of all of those houses and to the Canyon itself. Many months ago I spoke to Uni Wan"ior, Jha's partner, and he was not aware that there was a fire road!!! I purchased my house in 1969. My children all walked to school at Silver Spur Elementary School. There is limited access to the school. One is from the traffic signal at Montemalaga, off of Silver Spur Rd. The other is through the service road for Silver Spur, which happens to be in front of my house. During before and after school hours, the traffic on Silver Spur and especially on the service road is astronomical already, both from the elementary school and from Peninsula High School up the street. If this project is approved it will no longer be safe for neighborhood children to walk to school with the increase of traffic so close to the school. Please do not allow the continued push by this company to put this project in place in our canyon. Sincerely, Ann C Lynch 26363 Silver Spur Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Totran Radke <totran.radke@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:48 PM CityClerk; CC Letter to City Council Re: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Letter To RPV CC.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from totran.radke@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hello, I would like to submit the attached letter to City Council for the upcoming meeting. Thank you! Totran T. Radke, MBA, CAPM totran.radke@gmail.com 310.948.3997 Linkedin 1 /. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 12, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council, My name is Totran Radke and I am the Block Captain of the Neighborhood Watch for Ironwood Street. I reside directly across from Silver Spur Elementary. As Block Captain, I lead a group of 27 participating households, ensuring everyone stays informed and safe. I can confidently say that I know every single home in our neighborhood- the families, kids, pets, and even the cars. We are a close-knit group of families committed to maintaining the quality of our neighborhood. The character of our community is something we cherish and are determined to preserve. I am writing this letter to express my STRONG opposition to the proposed development, which does not align with our community's identity. The appeal should be denied because he does not qualify for Builder's Remedy for SB35/423. This developer wants to squeeze in 482 condos across four buildings, rising up to 11 stories high, with plans for 500 parking spots-all in the middle of a fragile canyon. We firmly OPPOSE a development of this MAGNITUDE and insist that the lot remain designated for a single-family home, as was originally intended. Let me emphasize: this proposal is adding nearly 500 households to a spot intended for ONE family, on a street that currently accommodates just 30 homes. To put this into perspective, that represents over 1,500% increase in DENSITY. This is highly concerning, given the close proximity to a school. We are already grappling with traffic issues, and there is a particularly dangerous corner on our street that has led to multiple near-accidents. Furthermore, the proposed 500 parking spots are clearly inadequate, assuming each household will have only one car and no visitors. Adding hundreds of residents, guests, and cars will exacerbate safety and traffic issues, leading to overflow parking on our streets and further burdening our community. This project is only the beginning-this developer will pursue similar large-scale developments throughout RPV. Are we prepared to handle the environmental and financial strain this will place on our city? Lastly, given the recent devastating wildfires that destroyed Pacific Palisades-a community with terrain very similar to RPV-are we truly prepared for the increased wildfire risk that this large development could bring to our city? We have the opportunity NOW to prevent a dangerous decision that poses more harm than the limited benefits of adding a few "lower- income housing" units. Councilmembers, it is clear that there is overwhelming opposition to this proposal among residents, both near and far. We urge you to align with our position to protect the integrity and quality of our beloved Rancho Palos Verdes for future generations. Thank you for your support and service to our city. Sincerely, Totran Radke Block Captain, Ironwood Neighborhood Watch From: Sent: To: Subject: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Tracey Thomasson <traceythom@verizon.net> Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:36 PM CityClerk NO to the 482 Unit Development Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Tracey Thomasson 4651 Rollando Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:32 PM CityClerk FW: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dev Project RPV City Council RE 5323 Ironwood Dev 2025_02_ 13 JJY.pdf From: pvjmy321@gmail.com <pvjmy321@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:31 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dev Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from pvimy_321@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, John 1 /. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, John &JudyYamashita 26302 Grayslake Rd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Rich Millard <rich.j.millard@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:22 PM CityClerk Save Our Canyon Some people who received this message don't often get email from rich.j.millard@gmail.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. 1 Rich Millard Millard Family 26447 Basswood Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: jerry garner <jgarn33@cox.net> Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:07 PM CC; CityClerk Silver Spur Canyon Project [Some people who received this message don't often get email from jgarn33@cox.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear Mayor Bradley, Mayor Pro Tern Seo, Council Member Ferraro, Council Member Perestam and City Clerk Teri Takaoka, I am aware of the upcoming City Council meeting on Tuesday next week that will include discussion of the proposed development of the Silver Spur canyon. Hopefully, this meeting will draw large numbers from our community who are opposed to this poorly planned development. Greed is the motivator for Mr. Jha who, if allowed to proceed, will pocket millions of dollars all to the detriment of our beautiful city. Mr. Jha, a resident of RPV, obviously has no allegiance to our community. We all know that there will be no going back to restore the tranquility of the canyon and surrounding neighborhood -all of that will be destroyed if he is allowed to move forward. There are no merits to this project, only negative, irreversible effects. Loss of views, loss of neighborhood stability, and the loss of a natural habitat for numerous species are a few of many detriments that we are all aware of. The results of shortsightedness can be tragic. History has proven this time and time again. The multiple species of wildlife that inhabit the canyon and the canyon itself are part of us and should remain so. While attending a Voices of Silver Spur meeting over a year ago, I had the opportunity to look out into the canyon and was amazed by its beauty which included numerous species of birds, many nesting in the trees. Butterflies were in abundance. Please oppose this egregious development and preserve our beautiful city. Thank you, Anita Garner Rancho Palos Verdes Sent from my iPad 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ricardo Yosy <yostradamus@icloud.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:01 PM CC; CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 482-unit development at 5323 Ironwood Street. Along with over 400 of my neighbors, I am a member of Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur, united in our concern about this project. I was encouraged by the City of RPV and the Planning Commission's initial denial of the developer's builder's remedy. However, I recently learned that the developer is appealing this decision and requesting an expedited review. This request must be denied. The developer, Mr. Jha, should be required to comply with all applicable zoning laws. This development poses a significant threat to our community, particularly given our location in a high landslide and high fire risl< area. Furthermore, the project's environmental impact on existing wildlife and habitat cannot be ignored. Mr. Jha's request for expedited handling is unacceptable. A project of this magnitude demands thorough scrutiny and a comprehensive review process, not a streamlined one. The consequences for the Silver Spur community and surrounding neighborhoods will be irreversible, and many residents will suffer irreparable harm. Because the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, there is no justification for even considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our community, I urge you to deny his request for a streamlined review. Thank you, Ricardo Yosy 26305 Dunwood Road 1 /. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan MacShara-Semelka <frankensue2@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:30 PM CityClerk; CC 5323 Ironwood St. RPV,CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from frankensue2@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear members of The City Council of RPV, I am writing this letter to express my grave concern and vehement objection to the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood St. I have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur along with over 400 of my neighbors to speak out against it. I am very pleased that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. I have recently learned the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha must be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide area and a high fire risk area this project presents safety issues that cannot be ignored. In addition to the safety issues caused by a massive influx of traffic in an already extremely congested elementary school area, if there was ever a need to evacuate quickly due to fire,we could find ourselves in the same traffic standstill that the recent Palisades fire caused. It was also brought to my attention that the city's Biologist reported findings that the canyon in which this project is to be built would destroy, is a habitat for endangered species. Due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, Mr. Jha's request for expedited handling should be denied. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The impact on the environment is immense. The impact on the infrastructure is immense. The consequences, both intentional and those unforeseen, are not recoverable. The fact of the matter is since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, The City Council should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Mr. Jha's appeal. Sincerely, Frank Semelka 5329 Bayridge Rd., RPV. 1 I . From: Sent: To: Subject: Greg Miguel <miguelg@pvpusd.net> Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:09 PM CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from miguelg@pvpusd.net. Learn why this is impoJtant 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV it in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Greg Miguel 26211 Birchfield Ave. RPV, CA 9027561 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:06 PM CityClerk FW: 5223 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Greg Miguel <miguelg@pvpusd.net> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:03 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 5223 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from ,niguelg@pvpuscl.net. Learn why this is irnp_grtant 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV !l.L in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, 26211 Birchfield Ave. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:08 PM CityClerk FW: Letters Letter Ali.pdf; Letter Ali.pdf From: Ali Mazhin <alimazhin@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 3:24 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov Cc: Nahid Mazhin <nahidzadeh@yahoo.com> Subject: Letters Hello, my letters are attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ali Mazhin I . City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Nahid Mazhin 5135 Elkmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I Learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Ali Mazhin 5135 Elkmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Karen Mitchell <mitchellkf@aol.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:20 PM CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from mitchellkf@aol.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 11, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: We reside at 26455 Silver Spur Road and our lot abuts the canyon in which Mr Jha has proposed a massive development. The intent of this letter is to express our concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We are opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of our neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. We were very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, we learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. We recently discovered that our canyon hillside experienced a significant slide. This was a shock to us as the hillside has been stable 1 I . since we purchased the property in 1987. The erosion and slide on our canyon hill impacts the safety and security of our home and our property. We worked with a locally respected landscape architect to create a plan that would hopefully halt the slide and provide future protection. After meeting with several companies,we contracted and recently completed this expensive project to secure our hillside. The project included creating a small retaining berm, planting a tree and adding plantings, watered by drip irrigation. We are hopeful that these changes will stabilize our hillside. In speaking with our neighbors, whose property also slopes to the canyon, they are also experiencing erosion and sliding of the canyon hillside.This underscores the fact that the canyon is not a stable area and not suitable for development. Any excavation or building most likely will accelerate landslides on the canyon slopes, which belong to the properties that line the canyon. During the recent fires, we were on high alert, as canyons are significantly more susceptible to wildfires spreading quickly. We took serious precautions to protect our property during this time. Can you imagine the devastation the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would have faced if a wildfire had started in our canyon? And then project the potential loss of life in evacuating an enormous complex with limited egress. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Karen and Fenton Mitchell 26455 Silver Spur Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :58 PM CityClerk FW: Proposed development at 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. From: Meredith Grenier <meredithgrenier@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov Subject: Proposed development at 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: My husband and I are 100 percent against the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We live on the block adjacent to the proposed development and are appalled at the thought of this massive project being built at the bottom of a canyon with the threats not only of fire, but landslides, flooding and the destruction of endangered wildlife -not to mention the impact of hundreds of more residents living in a very small area with few roads off the Peninsula in case of emergency. The impact of this project on the Silver Spur neighborhood would destroy not only this community, but much of this half of Rancho Palos Verdes with pollution, increased population and horrific traffic. Since the city of RPV is already in compliance with the Housing Element, we urge you to deny this development at your next council meeting. Thank you for your time and your service, Meredith and Lou Grenier 1 /. 5508 Elm bank Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes. 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :54 PM CityClerk FW: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes RPV Letter.pdf From: New Email <hilltop.automotive@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:39 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes [Some people who received this message don't often get email from hilltop.automotive@verizon.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. 1 (. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Rancho Palos Verdes CA. 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Colleen Teles <imcat58@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :54 PM CityClerk Please Deny Mr. Jha's Appeal My husband and I are longtime residents of Rancho PV at 5433 Whitefox Dr, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. We were so disheartened to learn about Mr. Jha's greedy plan to ruin our peaceful, family oriented suburban community for his own profit. Strange that he would try this, since he is a resident of RPV. Shame on him. We have already been directly affected by this proposed monstrosity. We attempted to sell our home at the above address, which is a mere few blocks away, because we are retiring. We had two well-qualified cash buyers who backed out once the project was disclosed to them. I and everyone else within close proximity to this project, will be unable to sell our homes for market value, and instead will watch our property values plummet. Many of us are relying upon the equity in our homes for our retirement, and see that Mr. Zha's pockets will be lined and ours, at our later stage in life, will be depleted. For this particular reason, as well as the traffic and crowding this project will cause, we request the city deny Mr. Jha's appeal. We don't need him building 480 plus condos on a lot zoned for two homes. Thank you for your time. Colleen and Greg Teles 1 (. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :52 PM CityClerk FW: Proposed 482-Unit projet @ 5323 Ironwood Street City Council Letter 2-18-25.docx From: Gilberte Faurite <gfaurite@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:18 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cityclerc@rpv.ca.gov Subject: Proposed 482-Unit projet@ 5323 Ironwood Street [Some people who received this message don't often get email from gfaurite@gmail.c_Qill. Learn why this is important at http.s..;//aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentific-81ion] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Sent from my iPad 1 /. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 1 O, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:51 PM CityClerk FW: 5323 Ironwood Street project concern Follow up Completed From: Stacie Wu <staciester@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:34 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street project concern Some people who received this message don't often get email from staciester@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council, The intent of this letter is to express our grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We as the residents in this neighborhood opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of our neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. We were very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, we learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of the proposed development of our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Wayne & Stacie Motoyasu 26423 Dunwood Rd, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 1 /. From: Sent: To: Jo Clark <clarkca2025@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:10 PM CityClerk Cc: cc Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street Some people who received this message don't often get email from clarkca2025@gmail.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes For: City Council 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear RPV City Council members, I'm a 26-year homeowner in Rancho Palos Verdes. I'm opposed to the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street, and recently joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to learn more. I was glad to hear that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission denied the developer the builder's remedy-but then I learned that the developer is appealing, and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha needs to abide by the zoning laws. We are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, with a unique and threatened environment in our canyons. The impact of this project on our wildlife and habitat would be severe. I hope that you will deny Jha's request for expedited handling. A massive development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community would be horrible. The Silver Spur community and adjoining neighborhoods would never recover. Many of our neighbors would be harmed. 1 I . Now that the City of RPV is (finally!) in compliance with the Housing Element, our council members should not give any consideration to Mr. Jha's unusual appeal. Please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Jo Clark Colt Road, RPV 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :30 PM CityClerk FW: Ironwood Street From: Dana Adams <dana_swayzee@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:22 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ironwood Street Some people who received this message don't often get email from dana swayzee@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important 1 /. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February I 0, 2025 Subject: 5323 IromYood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we arc located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. From: Sent: To: Subject: George Kettel Gmail <georgekettel@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :12 PM CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street RPV CA 99275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from georgekettel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed 1 development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, George Kettel 5351 Bayridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: George Kettel Gmail <georgekettel@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:15 AM Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov; CityClerk; CC; cc@rpv.ca Subject: 5323 Ironwood RPV Jha is going to jeapordize the safety of our Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood because of his ego and greed. [Some people who received this message don't often get email from georgekettel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. > > Akhilesh Jha is giving Builder's Remedy a bad name. > He is going to jeopardize the safety of our Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood because of his ego and greed. > The Pacific Palisades fire shows the logical thinking and caring among us, the added catastrophes the lack of public driving exits from raging fires and disasters causes. > Silver Spur and Palos Verdes Drive North are one and two lane streets and Jha intends to add approx 1,000 more people and 500 more autonomies to our neighborhood. He needs to be stopped. Finally stoped. He is placing his ego and greed above public safety. > Jha and Builder's Remedy is plopping four, 11 story apartments for over 1,000 new residents in the middle of our quiet neighborhood. Into a canyon. Silver Spur Canyon, 5323 Ironwood, Rancho Palos Verdes. > 80% of the apartments/condos he is building in the Silver Spur Canyon, with the Builder's Remedy law, will be luxury apartments with unobstructed million dollar views, starting at Point Conception, Malibu the entire coastline, the ocean, downtown Los Angeles, the mountains and at night the spectacular city lights. > It's not NIMBY, this is ethics and he is destroying a neighborhood because the Builder's Remedy permits greedy people like Askhilesh Jha to abuse the law. This is not ethical. > The Builder's Remedy Law should not destroy other peoples homes. Builders Remedy is supposedly about low income people moving into affordable housing, not about destroying the neighborhood they move into. > Akhilesh Jha is not an honorable human. > There are plenty of other spaces for him to "help the low income people" he is so "proud" to save. >Weare not close to rapid transit, the 405 is 8 miles away, our neighborhood is not a "walking to the grocery store & mall" area. > We live on a hill, the grade is extremely steep all the way up hill to the nearest stores. > No one, except the ultra-fit would ever consider walking up to and back from the stores, lugging bags of groceries. > The majority of citizens in Rancho Palos Verdes, myself included, are feeling left out of any choice to save our views and quiet neighborhoods we really did work enormously hard for. > If the horrible Silver Spur Canyon apartments he is building in the Silver Spur Canyon, 5323 Ironwood, RPV are built, it will honestly completely destroy some people's home value. No one wants this. You shouldn't either. > Greed is the motive. > Akhilesh Jha is using the Builder's Remedy law for his self-serving greed. > 80% of the apartments/condos he is building in the Silver Spur Canyon, 5323 Ironwood, Rancho Palos Verdes, with the Builder's Remedy law, will be luxury apartments with unobstructed million dollar views, starting at Point Conception, Malibu the entire coastline, the ocean, downtown Los Angeles, the mountains and at night the spectacular city lights. > And the spectacular sunsets. > All views unobstructed. 1 I > Nothing will be in-front of his apartments because he is building in our Silver Spur Canyon, plopping his apartments in front of dozens of pre-existing homes that do have this magnificent view. > He will be blocking their views, taking the value of theirs homes down the tubes. > These homeowners worked hard to afford their homes. Now he is allowed to ruin their views and privacy. > This is not about the required 20% low income housing project for Jha. This is not NIMBY. > Jha is perceived as a modern day Robin Hood by many people, so he is robbing property values and million dollar views for his benefit. > This is about Silver Spur Canyon housing for high income people. > This is greed for a luxury apartment project which would have been completely illegal two years ago, but now in 2024 unfortunately falls into the Builder's Remedy loop hole and this awful, destructive mess will make a ton of money for Jha. And he will destroy our neighborhood. >Weare in an extremely high fire zone, insurance companies are canceling policies here. We are near landslide areas, our canyon is used for over flow rain water, we have the highest Radon level in California in our canyon. > George Kettel > 5351 Bayridge Road > Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 > 2 From: Sent: To: Susan Kettel <susankettel@icloud.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 1:10 PM CityClerk Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street RPV CA 99275 Some people who received this message don't often get email from susankettel@icloud.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter 1 /. is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Susan l<ettel 5351 Bayridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Susan Kettel <susankettel@me.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:13 AM Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov; CityClerk; CC; cc@rpv.ca Subject: 5323 Ironwood RPV Jha is going to jeapordize the safety of our Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood because of his ego and greed. EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Akhilesh Jha is giving Builder's Remedy a bad name. He is going to jeopardize the safety of our Rancho Palos Verdes neighborhood because of his ego and greed. The Pacific Palisades fire shows the logical thinking and caring among us, the added catastrophes the lack of public driving exits from raging fires and disasters causes. Silver Spur and Palos Verdes Drive North are one and two lane streets and Jha intends to add approx 1,000 more people and 500 more autonomies to our neighborhood. He needs to be stopped. Finally stoped. He is placing his ego and greed above public safety. Jha and Builder's Remedy is plopping four, 11 story apartments for over 1,000 new residents in the middle of our quiet neighborhood. Into a canyon. Silver Spur Canyon, 5323 Ironwood, Rancho Palos Verdes. 80% of the apartments/condos he is building in the Silver Spur Canyon, with the Builder's Remedy law, will be luxury apartments with unobstructed million dollar views, starting at Point Conception, Malibu the entire coastline, the ocean, downtown Los Angeles, the mountains and at night the spectacular city lights. It's not NIMBY, this is ethics and he is destroying a neighborhood because the Builder's Remedy permits greedy people like Askhilesh Jha to abuse the law. This is not ethical. The Builder's Remedy Law should not destroy other peoples homes. Builders Remedy is supposedly about low income people moving into affordable housing, not about destroying the neighborhood they move into. Akhilesh Jha is not an honorable human. There are plenty of other spaces for him to "help the low income people" he is so "proud" to save. We are not close to rapid transit, the 405 is 8 miles away, our neighborhood is not a "walking to the grocery store & mall" area. We live on a hill, the grade is extremely steep all the way up hill to the nearest stores. No one, except the ultra-fit would ever consider walking up to and back from the stores, lugging bags of groceries. The majority of citizens in Rancho Palos Verdes, myself included, are feeling left out of any choice to save our views and quiet neighborhoods we really did work enormously hard for. If the horrible Silver Spur Canyon apartments he is building in the Silver Spur Canyon, 5323 Ironwood, RPV are built, it will honestly completely destroy some people's home value. No one wants this. You shouldn't either. Greed is the motive. Akhilesh Jha is using the Builder's Remedy law for his self-serving greed. 80% of the apartments/condos he is building in the Silver Spur Canyon, 5323 Ironwood, Rancho Palos Verdes, with the Builder's Remedy law, will be luxury apartments with unobstructed million dollar views, starting at Point Conception, Malibu the entire coastline, the ocean, downtown Los Angeles, the mountains and at night the spectacular city lights. And the spectacular sunsets. All views unobstructed. Nothing will be in-front of his apartments because he is building in our Silver Spur Canyon, plopping his apartments in front of dozens of pre-existing homes that do have this magnificent view. He will be blocking their views, taking the value of theirs homes down the tubes. These homeowners worked hard to afford their homes. Now he is allowed to ruin their views and privacy. This is not about the required 20% low income housing project for Jha. This is not NIMBY. Jha is perceived as a modern day Robin Hood by many people, so he is robbing property values and million dollar views for his benefit. This is about Silver Spur Canyon housing for high income people. This is greed for a luxury apartment project which would have been completely illegal two years ago, but now in 2024 unfortunately falls into the Builder's Remedy loop hole and this awful, destructive mess will make a ton of money for Jha. And he will destroy our neighborhood. 1 /. We are in an extremely high fire zone, insurance companies are canceling policies here. We are near landslide areas, our canyon is used for over flow rain water, we have the highest Radon level in California in our canyon. Susan Kettel 5351 Bayridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi, tengagw@netzero.net Thursday, February 13, 2025 1 :04 PM CityClerk cc 482 units project in Silver Spur Area City Council Letter 2-18-25 from Wayne Wang.pdf Please see the attached letter. Thanks. Regards, Wayne Wang 310 384-0105 5547 Bayridge Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 I. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. In the morning every day during the school hours especially from 8 to 8:30, the traffics are congested already around the silver spur elementary. There are currently about 200 families residing in this community, and we cannot image what the outcome is by adding 482 extra families. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Wayne Wang 5547 Bayridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 I From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Howard Bush <howard.bush@zurichna.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:48 PM CityClerk FW: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Council Letter 2-18-25.pdf High Some people who received this message don't often get email from howard.bush@zurichna.com. Learn why this is important City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Howard Bush 26403 Birchfield Ave R Palos Verdes, CA 90275 I. ******************* PLEASE NOTE ******************* This message, along with any attachments, is for the designated recipient(s) only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Any other use of such misdirected e- mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Zurich and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with company policy. 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Howard Bush 26403 Birchfield Ave R Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Sent: To: Cc: Meredith Grenier <meredithgrenier@yahoo.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:28 PM CityClerk cc Subject: Proposed development at 5322 Ironwood Street, RPV Some people who received this message don't often get email from meredithgrenier@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important From: Meredith Grenier <meredithgrenier@yahoo.com> Subject: Proposed development at 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes. Date: February 13, 2025 at 12:14:43 PM PST To: cc@rpvca.gov Cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: My husband and I are 100 percent against the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We live on the block adjacent to the proposed development and are appalled at the thought of this massive project being built at the bottom of a canyon with the threats not only of fire, but landslides, flooding and the destruction of endangered wildlife -not to mention the impact of hundreds of more residents living in a very small area with few roads off the Peninsula in case of emergency. The impact of this project on the Silver Spur neighborhood would destroy not only this community, but much of this half of Rancho Palos Verdes with pollution, increased population and horrific traffic. Since the city of RPV is already in compliance with the Housing Element, we urge you to deny this development at your next council meeting. 1 I Thank you for your time and your service, Meredith and Lou Grenier 5508 Elmbank Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes. 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Gustavo Cardenas < gustavo@cardenashomes.com > Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:15 PM cc CityClerk RE: 5323 Ironwood St, R.P.V. 90275 City Council Letter 2-18-25.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from gustavo@cardenashomes.com. Learn why this is important Hi Members, Pleas receive the attached letter. ® BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HomeServices LUXURY COLLECTION GUSTAVO Probate/ Trust Certified I Residential Specialist Entertainment I Sports Corporate Relocation Services Cell: 310.447.4771 I DRE: 01409315 Email: Gustavo@CardenasHomes.com Website: CardenasHomes.com 600 Deep Valley Drive, R.H.E. CA 90274 Click below to connect online: Reviews Voted South Bay's Best Realtor 2018, 2020 & 2021 1 /. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 1 o, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am a local Realtor, and I can assure you that property values will drop significantly should Mr. Jha's proposal be approved. Neighborhood values are determined by the privacy and quality of life one will experience by living in Silver Spur. This endeavor will greatly affect such a delicate and harmonious location. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Gustavo Cardenas 27040 Whitestone Rd. RPV 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Bryan Kasm <bryankasm@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:08 PM CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street concern Some people who received this message don't often get email from bryankasm@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council, The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Bryan Kasm & Michael Nguyen 5522 Bayridge Rd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 9027 Bryan 813 335 7737 1 r From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:06 PM CityClerk Fw: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Melody Colbert <melcolbert@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:04 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 [Some people who received this message don't often get email from melcolbert@aol.com. Learn why this is important at https_://aka.ms/LearnAboutSend_erldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This is to express my disapproval and fears regarding the proposed development, as well as my outrage at the overreaching by Sacramento bureaucrats who are apparently beholden to their developer-contributors and who have participated in misleading the public about the housing needs in the state and the proposed "remedies" by developers. Also, I am distressed by Mr. Jha's apparent disregard for this community's well-being and quality of life that are threatened by his proposal. This is a "semi-rural" community that strongly supports equestrian sports and children growing up in an environment that is close to nature. The main thoroughfare of Palos Verdes Drive North is also a main bridle trail artery, with several equestrian crossings. Allowing nearly 500 new housing units will no doubt result in at least 1000 more vehicles (who ever heard of a one-car household in PV?) using PVDN several times a day. This will worsen the existing grid-lock and cause more impatience in drivers -which will manifest in even more drivers exhibiting unsafe driving habits and putting equestrians at ever more risk when attempting to cross the road. High-density housing is incompatible with this semi-rural community. It won't be long until new residents will demand a signal at Silver Spur and PVDN, and the widening of PVDN at the cost of bike path and equestrian trails. Not to mention the significant traffic, noise, and air quality impacts that will be imposed upon nearby residents for many months during construction. Has anyone determined the expected impacts of the construction and associated earth-moving on air quality and its effects on the children at Silver Spur Elementary School? Including the heavy-metals from diesel trucks idling in traffic! Developer Jha is single-minded and persistent in his pursuit of the success of this project. He does not care at all about the housing needs of low-income people, nor the permanent deleterious impacts this project will have on the community and its children. Please do everything you can to not allow this project to go through. Sincerely, Melody Colbert 4604 Rockbluff Drive Rolling Hills Estates CA 90274 310-427-4378 1 / From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 11 :49 AM CityClerk Subject: Fw: Feb 18th City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project) From: Jbaricevic <jbaricevic@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:31 AM To: Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov <cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Feb 18th City Council Meeting regarding the 5323 Ironwood "Silver Spur Canyon" Project) Some people who received this message don't often get email from jbaricevic@aol.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council: We are members of the neighboring community of Rolling Hills Estates and have grave concerns regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. We are opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. We were very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, we learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. The project itself defies common sense and has a complete disregard for public safety. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling must be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on the area is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element,the city should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf the Palos Verdes penisula communities, as well as the potentially impacted neignhboring beach communities, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, John Baricevic & Carolyn L. Heth Residents, Rolling Hills Estates 1 /, From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 11 :48 AM CityClerk Fw: Stop Development Silver Spur Canyon City Council Letter 2-18-25.docx From: Li Sa <myemail141222@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:40 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Stop Development Silver Spur Canyon Some people who received this message don't often get email from myemail141222@gmail.com. Learn why I adamantly oppose the large development that is trying to go through in Silver Spur Canyon. My letter of disapproval is attached. Thank you, Linda 1 I City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 13, 2025 11 :48 AM CityClerk Fw: 5323 Ironwood Street -482 unit project From: Cathy Rucker <cathy.rucker.cb@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 11:06 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov <Cityclerk@rpv.ca.gov> Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street -482 unit project Some people who received this message don't often get email from cathy.rucker.cb@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development and have joined the 400+ Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws like everyone else. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a comprehensive review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of the proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. Since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Sean and Cathy Rucker 26403 Silver Spur Rd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 1 ). From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: jason foster <jasonfost1@gmail.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 11 :28 AM cc CityClerk Ironwood development letter in opposition. RPV letter.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from jasonfost1@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at hllps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Sent from my iPhone I City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Jason Foster 5313 Ironwood St. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mike Peterson <petersonmike123@msn.com> Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:10 AM cc CityClerk Regarding the City Council Meeting this Tuesday -5323 Ironwood Appeal 20250213 Mike City Council Letter.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from petersonmike123@msn.com. Learn why this is important Please see attached correspondence. Mike Peterson 1 I City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 13, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, Case No. PLZC2024-0002 City Council Appeal Dear City Council Members, I live on Ironwood Street, and the back of my property abuts the vacant lot at 5323 Ironwood, where Mr. Jha and Mr. Warrier propose to build four massive condominium buildings. I currently have a view of the city looking north down the canyon which would be completely obstructed by the project. According to one appraiser, this view accounts for about 8% of my property value. More importantly however, due to the height of these buildings and the fact that the buildings would be placed within 25 feet of my back property line, five stories of his southern building would rise above my backyard with 10 or more condominium units looking directly into my backyard. This building would completely eliminate any privacy I have. I've reviewed both the excellent staff report and Mr. Jha's appeal, and have been able to review most of the documents in the case through a public records request. Based on the biologist's report from December 18, 2024, this project clearly does not qualify for SB 35 expedited/ministerial review, and should be subject to all applicable environmental reviews, including an environmental impact report. It appears clear to me that the developers withdrew their original SB 330 application and then submitted a subsequent SB 330 application after the City of Rancho Palos Verdes had completed every task requested by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in order to bring our housing element into substantial compliance. Although Mr. Jha argues that his intent was only to revise the original preliminary application, emails from his partner to the City clearly demonstrate otherwise. Regardless, he clearly changed important aspects of the project, which under law required him to submit a new preliminary application anyway. Because his application was placed after the city obtained substantial compliance, he does not qualify for the Builder's Remedy law. Based on these facts, the City has sufficient grounds to deny Mr. Jha's appeal to use the Builder's Remedy law and the expedited/ministerial review process. I urge you to do so. Sincerely, Mike Peterson 5321 Ironwood St. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jessica Bobbett Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:13 PM CityClerk FW: Concerning Ironwood Deveopment Revised City Council Letter 2-18-25.docx Hi -we had a cut off of noon today for correspondence. The attached item will need to be distributed as late correspondence. Thank you! Jessica Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner Jbobbe11@..rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5224 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvcJt,grut • ~ Oovrnloi,d on thr.i App Store ~ GETITON V Google Play rni.1:I contains inforrnatton belonqinq to the City of Rancho Paios Verdes, which may be privile()("ci, conficlcntiai, and/or frorn disdosurc, The infonnaUon is intcndcci for w;e of the !ndlvidua! or cnLty ndrnccL Unautho(zcci di.SS(jTJnc1tion, err <.\):Jyln~J !:.; sl:rlct!y ptohit)ltcid, If you this crnall 1n error, or arc not an intended recipient, pk:ase notify the !n11r:cc!laldy, ·1l1ank you for your as:;istanc:.~ and coopc:raUon, From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:11 PM To: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov> Cc: Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Concerning Ironwood Deveopment From: Michelle Friedman <michellefriedman500@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:05 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Concerning Ironwood Deveopment Some people who received this message don't often get email from michellefriedman500@gmail.com. Learn why this is important 1 I. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like many of my neighbors, have joined inr to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Michelle Friedman 26834 Fond du Lac Rd (I am from "An Adjoining Neighborhood", and am very concerned about over development in unsafe areas being allowed at breakneck speed without thorough safety evaluations. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Christine Pearson <christinepearson46@outlook.com> Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:25 AM CityClerk; CC Feb 18th City Council Meeting -5323 Ironwood Project City Council Letter 2-18-25.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from christinepearson46@outlook.com. Learn why this is important 1 I City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, Feb 18th City Council Meeting Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if unintended, consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Christine Pearson 5546 Bayridge Rd. RPV, CA 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Bruce Bitman <bbitman@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:35 AM CC; CityClerk 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 City Council Letter 2-18-25 -Bitman.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from bbitman@gmail.com. Learn why this is important To Whom It May Concern: Please see attached letter. Bruce Bitman 3104980367 1 I. City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 10, 2025 Subject: 5323 Ironwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear City Council: The intent of this letter is to express my grave concern regarding the proposed 482-unit project at 5323 Ironwood Street. I am opposed to this proposed development, and, like over 400 of my neighbors, have joined Neighborhood Voices of Silver Spur to speak out against it. I was very pleased to learn that the City of RPV and the Planning Commission have denied the developer the builder's remedy. Recently, however, I learned that the developer is appealing this determination and requesting an expedited review of the project. This should not and cannot be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the zoning laws. We personally have three children in the local schools including Silver Spur Elementary. The roads are already crowded as it is and with an influx of new tenants the driving will become untenable as these roads are not equipped to handle anymore cars. Given the fact that we are located in a high landslide, high fire risk area, and due to the environmental impact of this massive project on existing wildlife and habitat, his request for expedited handling should be denied. A development like this should require intense scrutiny and a thorough review process, not a streamlined, expedited review. The impact of this proposed development on our community is immense. The Silver Spur community along with adjoining neighborhoods will never be the same. Many of our neighbors will never recover from its far reaching, even if, unintended consequences. The fact of the matter is that since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. Sincerely, Bruce Bitman 26562 Academy Dr. Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ron Matsuda < ron@gvbc.net> Monday, February 10, 2025 9:29 PM CC; CityClerk Feb. 18 City Council Meeting re: 5323 Ironwood St. "Silver Spur Canyon" Project Some people who received this message don't often get email from ron@gvbc.net. Learn why this is important Dear members of the RPV City Council, I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and live at 5338 Ironwood Street, almost directly across the street from the proposed project mentioned above. I have been made aware of developer Akhilesh Jha's proposal to build four 11-story towers consisting of 482 housing units in the canyon just below our street, completely ruining our beautiful natural environment and peaceful community. My family moved to RPV in 1999 because of the natural surroundings, trees and greenery, and closeness to nature. I understand that although the City of RPV has denied the developer the use of the builder's remedy, he is appealing this determination and requesting special consideration. This should not be permitted. Mr. Jha should be required to abide by the established city zoning laws. Since the City of RPV is in compliance with the Housing Element, we should not even be considering Mr. Jha's appeal. On behalf of our entire Silver Spur community, please deny Mr. Jha's appeal for a streamlined review. I would respectfully request that you use absolutely every means at your disposal to prevent this from happening. This would permanently damage our neighborhood, severely impact property values, and significantly increase traffic and pollution in an already extremely high school traffic area. Please do not let this happen. Thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, Ron Matsuda 5338 Ironwood Street RPV, CA 90275 1 I Subject: FW: Reality of the proposed Jha development From: Jon Jones <jjonzz1984@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 5:41 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Reality of the proposed Jha development Keeping this short and sweet. This is 1 block away from Silver Spur Elementary School. Jha picked a truly stupid site for this type of development for many reasons. The rest of us and the entire Peninsula should not have to pay the price for his ambitions. • Have you seen the traffic jams during morning dropoffs and afternoon pickups? Imagine 500 more cars in that mess. That is a recipe for severe traffic and safety problems. • Bringing in 500-1000 new residents into this neighborhood only a block away from the elementary school is a risk to the kids. Think about that. • This development increases wildfire and landslide concerns. Those concerns are exacerbated when you consider the potential impact to the school, and the following effects to the school plan of the entire peninsula. • All our property values will tank. This city has cowed to a handful of people wanting to protect their views and property values for decades (no lights at the high schools?}. Why should one guy get to tank all our property values for his own enrichment? There are many risks with this project at this site. They've been identified and communicated. So if this project goes forward and any of those risks happen, I imagine many lawsuits will be filed -not just against Jha and his developers but also against the city and, hopefully, the people who approve this personally. Concerned Resident of Silver Spur 1 /