The URL can be used to link to this page

20240604 Late CorrespondenceFra'm: Sl'nt llmc: To: .Sub j ect: Allal'hmcnts: Hi Luis , Oc 1avio Sil va <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> 07/26/2021 08:49:08 AM lui s@e nvirotcchnu.com RE: Cl ipp er Rd · APN 7573-006-024 imagc00J.png imagd}0J .png im agc004.p ng imagc005 .png image002.png I apologize about the delayed response. I'm gla d to hea r that the property ow ner wou ld be int erested in consider ing a zone cha nge of the project site to possibly allow for more den sity. The Ci ty Is curre nt ly updating is ho using eleme nt and we are lookin g at vaca nt/un de r-deve loped sites t o poss ible acco mmodate housing as part of the site inventory process. While we don 't ha ve a dra ft of the hous ing eleme nt up da te yet, we hope to have more information availab le within the next coup le of wee ks. When we talked at the counter earlier thi s month, we also discussed the City's Residential Planned Development permit (RPD) process, which all ows for some code flexibilities pursuant to / estab li shed co de requirements. l)nlike the action plans of the housing element update, the RPD permit is current ly ou tlin ed in the City's municipal code. I've attached a link for your reference: httos://library.rnunicoclc com/ca/rancho palos vcrdcs/codcs/code of ordimmc.cs?node ld=TIT17ZO ARTVSPDI CH17.42REPLOE I think it is important to note that whether you consider developing the site through the RPO process or wait on the housing elem ent update, both processes w ill requi re a review of project plan s and public hearing s. Th ank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager J!£ta'li.2i@.r=u2>! Phone -(3 10) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palo s Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www rpvca gov J tMIFA-1 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID -19, visito rs are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow alf posted directions during your visit'. Walk¥ups are limited to on e person ot a time. Please note that our response to your in(luiry cou ld be delayed. For a list of deportment phone numbers, visit the Stoff Directory on the City website . From: lui s@enviro techno .co m <lui s@env irotechno.com> Sent : Tuesday, Jul y 20, 2021 7:29 AM To : Ali Va hdani <avahdani@optimumse ls mic.com>; Octav io Silva <Octa vioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Sahabl <as ahabi@optimumseismic.com >; Jo hn Cruikshank <jcru ikshank@jmc-2.com>; Andri Pramono <apramono@optimumselsmic.com> Subject: RE: Clipper Rd -APN 7573-006-024 • HiOct,wio, I hope you hacJ a nice weekend. I wc>nted to follow up with you regarding our conversa t ion about O Clipper Road. I spoke with the potential buyers and they are very interested in moving forward and also very interested in reviewing the code amendments for the reduction in the zoning guidelines for increase in dens ity. If I recall, you were going to have a draft ready this week; is that correct? I think this property wo ul d be a great candidate for a case study. Is it possible for you to send us a co py so we can do some lot layouts? We would love to work together in the guidelines if you need arc hitectura l input. Please let us know your though ts. Thank you. Luis de Mon-1es. A IA-ASlD-LEED AP BO +C Principal ENV IROTECHNO ARCHITECTUR E, INC. Westside Office · 13101 Washington Boulev1;1rd #404 Los Angeles. California ~ 90066 South Bav Office · 11.6 So uth Catalina Avenue -Suite 1._02 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: !Yi,@~Jl'li.r.QkG!IDQ0c;Q!JJ website: Yf/i\'i&IlYirQ~ AGENDA ITEM : -Li !..:N~O-· -'-I ----- Rl2t~\'.;i~\~ROM~ ~-el \,e/_,..== ~) ~1~4 I r AND MADE p)\.RT OF THE RE COR9 ATT ~E COUNCIL MEE TING OF : O& LoiJ:po;>.+ (::Ff::IC E OF THE CITY CLERK ILRc·d r llM~~~ J ntt-e\lv ~r--- From: S<'nt l,lm<': Tu: Suhj<'<'t: Oc1:1v io Silv11 <Ocrn vioS@rpv<'a.gov> 07/26/202 1 10:5 0:08 AM amy@luvwhcrculivc.com RE : O Clipper Rd: checking in AtlRC'hmenti: ima8c001.png image006 .pn8 imagc007.png imagc008.png image009.j pg imageOI0 .jpg irm1gd)l l.jpg ima8cOOJ.png Hi Amy, The City is upd ati ng Its Housing Element and looking at vacant/underdeveloped sites around th e City to con side r possible zone ch an ges t o accommodate more housing. The update may or may not include this site, but we hope that the update will be comp lete before the end of the year. We are stlll In the analysis part of the update. Once the update is complete, ind lv idual zone changes will have to be processed fo r project specific loca tions. I can definitely add you as in terest ed party in order to inform yo u of any f uture update action s. Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager octavios@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www rnvca ,gov Cit)1 /--lall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere ta physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be workin g remotely. If you need to visit Citv Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate de partment and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups ore limited to one person at a time. Please not e that our response to your inquiry co uld be de layed. For a lis t of deportment phone numbers, visit J the Staff Qicectorv on the City website. From : amy@luvwhereulive.com <amy@ luvwhereuli ve.com> Sent: Monday, July 26, 202110:44 AM To: Octavio Sliva <0ctavloS@rpvca .gov> Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Rd: checking in Hi Octavio, I he ard t hat t he city may be re-zoning O Clipper Road to allow a larger subdivision (more homes). Is this true? Can you give me any deta lls ? Be st, Amy Amy Cimetta 310.428.8804 amy@LuvWhereuUve.com www.LuvWhoreUUve.co m Broker Assoc., MBA fl0177t.767 2501 N. Sepulveda Blvd. 2nd Floor Manha ttan Beach. CA 90266 d irect: 310.542.9 054 I fax : 310.5 42.4123 From: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rnvca gov> Sent: Friday, March 12, 202110:40 AM To: 'Amy Cimetta' <arnv@luvwhereullve com> Subject : RE: 0 Clipper Rd: checking in Hi Amy, L11tlngAgtnt 2017 -2019 l< AX~ 11: S·Star RllodAgent yelp~: Vtrulia r.~Zll!ow· Regarding the flood zone area, do you hav e details of what exactly would be proposed In/under/over this area? We reached out to the City's Public Works Department and they indlcated that potentially storm pipes can been cons tructed and the ra vine could be filled , however, without any plans is really hard to confirm our understanding of the proposal. Also, if you haven't already resea rched it, we wou ld recommend that you assess any conservation eas ements (if any) present on the property, Such easeme nts can restrict development in the flood zone area. Thank you, Octavio Silva Qeputy Director of Community DevelopmenV Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 \WfW rpvca gqy octavios@rovca.gov (310) 544-5234 To limit public contact and help prevent th e spread of COVID -19, City Hall is temporarily dosed to the public, but services are available by tel ephone, email, online and limited curbside service. Some einployees are working on rotation ;;ind may be working remotely. Please note that our re sponse to your inquiry coul d be delayed . For a list of department pho ne numbers, visit the Stiff ~ on the City website. From: Amy Cimetta <amv@luvwhereulive com> Sent : Monday, March 8, 2021 5:46 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpyca gov> Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rovca.gov> Subject: Re: 0 Clipper Rd : checking in Thank you! On Monday, March 8, 2021, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rnvca.goy> wrote: Hi Amy, Yes, correct. I'll look into that one tomorrow and get back to you soon . : Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenV Planning Manager ' City of Rancho Palos Verdes I Community Development Department ;30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov pctavios(cllrpvca,gov (310) 544-5234 To limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COVlD•l9, City Hall is temporarily closed to the public, but services are available by telephone, email, on line and limited curbside service. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directon~ on the City website. From: Amy Cimetta <amy@luvwhereulive.com> Sent: Monday, March 8, 20215:43 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctayioS@rpvca.gqv> Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavioa@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: 0 Clipper Rd: checking in Thanks Octavio, I know there was a question about connecting the pipes in the flood hazard zone, Any final word on that? On Monday, March 8, 2021, Octavio Silva <QctayipS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Amy, Sorry about the delayed response. Yes, I do have a couple of follow up points {see below): • During our meeting last week, a question was raised about the design requirements for a flag lot. I reviewed the municipal code and did not find any provisions for the creation of flag-shaped lots. In the absence of such regulations in the code, we would consider that the creation of new flag lots is not permitted. There are lots of flag lots in the City, but they date to before the City's incorporation, During our meeting, Ken brought up the Residential Planned Development (RPO) code section that provides for greater flexibility in the design of residential prc~jects. I've attached a link to the RPO section of the code for reference https://library.municode.com/ca/rancho oalos verdes/codes/code of ordinances? nodeld=Tff1720 ARTVSPDI CH17.42REPLDE. Please review the code section including applicability, development standards and submittal requirements. • With respect to building area of the proposed lots, Section 16.04.040.e. of the RPVMC outlines requirements for building areas for each of the proposed lots. Specifically, the code requires that each lot created by a map shall include a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,000 square feet or 33 percent of the minimum lot area required by the appropriate residential base zoning district standards, whichever is greater. For purposes of this section, setback areas required by the appropriate residential base zoning district standards and areas with a slope of 35 percent or greater, shall not be included in the computation of lot area for purposes of this subsection. The code does provide some relief from these requirements If the project is filed in conjunction with a RPO permit. So, there maybe some flexibility in the designation of building areas through the RPO process. • I'm in the process of review property records for the project site. I'll forward once I have more information available. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or if I missed a topic/issue from our meeting last week. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenV Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department ;30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 wwwrpy~ octavios@rnvc~ (310) 544-5234 To limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COVI0-19, City Hall is temporarily closed to the public, but services are available by telephone, email, online and limited curbside service. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely, Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Stnff Directory on the City website. From: amv@luvwhereulive.com <amv@luvwhereulive com> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 20216:38 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: O Clipper Rd: checking in Hi Octavio, I'm just checking in on the questions that you and Ken were looking into from our meeting last week on O Clipper Rd. I don't know if you have communicated the answers to Ali or Barry yet or if you're still working on it. Any updates? Thanks, Amy Amy Cimetta 310,428.8804 amy,¢l.UVWMr1.1VLlve.,;;om www,LuvWhcrnUt.ivo.com <l11<,•q llOS423WS4 l fc)>: 510.542.4\2.5 From: Octavio Silva <Q.ctay/oS@rovca gay> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:35 AM To: amy@luvwbereulive com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Rd: flag lot Hi Amy, :;..~u, ~111.W,tgont yelp{~ ~trulh:t "•la!uw ! apologize about missing your c:a!ls, I've been working rernot.f:ly and tied up on <l big c.ily .. widP. project. Below, l'vo included ;1 snap shot of the City'.'> residentic1I developm0.nt m,1trix. l don't recall the zoning of the property but depending on the site zoning, there is a minlmum lot width and depth (plc!ase se<~ the first sot of columns in the chart bQlow): ! hope this answers your question. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any additional questions. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenV Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawth.mn.afil'IQ.. Raocl10 Palos Verdes CA 90275 vyww.rpvca aov octavios@rovca.gov (31 OJ 544-5234 ro limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COVID-19, City Hall is temporarily dosed to the public, but services are available by telephone, ernail, on line and limited curbsid~ serv\ce. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely, Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed, For a list of rlepartrnent phone numbers, visit tht~ Staff Directory 011 the City Wt~bsite. From: amy@luvwhereulive.com (mailto:amy@!uvwbereulive.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20215:35 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: 0 Clipper Rd: flag lot Hi Octavio, I haven't been able to find the info regarding required frontage for a property. I thought there was a minimum frontage required if we subdivided at O Clipper Rd. Can you confirm this for me and let me know what that frontage minimum is? Or is it just a minimum width of 75 feet? Could you do a flag lot? Thanks, Amy Amy Cimetta Q Vista Snilichy-s 310.428.8804 a,,;,,,"'"'" "'"A "1"47'7 CA ; <:l1mc1 SV..)54Z9054l/,:'!.>... 3l0542.4liS From: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rovca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 20201:54 PM To: amv@luvwhereu/ive com Subject: RE: links Hi Amy, Sorry for the del;-3yed response. Please see rny responses below in blue text. From: amy@luvwhereyliye com <amy@luywhereuliye com> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:57 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavipS@rpvca gov> Subject: RE: Links Hi Octavio, l),,c!JngA<;Jff'f 1<ll1":?019 S-Sc<>1 R>ll~<1.Aqent yolp~: 'ttru\m 'A/l!tl)>.Y Thanks for speaking with me. Here are the plat maps. The 2nd page of the pdf is from 1980. I will take a look at the links you sent me but if you have any rough, quick answers to these questions, I would appreciate it, Here are my questions: 1. On the largest lot from the 1980 subdivision, Identified as #4, do you think a 5,000 sq foot home (approx) could be built here based on today's standards? More information is needed for me to provide a response, For ex;:imple, I don't know the geologic or topoerJphic conditions of the site and whether it would support a 5,000 sq. ft. home. I also, don't know the size, height or design of the house to assess whether it meets neighborhood compatibility requirements, 2. The area identified as #5 is the open space. In your experience, do you think this open space will be used to offset the smaller lot sizes? This may be possible. It also looks like there is ;:i flood hazard designation that runs throt1gh the lot, which would restrict residential development on thcit portion of the lot. 3. In the same vein, would the city let someone build a larger home on a smaller lot because there is the open space? The project site has a zoning designation of RS-4, which allows up to 50% lot coverage. This means that the building foot print and hardscape areas (lurger than 5' in width) such as the driveway can only cover 50% of the lot and the other portion has to remain us open space. The proposed subdivision and design oft he site would have to 3ccornmod21te the code requirements. 3. Based on today's zoning laws, how many lots could be built here without any variance or exceptions? More information is needed tor me to provide a response. More specifically, the City's Subdivision section of the code outlines certuin map requirements that are applicable to a!J proposed lots thut include maintain ins minimum contiguous building pad areas. Plans arc needed to determine how a proposed subdivision would comply with these mup requirements. 4. After a pre-application meeting occurs, and an application is submitted, how many phases are there to work through before going to the planning commission? There is only one phase once an application is subinitted. Generally, the Planning Division wll! review your proposal and will consult with the City Engineer to ensure that an application is complete for processing. Once it is deemed complete, then a public hearing is scheduled before the City's Planning Commission. !ts important to note that the City's completeness review is where inost of the application time takes place. 5. How long do you think the process will take for a subdivision (prior to starting construction)? Its rec1!!y hard to zero in on an exact process time line. Its been my experience that generally a proposed subdivision will take a number of months possibly up•to iJ year or so to complete the City's review process. It depends on a number of factors including environmental and geologic review, fire department clearance and timeliness of responses/resubn,ittals. The subdivision request also consists of a "tentative'' stage and .:1 "final" staee. ! think its import:rnt for you distinguish between the subdivision portion of the project and the construction process. The construction process is separate and requires the review of structural and civil plans by the City's Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department. Thanks so much I Amy From: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpyca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:43 AM To: amv@luvwhereylive.com Subject: Links Hi Amy, It was a pleasure speaking with you. As requested, I've attached a link to the City's Municipal Code related to subdivision map requirements: https://library.municode.com/ca/rancho palos verdes/codes/code of ordjnances?nqdeld-TIT16SU CH16.04GEPR 16.04.04QMARE 1 am also attaching a link to the City's Planned Residential Development section of the code: bttps://librarv.munkode.com/ca/rancbo oalos verdes/codes/code of ordinances7nodeld=TIT1720 ARTVSPDI CH1].42REPLDE Amy Cimetta Vista Sotheby's Intl Realty 2501 N. Sepulveda Blvd 2nd fl .Manhattan Beach CA ™ cell 310.428.8804 direct: 310.542.9054 fax: 310.542.4123 amy@LuvWhcreUlivc.com www.LyvWhereULive.com #01774767 Amy Cimetta Vista Sotheby's Intl Realty 2501 N. Sepulveda Blvd, 2nd Fl Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 cell 310.428.8804 direct: 310.542.9054 fax: 310.542.4123 ilmy@luvWhereUUve com 'iJ.ww.LuvWhereUUve-com #01774767 ~LOS VERDES From: Sent time: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Luis, Octavio Silva <Octavi0S@q1vca.gov> 08/25/2021 02:52:38 PM 'luis@envirotechno.com' <luis@envirotechno.com> Ali Vahdani <avahdani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi@optimumseismic.com RE: 0 Clipper Road I have a 1pm available. Does that work? Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenU Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov octavios@rpvca.gov (310) 544-5234 From: luis@envirotechno.com <luis@envirotechno.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20211:21 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi@optimumseismic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Fantastic. Can we do a Zoom at 3:00 PM? Thank you. Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 South Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis@envirotechno.com website: www.envirotechno.com From: Octavio Silva (mailto:OctavioS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202112:41 PM To: luis(iilenvirotechno.com Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi@optimumseismic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. We've been a bit tied up on preparing for last night's Housing Element Update Study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. I have some availability on Friday mid-afternoon to further discuss. Let me know what works best for you. As you know the site is currently zoned for single family residential and include SFR standards but as part of the Housing Element Update, we are looking for opportunity sites that may accommodate for more density. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenU Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. ' Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov octavios@rpvca.gov (310) 544-5234 From: luis@envirotechno.com <lui s@envirotec hno .co m> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202111:01 AM To: Octavio Silva <Oct avioSC@rpvca .gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahd ani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi@optimumseismic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper R.oad Hi Octavio, I hope you are having a nice week. I am not sure you saw my previous email. Can we sc h edule a time this week to discuss thi s project? Thank you . Luis de Moraes , AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Principa l ENV IROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, IN C. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, Ca liforni a -90066 South Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Su ite 102 Redondo Beach, Ca lifornia 90277 Ce ll : 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis @env irotechno .com website: www.envirotechno.com From : luis@envirotechno.com Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 3:05 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE : 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, I ho pe you had a nice weeken d. The owner is contemp lat in g a luxury condom inium project for this site. Is this a viab le option? If so , can you provide mw wit h any app licable guide lin es so I can prepare a pre limin a ry sketc h? Thank you, Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Pr in cipal ENVI ROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC . Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, Ca lifornia -90066 So uth Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, Ca liforni a 90277 Cell: 3 10/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis @e nvirotechno .co m website: www.envirotechno .com From: Octavio Silva [mailto:OctavioS@rpvca .gov ] Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 8:28 AM i To: ~envirotec!J.Do.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. I was out of the office last week and just getting back to my messages. I should have some availability later this week (Thursday or so). Please let me know what time works for you. Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov octavios@rpy.Qa.gov (310) 544-5234 From: luis@lenvirotechno.com <luis@lenvirotechno.com> Sent: Monday, June 28, 20214:06 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, do you 15 minutes to go over this project? I can stop by any day morning this week. Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 South Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis@envirotechno.com website: www.envirotechno.com From : Sent time : To: Cc: Subject: Hi Luis, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> 08 /25/202 1 12:40:5 1 PM 'lui s@ envirotec hno .co m' <lui s@envirotechno .com> Ali Vahdani <avahdani @optimumseismic.com>; asahabi @ o ptimum seismi c.com RE: 0 C lipper Ro ad Sorry about the delayed response. We've been a bit tied up on preparing for last night's Housing Element Update Study session with the City Council and Planning Commission . I have some availability on Friday mid-afternoon to further discuss . Let me know what works best for you . As you know the site is currently zoned fo r si ngle family residential and include SFR standards but as part of the Housing Element Update, we are loo ki ng for opportunity sites that may accommodate for more density. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenU Planning Manager City Qf Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov octavio s@ rpv ca .gov (310) 544-5234 From: luis@envirotechno.com <luis@envirotechno.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202111:01 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi@optimumseismic .com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, I ho pe you are having a ni ce we ek. I am not sure you saw my previous email. Can we schedu l e a tim e this w eek to discuss thi s project? Than k you. Lu is de Moraes , AIA-AS ID -LEED AP BD+C Princ ipa l ENVIROT ECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC . Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #4 04 Los Angeles, California -90066 So uth Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Sui te 102 Redon do Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis @e nvirotechn6 .c om website: www.envirotechno.com From: lui s@env irotech n o .com Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 3:05 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ct avioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, I hope you had a nic e weekend. I ! The owner· is contemplating a luxury condominium project for this site. Is this a viable option? If so, can you provide mw with any applicable guidelines so I can prepare a preliminary sketch? Thank you, Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 South Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis@envirotechno.com website: www.envirotechno.com From: OctavioSilva[.mailto:OctavioS@rpvca.g.Qll) Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20218:28 AM To: luis@envirotechno.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. I was out of the office last week and just getting back to my messages. I should have some availability later this week (Thursday or so). Please let me know what time works for you. Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenU Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov 9ctavios@rpvca.gov (310) 544-5234 From: ~nvirotechno.com <lui~@..envirotechno.com> Sent: Monday, June 28, 20214:06 PM To: Octavio Silva <Octayl~y~a.go\'.> Subject: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, do you 15 minutes to go over this project? I can stop by any day morning this week. Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 South Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: l~virotechno.~onJ website: www.envirotechno,com from: Se 1~t timr: To: Cc: S 11 hjcr1:1 Allachml'nls: Hi Octavio, lui §@cnvimtcchno .com 09/07/2 021 02:17 :2 1 PM Octn vi o Silva <OctnvioS@rpvca .gov;;, Ali Vahd imi <avahdani @op1imunuei smic .com>; 11sn.l111hi@o p1imum seis mic.com RE: 0 Clipper RoaJ im:igcOOl .png im:igc002 .png imagc005.j pg irnagc006.png im ag.:0 10.png im agd)l 4.png im ag,:015.jpg imagc0l6.png imagc0 17.png Thank you for getting ba ck to us. Can you give me a bit more direc t io n such as set-backs, height restrictions and any design criter ia sol ca n sketch some options? Luis de Moraes. AtA-A SID-LEED AP BD+C Princ ipal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC . Westside Office· 13·101 Wa shington Boulevard #4 04 Los Angeles. California -90066 South Bay Office· 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 1.02 Redo ndo Beach, California 90277 Ctlll: :il0/48il-11769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: luis@eoyirotechnq com website : WW-N envirotechoo com From: Octavio Silva {mailto:OctavioS@rpvca.gov) Sent : Tuesday, September 7, 202 18:54 AM To : luis@env irotechno.com Cc: Ali Vahdani <ava hdani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi@optimumseismic.com Subject: RE : 0 Clipper Road Hi Lui s, Sorry about the delayed respon se . As you may recall during our meeting, I mentioned that the City is currently in the process of updating the Housing Element. As part of this update, staff ls co nducting a housing sites analysis to identify sites througho ut the City to poten tially accom modate additional housing un its based on State requirements. Staff and the Housing Elemen t consultant are preparing a draft of the housing sites analysis, which will be presente d to the City Council and Plan ning Commission next month for prellminary consideration. Staff's initial assessment of the O Clipper Roa d property is as a M ulti-F ami ly (RM ·B) zoned lot tD allow 6-12 OU/AC. Please note that t his is an draft assessment at this point and that any future development considerations would be dependent on Housing Element adoption, zone change and general plan amendment ap provals, public hearings and any associated environmental analysis. Please fee l free to contact me if yo~ have any questions . Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager octavlos@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5234 City of Ran cho Palos Verd es 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www rovca.g'ov Ci t)' I-la/I is op1m to tile public during regulot bus ine.t~ hotirs. To help prevent the spread of COVID-J.9, visil'Ors an~ required to wearfl'ice coveri,19$ and adhere to phy.sical distancing guidelines. So me employees are working on ro totio,1 and may he wo rking rem ot ely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schetll1fe an appointment in advance by colling th e appropriate de partment and follow off posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit th e Staff Directory on the Ciry website. From: luisfcDenyirotechno .com <lu is@eoyirotechno-com> Sent: Thursday, Sep tember 2, 20213:53 PM To: Octavio Silva <.{&!f).Y.i.Q.S.@LP.~ffi&Q..\!> Cc: Ali Vahdanl <~Y..<1.b..Q;u1l@ .. mHlmumill~rn.l~.:.f:..P_m >;.~1~.91:lliQl.@Qf:!lif!1umsei~_r:nj.ki£l.)JJ} Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, I hope you had a nice week. Any updates to the Housing ordinance that we ca n use for some design exe rcisl~S? Thank you . Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEEO AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office· 1:1101 Washingtor, Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 South B;w Office · 1.16 South CHalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beac h, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 31.0/379-97 16 email: Juis@eovirotechno com we bsile : www e9virolechno cam From: luis@eovirotPcbno com Sent: Thursday, Augus t 26, 2021 7:58 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavinS(it1rpyca.goy> Cc: Ali Vahdan i <ava hdaoiQUpotirnum i.eismic-co rn>; asahabj(@ootimumse ismic com Subj ect: RE: 0 Clipper Road Definitely! Thank you . From: Octavio Silva fmajltq·OctavinS(rilrpvca gov] j 1 / Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:56 AM To: luis@envirotcchno.com Cc~ Ali Vahdani <<JvJhdJn![@optlmumseismic.com>; usahobi@optimumscismic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Good Morning Luis, Does a "Teams" meeting work for you? The CD Department has moved over to using Teams. Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager QC1il.llifil.@rll.V.C.il,gQJ( Phone -(310) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: _www.rpvca,gQ.V t_,_ City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of CO\IID<l.9, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employeP.'> ore worki"ng on rototion ancl mov he working remotely. ff you need to visit" City Hrill, please schedule an oppoir1trnent in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted dirf'ctions during your visit. Wafk-up.s are limited to one person ot a time. Pf ease note thnt our re~ponse to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of deportment' phone numln.>r!>, visit Uw Stoff Directory on the City website. From: !uis(WP.nvirot<~chno.corn <h.Jic.Gil{'nvirotechno.coin> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:30 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS(@rpvc,:u;.gy> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahd,rni@optimtJrnseismk.corn>;;:isahab!ffJoptimumseismic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road How about 4:00 PM Can you setup u zoom? From: Octavio Silva Lm.Q,U,tg,;.0.c.:X.iJ.Y..i.o.S.@ .. rn.Y..rQ.,gP.v.] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20214:25 PM To: hii:,;(h)pnvir.Qlili,:hn.Q.,,(.;Q!X! Cc: Ali Vahdani Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Late Monday works for me. Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1'.!D!'i\YJQY.Qilamt qi;;J?Y.iP$.(¢£fRYQ.21,9.QV_ (310) 544-5234 From: Jw..\.$.@.!i.n.Y..!I.G.t~~.hn.o.,.~.o.rn <.\.\J..i.~.@ .. ~.1.wJrn.t~.d1u.Ps.Q.m> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20213:42 PM To: Octavio Silva <.Q.rtfil1Q.2@:U:O~<!.£.QY> Cc: Ali Vahdani <.u.vahcfoni(jQ.QpJ[m..illl~ill:J.!£,.£Q.!JJ>; .S:1.s.ahabi(ri)qptirnurnsei.srnic.rnm Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road How about next wct=ik? From: Octavio Silva [rnailto:OctavioSifllrpvCc'lJ-'Ov] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20212:53 PM To: luis(Wpnvirotechno.com Cc: Ali Vahdani <ovahdani(Uloptimumseismic.com>; _illiah.:ibi@optimumscismic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, I have a 1pm available. Does that work? Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Communily Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 .V:.N!W.JP.Y..t;.Q,.,gQ.Y. 9Glsw.i.Q~{ilirn.Y..r.:.1J.,.9Q.Y._ (310) 544-5234 From: lu!s@cnvirotechno.corn <!uis@envirotcchno.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20211:21 PM To: Octavio Silva <.Q.~JBY.!.Q.$.(g': .. f.P.Y..~.Q.,RQY> Cc: Ali Vahdani <£DLi;1J1~.atli!0.'.ilD1irm1rn~eiq.nJ(,.GQffi>; a.~filliil2l&!QQ!imllinseismic.<.m.m Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Fdnta.stic. Can we do a Zoom at 3:00 PM? Thank you. Luh:; dt·J fl..1Draes, AIA-AS!IJ-LEEO AP l3D+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Qffice: 13101 Wafihing\on Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California H 90066 i\lli!h.!lfil'..(J.!fi!&; 116 SOLith Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beoch, California 90277 Coll: 310/488·8769 Tel: 310/379·9716 email: luis@env![Q_techno.corn website: www.envirotechno.com From: Octavio Silva (inailto:QctayloS(@rpvc~] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202112:41 PM To: !uis@cnvirotr!chno.corn Cc: Ali Vahdani qvahdanl1fi:Joptlrnumseismic.com>; asa!1abi(@optimwnsc?i.smic com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. We've been a bit tied up on preparing for last night's Housing Element Update Study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. I have some availability on Friday mid*afternoon to further discuss. Let me know what works best for you. As you know the site is currently zoned for single family residential and include SFR standards but as part of the Housing Element Update, we are looking for opportunity sites that may accommodate for more density. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Developmenl/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 octavios(CDrpvca.gov (310) 544-5234 From: luisfii)envirot?.chno.c.Qill <lui:-;(ii)enrir.u.tt'.chno.corn> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202111:01 AM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: All Vahdani <avahdani@optirm.1m:,t•ismlc.com>; asahabi@optimurnsr!isrnic.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Oct,wio, ! hope you are having a nice week. lam not sure you saw rny previous email. Can we schedule a time this week to discuss this project? Th<>nk you. Luis de Moraes, AIA-AS!D-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California .. 90066 South Bay Office; 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, Ci:llifornia 90277 Celi: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: J~1.i.$.@.!il.m'.lr9.t~9..!J.O.Q,,.\;.QrD. website: WWW,§:□Y..!rqt~~hD.9,.9..Q.m From: lui5KUcnv.irotec;hnq.cqn-i Sent: Monday, August 16, 20213:05 PM To: Octavio Silva <Qr10.Y..!.Q_$.@..r.P.Y.~il.:E.QY.> Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, ! hope you had a nice wrn1kend. The owner is contemplating a luxury condominium project for this site. Is this a viable option? !f so, can you provide mw with any applicable guidelines so I can prepare a preliminary sketch? Thank you, Luis do Mora0s. AIA-ASlD-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office: 13'!0·1 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angele!:\. Gc:1!ifornla -90066 ~Jli!,'..Qtfu;f;; 116 South Catdlina Avenue •··· Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 3'10/488-ffl6D To!: 310/379-9716 email: ll!ifilW .. JillYlrn!fili.hJlo.com website: www.envirotechno.com From: Octavio Silva lo1,-.i!tq.;_QctnvioS@.rpvG:1.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20218:28 AM To: lutili:l.JJ1...t)Virnted1no.cc1rn Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. I was out of the office last week and just getting back to my messages. I should have some availability later this week {Thursday or so). Please let me know what time works for you. Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenV Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.goy octavios(a)rpvca.gov (310) 544-5234 From: lui'.>11venviroterhno.rnrn<!uis@lenvirotechno.com> Sent: Monday, June 28, 20214:06 PM To: Octavio Silva <Oct-1vi0Sr@rovc!).J:.Q!l> Subject: O Clipper Road Hi Octavio, do you 15 minutes to go over this project? I can stop by any day morning this week. Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP 8D+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office· 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 ~~ 116 South Catalina Avenue-Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email:.I.Yi.§,@!;lDV.i[9t~9.b.tl9..,.QQffi website: '!f:t.M/,~.tW.if.9.1~9.h.!19..&9..m From: Sen t time: Oc la vio Sil\'!\ <OctavioS @rpvca.gov> 09/09/202 1 05:06:00 PM luis @e nvirotcc hn o.c om T o ; '( Ci:: Subjei:t: Ali Vahdani <ava hdani@o ptimumse ismi c.com>; asahah i@ op 1i1n11ms cismi c.com RE: O Clipper Road Attac hmenls: imagc00J.png imagdl02.png imagd)I J.png im agc0 12.png imagc0\3.png imagc0 14.png imagc0 15.j pg imagc0 \6.png imagi.:0 17.png imagc0l8.jpg im agc0 19.png imagc020 .png Hi Lu is, I hope all is w ell. Sor ry ab out t he dela yed response . Please see link t o the City's multi•family zoning se ction of the code https://library.municode.com/cairancho palos verdes/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld;::TJT 17ZQ ART IRED1 CH17.Q4MUMIRERMD L Thi s w ill be provi de bas ic deve lo pment standards incl udi ng setbacks, coverage et c .. Agai n, t his is all preliminary at t he mo ment as we are preparing to present draft housing sites t o the public in the weeks to come. Tha nks Octavio Sil va Deputy Director/Pla nni ng M anage r oc tavlos@r ovca .gov Phone -(310) 544-5234 □ c-,,~,..c,,,, __ ,,,__,, • ._., DOWNLOAD -~ ·~. ~ I (/ . ,....,.,.1,1,,..,,.,.,. .. s, .. , ...... c.-1.Pl,,y City of Rancho Palos Verd es 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Ra ncho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www rnvca,gov r•1,4MH City Holl is open to th e public during regular business houts. To help prevent the spread of CO VID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical dis tancin g guidelines. Some employees are working on rota tion and may be working re motely. If you need to vis i t City Holl, please schedule an appoin tment in advance by calling th e appropriate departme nt and follow all pos t ed direc t io ns du ring yo ur vis it. Walk•ups are limited to one pe rson at a time. Pleme note that our resp onse to yovr inquiry could be de layed. For a li st of deportment phone numbers, visit the Slg~ 011 th e City websi,te. From : lu is@envirotechno.com <luis@envi rotechno .co m> Sent: Th ursday, Sep tember 9, 2021 8:49 AM To : Octavio Silva <0ctav1oS@ rpvca.g ov> Cc : All Vahdanl <avahdani@optimumseismic.com>; asahabi @opti mu mse ismi c.com Subj ect: RE : 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, Can you give us a bit more direct ion? On your earlier ema il did you say 6~12 units may be all owed ? Please give us more details so I can sketch out some prelimi nary con cep ts . Thank you, Lu is de Mor1;,1e!:1. AIA•AS ID •LE ED AP BD+C Principal ENV IROTECHNO ARCH IT EC TU RE, INC. Wes tside Office· 13 101 WaS hin gton Bouleva rd #404 Los An ge les, Ca liforn ia • 90066 south Ba y Offjce: 116 South Catali na Avenue -Suite 102 Redo ndo Beac h, Cali fornia 90277 Ce ll: 310/488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email : !~~DYi~ll.Q&QJil webs ite: www enviro tec h □Q£Q.Jll From: Ms@eovirot echno.&QJI! Sent: Tue sday, Sept em ber 7, 2021 2:17 PM To : Octa vio Sliva <OctavioSlfiJrpyca sov> Cc : Ali Vahda ni <ava hd aoiQUooti rn urnseismic.com>;esahabiC@oatimumseismJc.com Subject : RE : 0 Cli ppe r Road Hi Octavio, Than k yo u fo r getting bac k to us. Can you give me a bi t more direc tion such as se t-ba cks, he ight res tri ct ion s and any desi gn cr ite ria so I ca n sketch som e opt ions ? Lu is de Morn lrn. AIA·ASlD•lEED AP BO+C Princ ipal EN VI ROT ECHNO ARC HITECTURE, INC. Wo stsjd o Offlc o· 13101 Washing ton Bou levard #404 Los Ange les, Ca lifr.1mia • 90066 South Bay Off/ce· 116 Sou th Cata lin a Aven lJ e -Suit e 1.02 Redondo Beac h, California 90277 Ce ll: 310/488-8769 Tai ; 310/379-971.6 email : luis@eo viro techno co m webs it e: www envirotechno com From : Octavio Sil va [rnai[to·QctavioScil)rpyra.goy ] Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 20218:54 AM To : luis(rJlenvirotech no.corn Cc : Ali Va hda ni <avah da ni (Woptirnumseisrnic.wm>; asahabi@opt imurnst~isrnic.rnrn Subj ect: RE : 0 Cli ppe r Roa d Hi Lu is , Sorry about the de layed response. As yo u may rec all durin g o ur mee ting, I me nt ioned t hat th e City is cu rrently In th e pro cess of updatin g th e Housin g Ele ment. As part of th is update, sta ff is conduct i ng a housi ng sites ana lysis to ide nt ify sites t hro ughout t he City to po t en tiall y accommodate add it ional hou sing units based on State req uirem ent s. St aff and the Housin g Elemen t con sultant are prepa ring a draft of the housing sites ana lys is, whi ch wil l be prese nt ed to the City Coun cil and Pl anning Co mm iss ion next mo nth fo r prelimlnary con side ration . j I Staff's initial assessment of the O Clipper Road property is as a Multi-Family (RM-8) zoned lot to allow 6-12 DU/AC. Please note that this is an draft assessment at this point and that any future development considerations would be dependent on Housing Element adoption, zone change and general plan amendment approvals, public hearings and any associated environmental anah4sis. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager .Q_,taJ/iQI_@.tJlVII!,.KOV Phone -(310) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: ~ruLQ.W DOWNLOAD 1il;; City Half is open to the public during regulat business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines, Some employees are ivorking on rotntion and may be working remotely. If you need t:o visit City Half, please schedule an appoint:ment in odvonce by calling the appropriate department and follow all po.sted directions during }'Ollr visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person 11t a Ume. Plea.i;e note that oar response to your inquiry <:ould be-de-fayed. For a l!::;t of depmt:mn1t phone numben~ visit: the Staff Directory on the City website. From: lui,;rii)envirptechno.corn <luis(@Ppvirntechno.com> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 20213:53 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdani1@optirnumsC'.!ismlc.cqm>; r1s.ahabi@optlmumseismic.£Qill Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, I hope you had a nice week. Any updates to the Housing ordinance that we can use for some design exercises? Thank you. Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-1..EED AP BD·tC Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Westside Office; 13101 Was!1ington Boulevard #404 Los Angelos, California .. 90066 ~JJ!!LBayOffice: 116 South Catalina Avenue-Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 3101488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: J~).$,@§.D.Y!rnt~.Q.b.f.lQ.,.{;QD:1 website: Y✓.WW.,.e:nv..!rn.l@.Q.h.O.Q,.Y.Qn:1 From: l1!.i.i(Zi>envi rot1~c hnq.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:58 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavipS(Wrpvca.gqv> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdanl@optimumscismic.com>; as<1hc'.lbi{Woptimum~-cismlc.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Definitely! Thank you. From: Octavio Silva Lm.0.!Jtq;,Q..~1~1.Y.lQ.$.@ .. rn.v..~.8.,£.QYJ Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:56 AM To: ~Q.'.!ill.Q.t~!wo,com Cc: Ali Vahdani <Jvahdani«~1optlnuuns~.b.m.ic.corn>; asah9bi(&)optirnurnseisr11Ls;...i,;nm Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Good Morning Luis, Does a "Teams" meeting work for you? The CD Department has moved over to using Teams. Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager octavios@rpvca.gov Phone• {310) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov DOWNLOAD 1il;; Citv Uall i.s open to the public during regular bvsiness hours. To help prevent the spread of' COVID-19, visitors are required to wear.face coverings and adhere to physical distancing 9uideffne5. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely, If you need to visit City Uafl, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all po5ted directions during your visit. Walk •ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed, For a list of department phone numbers, visit th2 ~..tgff..Q.iL~rt.QIY. on the City web5ite. From: .l.ul.? .. @ .. Q.!lV..!.r.2.t~.~hD.Q.,.i;.Q.rn <JwJ.s.@.¼.Q"!l.\rnlP..i;.!J.0.9..,J,;.Qrn> Sent: Thursday, August 26 1 2021 7:30 AM To: Octavio Silva <Qr~tavio_,S@~py~.:'l .. gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <~.b.Q.ll..o.i..@.mrtim!JJD.illsrnic.coin>; .ii:911;;1bi(n)9pt.lm.illn~.~rn!C.c.QIL) Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road How about· 4:00 PM C:in you setup c:1 zoom? From: Octavio Silva [rn~-1i!to:OctrJ0.QSjil(pVCrJ~] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20214:25 PM To: lub(i"::i)eoviroh~chno.corn Cc: Ali Vahdani <ayahdani(Woplimumseismic.corn>; asah,:ibi[fVoptimumsetsrnic.com Sub.~~ct: RE: 0 Clipper Road late Monday works for me. Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www .rpvca.gov octavlos(QJrpvc..a. qoy (310) 544-5234 From: luh~~)epvirnt.echno..£QJ.t1 <luis(11lenviroted100.corn> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20213:42 PM To: Octavio Silva <()ct;;1vioS(&)rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahd<mi(@optimurnsPismlc.com>i asahilbi@optimumseisrnlC.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road How about next week'? From: Octavio Silva [m.Q.UtQ.;.Q_i;:J;;i.Y.JQ.$..@ . .mv.~.9.,gQ,Y] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 2:53 PM To: .l.~1.!.~ .. @ .. g.ny/r..9..t.~.f.bJJ.Q,.G.Q.rD. Cc: Ali Vahdani <..aY.ah.dillll@.optimumseismi~..mm>; .i<Jiiill.filJ.l.[,~o~tilllk.J.:Qm Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, I have a 1pm available. Does that work? Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 ':t.'IJYJ..w.rpvca,g.Q)! nkfilyios(Ci)rp_y..@,..(lQY.. (310) 544-5234 From: luis(lllpnvirotecb.o.o.rn <JJJ.is(ive1wiro.iWl!J..Q.,£.Qlil> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 20211:21 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctayioS6l1rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdclrliQilqptimmn~f~isrnic.corn>; d'>al1abifi>optirnurnspisrnlc.corn Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Fantastic. Can we do a Zoom at 3:00 PM? Thank VOLL Luis de Moreles. AIA-ASlD-LEED AP BD+C Princ;ipa! ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, INC. Wostsido Qfflcq: i3'10·1 Washington Boulevard #404 Los An9eles, California -~)006l1 South Bay Office· 116 South Catalina Avenue ····Suite 10'2 Redondo Beach, C:1Jifornia 90277 Cell: 3'10/488-fr/69 Tel: 310/379 .. 9716 email: luis@enyirotechno.com website: www.envirotechno.com From: Octavio Silva lt.lli!U10:Oct.avioS(fflrpvc;1,gQV] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202112:41 PM To: !ui~;(i.ilenvirotechno.corn Cc: Ali Vahdani <avahdani(@optimurnsl=:ismic.corn>; asahabi@optirnumst~ismlc.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. We've been a bit tied up on preparing for last night's Housing Element Update Study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. I have some availability on Friday mid-afternoon to further discuss. Let me know what works best for you. As you know the site is currently zoned for single family residential and include SFR standards but as part of the Housing Element Update, we are looking for opportunity sites that may accommodate for more density. Thank you, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 wvvw.rpvca.gov QQIBYj9£@.rp~.99y_ (310) 544-5234 From: 1l-1h.@JinYlr.Q.t~lillQ.£.Qill <J.pis6llenvirot~1;.b.(1_g.,_(DJ'.n> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 202111:01 AM To: Octavio Silva <9J:1ll!J.QS..(~~~ZQ1> Cc: Ali Vahdani <.iiVJ}..b.Qlill.i.@,,Q.PJ.i.rr1UIT.l.1i£b',ro.i.Ll.QJil>; .211.a.b.a.hJ@o..!Jli.mj1m<;elsrni~1 Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road HI pctavio, ! hope you are having a nice weEik. ! ;;im not sure you saw my previous email. Can we schedule a time this week to discuss this project? Thank you. Luis de Morncs, AIA-ASID-LEED AP BD+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, ING. YY.,cstsidc Office: 13101 WashinfJton Boulevard #404 Los An_ge!es, Californici -90066 South Bfly Office: 116 So1.1th Catalina Avenue-Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 3101488-8769 Toi: 310/379·9716 email: !l..!ill.@envirote~ website: WNW eovirotechno com From: !qis(iuenvirot~chno,com Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 3:05 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS(Wrpvca.gqv> Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Oct~v·io, I hope you had a nice weekend. The owner is contemplating a luxury condominium project for this site. Is this a viable option? If so, can you provide mw with any applicable guidelines sol cm prepare a preliminary sketch? Thank you, Luis de Moraes, AIA-AS!D-1..EED AP 8D-~C Principal ENVIROTEGHNO ARCHITECTURE, ING. Westside Office: 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California .. 90066 South Bay Office: 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, Ca!iforni;;i 90277 Cell: 3101488-8769 Tel: 310/37!.l-9716 email:.!.ui.~@.e.~.b.uQ.mm website: WWW envirotechno&QDJ From: Octavio Silva [m;:iilto:Oc.tt1vi0S@rpvc.a.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20218:28 AM To:.1.MJ.~_.@g.r.nr.lrn1G.\;;.b..!:l.Q.,.~.Q.m Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Road Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. I was out of the office last week and just getting back to my messages. I should have some availability later this week (Thursday or so). Please let me know what time works for you, Thanks Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development/ Planning Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov .QJ.:_tavios@nwca. qov_ (310) 544-5234 From: !ui'.)Peovirotechno,com <~envirotechno.CQJ1!> Sent: Monday, June 28 1 20214:06 PM To: Octavio Silva <O(tavipS(ir)rpvca.gov> Subject: 0 Clipper Road Hi Octavio, do you 15 minutes to go over this project? I can stop by any day morning this week. Luis de Moraes, AIA-ASID-LEED AP 8D+C Principal ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTURE, ING. Westside Office· 13101 Washington Boulevard #404 Los Angeles, California -90066 South Ba~ 116 South Catalina Avenue -Suite 102 Redondo Beach, California 90277 Cell: 3101488-8769 Tel: 310/379-9716 email: ~£QJechno.com website: www.&nvir~ From: 'ien 1 limc: Tu: Subject: AIIH C'hmcnts: Octavio Silv11 <Oc 1avi0S@rpvca.gov> 10/21 /202 1 01:51 :02 PM Ken Ruka\·ina <kruka,,ina@rpvca.gov> FW: Clipper Road• Site Deve lopm ent S1udies for Review imageO0l.jpg image002.jpg imageOOJ .p ng i1m1ge005.png imagc-006.png imagc007.png image008.png I ·--------------··---------------------------------Hi Ken, Is this meeting request related to the meeting tha t you schedu led next week for O Clipper Road ? Octavio Si lva Deputy Director/Planning Manager octavlos@rovca,gov Phone -(310) 544-5234 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verde s, CA 90275 Website: www rovca,gov r•1•1-a Cit:y Hall is open to the public during regc1lar business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVI0-19, visitors are reqvired to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines , Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Holl, please schedule an appointment in advance by c:alflng the appropriate department and follow afl posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that 01,r response to your inquiry could be delayed, For a list of department phone nCJmbers, visit the £lilf~ 011 thf City website. From : Greg Bu cilla <greg@bg-architecture .com> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 202112:24 PM To: Oct avio Silva <OctavioS@ rp vca .gov>; Ali Va hdani <ava hda ni @o ptimumse ism ic.com> Cc: Greg Bucilla <greg@bg-architecture.com> Subject: Clippe r Road• Site Development Studies for Review es Go od Afternoon Octavio - My name iS Gre g Bu ci ll a -Principal/ Owner of BGA Planning and Architecture, and am working w it h All Vahdan l of OPTIM UM SEISMIC . We are cu rrent ly engage d in prov id ing Site Deve lopment Studies -2 Housing Al t ernatives on t he Clip pe r Road Site (R M-12 ) from Tab le 33: Si t e# 5 Housing Sites In ventory List. It w as recom mended t o have a zoo m ca ll wit h yo u to review the 2 Housing Alternatives for viab ili ty in meeti ng the housing eleme nt obj ective s so that Ali Vahda ni and his team co uld determi ne ho w to move fo r wa rd on one site or the other. Ca n yo u ple ase advis e on a time for a zoom call t hi s next week ......... preferably Tuesday Or Wednesday afte rn oon ........... an d if so, I will forwa rd a li nk fo r th is zoom call . Thank you for your time ......... and look forward to receiving info on yo ur ava ilab ility. this next week. t/""! (j. !J®;ffa Ill II/ii rlfi1"!. #!fl/ If PII -/1,,t,,,.;, p,.,,.,.,.t,, ,1,.,, Preside nt I Prin cipal Office 949.851.9080 Direct 949.838.7019 19782 MacAI1hur Blvd. Su it e 270 Irvine, CA 92612 i=tll ~:~~~r~~.~ .~:~~P..~!:,:?1i~~~~R~,:~ Cel!t<ati1<j• ?O 'reaN I j I From: Sent time: To: Cc: Subject: Ali Vahdani <av ahdani @optimumseismic.com> 10/21/2021 02:03:02 PM Greg Bucilla <greg@ bg-architecture.com> octavios@rp vca .gov; Ali Sahabi <asahabi@optimumseismic.com>: Alice Wong <awong@optimumseismic.com>; Narek Ekmekjyan <narek @optimumseismic.com>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Luis De Moraes <luis@ envirot echno .com> Re: Clipper Road -Site Development Srudies for Review CAUTI O N: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Greg, Thank you for reaching out to the deputy director ofRPV planni ng de partment, Mr . Octavio Silva for requesting a zoom call. As I men tioned to yo u yesterday, Th e other architect. Mr. Luis De Moraes, we are working with in the pre limin ary phase already ananged for a zoom call next Tuesd ay aftern oon with Octavio and The director of planning to discuss the 0 Clipp er project. Obvious ly next Tuesday is not a possibility for a zoom call with Oc tav io and the director with you. Octav io has been very generous with his time and giv ing us his attention for responding to our questions when we needed. Hopefully he will accom modate our request to give us a time that fits his schedule as well as the director 's schedule so you can present your thoughts in reference to 0 Clipper. My tea m and I are grateful to the RPV planing department for their continued cooperation on this proj ect. Our goal is to ; develop a project that we will be proud of in terms by of design and providing additional residential units for the beautiful city of RPV. Sincerely, Ali Vah dani Sent from my iPhone On Oct 21, 2021, at 12 :24 PM, Greg Bucilla <greg@bg-architecture.com> wrote: Good Afternoon Octavio - My name is Greg Bucilla -Principal/ Owner of BGA Planning and Architecture, and am working with Ali Vahdani of OPTIMUM SEISMIC. We are current ly engaged in providing Site Development Studies -2 Housing Alternatives on the Clipper Road Site (RM-12) from Table 33: Site# 5 Housing Sites Inventory List. It was recommended to have a zoom ca ll with you to review the 2 Housing Alternatives for viability in meeting the housing element objectives so that Ali Vahdani and his team could determine how to move forward on one site or the other. Can you please advise on a time for a zoom cal l this next week ......... preferably Tuesday Or Wednesday afternoon ........... and if so, I will forward a link for this zoom call. Thank you for your time .......... and look forward to receiving info on your availability. this next week. tfl"ej rf. 8ueifla Ill President I Principal Office 949.851.9080 Direct 949.838.7019 19782 MacArthur Blvd . Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 greg@bg-a rch itecture.com J:filP.://www .bg-archite cture.com <image00 l .jpg> I <image002.jpg> 062100370-NFH-0370 C1LIFORNIA FORM 100 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS COVER PAGE Date Initial Received FJ/mg OfficiJI On!/ E-Filed 01/13/2022 11 :45:01 Please type or print in ink. NAME OF FILER Cruikshank, John 1. Office, Agency, or Court Agency Name (Do not use acronyms) City of Rancho Palos Verdes (LAST) Division, Board, Department, District, if applicable Administrative A Public Document (FIRST) Your Position City Council Member Filing ID: 201670109 (MIDDLE) ► If filing for multiple positions, list below or on an attachment. (Do not use acronyms) Agency: ___________________ _ Position: ________________ _ 2. Jurisdiction of Office (Check at least one box) □state D Judge, Retired Judge, Pro Tern Judge, or Court Commissioner (Statewide Jurisdiction) D Multi-County ________________ _ D County of _______________ _ [Kl City of __ R_a_nc_h_o_P_al_o_s_Ve_r_d_e_s ________ _ D Other ________________ _ 3. Type of Statement (Check at least one box) [Kl Annual:The period covered is January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. -or- The period covered is _ __J___j __ , through December 31, 2021. D Assuming Office: Pale assumed ____/ _ __/ __ D Leaving Office: Date Left __ /____/ __ (Check one circle) 0 The period covered is January 1, 2021 through the date of leaving office. O The period covered is ___J___J __ , through the date of leaving office. D Candidate:Date of Election _____ _ and office sought, if different than Part 1: ________________ _ 4. Schedule Summary (must complete) ► Total number of pages including this cover page: ___ s _ Schedules attached [Kl Schedule A-1 • Investments -schedule attached [K] Schedule A-2 • Investments -schedule attached D Schedule B -Real Property -schedule attached -or- □ None • No reportable interests on any schedule 5. Verification MAILING ADDRESS STREET (Business or Agency Address Recommended -Public Document) DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER CITY [K] Schedule C • Income, Loans, & Business Positions -schedule attached [K] Schedule D • Income -Gifts -schedule attached D Schedule E • Income -Gifts -Travel Payments -schedule attached STATE ZIP CODE Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 E-MAIL ADDRESS I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement. I have reviewed this statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contairied herein and in any attached schedules is true and complete. I acknowledge this is a public document. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date Signed 0l/13/2022 (month, day, year) Signature John Cruikshank (Fife the originally signed paper statement with your fifing official.) FPPC Form 700 • Cover Page (2021/2022) advice@fppc.ca.gov • 866-275-3772 • www.fppc.ca.gov 062100370-NFH-0370 SCHEDULE A-1 Investments CALIFORNIA FORM 7 0 0 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Stocks, Bonds, and Other Interests (Ownership Interest is Less Than 10%) Investments must be itemized. Name Cruikshank John Do not attach brokerage or financial statements. ► NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY Vanguard Group, Inc. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS Fund Management FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 [8J $100,001 -$1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT 0 $10,001 -$100,000 D Over $1,000,000 0 Stock [ill Other _I_RA ___________ _ (Describe) D Partnership O Income Received of $0 -$499 0 Income Received of $500 or More (Report on Schedule CJ IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: _J__j_2j_ __J _ _j-1_1_ ACQUIRED DISPOSED ► NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 Over $1,000,000 0 Stock O Other ____________ _ (Describe) 0 Partnership O Income Received of $0 -$499 0 Income Received of $500 or More (Report on Schedule CJ IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: _j__j_lj_ ___J___j_ll_ ACQUIRED DISPOSED ► NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 Over $1,000,000 D Stock O Other ____________ _ (Describe) 0 Partnership O Income Received of $0 -$499 0 Income Received of $500 or More (Report on Schedule CJ IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: __J__J_lj_ ___J___J_lj_ ACQUIRED DISPOSED -------------------------► NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT 0 $10,001 -$100,000 D Over $1,000,000 D Stock D Other ____________ _ (Describe) D Partnership O Income Received of $0 -$499 O Income Received of $500 or More (Report on Schedule C) IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: __J_J_ll_ ___j _ _j_11_ ACQUIRED DISPOSED ► NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 Over $1,000,000 D Stock O Other ____________ _ (Describe) 0 Partnership O Income Received of $0 -$499 0 Income Received of $500 or More (Report on Schedule CJ IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: __J__J_lj_ ___j___j_ll_ ACQUIRED DISPOSED ► NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 Over $1,000,000 D Stock O Other ____________ _ (Describe) 0 Partnership O Income Received of $0 -$499 O Income Received of $500 or More (Report on Schedule C) IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: __J__J.11_ ___j___j_ll_ ACQUIRED DISPOSED Comments: --------------------------------------------- FPPC Form 700 -Schedule A-1 (2021/2022) advice@fppc.ca.gov • 866-275-3772 • www.fppc.ca.gov 062100370-NFH-0370 SCHEDULE A-2 Investments, Income, and Assets of Business Entities/Trusts (Ownership Interest is 10% or Greater) CALIFORNIAFORM 700 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Name Cruikshank, John ► 1. BUSINESS ENTITY OR TRUST The Cruikshank Family Trust Name Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Address (Business Address Acceptable) Check one Ix] Trust, go to 2 D Business Entity, complete the box, then go to 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $0 -$1,999 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 [_] Over $1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: _1_121 ACQUIRED DISPOSED D Partnership D Sole Proprietorship D _________ _ Other YOUR BUSINESS POSITION _______________ _ ► 2. IDENTIFY THE GROSS INCOME RECEIVED (INCLUDE YOUR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE GROSS INCOME IQ THE ENTITY/TRUST) □ $0 -$499 [] $500 -$1,000 IBJ $1,001 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 OVER $100,000 ► 3. LIST THE NAME OF EACH REPORTABLE SINGLE SOURCE OF INCOME OF $10,000 OR MORE (Attach a separate sheet If necessary.) IBJ None or D Names listed below ► 4. INVESTMENTS ANO INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY HELD OR LEASED .BY THE BUSINESS ENTITY OR TRUST Check one box: 0 INVESTMENT 0 REAL PROPERTY Name of Business Entity, if Investment, QI Assessor's Parcel Number or Street Address of Real Property Description of Business Activity QI City or Other Precise Location of Real Property FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 0 Over $1,000,000 NATURE OF INTEREST 0 Property Ownership/Deed of Trust IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: _/_;21 _/_/21 ACQUIRED DISPOSED D Stock D Partnership D Leasehold 0 Ot11er __________ _ Yrs. remaining 0 Ct1eck box if additional schedules reporting investments or real property are attached ► 1. BUSINESS ENTITY OR TRUST Name Address (Business Address Acceptable) Check one D Trust, go to 2 D Business Entity, complete the box, then go to 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $0 -$1,999 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 D Over $1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: _1__;21 _/_/2.1 ACQUIRED DISPOSED 0 Partnership O Sole Proprietorship O _________ _ Other YOUR BUSINESS POSITION---------------- ► 2. IDENTIFY THE GROSS INCOME RECEIVED (INCLUDE YOUR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE GROSS INCOME TO THE ENTITY/TRUST) 0 $0 -$499 0 $500 -$1,000 0 $1,001 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 OVER $100,000 ► 3. LIST THE NAME OF EACH REPORTABLE SINGLE SOURCE OF INCOME OF $10,000 OR MORE (Attach a separate shoot if necessary.) 0None or 0 Names listed below ► 4. INVESTMENTS AND INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY HELD OR LEASED .BY THE BUSINESS ENTITY OR TRUST Check one box: 0 INVESTMENT 0 REAL PROPERTY Name of Business Entity, if Investment, QI Assessor's Parcel Number or Street Address of Real Property Description of Business Activity QI City or Other Precise Location of Real Property FAIR MARKET VALUE 0 $2,000 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 $100,001 -$1,000,000 D Over $1,000,000 NATURE OF INTEREST 0 Property Ownership/Deed of Trust IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: _/_J21 _/_121 ACQUIRED DISPOSED D Stock D Partnership 0 Leasehold D Other __________ _ Yrs. remaining 0 Check box if additional schedules reporting investments or real property are attached Comments: _________________________ _ FPPC Form 700 -Schedule A-2 (2021l2022) advice@fppc.ca.gov • 866-275-3772 • www.fppc.ctgov 062100370-NFH-0370 SCHEDULE C Income, Loans, & Business Positions CALIFORNIA FORM 7 0 0 FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSIO~ Name (Other than Gifts and Travel Payments) Cruikshank, John ► 1. INCOME RECEIVED ► 1. INCOME RECEIVED NAME OF SOURCE OF INCOME Ken Okamoto & Associates, Inc. ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) San Pedro CA 90731 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE Structural Engineering YOUR BUSINESS POSITION President & CEO GROSS INCOME RECEIVED 0 $500 -$1,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 D No Income -Business Position Only 0 $1,001 -$10,000 IBJ OVER $100,000 CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED ITT Salary D Spouse's or registered domestic partner's income (For self-employed use Schedule A-2.) D Partnership (Less than 10% ownership. For 10% or greater use Schedule A-2.) D Sale of (Real prope,ty, car, boat, etc.) D Loan repayment D Commission or D Rental Income, /isl each source of $10.000 or more {Describe} D Other ___________________ _ {Describe) ► 2. LOANS RECEIVED OR OUTSTANDING DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD NAME OF SOURCE OF INCOME JMC2 ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) San Pedro, CA 90731 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE Civil Engineering YOUR BUSINESS POSITION President & CEO GROSS INCOME RECEIVED 0 $500 -$1,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 D No Income -Business Position Only 0 $1,001 -$10,000 IBJ OVER $100,000 CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED ITT Salary D Spouse's or registered domestic partner's income (For self-employed use Schedule A-2.) D Partnership (Less than 10% ownership. For 10% or greater use Schedule A-2.) D Sale of (Real property, car, boat, etc.) D Loan repayment D Commission or D Rental Income, list each source of $10.000 or more {Describe) D Other-------------------- {Describe) * You are not required to report loans from a commercial lending institution, or any indebtedness created as part Qf a retail installment or credit card transaction, made in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to your official status. Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's regular course of business must be disclosed as follows: NAME OF LENDER* ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF LENDER HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD 0 $500 -$1,000 0 $1,001 -$10,000 0 $10,001 -$100,000 0 OVER $100,000 Comments: INTEREST RATE TERM (Months/Years) _____ % D None SECURITY FOR LOAN D None D Personal residence D Real Property _________________ _ Street address City D Guarantor __________________ _ D Other ____________________ _ (Describe) FPPC Form 700 Schedule C (2021/~022) advice@fppc.ca.gov • 866-275-3772 • www.fppc.ca.gov 062100370-NFH-0370 CALIFORNIA FORM 7 0 0 SCHEDULED Income -Gifts FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSIC)N Name ► NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym) Pat Wilson ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) Wilmington, CA 90744 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) JJ}_J -1!lJ .21..._ $, __ 3~5~0~-~0-'-0 Chargers game ticket __ j_j__ $ ___ _ _ _j __ /__ $ ___ _ ► NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym) Optimum Seismic ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) Vernon CA 90058 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE Seismic'Retrofit Construction DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) ...J.2._j__fil_}.21..__ $, __ ~5-5~0~0 SEASC Breakfast __J__J __ $ ___ _ __ / __ /__ $ ___ _ ► NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym) ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) __J__J _ __J__J __ $ ___ _ __J__J __ $ ___ _ Cruikshank, John ► NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym) Steve Rochman ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) Los Angeles, CA 90015 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE _l!lJ_]JJ~ $ ___ 1_8 o_. o_o __} __ /__ $ ___ _ __} __ / __ $ ___ _ ► NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym) David Bradle DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) Laker game ticket ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE __J__j __ $ ___ _ __J__J __ $ ___ _ ► NAME OF SOURCE (Not an Acronym) ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) USC Basketball ticket and parking BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF SOURCE DATE (mm/dd/yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) __J__J __ $ ___ _ __J__J __ $, ___ _ Comments: --------------------------------------------- FPPC Form 700 Schedule D (2021/~022) advice@fppc.ca.gov • 866-275-3772 • www.fppc.ca.gov ...... """ Table 33: Housing Sites Inventory Li st (page 1 of 2) Potential RHN4 Suitabijny Site# APN Parcel Infrastructure %of Site Potential Rezone Maximum Res. Max Size Ac. Comment AvaUabkt? Developable toWhatZone Density (dulac) Units low Moderate Above Physical Address Income In come Moderate Income 1 7550-020-013 0.29 &isling Packing Lat for Comrercial Yes 100% Uses Mxed Use 25 7 0 0 7 29023 S. Western Ave. 2 7557--030-03 1 0.33 Existing Parking Let for Coirm,n:ial Yes 100% U;es Mxed Use 12 3 0 0 3 29229 S. Western Ave. 3 7557-039-017 0.37 Adiacenl lo Existing Corrmercial Yes 67% MxedUse 15 11 11 0 0 29601 S. Western Ave. Boildinc 4 7564-024-001 3.71 Vacant tisitulional Zoned Lat Yes 100% RM-12 12 44 0 0 44 No Assigned Address Ada""'""' to MIMrOUnt U'liversitv ( 5) 7573-006-024 ({_1 .56) Vacant hstituallonal lot Yes 69% RM-12 12 12 0 0 \1 2') No Assigned Addfess ·- 6 7578-002-011 6.89 Vacant Rtasidentiol and Open Space lot Yes 93"/o RS-5 4 25 0 0 25 No Assigned Address 7 7586-028-007 0.41 Adjacent to Existing Rofessional/ Yes 20% Mxed Use 45 3 3 0 0 Na Assigned Address Office ~ ,;!,Inn & Parkino 8 7586-028-009 0.65 Adjaceol to Existing Bank Building & Yes 100% MxedUse 45 29 29 0 0 No Assigned Address IP,,,t,i.v, 9 7586-028-015 1.44 A<fiacenl to Existing A-ofessional I Yes 15'/o Of foe Buil<f,no & Par•""' Mxed Use 45 9 9 0 0 550 Siver Spur Rd . Adjacenl to Existilg A-ofessionaUOOice 10 7586-028-020 1.52 Building & Parki<1g Yes 32% Mxed Use 45. 21 21 0 0 500 Sijver SpUT Fu!. 11 7557-031-012 0.68 Existing Corrrnercl al Buldr>g Yes 82% Mixec Use 12 6 0 0 6 29317 S. Western 12 7557-039-005 0.55 Existing Corrn>ercial 8ui'<fing Yes 92% MxedUse 45 22 22 0 0 29505 S. Western 13 7557-039-006 0.23 &isling Fl'ofessional/ Office Building & Yes 80% Parimo Mxed Use 45 8 8 0 0 29519 S. Western 14 7557-039-018 0.77 Existing A'ofess;:,oa{ / Office Bu,ldilg & Yes 67% Parki'lo Mxed\Jsc 45 23 23 0 0 29529 S. Western 15 7586--028-002 0.83 Existing Fl'ofessional / ortice Building & Yes 68% Parl<JlQ MxedUso 45 25 25 0 0 580 Silvar Spur Rd. 16 7586-028-008 Q.53 Existing Frofessional/Office Buil:!ing & Par\<ino Yos 73% 11/ixedUse 45 17 17 0 0 430 Siver Spur Rd. 17 7586-028-016 0.87 Existing Fl'ofesslanal/Office Building & Yes 49% Mxed Use 45 19 19 0 0 550 Silver Spur Rd. Parkino 18 7 444-001-003 4.09 Existing Comrercial BU!ldings Yes 100°/111 Mxedllse 25 102 0 0 102 28500 S. Western Ave. 19 7444-001-004 • 0.92 Existing Corrrnercia! Buil<f,ng Yes 100% MxedUsc 25 23 0 0 23 28300 S. Western Ave_ 20 7444..001-()05 0.93 Exis ting Coornercial Buiklings Yes 100% MxedUse 25 23 a 0 23 28326 S. Western Ave. 21 7 445-005-002 0.56 Existing Comrercial Buildings Yes 100% MxedUse 45 25 25 0 0 28900 S. Western Ave. 22 7550-009-024 2.35 Existing Corrrmrcial Buildings Yes 100% MxedUse 25 58 0 0 SB 28619 S. Western Avo. 23 7550-020-015 0.41 Existing Corrrrerica! Builorng Yes 100% MxedUse 12 4 0 0 4 29051 S. Western 24 7557-030-013 0.65 Existing Corrrrercial Bui,Jing Yes 100¾ Mxed Use 12 7 0 0 7 29105 S. Western 25 7557-030-032 0.45 Existing Conrnercial Buiding Yes 91% Mxed Use 12 4 0 C 4 29125 S. Western 26 7557-030-034 0.26 Exisling Cornrercial Buik!ing Yes 100% MxectUse 12 3 0 0 3 29215 S. Western 27 755?~03()..035 0.44 Existing Corrmercial Building Yes 100% Mx99 Use 12 5 0 0 5 29229 S. Wesletn . .......... ..~.., . 158 Table 33: Housing Sites Inventory List (page 2 of 2 Parcel Infrastructure %of Site Potential Rezone Maximum Res. Max Potenlial RHNA Suitability Site ff APN Size Ac. Comm-ent AvaBable? Oeve lopable to \IVhat Zone Oe.,slty {dula~} Physical Address Units Low Moderate AbQVe tncome Income Moderate 28 7557-031.010 0.18 Existing Conm,rcial Building Yes 91% MxedUse 12 1 0 0 1 29413 S. Western 29 7557-031-013 0.36 Existing Corrmercia! Buiding Yes 100% MxedUse 12 4 0 0 4 29403 S. Western 30 7557-031-014 0.53 Exisling Conrnercial Buidlng Yes 88% Mixed Use 12 5 0 0 5 29409 S. Westem 31 7557-039-011 0.43 Existing Conmercial Building Yes 77% MxedlJsa 45 15 15 0 0 29619 S. Western 32 7557-039--014 0.77 Exisling Comrercial Building Yes 72%, Mxed Use 45 24 24 0 0 29601 s. Western 33 7557-039-020 0.60 Existing Comrerical Bulding Yes 100% MxedlJse 45 27 27 0 0 29701 S. Western 34 7561.001-002 0.13 Exisling Comretcial Building Yes 100% MiXed Use 20 2 0 0 2 40 Mraleste Raza :is 7561-001-003 0.11 Existing Conrnercial Building Yes 100% Mxed\Jse 20 2 0 0 2 29 Mraleste Raza 36 7561-001-013 0.26 Existing Corrmercla! Buiding Yes 100% Mxed Use 20 5 0 0 5 4007 Mralesto Dr. 37 7561-001-014 0.20 Exisling COmrrercial Building Yes 100% MxedUse 20 4 0 0 4 16 Mra]esto Raza 38 7561-001-900 0.11 Existing Comrnrcial Building Yes 100% Mxed Use 20 2 0 0 2 No Assigned Address 39 7573-001-DU 3.85 Existing Comrercial BtJlding Yes 100% Mxcdllse 12 46 0 0 46 31098 Hawthorne Blvd. 40 7573-001-015 2.52 Existing °"1n'ercial Building Yes 100% MxedtJse 12 30 0 0 30 31100Hawlhorne Blvd. 41 7573-002-014 39.75 Existing lns1i!Utional Lot (Salvalion A=•' Ye5 32% Mixed Use 12 152 0 0 152 30840 Hawthorne Blvd. 42 7586--02~10 0.43 Exisling A"ofessional I Office Building & Yes 100% Mxedl!se 45 19 19 0 0 450 Silver Spur Rd. P-dM"' 43 7588-015-008 4.52 Exisfing Retail I Marl<at Yes 11% MxedUse 22 16 0 0 16 30019 Hawthorne Blvd. 44 7550-020-012 0.46 Existing COnmercial Building Yes 67% Mxed Use 25 7 0 0 7 29019 S. Western 45 7550-020-014 0.30 Existing Comrercial 8Uiding Yes '69% Mixed Use 25 5 0 0 5 29035 s. Western 46 7557-030-033 0.30 8.isting COmmrcia! Buikfng Yes 87% Mxed Use 12 3 0 0 3 29211 S. Western 47 7550-019-018 11.15 Existing IV'ulti-Level Comnerieat Building Yes 100% Mxed Use :io 334 334 0 0 28821 S. Western Pesldential Lot with Agriculture, Golf-6001 Pabs Verdes Drive 48 7572-012-024 16.84 ccurse and Btent Genier (Ft>int View Yes 100% RS-5 4 67 0 0 67 South Property) 49 7572-012,028 36.18 Vacant Residenta! Lot (Fbinl View Yes 100% RM-6 6 217 0 0 217 6001 Palos Verdes Oriv<> Pronerlvl Soulh 50 7581-023-037 27.48 Vacant Residential Lot (Aurrtree Prooertv) None 100% RS-5 4 109 0 0 109 No Assigned Ack!ress '--'..;_ 159 ----. --...,_ Table 33: Hous ing Sites Inventory List (page 1 of 2) PotentiaJ RHNA Suitability Parcel Infrastructure %of Site Current Current GP Potantlal Roz oM Maximum Res . Max Sito# APN Size Ac. Comment AY3.ilable? D&vutopabta Zoning Donslty(du/ae) L ow Moderato Abow Physical Address Designation to Whal Zone Units Income Income Moderate hlcon,e 1 7550-020-013 Q.29 Existing Parking lot for Comrercial Yes 100% CG Uses <Commrcial CR MxedllsP. 25 7 <Comn,{cial 0 0 7 29023 S. ~es.tern A ve . 2 7557-030--031 0.33 Existing Parl<ing La.for Conm,,-ciaf Yos 100% CG CR Mx:cd Use 12 0 0 3 29229 S. Western A YO , Uses lComrercial IConm,rclal 3 3 7557--03!!-017 0.37 Adjacent to 6cis\ng O>rm-erciat Yes 67% CG lluildina lCOrm-ercial CR llixodUse 45 11 rc:onm,,c;,1 11 0 0 29601 S. Western A ve. 4 7564-024-001 3.71 Vacant hshrtional Zalfld lot Vos 90% I E RM-6 NoAssl;lnedAddrcss Adalacent to """"'ITOUOI LhNt?rSlv lhstiulionafl lhstilutiooat 6 7!l 0 0 20 5 7573-006-024 1.56 V'""'nl 'RlosldootlOI lo( Yes -1l9'1, R,S-4 R2-4 RM-12 12 12 0 0 12 No Assigned Addres• 6 7578--002--011 6,89 Vecant Res0en1ialard Opon Space Yes 93% RS-A-5 Loi R<=1./S RS-5 4 25 0 0 25 fib Assigned Addres.'\ 7 7586--028-007 0-41 Ad},ccnt to Existing A-otessionall Yes :ZO% CP Office Buik!ino & Pa"""' 1eomre,-ro (X) MxadUse 45 /Cornrefcial 3 3 0 0 No Assigned Address 8 758&-028-009 0-65 Adjacent to Exmting Bonk Building & Yes 100% CP -IComn,rciaJ co MxedUse 45 29 /Conman;:faj 29 0 0 No Assigned Address 9 7586-028--015 1-44 Adjacent to E'xistng A-otess'°"3! I Yeo 15% CP co Mxedl.lse 45 9 9 0 0 550 Siver Spur Rd, Office Buik!ino & Pamno /Cormercial /Comrercial Adjocent to E><isting A-ofessJonal/O(flC8 O' co 10 7586-02&--020 1-52 8uil:!lng&Par!cing Yes 32:"k (COmmrcia! (O>m-nercinl MxedUse 45 21 21 0 0 500 Silver Spor Rd. A-ol css.,,,..1) omcc) 12 7557-03!1--00S 055 8cisting Conmlrcial &ilding Yes 92% CG (Comre<clal CR Mxedl.lse (Comrercial 45 22 22 0 0 29505 s. Western 13 7557--0~ 0,23 Existi,g A-ol'essional / Office Building & Yes 80% CG CR MxedU-.a 45 8 8 0 0 29519 S. Western IParl<ina /Comre<cial /Comrercial 14 7557--039--018 0,77 E'xistiog A-olessional I Office Bul!(!;ng & Yes b7% CG Rlr"""' /Corrrrercial CR MxedUse /Comrercial 45 23 23 0 0 29529 S, Western 15 7586-028-002 0,83 fxlsling R-olcssooal / Office Building & Yes GB% cP co Mxedl.lse 45 25 25 0 0 1'b Assigned Addre:<s Parma ICorrrrercial IComrercial 16 7586--028--008 0.53 Exisling A-ofes sional/Orfice Boi:f119 & Yes 73o/, CP Parking IComrercial co MxedUse tCommrcial 45 17 17 0 0 430 Silver Spur Rd, 17 7586-028-016 0-87 Exi,olin!J A-cfcss!Qnal/alic:e ll<ilclhg & Parlch:J Yes 49'% CP lComrercial co Mxcd\Jse 45 19 lComrercial 19 0 0 550 S<lve< Spor Rd , 18 7444-001-003 4.09 Basting Comnercial Buildings Yes 100% CG {0:>rnTf;.'fCial CR MxcdlJs<> 25 102 (Corrm,rcial 0 0 102 28500 S. Weslem Ave. 19 7444-001--004 0-92 Existing CorrtllBrClal Buildhg Yes 100% CG IComrercial CR MxedUse 25 23 {Comrercial 0 0 23 28300 S. Western Ave. 20 7444-001--005 0,93 &cisting Comretcial Buldilgs Yes 100°k CG CR Mxedl.lse 25 23 0 0 23 28326 S.. Western Ave. ICo<TTrercial IComrercial 21 7445--005--002 0-56 01:isting COrrrmrcial BuiJdngs Yes 100% CG ICorrrrerclal CR Mxed~e /Corrm,,ciaf 45 25 25 0 0 28900 S. Western Ava . 22 7550--009--024 2-35 E><isting Co<rrrer<:ial Buodings Yes 100°k CG lComrercial CR MxedUse 25 58 <Commrcial 0 0 58 28619 S. Western Ave. 23 7550-020--01 5 OA1 &isling Comrorical Building (Vacant) Yes 100% CG CR MxedUsa ,2 4 0 0 4 29051 S.. We:s-tBrn IComrarcial ICorrrnerclal 24 7557-030-013 0-65 Exists,g Comrercial Building Yes 100% CG CR MxedUse 12 7 0 0 7 29105 S. Wes\ern IOJmmrclal ,eom,,,,cial 25 7557-030--032 0-45 &islng Comrcn:ial BtMldng Yes 91% CG {Comrercial CR Mxed Use (Comre,cial 12 4 0 0 4 29125 S. Weslem 26 7557-030-034 0,26 B<isting Comrercial Building Yes 100% CG !Corm-er<:lal CR Mxedl.lsc fCornmn:ial 12 3 0 0 3 29215 S, Western 27 7557--030-035 0,44 Ex!sting Comrerclal Buildng Yes 100% CG (Corrrren:ial CR Mxed Use (CQmrcrciat 12 5 0 0 5 29229 S. Westcm ., ........ '~. ..... .... 162 Table 33: Housing Sites Inventory qs_!_{page 2 of 2 Poton1ial RHNA Suitability Parcel tn-frastructure ¾of Site Current CUJT&nt GP Potentlal Rezone Maxim um Res. Max Sito# APN SizeAI! .. Cc,mment Av;iifablo? OQyalopabl& Zoning Designation to What Zone Densay (du/ac) Units Abov.g Physical Address Low MO<J&r~to Income Income Moderate Income 31 7557--039-011 0.43 Exisfing Corrmercial Builoog Yes 71% CG CR M><edl.lse 45 15 15· 0 0 29619 S. Western {Comrercial /Colffi'lefcial 32 7557--039-014 0.77 Exising co~rclai 8uild!ng Y~,s 72% CG rn MxedU.se 45 24 24 0 0 20001 S.. Western /Corm-o<cial (Oonm,rcial 33 7557--039--020 0.60 Existing Comrerical &eliding Yes 100"/4 CG /Comrercial rn { °"1ln'Jcial !'l=xedU::;e 45 27 27 0 0 29701 S. Western 38 7561-001-900 0.11 Existing O>rmr,rcial Building Yes 100% a. ffi MxedUse 20 2 0 0 2 No Assigned Address /Conmercial 'Comnorcial 39 7573-001-014 3.85 Exis611g COmmrcl'aJ Builoin.9 Yes 100% CN tQ)rnrerciat rn Mxed Use f Corrmerct.31 12 46 0 0 46 31098 Haw U1omc Bl>id. 40 7573-001-015 2.52 Exis1ing CormlCfclal 5o,l(jr,g Yes 100% CN rn MxcdUse 12 30 0 0 30 31100 Hawlhome Blvd. /Coim-e<cial /Corrrnerclal lE (111StiltiUooal I (hslilltional) 8lucation.il), 41 7573-002-014 39,75 Existing hslilUUonal Lol (Salvalioo Yes 32% & OH(Open OH(Open Mx:c-dUse 12 152 0 0 152 30840 Haw tnorno 8h<d_ Army) Space Space Hazord) Hazard)& Residential 42 758(1.028-010 0.43 Existing Ftofes.c;iorral / Office 8uijding & Yes 100% CP co Mx.edUse 45 19 19 0 0 450 Silver Spur Rd. R1rFtJn!'l {Comrercial /C<Jmrercial 4:) 7588-015-008 4.52 Existing F'etail / Market Yes 17% a. CR MxedUse 22 16 0 0 16 30019 tlawlhome Blvd_ (Coom,rcial (Corm-ercial 44 7550-020-012 0.46 Ex.is:ting Ommercial Building Yes 67% CG CR Mx:edUse 25 7 D 0 7 29019 S. WQstcrn 45 7550-020-014 0.30 Existing Comnerclal Building Yes 69% CG CR Mx.edUse 25 5 0 0 5 29035 S. Western 46 7557-030-033 0.30 E"xisling Co!lTrelcial Building Yes 87% CG CR MxedUse 12 3 0 0 3 29211 S. Western 47 7550-019-018 11.15 Existing Multi-Leve\ Comrercial Building Yes 100% CG a< MXerlU-:;e 30 334 334 0 0 28821 S. Western 758S-014-001 2.05 Exisllllg Service Station Yes 75% RM-8 RG-12 MxedU'ie 30 46 46 0 0 27774 HawU1ome Elvd. 51 {Rcsidental) (Residenlial) 5Z 757S-031-031 0.97 8<ionng Corrmercial Building Yes 100% Cl (Corm-erciaJ CR Mx:edU:;.e ICOOrnercial 20 19 0 0 1S 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. 758S-001-001 0.65 Existing C.Orrmarcial Building Yes 100% CP co Mxed Use 20 13 0 0 13 53 (Comrefcial (O>ornercial 29941 Hawthorne Blvd. 54 7584-006-0!0 0.96 Existing Service Station Yes 100% RS-4 2-4 Residehtial MxerlUsa 20 19 0 0 19 281031-lawhtormeBlvd. ·<...,, 163 I I ; ~ 0 -C: ~ C: -r/ ) .& en C' I C 'i n :l 0 :: c I. ( ) M Q) :: c ra t- ri ii ! a! .. .. .! p '. I '. I l ~ '. I "l i . tl ! w 0 }~ i Ji * ! ? ~ i t f t ?! t :J ii i ;. ; .. a! u! ~ l1 l1 ! ~ j] 0 " -< -< < -< " " ,( j ! < " H i f i ! ! l J l ! ~ l 10 L * ~ ' t J J ~ t ! il £ j 2 /; j ' } ! .J i i i ~ i i i i ~ ?. "' " ~ ! l ,, ! ~ I' j. l i I -H 1 ·l i .• l :i 1 1 ;i ;J I .. ~ ~ ~> ti vi ,; vi ., ; vi vi vi ., •i vi ,i ~~ ., "' s H ~ ii i ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ 3 l l ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ;• I ~ f, i ~1 j< I ! N ~ i ~ < ! II ~] ti · " ' :: .. " ~ ;! , .; , , !! ,, Q ., " ~ ,, !' . : ! f: fl ;Q ~ :- : c :7 i ;, ; " "' 0 " 0 .. r. , ! "" ' f l - 2 I r ~ 0 ., 0 0 " ~ 0 ;. " 0 ., "' }~ ., 0 0 0 0 ,; , 0 0 <> 0 .. , n " r, 0 :: : jl J " ,, ;; ]j .. 0 0 0 ~ 0 n 0 0 (> ., 'I ! 0 0 0 0 <: , 0 w 0 0 0 Q i: l .t: , ,; , " 0 ,, ~ ~ . Hi ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ; ~ ~ ; , . , . ~ , t ~ ,. ~, . , . , . , . ~ ~ ~ ~, . J, . ~ j: 192 June 4 2024 Council meeting -7pm, at Hesse Park Community notification not done -the 500 foot rule to neighbors of the O Clipper Rd. lot - for Zoning changed from R-4 to R-22. The proposed large "town home" project of 22 units? of up to 36' height at O Clipper Road is not RPV city's 35 page document "Neighborhood Compatibility" compliant!! This project would obstruct views at our neighborhood -the "Community of Abalone Cove" and the community above us across PV Drive South. Roads cracking on Seacove Drive and the other streets in our neighborhood. As we all know-the land is shifting towards the ocean -and at the ocean in our neighborhood. A massive new project on Clipper road would cause more land problems to surrounding neighbors. Floor cracking in our house on Seacove Drive. Street waterlines breaking in our neighborhood. Over the last few months -there have been about 50 speakers at Council meetings citing their concerns about the zoning upgrade (R -22) from R-4. City should not change the zoning from R-4!!. There was mention at a meeting we had with Brandy and Mr. Silva that there were 800 units identified in RPV with only 647 required by Sacramento for this housing demand. So -another location could be chosen and alleviate the concerns of our communities. "Stop the rezoning of the Clipper lot! Remove Clipper lot from the Housing Element Study. HCD said this lot has no effect to the Regional Housing needs Allocation. Direct staff to do so." Allow the developer to build 4 new residences not over 2 stories high on the 1.56 acre lot. The city needs to keep its City Residents HAPPY and SAFE -since that is its job. Stasys Petravicius -V-P Community of Abalone Cove COMMUNITY OF ABALONE COVE ADDITIONAL HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS FOR THE JUNE 4, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ·;--o /1-·-t R ~/C ;!Z C . jj:7,, {.,/... Fr<==--.. Y,rJ. /:);v }( /r--,,:t/i:-;~ c, ~ 7:y e,,c) g:{ JV c / c . May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, ~ if SordM Nv#,v-w-. Abalone Cove Resident , IJ \ s l6 u-tenfme, t\].iw owvtef.5 of \3\\\ Nv+krvt.CUII ~ C'- May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Comm.ission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident 8 t)cw-~---h~~ P-io~ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure . 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4} to High Density (R22}. We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4 ) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Pa los Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff ~re: •,,; 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder 's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, 0 Clipper Re-zoning, Coastal Changes and View Preservation-Amendment needed Michele Carbone 06/04/2024 ~j ~ I ~ a:: a::: w w ..J I ··O t-u. >-. u..o~ -1~ ~O~o t::i=w c:i::w:i:: a.. Wl- w ~u. 0...10 <uw zw ~zo wo -o::::i-CJw 1:.zolt <:a::: <u o APN 7573-006-024 • Thank you Council members for your service to the community • Michele Carbone -2 Barkentine Road -RPV resident for 11 years -Other side of Clipper, other side of the apartments o Clipper • Additional information to consider -Re-consider previous actions and decisions and a recommendation for an amendment to the Housing Element to • Restore zoning back to R-4 • Restore Coastal • Restore View preservation -For the record, at the Council Meeting, 04-16, it was stated there was "No Written Protests Received 11 • There were emails sent to the city that same day and petition dropped off and would ask to have that statement corrected. APN 7573-006-024 and complaint filed • We presented at the Planning Commission on April 2 -Oppose the re-zoning proposal, coastal and view preservation changes -Safety • Land slide -Parcel is in close proximity to Landslide area -Movement of½ inch per day based on the last report -Based on the proximity and land development moratorium -this site should be excluded from development due to safety issue for all residents and not allow any development New concerns • New movement and issues associated with this area and the Seacove Landslide with new movement APN 7573-006-024 • Traffic and emergency evacuation -Street and neighborhood configuration with the additional units and parking -If we had an emergency, difficult to evacuate quickly o Clipper • Additional information -Re-consider previous actions and decisions and an amendment to the Housing Element, to restore • Zoning • Coastal changes • View preservation o Clipper • Back in April 16 2024 -Housing Element and Urgency to adopt as we were in Builders Remedy • Immediate need to adopt the housing element • Also required emergency re-zoning • Coastal and view preservation changes -Resolution 2024-16 passed and signed by Mayor Cruikshank. 0) Cf) LO ;., ~~ ii~ i, ·~ ~}:'. (':!(0,:C) 0 f(l('-41)1 Q •>i ... ,id ci 1,)) ~ ;., " ,.i ~~ ;) ·~ ;.f! r1 ~~ b:! 8 ,:I ~d ~-.. \ ~ ,,.. "' :, t,j &i "' (.'.I " I~ ,,, r: ,,, D ~~~~G !!! "' Ll t) a, >~ iii a:: "' "' :,, 'ill " ,,, a:: ill i,j n T,'.I ::; " •11 tr'. z z:. " " (•J (•J (-J Ct i·•~ CJ r,-t r ... 1 f'.''4 i::,;.1 <:~ di (·:I (0 r"\I r:d -<:;f _J ...J -• _1 _J 1(1 1(1 tO 10 1(1 if) if) Hl 111 ' ' WW (') (') f :f: :t: . l (.Q (() 0 0 0 () ~~l .. I (.Q (.() if} HJ Ill lll f l < WWW (.~) (') (!) ~ ~ :f: (f). (Q (,I) 000 """ .l -J o Clipper • What's changed since those meetings in April and the Resolution Housing Element has been adopted and submitted on April 19, 2024 and is in review HCD was contacted by concerned neighbors and spoke with the reviewer to notify about the safety concerns and proposed development on this parcel and safety risk HCD ( Fidel, reviewed) contacted RPV • Spoke to -Brandy Forbes -Ara Mihranian -Octavio Silva • Notified the City that RPV has met the RHNA numbers without this lot and numbers and can exclude this lot from the housing element Brandy reported on this at the Planning Commission for follow up Abalone Cove have reached out to the City for status and next steps and continue to receive inconsistent nonsensical explanation as to next steps Some things to consider as to the why • At the planning commission meeting, we were informed that the owner Ali Andani donated to the mayor campaign for supervisor • That information prompted a PRA -The answer to the WHY and additional information to consider for an amendment Important factual data to consider • Owners -Hartmans -Wanted to rezone • Email and documentation from 03/08/2021 and were told no -Emails from multiple potentials buyers from 01/2020 to 07/26/2021 • All given the standard government party line from Octavio, Residential, zoning, etc, etc -Emails from concerned homeowners • All given the standard government party line from Octavio" No Plan Submittted" Important factual data to consider from the PRA ® Until 07/21/2021 • Email from Octavio to Amy Cimetta: From: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Sent time: 07 /26/202110:50:08 AM To: amy@luvwhereulive.com Subject: RE: 0 Clipper Rd: checking in Hi Amy, The City is updating its Housing Element and looking at vacant/underdeveloped sites around the City to consider possible zone changes to accommodate more housing. The update may or may not include this site, but we hope that the update will be complete before the end of the year. We are still in the analysis part of the update. Once the update is complete, individual zone changes will have to be processed for project specific locations. I can definitely add you as interested party in order to inform you of any future update actions. Important factual data to consider from the PRA 07/26/2021 Email from Octavio to Luis : Zone changes : Hi Luis, I apologize about the delayed response. I'm glad to hear that the property owner would be interested in considering a zone change of the project site to possibly allow for more density. The City is currently updating is housing element and we are looking at vacant/under-developed sites to possible accommodate housing as part of the site inventory process. While we don't have a draft of the housing element update yet, we hope to have more information available within the next couple of weeks. When we talked at the counter earlier this month, we also discussed the City's Residential Planned Development permit (RPD} process, which allows for some code flexibilities pursuant to established code requirements. Unlike the action plans of the housing element update, the RPD permit is currently outlined in the City's municipal code. I've attached a link for your reference: https://library. mun icode.com/ ca/ rancho _pa las_ verdes/ codes/ code_ of_ ordinances ?n odeld= TIT17ZO _ARTVSPDI_ CH 17.42RE PLDE I think it is important to note that whether you consider developing the site through the RPD process or wait on the housing element update, both processes will require a review of project, email to Octavio from From: luis@envirotechno.com <luis@envirotechno.com> From: luis@envirotechno.com <luis@envirotechno.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 7:29 AM lo: Ali Vahdani <avahdani@optimumseismic.com>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ali Sahabi <asahabi@optimumseismic.com>; John Cruikshank <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>; Andri Pramono <apramono@optimumseismic.com> Subject: RE: Clipper Rd -APN 7573-006-024 Hi Octavio, I hope you had a nice weekend. I wanted to follow up with you regarding our conversation about O Clipper Road. I spoke with the potential buyers and they are very interested in moving forward and also very interested in reviewing the code amendments for the reduction in the zoning guidelines for increase in density. If I recall, you were going to have a draft ready this week; is that correct? i think this property would be a great candidate for a case study. is it possible for you to send us a copy so we can do some lot layouts? We would love to work together in the guidelines if you need architectural input. Please let us know your thoughts. Important factual data to consider from the PRA • Emails from Octavio and ALI and meetings scheduled; Hi Luis, Sorry about the delayed response. We've been a bit tied up on preparing for last night's Housing Element Update Study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. I have some availability on Friday mid-afternoon to further discuss. Let me know what works best for you. As you know the site is currently zoned for single family residential and include SFR standards but as part of the Housing Element Update, we are looking for opportunity sites that may accommodate for more density. Thank you, The owner is contemplating a luxury condominium project for this site. Is this a viable option? Can you provide me with any applicable guidelines so I can prepare a preliminary sketch .. Why this lot and why was there such a push to re-zone • All emails communications and meetings and zoom meeting between Octavio and Ali gave preferential treatment to this potential buyer • All housing element changes to this lot were fast tracked -uuHV? a C Rhetoric Question • Octavio and Ara and Mayor What could we { neighbors, Hartman and me) have done differently to be give the same preferential treatment that was given to Ali Adanhi, the potential buyer and developer of luzury condoniminum It was pretty devastating reading all these emails and in my personal opinion, our elected officials and govt employees working with the potential buyer and not taking into consideration the potential safety issues with development and ruining our neighborhoods . How did we get here and our city employees and officials support this re-zoning and the safety issue and devastating our neighborhood so that Ali the developer can make millions of dollars This particular parcel had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Housing Element, and affordable housing did it? 11 Spread the pain" -quote from our Mayor. Mission accomplished Do the right thing • DO THE RIGHT THING -Give the direction to our city employees to perform the analysis and an amendment to the Housing Element -Do not allow development on this lot as there are major safety concerns and additional development and this entire area • Amendment to the Housing Element • Zone back to the R4 • Restore the view preservation • Investigate as to what actually happened here • Thank you for your time TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 4, 2024 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 1 Emails from: Chris and Aiko Watanabe; Kendra L. Carney Mehr Letters provided by Stasys Petravicius (Community of Abalone Cove) 2 Email from Paul Albritton 3 Draft Loan Agreements for ACLAD and KCLAD Emails from: Gordon Leon (Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District); Karen Miller; Bob Locke; Nina Ritter ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 3, 2024**. Respectfully submitted, _________________ Teresa Takaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2024\2024 Coversheets\20240604 additions revisions to agenda.docx Subject: FW: Revert Clipper Vacant Lot to R1 From: Chris Watanabe <tchrisaiko@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 7:53 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Revert Clipper Vacant Lot to Rl Mayor Cruishank and Members of the City Council, We are aware that the City is working toward rezoning the vacant lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South to single family residence to high density and we are highly opposed. As you are well aware, Palos Verdes Drive South is highly compromised due to the constant landslide. Obviously, increasing the number of potential occupants to any of the lots in our community will also Increase the traffic along the road. Potentially during construction there would be heavy vehicles in use along Palos Verdes Drive South, and once construction is complete, there would be a large percentage of new residents with vehicles. Please make a decision to leave the zone classification for that lot as a single family residence. Thank you. Chris and Aiko Watanabe 1 Barkentine Road Rancho Palos Verdes 1 I Subject: FW: Comment to City Council Attachments: 6.4.24 Cement to City Council re Public Hearing Item 1.pdf From: Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 3:54 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Cc: Erin Grubisich <emg@carneymehr.com> Subject: Comment to City Council Hi, Please provide the attached correspondence related to Public Hearing Item 1 on the June 4, 2024 City Council agenda to the members of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Community Development Director. Please confirm this document has been distributed. Thank you, Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Carney Mehr, a legal corporation t: (949) 629-4676 e: klcm@carneymehr.com w: carneymehr.com 1 I CONFIDEI\JTIALITY I\JOTICE -· This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return e-mail and delete the original transmission ancl its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. 2 CARNEY MEHR LAW June 4, 2024 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Kendra L. Carney Mehr 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA (949) 629-4676 klcm@carneymehr.com Re: Opposition to Rezoning Proposal for the Property Located at O Clipper as Proposed by the Additional Amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to fi1rther effectuate the City's Revised Final 2021- 2029 Housing Element (June 4, 2024 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item No 1.) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This firm represents the Community of Abalone Cove, an organization of 80 homeowners who hold property adjacent to the parcel identified as 0 Clipper, Assessor's Parcel Number 7573-006-024 (the "Clipper Lot"). The Clipper Lot is an undeveloped parcel consisting of approximately 1.5 acres. It is surrounded nearly entirely by single- family residences all zoned RS-4 with a small portion of its boundary which abuts Palos Verdes Drive South. Tonight, the City Council intends to hold a public hearing and consider approval of "Additional Amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to further effectuate the City's Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element" (June 4, 2024 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item No 1.) Among other changes, this amendment proposes to rezone the Clipper Lot from RS-4 to RM-22. The purpose of this comment on behalf of the Community of Abalone Cove is to express the organization's strong opposition to this unnecessary and improper rezoning effort as it pertains to the Clipper Lot. We appreciate the City Council's time and consideration of this matter and urge the Mayor and Councilmembers to direct City staff to remove the Clipper Lot from Amendments to Title 17. Community of Abalone Cove The Community of Abalone Cove is a Homeowners Association comprised of 80 homes in Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275. It is governed by a volunteer group of homeowners, including a treasurer who handles the collection of annual dues and invoice payments. The 80 homes are located a long four streets: Barkentine Road, Clipper Road, Packet Road and Sea Cove Drive, shown in yellow here: 9 • Unlt'dSt.f'• ll••ftSUlt<I ·~ Tlll111porilit, ,.,,...., .. ,s l .. . "} .o.,.os· ,,,_ "t'rO'es4,.s i ...... ~ • i -co-, • f ·" ShortGM P•· ,p'-'" EcolOQk:alRes! • The Community recently changed its name and was previously called the West Portuguese Bend Community Association . 0 Clipper Drive The Clipper Lot is a 1.5 acre undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the Community of Abalone Cove, but not officially within its boundaries and therefore not subject to its architectural requirements . The parcel is surrounded by RS-4 zoned parcels, and directly across Palos Verdes Drive South from a community of homes zoned RS-2. 2 The Clipper Lot had been owned by Tom and Shannon Hartman until March 2022. The Hartmans live at 28 Sea Cove Drive , and are part of the Community of Abalone Cove association. The Hartmans sold the Clipper Lot to Ali Vahdani, founder and CEO of Optimum Seismic, an eaithquake retrofit company. Mr. Vahdani also owns 5 Clipper Road, a fourplex which is directly across the street from the Clipper Lot. 5 Clipper Road was purchased by Mr. Vahdani in October 2018 for $ l .8M and is part of the Community of Abalone Cove. Surrounding Community Zoning The Community of Abalone Cove and the surrounding residential developments are zoned RS-4. "The purpose of the Single-Family Residential District (RS) is to provide for individual homes on separate lots , each for the occupancy of one family, at various minimum lot sizes, to provide for a range of yard and lot sizes which are based on the general plan of the city, and to provide for other uses that are associated and compatible with residential uses." (Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code "RPVMC" section 17.02.010.) The RS-4 zone development standards require a minimum 10,000 square foot lot, allow for sizeable setbacks, and limit height to 16 feet. And, many of these homes have protected views as codified in RPVMC section 17.02.040. As shown in the images below, all of the existing homes are low in density, with standard lot sizes, smaller mass , and low-pitched roofs . 3 By contrast, the RM-22 zone allows 22 units per acre and has a maximum height of 36 feet. RM-22 is the highest density residential zone established by the City's Zoning Code and similarly allows for the greatest maximum height of all residential zones. Three-story townhomes are inconsistent with the neighborhood character, and would result in a pocket of concentrated development traffic, significantly higher/taller homes, that would block views and generate traffic. City's About Face to Rezone to Maximum Density Contrary to Historic Pattern of Development A prior version of the Housing Element shows the City originally intended for the Clipper Lot to be rezoned to RM-12. While this would still alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood, it would cause fewer significant impacts than rezoning to RM22. For reasons unknown to the Community, the City later modified the current amendment to rezone the Clipper Lot to RM-22. Importantly, communication from City staff obtained via a California Public Records Act request, despite being heavily redacted, shows that, prior to 2021, the City consistently refused to allow the prior property owners to rezone the Clipper Lot. In fact, City staff was firm that the property could only be subdivided into a maximum of three, single-family lots, or potentially four lots with a variance. Then, abruptly in 2021, City staff pivoted and, in a clear deviation from the City's historic pattern of development, began to collaborate with the now owner of the Clipper Lot to maximize the developable density. This begs the question -why is the City now providing a greater development opportunity than in the past? There is no apparent rationale to support a sudden, different treatment of this property at this time. Impact on Community Character The proposed rezoning threatens to fundamentally alter the character and unique features of the community. Significantly increasing the density of housing will disrupt the unique ambiance that residents highly value. Essentially it allows for a comparatively extremely dense development that, at 20 feet higher than the surrounding community, will dwarf the existing homes and significantly impact the existing views and neighborhood character. It appears the City has gone to great lengths to avoid analyzing the impact to neighborhood character. The city took great pains to develop a legally defensible view preservation ordinance approximately 40 years ago. Unfortunately, the proposed action ignores this standard entirely as no study has been conducted on the general impact to views caused by rezoning the Clipper Lot to RM-22. RPVMC section 17.02.040(A)(6) specifically defines "neighborhood character" as "the existing characteristics in terms of the following: (a) scale of surrounding residences; (b) architectural styles and materials; and ( c) front, side, and rear yard setbacks." Yet, it is clear the City has failed to consider any of these elements in the 4 proposed rezoning of the Clipper Lot. It is obvious the proposed RM-22 zone is not compatible with the surrounding uses. Zoning in in this area of the City is traditional Euclidian Zoning that emphasizes single-family, low density zoning patterns. There are no new urbanism-type zoning patterns present. Approving the proposed amendment means ignoring neighborhood compatibility regulations. There is no apparent "public benefit" to allow zoning that will introduce inconsistent development patterns such as the size of the parcel, setbacks, mass, and scale. The City has not included architectural controls or urban design standards that would limit the mass, height, setbacks, and appearance of any new building on the parcel in question which is to entirely disregard the neighborhood character of this Community. Environmental Concerns Rezoning that allows for increased development can lead to adverse environmental impacts. Rancho Palos Verdes is blessed with natural beauty, including coastal bluffs, parks, and wildlife habitats. The proposed changes could lead to increased pollution, traffic congestion, and strain on local resources. Preserving the environment is crucial for maintaining the quality of life for current and future residents. Again, it does not appear the City has adequately analyzed the CEQA impacts of the proposed zoning amendment. And, the potential proximity of so many units to the Portuguese Bend/Abalone Cove Landslide complex is greatly troubling to this Community. Adding density and weight, excavation, and increased water run-off channeled from increased surface area and decreased porous ground area may have serious impacts to the already unstable area. Preferential Treatment of Clipper Lot Results in Disparate Impacts of Rezoning The parcels in this area must be treated equally. This proposed amendment will provide greater development deference to the Clipper Lot without justification. This is impermissibly arbitrary and capricious. An examination of the administrative record available reveals no findings or support at any level for tying the RM-22 designation to the Clipper Lot. Improper Spot Zoning The essence of spot zoning is irrational discrimination. Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1536, described spot zoning: "Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than the surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to uses for residential purposes thereby creating an 'island' in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses .... where the 'spot' is not an island but is connected on some sides to a like zone the allegation of spot zoning is more difficult to establish since lines must be drawn at some point.. .. Even where a small island is created in the midst of less restrictive zoning, the zoning may be upheld where rational reason in the public benefit exists for such a classification." (See Avenida San Juan P'ship v. City of 5 San Clemente, 201 Ca l.App.4th 1256, 1268-69 (Cal. Ct. App. 20 I 1 ). ) In Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, the court found a city gui lt y of spot zoning when it denied a property owner's request to rezone the owner's property to a designation consistent with surrounding prope1ties. Here, no rational, public benefit exists to justify this rezoning effort. This is the only residential property proposed to be rezoned by the amendment that is within the Coastal zone. Vacant land does not mean that you can build as much as you want. This must be tempered by consideration of reasonable impacts to the surrounding community and here, there is no protection provided to the surrounding properties. RM-22 Does Not Guarantee Housing While the City attempts to justify improper spot zoning as a means to allow additional housing, there is no project currently proposed and no guarantee that any future project must be residential. Again, the attempt to rezone the Cl ipp er Lot to RM-22 is a reach too far. For example, although a Conditional Use Permit would be required, RM-22 also allows minor commercial uses which would be wholly at odds with the surrounding residential zone and existing development and infrastructure. HCD A lternative to Remove the Clipper Lot As the Community Development Director acknowledged in a presentation given May 14, 2024, HCD stated that removing the Clipper Lot from consideration for rezoning would not negatively impact the City's ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements. On its face, the City's so le rationale for including the Clipper Lot in the amendment seems to be that it is vacant and was included in the HCD land inventory . However, other than geohazard concerns, as discussed throughout this letter, it appears that no further analysis has been conducted to determine if the zoning, especially the density, is consistent with the current neighborhood character. This is especially puzzling since the city cou ld have maintained the ex isting zoning and density . There is no project proposed to increase affordab le housing of any kind. Instead, emails with the current owner indicate a desire to build "lu xury condos" 6 and City staff has represented that potential townhomes on this parcel would be market- rate. Single-family homes in the existing zoning would also be market-rate, so the only advantage is that there will be more market-rate residential units. Again, there is simply no analysis and study of this future land use to support the rezoning of the Clipper Lot. Infrastructure Strain The current infrastructure in the surrounding community is not equipped to handle the increased population density that rezoning the Clipper Lot will allow. As discussed on page 117 of the General Plan, Palos Verdes Drive South is a " ... major street within the Peninsula hierarchy. It is the main channel for the movement of vehicles and is not intended to be a residential street..." -Arterial -The arterial street is the major street within the Peninsula hierarchy. It is the main channel for the movement of vehicles and is not intended to be a residential street; however, some older arterials do pr01.ide direct access to resi- dential units (e.g., Palos Verdes Drive East and West). An arterial provides connections with other arterials and may eventually link-up with major highways. Hence the site access to the Clipper Lot is solely from Clipper which is a local access point. As a result, additional development could diminish the quality of services available to residents. Failure to Provide Appropriate Notice At least as far back as fall 2021, Community members contacted City staff and requested information about possible development of the Clipper Lot. They repeatedly requested updates regarding potential development and the consideration of any zoning change. Yet, when the City began updating the Housing Element and incorporated its plan to rezone the Clipper Lot, none of these Community members were advised of this action. At best, and only in response to renewed inquiries, they were provided with a link to a draft version of the Housing Element. Additionally, despite ongoing discussions regarding the potential rezoning of the Clipper Lot, when Community members directly requested information about potential plans for the property, City staff withheld information about rezoning and repeatedly responded only that "no plans had been submitted." Here, the City did not give adequate notice of the rezoning of the property via the Housing Element. Despite directly requesting to be kept informed, what notice was given to the general public was either in the local newspaper or posted at City Hall. The City made it practically impossible for Community owners to discover anything that had to do with the prospective rezoning of the neighboring property. Additionally, both the Community of Abalone Cove and a neighboring 7 community of 40 additional homes referred to as "Upper Abalone Cove" provided petitions including signatures from many homeowners in the immediate community to oppose rezoning the Clipper Lot dated April 1, 2024. Despite this, at the April 16, 2024 meeting, the City stated that it had not received any protests to the recommended actions relating to approval of the Housing Element and the rezoning proposed. These documents are included with this letter for reference. Lack of Comprehensive Planning The proposed rezoning appears to lack comprehensive planning and fails to consider the long-term impacts to the community. Any rezoning initiative should be the result of careful, inclusive planning processes that take into account the views and concerns of all stakeholders, including residents, environmental experts, and urban planners. Diminution of Property Value Changes in zoning can have significant implications for property values. While some proponents may argue that rezoning can increase property values, the reality is that the introduction of higher-density housing or commercial enterprises can lead to a decrease in property values in established residential neighborhoods. This potential devaluation is a significant concern for homeowners who have invested in this community. Especially here, the City's refusal to acknowledge or analyze the impact to its own view protection regulations is telling. The RPVMC acknowledges the value of the views, both monetarily and as a component of quality of life, so much so that it provides for view restoration. However, rezoning this single parcel to allow development twenty feet higher than any surrounding parcel in the immediate community runs afoul of the City's own provisions intended to protect the views the community is known for. Conclusion In light of these concerns, I urge the City Council to reconsider and reject the proposed rezoning plan. Preserving the character, environment, and livability of Rancho Palos Verdes should be the Council's highest priority. I respectfully request that the Council engage with residents to develop alternative solutions that address growth and development needs without compromising the unique qualities that make this community so special. On behalf of the Community of Abalone Cove, thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a favorable resolution that reflects the best interests of the community. 8 Best regards, /&_{ci1 fU 1 #elvt Kendra Carney flre~ Principal Attorney 9 April 1, 2024 To : The Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee Re : Rezoning the vacant lot on Clipper/PV Drive South AIN # 7573 -006-024 Dear Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee and City Council Members: RPV Geologist, Mike Phipps "The land movement, is unprecedented. I'm just worried that we're going to start losing roads and we're going to start losing access. People are going to start losing access to their private properties. And so this is very serious. And you know, the infrastructure is going to be tested and there's going to be issues with it. The land has been "slowly creeping for many years, probably decades, but the recent storms have damaged infrastructure like roads, utilities -sewers, water and gas (electrical is predominately above ground)-while the land movement accelerates. 11 City Manager, Ara Mihranian "I think we're at a point where we may need to ask the governor to declare an emergency for our city. I really feel very strongly that we are now at that point, 11 We, the residents of Abalone Cove Community, respectfully submit our objections to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposed rezoning plan of the subject property to a RM -22 in finalizing its Housing Element update. The state -mandated process requires that all California cities undertake every eight years (or "cycles") to demonstrate how they will meet housing needs. We, the Abalone Cove Community, do not see any correlation between this mandated process and re zoning the RS -2 residential lot to Residential Multiple Family (RM-22). The Staff Report requesting to adopt this proposed plan has many incorrect analysis and specific improper demonstration of facts, needs and requirements. It also seems to ignore the facts that this neighborhood is in a slide area and is already unsafe for those of us here. Di sc ussio n with o ur v ie w s to the re late d port ion s of staff re po rt h igh li ghted in yell ow: 1 The report on Page 2 indicates that the site-by-site analysis completed by Dudek studied the topographic and view conditions of each MUOD, ROD and RM-22 rezoned parcel and prepared a potential development framework that minimized adverse impacts to neighbors. We disagree with this unsubstantiated conclusion. • Housing Element by facilitating the development of a MUOD project of residential-only or mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses on select parcels. • Housing Element by facilitating a ROD development of residential-only or residential with limited nonresidential uses on select parcels with an existing Institutional underlying base district designation. • Housing Element by facilitating the rezoning of a Single Residential Family to a high density Multiple Residential Family . The Report lays out that a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map is also required to include the new MUOD and ROD Overlay Districts as well as to reclassify two residential properties (Assessor Parcel No. 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) (Clipper) and Assessor Parcel No. 7578-002-011 (Site No. 17))to a higher density. We bel ieve that Assessor Parcel No. 7573-006 -024 (Site No. 16) ( Clipper) cannot and shal l not be rezoned to a RM-22. Beside all the topographic and geographic impact, it is in direct violation of neighborhood compatibility . Zone Change The Potential Housing Sites Inventory included in the Draft Revised Final Housing Element revised March 15, 2024 proposes to amend the zoning designation and corresponding City Zoning Map (Exhibit E) for Assessor Parcel No. 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) and Assessor Parcel No . 7578-002-011 (Site No. 17) from Residential Single Family (RS-4) and Residential Single Family (RS-A -5), respectively, to Residential Multiple Family (RM-22). It appears to us, the Abalone cove Community, that this report has been prepared merely to satisfy one and on ly one purpose, at a ll cost, and, that is to accommodate the City's 647 housing unit RHNA during the 6th Housing Cycle . The proposal of rezoning Clipper property to RM-22 has severe impact on Palos Verdes Drive South road conditions, traffic, load and land slide. The Report further on Pages 7 and 8, introduces the list of 30 Potential Housing Sites identified in the City's adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element including additional site at 500 Silver Spur Road (Site No. 15 - Assessor Parcel No. 7586-028 -019) for a total of 31 Potential Housing Sites. Further, it establishes that Proposed RHNA implementation measures include General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Local Coastal Program (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendments and associated code amendments, which are 2 outlined in further detail below: Draft Revised Final Housing Element & Housing Programs (Case Nos. PLGP 2022 -0001, PLGP 2024 -001, PL Z C2024-001, PLCA2024 -001 & PLCA 2024-002) On Page 8 the Report illustrates the Concerns of HCD with the environmental impact of this proposal as follows: On August 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 2022-49, adopting the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated environmental review, which included a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). The adopted Housing Element was subsequently forwarded to HCD for compliance review with State Housing Element Law . In October 2022, HCD notified the City's Community Development Department via letter that although the adopted Housing Element met many of the statutory requirements, the document was ultimately not found to be in compliance . As part of its review, HCD outlined additional document corrections required to be completed to achieve compliance . HCD corrections included, but were not limited to, providing support information related to affirmatively furthering fair housing efforts arid clarifying the realistic capacity of residential development on identified Potent ial Housing Sites outlined in the City's Housing Element. The Housing Element update has involved efforts by City staff and consultants, public outreach, virtual and in -person workshops, and meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council -all aimed at identifying ways the City can rezone to accommodate 647 potential new housing units in RPV across various income levels through 20 29. This target figure, called a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, was assigned to the City by the state, and the City is required to demonstrate the capacity of providing that additional housing by adequately zoning for the RHNA. To meet its RHNA, the City is proposing the creation of a Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) and Residential Overlay District (ROD). The City is also proposing to reclassify the zoning of two residential properties to a higher density. Both of the proposed districts and the rezoning effort are outlined in the Revised Fina l Housing Element (PDF), which was recently submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency that determines whether cities have compliant housing elements . W e, the Abalone Co ve Community believ e that while MUOD or ROD might ha ve possible work around environment impact, the RM -22 on a one -acre lot located on the most Unstable Costa l Road will hav e hi gh environmental impact, v iew impai r ment and adverse affect on du rab il ity and desirabi li ty of the 3 Adjacent to landslide moratorium 0.1 mile - commun ity . As st ated at the open ing of ou r obj ections, it appea rs that t h is report has cente red on t he state man dat ed cy cli c ho using elem ent and fo cu sed entirely on add ition of 647 high dens ity housing at all cos t s not ac cep t able to th e rest of commun ity. Based on all the signature s from the Aba lone Cove Community from Packet, Clipper Sea Cov e and Barkent ine, which are submitted with this document, w e understand the need to approve the Housing Element Approval but wou ld ask that City Council reconsider the proposed zoning and recommendations by the Planning Commission and consider the environmenta l impact based and the recent new additional slide movement and recent issues within this area adjacent to the site #16 that needs to be re -assessed and more updated assessment . We are also ask ing to consider preserving the view . 4. Cons ider the prox im ity of the Clippe r Site #16 o n t he s ites inven tory to the lan dslide comp lex and the geolog ica 1I impact of deve lopment at the site and commun ica te w ith HCD to cons ider the removal of th is si te or sh if t in g t he un its to another site; To determine which sites to consider, the City started with the SCAG recommendations of eligi ble sites. HCD is looking for sites that are vacant, of a minimum size , and to be added at a minimum density to be viably considered for the sites inventory. The potential housing site located at APN: 7573-006- 024 (Site No . 16) was in the initial SCAG recommended sites and met the criteria HCD requires , and therefore was included in the initial City Council adoption of the Housing Element in August 2022. Since the adoption of the Housing Element in 2022 , in response to HCD 's comments, a site-by-site 12 analysis of the Potential Housing Sites Inventory in the City 's Housing Element was prepared by the City 's housing consultant, Dudek, detailing the physical development feasibility of each proposed housing site. Site No . 16 is located outside of the landslide moratorium area and the Ancient Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex. 4 Additionally, it should be noted that any proposed development would requ ire geotechnical analysis and compliance with California Building Code requirements . Should the landslide complex boundaries expand, Staff can initiate a discussion for potential alternative housing sites with HCD . At this time , should the City Council remove or revise a potential housing site, the Revised Housing Element would need to return to HCD fo r additional review for compliance . 6. Consider not eliminating view preservati on for the two sites #16 and #17 that are proposed for upzon ,ing. Sincerely, Abalon e Cov e HOA 5 Street No. Barkentine 1 Barkentine /2 Barkentine / 3 Barkentine / 4 5 6 Barkentine /7 Attended Contact info Chris & Aiko Watanabe (Joyce Golden, Jane Harrod, Judi Bostick) Home: (310) 541-3705 Joyce: (310) 372-2500 Jane: (310) 545-5849 Judi: (310) 515-1115 chrisaiko@lucikins.com Keith Davison & Michele Carbone Home: (310) 370-0105 Cell: (310) 908-0535 rnichelepcarbone@gmail.com Hayato & Anna Nishigushi Home: (310) 750-6825 Cell: (310) 953-1582 Email: annanishiguchi@gmail.com Child: Andrew Rvuto Ben & Anita Brining 703-853-9837 Esther and Lodovico Pizzati Esther and Lodovico Home: (310) 377-6096 Nico, Jeya and samuel Email: estherQizzati@gmaH,c.om L.o l>o ✓ IC..O'f'L"Zc Eric & Mary Schneider Home: (310) 541-9967 Email: eas@amclaw.com Ryan and Kim Mueller 310 265-1794 koughton@msn.com i' Signature ::,~Ci{;:,, /a:./' ar-4,(,..-.z.... ~ =-----~tL-1 _.., t0c-.-//l~ ., I:;;/-+ Siignature Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature f3-'?-1y Alice Parker and Joseph Bebel t ; ,'\~; £.\ Barkentine 8 310 377-3298 <.L-{'\I\Q.~11 C. aliceparker@cox.net joseph.bebel@gmail.com /J A Richard & Nena Schleicher t~: I/ ✓ V .j 9 Barkentine ~c4r,~~/L V Home: (310) 377-1291 /)u Ald,tvi../ Email: kenyarich@cox.net V Barkentine ✓ 10 Kelly Connelly k-- Kell.connellv@11:mail .com /11 James Thomas and Sonji Kay Riple 7i ~6Llf½--Barkentine 310 3654985 -:r"T1Q \fLE-i:,~e /Yle,(A IV\ /l/"-jriple33@me.com I soni.riole@outlook.com . / I 1r':J., --/1 Barkentine / 12 Eldon & Marchelle Griffis ~ ~~1/ ~-... :,,-('~ ;J <ll/1,,,.,, j)/ ,J-, IA Home: (310) 544-2425 \\1 A / 1--;CV ~T' Email: eldon11:riffis@vahoo.com 1/ J ✓ ~.·u/ I ,I / John & Christine Campbell -/ t' John: (424) 210-1797 Barkentine 13 Christine: (424) 210-1798 Email: jscampbell626@gmail.com Email: christinecamnbell407t@ 0 mail.com Barkentine 14 Street No. Barkentine -- Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine 15 16 r/ 17 18 19 Contact info Karen Mills & Kevin Hudspith Home: (310) 750-6182 Cell: (310) 503-8985 ~mail: kevinhuspith@gmail.com Bill Nuttman (310) 377-7394 wenuttman@umail.com Dave & Jan Black Home: (310) 541-6470 Cell: (310) 930-1705 Email: iblack@on-board-usa.com Scott and Miki Schoenfeld Kai and Kent Cell : 973-558-6229 Cell: (425)-753-3701 smiki@hotmail.com scottschoendedl@hotmail.com Betn Babya~ am:t Je: :nif9r UcC,11:tt:ay Au.c--y_-f>~ ---.;;·. ~k£ \lfe-) 42.l_-~~-- .tiz_og z:v~ \~\2_ ~ '1~e... ~., ,._,. 20 / J Cindy Jensen 21 (Erica & Kelsey) Home: (310) 544-4436 Email: dr.cindviensen@email.com j James & Catherine Hwang (Patrick & Anthony) Home: (310) 370-2156 23 Cell: (310) 408-1751 (J) Signature Siignature h l\-;l] ~~v---d..t0 fft.1-e~'~ ✓ \ I -~ ~6~ / ell::/~ L/~ ~ Street No. Clipper 7A Clipper 8 Clipper 9 Clipper 10 Clipper 11 Clipper 13 rOa /? / ~y l½ I. -- Contact info Charles McGuire Mailing address: ~ P.O. Box 1034 ~ ~I) PVE, CA 90274 ~ -~ 1 (/I/ Dan & Jill Bridleman (Caitlin Waddell) (310) 377-5640 Emal!: b_ridlgman@cox.net Steve & Lydia Hsu (Sharon & Selene) (310) 544-8675 Email: 1s428_@cpx.net Terry and Susan Ostrom (Yvanna & Athena) Home: (310) 544-2358 Cell: (310) 291-9362 Email: dec-370@vahoo.com Lowell & Linda Wedemeyer (Loretta & Rebecca) Home: (310) 541-7042 Cell: (310) 704-6393 Office: (310) 378-0609 Email: Lowell@deltanet.co_m Signature Siignature C /,, c~ Cx ) ~ ti,/---~[(i (\ -~· I) (': '-y ,l Yi JJ I/~ ~1 1it-- i r-+-L . I I Street No. Packet 1 2 Packet 3 Packet 4 Packet .5 Packet 6 Packet 7 Packet 8 Contact info John & Susan Beckman Home: (310) 377-7596 Email: RPVBeckm,m.@cox.net Patricia (Photographer) & Adam Feingold (Noah, Gabriel & David} Home: (310) 544-3132 Cell: (310) 697-9164 Email: patricia.feingold@gmail.com Email: adam.d.feingold@_gmaiJ.com David & Joanie Shoemaker (Chris & Scott 749-4208) (310) 749-0521 (J) (310) 683-8280 (D) Email: jjensendesign@cox.net; davidshoemaker@duncanshoemaker.com Ted Shirley & Elisabeth Ryan Home: (310) 833-3651 Email: iasminUS@verJzon.ne! Chi Hyun and Kathy You Mina Home 626-715-8990 mail.com Andy & Maria Olvera (Daniel, Gabriel, and Rebecca) Home: (424) 206-2829 Cell: (310) 418-0496 Jami Chang 310 541 3780 koavi@vahoo.com Tracey Vranich Cole and Marina 213 321-9131 vranich@.usc_,_edu ( 1-Y Siignature .1 E_ ,~-~ Street No. Packet 9 Packet 10 I. Contact info Don & ~, 88FR98""' Home: (310) 377-9544 Email: donald2jbarnes@aol.com Email: nancv@raisinkids.com Tony & Laurie DeClue Home: (818) 631-1981 Home: (818) 631-1984 Email: declue5@_E!arth1ink.net Signature Siignature (_ C) -\ 0 (_ --.,, Street No. IV Packet 11 Packet / 12 Packet 13 Packet / 14 Packet .I 15 • Packet ;· 16 Contact info Home: (818) 631-1984 Email: declue5@earthlink.net Karen Doolittle & Giovanni Bohorquez (Gia and George) Home: (310) 750-6633 Cell: (310} 722-7377 (K) Cell: (310) 722-4582 (G} Matt and Lisa Hawk 310 4898749 matthawphd@msn.com lisahawpvl_~gmail.com Eric and Amie Nulman Cell: 805-570-9090 Email: etnulman@gmail.com Email: amnulman@gmail.com Children: Lucas and Adelaide Chris & Elsa Messano Home: (310) 265-1152 Nancy Flynn (310) 265-9795 hotmail.com Dan & Michele Marcus (Haley and Jenna) Home: (310) 316-5295 Cell: (310) 339-0495 Email: michr103-1@ycJhQo.com Signature Siignature r ,o -,~ ,M. ~~~~ Street No. Packet Packet Packet Packet Packet Packet Contact info Eric Krusen / Peggy Nelson 17 703-517-5532 703 819 8077 ehnelsonva@gmail.com ✓ Ben & Michelle Granville 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Home: (310) 701-7483 Home: (310) 386-7483 Email: m2onthego@yahoo.com Email: bentoo@gmail.com Klaus and Joan Mockenhaupt Home: (310) 541-4098 Email: klaus.mockenhaul:ilt@gmail.com George & Mary Horeczko Home: (310) 541-6925 Email: ~horeczko@yahoo.com Chris & Lydia Rich (Wesley & Glenys) (310) 541-2228 Email: L¥dia~wft.bz Nancy & Michael Cristillo Home: (310) 502-1245 michaelcristillo@gmail.com nancycristillo@gmail.com Keith Kelly Erin Kelly Michael (11), Pierce (9), Theodore (7), drew (4) Erin 248-890-2693 Keith 248-890-2692 Farnaz Ehtessabian and Richard Perez Montes Horne ( 310) 293-0040 •···-·----------------------------- ------~--··"-• __ , ~----- ? l ::i Signature Siignature '-'-f 17; . ...____ ( --- Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature }-\ ~2- /4 Bob and Linda Levine ~4-of~~ Packet 310 739-7803 relvine.aial@i;•mail.com Maureen and Chris Trivers 203 751 2676 Packet 26 203 751 3810 \ trivs@charter.net moetrivisgmail.com /27 Lynn Eastwood hrla.i:. Packet Home: (310) 377-1717 Palm Desert: (760) 674-0308 -·----------· - ynneastwood7@gmail.com Michael & Alyson D'Auteuil ~tlumuf Packet /28 (David & Peter) Home: (310) 377-0516 ---.:i Email: dauteuil41@aol.com Packet 29 Paul and Suzanne Bruguera sbru~uera~ lasui2eriorcourt.or Kathy Swenson 31 (Billy, Rob & John) Home: (310) 377-1818 Email: abalonesurf@cox.net p.£ Kim St Hilare & Matthew Neagle Emma and Anglica ~' 1 ~ -• I •,r r ~ . ' 32 415-328-9337 itiJ kim.m.sthilare@gmail.com s; ~ Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature I? Dana & Paige Ireland Sea Cove 1 (Ethan & Piper) Home: (310) 544-2115 Email: iedy60@yahoo.com Shaun (John) Phillips Sea Cove 7 Home: (310) 375-0779 Cell: (310) 422-1159 'Tlail: johr Hiraki Nakamura Sea Cove 8 310 860-7214 hiroki@msn.tv Johathan and Kate Whitehead /. Sea Cove 9 310 809-0037 jonathanwhiteheadjr@gmail.com katelindawalsh mail.com Richard & Janet Yamamoto i~ ~ (Evan & Corey) .f' \ 11 \ ' ' • ' 7 Home: (310) 544-5125 /l:•'--1 "' • Cell: 310-408-5030 /: \ 12 Bijain Partovi Kathy Millea ~0-::::ll rn\/O. 1~ cell 949-751-7944 \ kathymillea@gmail.com . Street No. "-'--eo.....,vv~ / Sea Cove • 15 Sea Cove I 16 Sea Cove / 17 Sea Cove / 20 Sea Cove 22 Sea Cove 24 Sea Cove 25 Contact info Stasys & Irene Petravicius (Board Member) Home: (310) 377-8737 sj:asysl@cox.net Greg & Patty Gawilk (Thomas, Anthony & Brian) Home: (310) 377-2531 Email: gmgawlik@vahoo.com Thomas & Eva Wildey Home: (424) 206-2021 evawildey@gmail.com Robert & Elena Haase Home: (310) 377-7328 antonia@antonia@Vfil!der.rnrn Pamela Simes Brian and Jenifer Conroy (Joshua, Jessica, Jacob, & Brianna) Cell: (310) 541-1295 Email: bfconroy@cox.net Email: ieniferconroy@cox.net Geoff and Angeline Lyle Syndney, William Cell: 760 696-1467-G Cell: 310 751-8335 (A) angeliquelyle@gmail.com Signatur~ r 5_0f_/ Lv'\~1\ JJ -; II ~"' lK " Sis--'J-\ Siignature ) qt !))\) ~ ~=---- '/r--fb t -t-/fy I .. , ~ Street No. 26 28 Sea Cove 29 Sea Cove /;o Sea Cove 32 Sea Cove 34 Sea Cove 36 SeaCove / 38 Sea Cove 40 Contact info mail.com Daniel and Sunhee Suh Tom & Shannon Hartman (Jeremy & Skylar) Home: (310) 265-8813 Email: srhartman24@cox.net Kimmy and Steve Koo 213-923-1889 koo@aol.com John and Sheryl Lewin (Geoffrey and Kaci Cell 310 344 9507 (J) Cell 310 291-2078 (S) johnlewin@roadrunner.com shervlJewinmd@gmail.i;pm Mark Weinstein 408 482-9979 weinsteinmr@gmail.com Soo Chui & Yunja Chung Home:(31Q). 541-6264 Suresh aChandra jhawar & Veena Jhwar Gene Rolle Home: (310) 377-4814 Cell: (310) 850-3309 Email: iolanta.neuert@gmail.com Siignature 'S )-0 -;J l{ ~1ta~ ~ Street No. Sea Cove /42 Sea Cove /44 Contact info Tao Li & Song Song Wang 626-673-1595 songsongwang21@gmail.com Shane & Corie Hickson (Tanner & Makenna) Home: (310) 544-0433 I Email: shanehicksonl@aol.com CJ~~e-a71-£ ~kie.-<:I 5:-t~C~\-f / 3t U 30 7-c1~~4 l_-Sicce/lj Q~Klt... ~uu'1 T~m \ .. co Signature tJm ·,, Siignature s Y:1--l{J ~~50:-~i-~ 3'\0-y v; 0 -51/o~ April 1, 2024 To : The Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee Re : Rezoning the vacant lot on Clipper/PV Drive South AIN # 7573-006-024 Dear Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee and City Council Members: We, the residents of Abalone Cove Community, respectfully submit our objections to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposed rezoning plan of the subject property to a RM -22 in finalizing its Housing Element update. The state -mandated process requires that all California cities undertake every eight years (or "cycles") to demonstrate how they will meet housing needs. We, the Abalone Cove Community. do not see any correlation between this mandated process and rezoning the RS-2 residential lot to Residential Multiple Family (RM -22). The Staff Report requesting to adopt this proposed plan has many incorrect analysis and specific improper demonstration of facts, needs and requirements . It also seems to ignore the facts that this neighborhood is in a slide area and is already unsafe for those of us here. Discuss ion with o ur v iews to the related portions of staff report h igh li g hted in yel low: The report on Page 2 indicates that the site-by-site analysis completed by Dudek studied the topographic and view conditions of each MUOD, ROD and RM -22 rezoned parcel and prepared a potential development framework that minimized adverse impacts to neighbors. We d isagree with this unsubstantiated conc lusion. • Housing Element by facilitating the development of a MUOD project of residential-only or mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses on select parcels. • Housing Element by facilitating a ROD development of residential-only or residential with limited nonresidential uses on select parcels with an existing Institutional underlying base district designation . 1 • Housing Element by facilitating the rezoning of a Single Residential Family to a high density Multiple Residential Family. The Report lays out that a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map is also required to include the new MUOD and ROD Overlay Districts as well as to reclassify two residential properties (Assessor Parcel No. 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) (Clipper) and Assessor Parcel No. 7578-002-011 (Site No. 17)) to a higher density. We be l ieve that Assessor Parce l No. 7573 -006-024 (S ite No. 16) ( Clipper) cannot and shal l not be rezoned to a RM -22 . Beside all the t opog raph ic and geographic impact, it is in direct violation of neighborhood compatibi l ity . Zone Change The Potential Housing Sites Inventory included in the Draft Revised Final Housing Element revised March 15, 2024 proposes to amend the zoning designation and corresponding City Zoning Map (Exhibit E) for Assessor Parcel No. 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) and Assessor Parcel No. 7578 -002-011 (Site No. 17) from Residential Single Family (RS-4) and Residential Single Family (RS-A -5), respectively, to Residential Multiple Family (RM-22). It appears to us, the Abalone cove Commun ity, that this report has been prepared to satisfy one and only one purpose, at all cost, and, that is to accommodate the C ity's 647 hous ing unit RHNA during the 6th Housing Cycle . The proposal of rezoning C lipper property to RM-22 has severe impact on Palos Verdes Drive South road conditions, traffic, load and land slide. The Report further on Pages 7 and 8, introduces the list of 30 Potential Housing Sites identified in the City's adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element including additional site at 500 Silver Spur Road (Site No. 15-Assessor Parcel No. 7586-028-019) for a total of 31 Potential Housing Sites. Further, it establishes that Proposed RHNA implementation measu res include General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Local Coastal Program (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendments and associated code amendments, which are outlined in further detail below: Draft Revised Final Housing Element & Housing Programs (Case Nos. PLGP2022 -0001, PLGP2024-001, PLZC2024 - 001, PLCA2024-001 & PLCA 2024-002) 2 On Page 8 the Report illustrates the Concerns of HCD with the environmental impact of this proposal as follows: On August 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-49, adopting the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated environmental review, which included a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The adopted Housing Element was subsequently forwarded to HCD for compliance review with State Housing Element Law. In October 2022, HCD notified the City's Community Development Department via letter that although the adopted Housing Element met many of the statutory requirements, the document was ultimately not found to be in compliance. As part of its review, HCD outlined additional document corrections required to be completed to achieve compliance. HCD corrections included, but were not limited to, providing support information related to affirmatively furthering fair housing efforts and clarifying the realistic capacity of residential devel~pment on identified Potential Housing Sites outlined in the City's Housing Element. The Housing Element update has involved efforts by City staff and consultants, public outreach, virtual and in-person workshops, and meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council -all aimed at identifying ways the City can rezone to accommodate 647 potential new housing units in RPV across various income levels through 2029. This target figure, called a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, was assigned to the City by the state, and the City is required to demonstrate the capacity of providing that additional housing by adequately zoning for the RHNA. To meet its RHNA, the City is proposing the creation of a Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) and Residential Overlay District (ROD). The City is also proposing to reclassify the zoning of two residential properties to a higher density. Both of the proposed districts and the rezoning effort are outlined in the Revised Final Housing Element (PDFi, which was recently submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency that determines whether cities have compliant housing elements. 3 We, the Abalone Cove Community believe that while MUOD or ROD might have possible work around environment impact, the RM-22 on a one-acre lot located on the most Unstable Costa! Road will have high environmenta l impact, view impairment and adverse affect on durabi lity and desirability of the community. As stated at the opening of our objections, it appears that this report has centered on the state mandated cyclic housing element and focused entirely on addition of 649 h igh density housing at all costs not acceptable to the rest of community. 4 ' NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SIGNATURE Appell, Robert <!.!li~rx84~siQ!.rom> Bea ubien, Denis <denny@productionelernents.com>· 61 SO Arrowroot --t~ .? .L7-i ~ -- Bndelrnan, Dan across from lot on Clipper Bruening, Dan <dan b ru ening~hotmajl.co m> 616 2 Arrowroot Ln •. , ~f:v-.., . -. : __ , • ....1...7 Bru ening, Rh o nda <r·,--:>11d a 0tu en ·ri g@ouoOQ1<..l;OM > 6162 Arrowroot Ln R~-1 /<,,. ·11/ Cowley, Pat <~owlerl!2@gmail.com> ~'\111.a.R~A~Gt,J Q\)_ _]~~ /) Cowley, Sh aron <sharonkcowl~:,£~gmail.com ~:331 ~~':l(J, ,1! A~ ~ ~ 1 - <tamm):'.dcg~ahoQ.corn> J , {I Da Costa-Gomez, Tammy -A - Dahlin, Ellen <edsihlio@v~riZQ □.ne!> 3151 Barkentine Road Ellen Dahlin ~tJCL Dahlin, John <dahlijo@verizQ □.net> 3151 Barkentine Road John Dahlin rr:/M, \/) Dahlin, Joseph dsihlinjo@veciz;Qn.net t ,,. Dave and Tammy <d9vez;abnise~aboo.com> de Vlee schouwer, Frank <frank@a-round-world.com> d e Vl eesc houwer, Odette QQ~tt ~~e-ro~rd~ortd ~om Decambra, Hank <pvhenri@yahoo.com> ~ l11 \ f>~ ~1 Vrn --•-0 ) <r;2vhank@aol.com> ~X. ..... DeCambra, Hank /?/ L. Doty, Gregory <gregorydoty@gmail.rom> -~-. //L .r--", "/ Feria, Luiz //(/ Feria, Luz <luzferi si 1 J22~gmsiil ,s;;Qm> . . Fe rnand ez , Isab e l <filis1b~l21 ~ahQQ.rom> ~\~n'ffir\L ,,,. ~ l-..! Garcia, Mike <fergusli!~ahoo.cQm> V "\ Micha~ci~A A 6350 Tarragon Road ./ . V NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ~~URE Garcia, Theresa <ferguslj lly@yahoo.com> 6350 Tarragon Road Theresa Garcia~~~~,~ G ianchandani, Sun il <sgianch@gma il.com> }l6 I {?w~i'M..-~ ~ Gianchandari, Sup riya <supmathur@hotma il.com> 1 t i I g 0--~1~ ~ ... ;(~---- Gomez Agnes and Hector a@briteminds.com 6132 Arrowroot ~ ~~ Haber, Bri gitte <bmkhaber@gmail.com> \)t\ '~-~.rl,-e LA ;l --~~ 0 o Hindman, Bernie <bemieh indman@ao l.com> ~~JJJ -- Hindman, Carol <caroljeanhindrnan@aol.com> ~.,✓~~~ Joseph, Li sa <;lisasealjoseph@gmail.com> 7 Joseph, nm <timjosephgm@gmail .com> Katzaroff, Peter <peter1 kat@att.net> Knotek , David <david@smartwax.com> Knotek, Sy lvi e <dreamlife@gma il.com> Koyano, Marylou <marialuisamateo 1@gmail.com > Koyano, Yuki Kwan, Cathy <catnkwan@yahoo.com> Kwon, Linda <1indax224@yahoo.com> laRose, Russell <russlarose@msn .com> .,7.~1?,_(/ Leveniec, Emile <leveniec@cox.net> -( Leveniec, Lannee Micucci, Janine <janinemicucci@gmail.com> 6150 Arrowroot ''VK !\ Moustacas, Jeff <albacoreguy@yahoo.com> y--v NAME EMAIL RES IDENTIA L ADDRESS SIGNATU RE M o usta cas , Tracy Muto, Hideki <hmuto@yintagecom p.co m> 6 128 Arrowroot Hideki Muto !-~· J., .V r Muto, Yumiko <yu miko902 75@g m aiL com> 61 28 Arrowroot Yumiko Muto //AA ~ / Nuttman, Bobbie <ba nuttman@g m ail.co m > (/ Nuttman, Thoma s <tme1ncplast1cs@sboglobal.net> bounced b ack -wro ng em ail? Paul <pkafutton@yahoo.com> Pl antamura , Rita <ritapl ant@ao 1.com> - Roberts. Debbie <debbieeltonroberts@ve ri zo n.net F't), J1M ~ ---------- Ro b inso n, Philip <probin son 1@cox .n et> ~ ,_. ~ Ryan, G erlinda <gerli nd eart@g m ail.com > I r Se naratna, Ami <a mi_se nara tna@ hotmail.com> 6149 Arrowro ot Lan e Ami Se naratn a lxr,.._ .. ~ ,\ .L:..rv .. / [._.., Shook, Victori a I , -.. l - ~(4:ialigh., ~'\n,U-J <smkh ali g h@ya hoo .com> 6100 Arrowroot lane X,,A .J)c-\ ~ ~ ~/ C Till, Athena <ath enaostrom @g m ail.co m> 6 317 Tarra g on Ro ad Ath ena Till... ( )Z J '-- Till, Ern est <em estdavidtill @g mail.com > 6 ) l 1 ~~ V j • ~ ~ ~ Trull, Lori <lo ritrull@yma il.co m > :. ~~\ ~ 'ht tll 1t' Ungar, Michae l <mi chae lungar@cox.n et> 3245 BARK ENTIN E RD Un ga r, Paul a <pa ul aungac@co x.n et > 32 45 BARK ENTIN E RD Valerio, Chri stiana <christ ianavaleno@g m ail.co m> Yun, Hubert <hubertyun@ya hoo.com > l -- NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIA L AQDRESS SIGNATURE Appell, Robert <uscrx84@aol.com> <denny@productionelements.com> -~~. ~ Beaubien, Denis 6150 Arrowroot Bridelman, Dan ac ro ss from lot on Clipper Bruening, Dan <dan bruening@hotmail.com> 6162 Arrowroot Ln , ... --· AJ.-t. ~ .. ,i\, ,+c..•, ~-- Bru ening, Rh o nda <· • onda o. -Jen,ng@om,001< corr,> 6162 Arrowroot Ln R~l f<f -"1ij Cowley, Pat <pcowley09@gmail.com> ~ '.\; 1 T" ll'RA ~t.J Q'1 ~ :J~~ f} Cowl ey, Sh aro n <sharonkcowl ey@gma il.co m /,,, :3 31 ~~ '-(( J. -~~ AU-1C ~ ...,. (I Da Costa-Gomez, Tammy <tammydcg@yahoo.com> J -~ - Dahlin, Ellen <edah lin@verizon.net> 3151 Barkentine Road 'Y)At )CL-Ellen Dahlin I Dahlin, John <dahlijo@yerizon .n et> 3151 Barkentine Road John Dahlin .. (JM \~) Dahlin, Jose ph dahlinjo@yerizon.net t ,, Da ve and Tammy <davezahniser@yahoo.com> de Vl eeschouwer, Frank <frank@a-round-world.com> de Vleeschouwer, Odette ooerte@a-r-:-~md wono .com Decambra, Hank • <pvhenri@yahoo.com> --n~ l,1 \ f)~ ~1Vm ~ 'i <pvhank@aol.com> # • -DeCambra. Hank ,;?/ L. Doty, Gregory <gregocydoty@gmail.com> . .,/Z ...... -//L ~ ..... -~'"";."/ Feria, Luiz /A/ Feria, Luz <luzferia 1322@gmail.com> . Fernandez, Isabe l <fisabel21@yahoo.com> ~\~n~ ~~ Garcia, Mike <ferguslilly@yahoo.com> v, Micha~ci~ A I\ _ 6350 Tarragon Road . / ......-..;,;, V NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ~N~URE Garci a, Th eresa <f ergusl illy@ya h Qo.cQ m > 635 0 Tarragon Roa d L.J ~ .,.. Th eresa Ga rci a~ -A ,,,u,,,.£,,,.. ~..,,.,,.~ G ianchandani, Su nil <sg is1nch~g m ail.i;;Q m > ~t6 f {?w~.J-~~ Ji/:.~ Gianch andari, Supriya <sypmathur@botm ail .i;;Qm> 1t ti s~~-r~~ ~---. Gomez Agnes and Hecto r a@b ritemind§.com 6 132 Arrowroo t /1.._ ·~ ~.~ 1 I - Hab er, Bri g itte <bmkhaber@g mail .com > t)~ \t, \X) .'l'P O ' I I 11 0 t Hindman, Be rni e <bemiehindma n~aol .co m > -~-~ -_JJ . 11 Hind man, Ca rol <caroljea nhi odm an~aol .com> , (Lt._/(J;;•~ ) ~.it/_ ~ -~-~ Joseph, Li sa <lisasea l iolief;!h~gm ail.com > f Joseph, nm <ti mjQli~p hgm~gms1 il.cg m > Katza roff, Pet e r <petgr] kat~att,ngt> Kn o t ek , Da vid <dsi :!!id~lim 2rtws1x.i;;o m > Knotek, Sylvie <drgam life@g mail.co m > Koya no , M aryl o u <m ari alu isa m at eo 1 ~gm ail .com> Koy ano , Yuki Kwan, Cathy <catnkwan~ah oo.cgm> Kwo n,linda <lin dax224~2h oo.com> LaRose , Ru sse ll <w :ili l2rQs~~rmn.i;;Q m > ..,7~1i7,ow(/ Levenie c, Emile <lgvgojec@cQx .n~!> t Lev eniec, La nnee Mic ucci, Janin e <i2 □in§m i i;;yi;;ci~gms1 il.~m> 6 150 Arrowro ot -lfK A ~ ._ M o ustacas, Jeff <al!;;iacoreguy@ya hoo.com > I T _, NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SIGNATURE Moustacas, Tracy Muto, Hideki <hmuto@yintagecomp.com> 6128 Arrowroot Hideki Muto /J.,~ Muto, Yumiko <yumiko90275@gmajl.com> 6128 Arrowroot Yumiko Muto /'{AA /:?~ "" (/ - Nuttman, Bobbie <ba nuttrn an@gm ail.com> Nuttman, Thomas <tmejncplastics@sboglobal.net> bounced back -wrong email? Paul <pkafulton@yahoo.com> Pl antamura, Rita <rita pl ant®ao l .com> _.. Roberts, Debbie <debbieeltonroberts@verizon.n et Pl) ,M1 ~-------- Robinson, Philip <probinson 1@cox .n et > ~ -.......... ~ Ryan, Gerl inda <gerlindeart@gmajl.com > I /l Se naratna, Ami <ami_se naratna@ hotmail.com> 6149 Arrowroot Lane Ami Se naratna lxn"'./k ,\ ~ ~l 1...-..... Shook, Victoria I - " \ ~icbaligh,, ~ ~'\'\V\-~ <smkhaligh@yahoo.com> 6100 Arrowroot lane L U'!>..\ o..._ \-S'' 0/c v ( \ =.J I Till, Athena <athenaostrom@gmail.com> 6317 Tarragon Road Athena Till,._ ( .){ J '-- Till, Ernest <emestdavidtill@gmail.com> 6>\1 -. ~ ·W'fv r'" ~ ~ Trull , Lori <loritrull@ymail.com> L ?,L\\ Yni\'!t. ·17, rG Ungar, Michael <michaelungar@cox.net> 3245 BARKENTINE RD Ungar, Paula <paulaungar@cox.net> 3245 BARKENTINE RD Valerio, Christiana <christianavalerio@gmail.com> Yun, Hubert <hubectyun@yahoo .com> I NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SIGNATURE --.--F _ { . , , 1 • --:-1. . , \ . ": • f ~ ,,. -·,t 7f. --------7 I • ~ Secretary, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Please make a copy of each letter and deliver to the Mayor and each City Councilman. This must be done today. J .. I/ Thank you, · Stasys Petravicius, t_"' j · Community of Abalone Cove, V-P ,_;2 r-· City of Rancho Palos Verdes JUN O 4 REC'D City Manager's Office I . May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff a re: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision . What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff a re: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Abalone Cove Resident <2f-oFF +· AN'7Et..SGV~ 2 5 ~-~o) 'i.. ~ e2. , ~v l cA C\o~--:\-S May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density {R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024 . By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services . 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22 . The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4} to High Density (R22}. We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD} recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff a re: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are : 1. The Community was not properly notified ofthe rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Abalone Cove Resident Subject: FW: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Wireless Facilities Ordinance -Tonight's Council Agenda Item 2 [Rancho Palos Verdes] Attachments: Verizon Wireless Letter 06.04.24.pdf From: Paul Albritton <pa@mallp.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 1:37 PM To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elena Gerli <egerli@awattorneys.com>; Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Wireless Facilities Ordinance -Tonight's Council Agenda Item 2 [Rancho Palos Verdes] Dear Councilmembers, attached please find our letter prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the draft wireless facilities ordinance to be considered at your meeting this evening. We urge the Council to continue this ordinance item and direct staff to conduct an industry stakeholder meeting to avoid violation of federal law. Thank you. Paul Albritton Mackenzie & Albritton, LLP 155 Sansome Street, Suite 620 San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 288-4000 pa@mallp.com 1 MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 620 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 VIA EMAIL Mayor John Cruikshank Mayor Pro Tem Eric Alegria Councilmembers David L. Bradley, Barbara Ferraro, and Paul Seo TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 June 4, 2024 City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Re: Draft Ordinance, Wireless Facilities on Private Property City Council Agenda Item 2, June 4, 2024 Dear Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tem Alegria, and Councilmembers: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless to ask that you defer adoption of the draft ordinance regulating wireless facilities on private property (the "Draft Ordinance"). Verizon Wireless only recently became aware of the Draft Ordinance, and is concerned about excessive requirements that contradict federal law. We request that the Council continue this item to a future meeting, and direct staff to conduct a stakeholder meeting with industry representatives to review the Draft Ordinance. Excessive Draft Ordinance requirements include the potential refusal of new applications not consistent with a prior master plan.1 This would impose an express moratorium on new wireless facilities. However, any moratorium on wireless facility applications, including the City's current moratorium expiring in August,2 constitutes a prohibition of service in violation of the federal Telecommunications Act and is unenforceable, as the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has confirmed.3 Master plans are inappropriate for wireless networks due to constantly-changing user demand patterns and technological advances. The requirement to install a wireless facility mock-up4 adds significant expense that materially inhibits service improvements, which the FCC also found constitutes an unlawful prohibition of service. 5 A mock-up is unnecessary because the Draft Ordinance already requires photosimulations to demonstrate the visual impact of a facility.6 1 Draft Ordinance§ 17.73.040(8)(10). 2 Ordinance No. 673(U). 3 See In Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment, etc., Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Red. 7705, 77751f 140 et seq. (FCC August 3, 2018); see also 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 4 Draft Ordinance§ 17.73.040(8)(14). 5 See In Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment, etc., Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Red. 9088, 9104-061[1[ 37-40, 91301f 81 et seq. (FCC September 27, 2018). 6 Draft Ordinance§ 17.73.040(8)(9). Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 4, 2024 Page 2 of 2 A required community meeting7 is unnecessary for applications that would be considered at a public hearing, which provides community members with advance notice and an opportunity to comment. The community meeting would also add delay to the application process while the "Shot Clock" time period is running per FCC rules, which require the City to take final action on an application within a 90-or 150-day period for a typical facility on private property. 8 The City should avoid contradiction of federal law and seek collaboration with industry to discuss the latest wireless technology and designs. We urge you to defer adoption of the Draft Ordinance, and direct staff to schedule a stakeholder meeting with Verizon Wireless and other industry members. cc: Elena Q. Gerli, Esq. Brandy Forbes Amy Seeraty 7 Draft Ordinance§ l 7.73.040(B)(l 9). 8 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003. Very truly yours, ~dY~ ~ul B. Albritton From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 8:35 PM Cc: Subject: Elena Gerli; Vina Ramos; Anita Luck; Ramzi Awwad; CityClerk June 4 CC Meeting -ACLAD and KCLAD Attachments: RPV Klondike Canyon Loan Agreement(982387.1)_Draft.pdf; RPV Abalone Cove LAD Loan Agreement(982387.1 )_Draft.pdf Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, Attached, as late correspondence, are the draft loan agreements for AC LAD and KCLAD as described in the staff report. Please note that we are calling them a draft loan agreement because to date, the board of directors for both geologic hazard abatement districts, have not officially taken action at their noticed public meetings. Until that happens, the City Council should not authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements. Therefore, the draft loan agreements will be brought back to the City Council for formal consideration at a later date, and that at tomorrow's meeting, the Council can provide feedback on the loan terms and conditions. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager aram@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5202 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov "1.-0£TITON ~, Google Play contd ins inforrnaUon bt:_-!on;;JinQ to Citv of Rancho Vt.•rdcs( v'ii"lich ri·kiy be p; !vllegecL and/or frcin rH.sdosun:, The fnfo1n·1ation is fnte:ndc~d onb; frir use thi:'.; individual or Uni:1uthori1t'.d dlssernitE1Uor\ distrlbutlon 1 or is strictly prohH.ited. If you received this t~ffkti! !;1 error{ an !ntr:~ndcd rr.:clplf~nt, phYl5(~ notify the assistance and 1 LOAN AGREEMENT Between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT (Abalone Cove Subslide of Portuguese Bend Landslide Stabilization Project) 01203.0023/982387. l LOAN AGREEMENT (Portuguese Bend Landslide Abatement Project)) This Loan Agreement is made as of this _ day of ___ , 2024, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District ("Borrower"). RECITALS A. Borrower is a geologic hazard abatement district duly organized pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 26500 et seq. (the "Law"). B. Borrower desires to take certain steps mitigate and stabilize the effects of the Portuguese Bend Landslide within its area, as described herein on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project"). C. Due to the recent rainstorms in Southern California which affected the landslide, Borrower needs to commence work on a portion of the Project to mitigate further detrimental effects on the landslide. D. Borrower has requested that the City assist the Borrower and loan it money to commence a portion of the Project. E. Pursuant to the Law, the City is permitted to provide financial assistance to the District. F. The financial assistance effectuates a public purpose as the Project is part of the overall stabilization of the Portuguese Bend Landslide within the City including Palos Verdes Drive South which is a major arterial roadway supporting approximately 16,000 daily trips. G. As described herein, the City desires to loan funds to Borrower to allow Borrower to commence and continue with portions of the Project. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements, obligations, and representations, and in further consideration for the making of the Loan (described below), Borrower and City hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following terms have the meanings and content set forth in this section wherever used in this Loan Agreement, attached Exhibits, or documents incorporated into this Loan Agreement by reference. 1.1 "BORROWER" is the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District, a geologic hazard abatement district duly organized pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 26500 et seq. 1.2 "CITY" is the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. 1.3 "COUNTY" means the County of Los Angeles, political subdivision of the State of California. 1.4 "LOAN" means the contribution of funds to help finance the Project from the City in an amount not to exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000). 1.5 "LOAN DOCUMENTS" means collectively this Loan Agreement and the Note, as they may be amended, modified, or restated from time to time, along with all exhibits and attachments to these documents. 1.6 "NOTE" means the promissory note executed by the Borrower in favor of City in the amount of the Loan to evidence the Loan of City funds in connection with the Project, as well as any amendments to, modifications of, or restatements of said promissory note, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 1.7 "PROJECT" means the certain work described on Exhibit A hereto related to the mitigation of the effects of the Portuguese Bend Landslide in the area of Borrower. ARTICLE II TERMS OF THE LOAN On and subject to the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents, City agrees to make and Borrower agrees to accept a loan with the following terms: 2.1 FUNDS ON LOAN. The total principal amount of the Loan shall not exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) ("Maximum Amount"). The Loan may consist of several loans as the Borrower draws down amounts under this Loan Agreement up to the Maximum Amount. The Actual amount of the Loan shall be determined by the draw down schedules attached as Exhibit C hereto from time to time. 2.1.1 TERM OF FUNDS ON LOAN; REPAYMENT. The principal and all current and accrued interest on the Loan and Note shall be due and payable commencing on the first drawdown date on the Loan in accordance with the terms hereof, and on each subsequent draw down of principal as described hereunder. The maximum term of the loan shall be twelve (12) years from the first draw down date. The Finance Director will attach a revised amortization schedule on _ and __ evidencing the current loan amounts, including principal and interest due. Payments of principal and interest shall be made annually on __ of each year. A. The amortization schedule shall be updated semi-annually, and at least prior to the ensuing payment dates reflecting the prior disbursements on the Loan, by the Finance Director of the City and replace the prior amortization schedule, however the term shall remain _ from the initial disbursement. The updated amortization schedules shall be acknowledged by the __ of the Maker. The updated amortization schedules shall be attached hereto as Exhibit" " -2- B. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to forgo the physical payment made to the Borrower for its annual assessment from Borrower and instead treat the City's total annual assessment as a credit toward the required loan payments from the Borrower. 2.1.2 EVIDENCE. Borrower shall evidence and secure its obligation to repay the Loan of by executing the Promissory Note, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 2.2 INTEREST. The Note shall bear interest at a rate of 2.5 percent (2.5%) per year from the date of the initial disbursement until the Loan is repaid in full. 2.3 USE OF FUNDS. Loan proceeds may be used only for the purpose of constructing the Project as specified herein. Operational expenditures including administrative costs, legal and or litigation costs, and ongoing maintenance are not permitted uses of the loan. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. Borrower hereby agrees to use the Loan to assist with the costs to develop the Project as described in (Exhibit "A"). Borrower shall also carry out the Project in compliance with all applicable State and regulations. 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. Borrower shall commence and diligently prosecute the completion of the Project within the time provided and otherwise in strict compliance with this Agreement. Construction of the Project shall commence within ____ and shall be completed by __ . 2.6 LIMIT ON ASSISTANCE. Except as is expressly provided for in this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation to provide Borrower with additional assistance, to make any monetary or financial contribution toward the Project, to pay any development costs, or to carry-out or complete the Project. ARTICLE III LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND REPAYMENT 3.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISBURSEMENT. City shall not be obligated to make any disbursements of the Loan proceeds or take any other action under the Loan Documents unless the following conditions precedent are satisfied prior to the disbursement of the Loan: 3.1.1 Borrower has provided and City has accepted a certified Engineer's Report (Report), in connection with the portion of the Project being undertaken, which Report purports to describe that the work being undertaken will have the effect of stabilizing the Landslide for which disbursements will be made from this Loan. 3.1.2 Borrower has delivered to City executed contracts and schedules for the portion of the Project being undertaken, and all required proof of insurance in a form acceptable to City; and 3.1.3 Borrower has received all approvals necessary to commence construction of the Project. -3- 3.1.4. The City has received a resolution of the Borrower approving the Loan Agreement and the City has approved the Loan Agreement. 3.1.5. Borrower has worked with the City to develop a 10-Year Financial Model outlining estimated Sources of Revenues and Expenditures. The Financial Model tool shall assist in upholding Borrower's repayment obligations to the City and in identifying financial challenges early, if any, allowing for appropriate measures to be taken. The Financial Model shall be completed by December 1, 2024. The Loan funds are to be used by Borrower for the construction of the Project and shall be disbursed as described in Sections 3.2 though 3.3. Conditions_ and_ may, upon approval of the City Manager, may be continued to a date certain following a loan disbursement. 3.2 DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN. The Loan shall be disbursed by City to Borrower from time to time and shall not exceed the Maximum Amount or the amount required for the Project, if lower. Disbursements shall occur as follows: (i) Borrower may request a draw down on amounts necessary to pay City-approved costs, which draw, if requested, shall be funded, provided that Borrower has submitted all required documentation to the City in connection with such draw (as further described below) and (ii) after construction has commenced, construction disbursements shall be disbursed to contractors or the District following receipt of invoices and contracts relating to the work for which a disbursement is requested, also pursuant to 3 .3. 3.2.1 ENGINEERING; CONSTRUCTION COSTS. City agrees to provide the Loan to Borrower, to provide financial assistance the Borrower for certain Project costs such that the draw down on the Loan shall be in phases or from time to time. Soft costs may not be paid for from the proceeds of the Loan unless agreed to by the City Manager. 3.2.2 APPROVAL AND PAYMENT. Upon receipt of the Application for Disbursement the City shall review the same and shall approve the same subject to such exceptions as the City deems reasonably necessary and appropriate under the then current circumstances. Such approval may not unreasonably be withheld or delayed. The City shall pay, or cause to be paid, any approved disbursements within twenty (20) days following the City's receipt of the corresponding complete Application for Disbursement. In addition, on or about the _of each month, a City representative will attend a monthly job site inspection, conducted by the Borrower, to verify that the portion of the application for disbursement is complete. 3.3 APPLICATIONS FOR DISBURSEMENT. From time to time after execution of this Loan Agreement and continuing until all of the Loan has been disbursed, subject to the limitations of Section 3.2, Borrower may submit to the City an "Application for Disbursement." Each Application for Disbursement shall include: 3.3.1 A written, itemized statement, signed by a representative of the Borrower which sets forth: (i) a description of the work performed or being performed, material supplied, -4- and/or costs incurred or due for which disbursement is requested; and (ii) the total amount incurred, expended and/or due for the requested disbursement. Back up documentation shall be presented to substantiate the disbursement request, including contracts, invoices, etc.. All moneys applied for and disbursed pursuant to this Section shall be applied only for the corresponding improvements and the statement(s) by the representative of the Borrower shall so affirm, in a writing signed under penalty of perjury. 3.3.2 Certification that items in the Application for Disbursement have not been subject to a previous request and that there are no mechanics liens in connection with the work or that upon payment, a release of mechanics lien shall be made for such progress payment and that upon the final payment, an unconditional waiver and release shall be made. 3.3.3 Certification that in completing work pursuant to this Section, the Borrower has complied with all applicable laws or is complying with all applicable laws. Each Application for Disbursement by the Borrower shall constitute a representation and warranty by the Borrower that all work encompassed by the Application has been accomplished in accordance with sound construction practices and laws, and that the Borrower is in compliance with all of the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE IV CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT; RELATED COVENANTS[[here]] 4.1 RECORDS. Borrower shall be accountable to City for all funds disbursed to Borrower pursuant to the Loan Documents and agrees to maintain records that accurately and fully show the date, amount, purpose, and payee of all expenditures drawn from Loan funds, and to keep all invoices, receipts, and other documents related to expenditures from said Loan funds for not less than the term of the Loan. Records must be kept accurate and current. Borrower shall provide such records to City upon request of City. City shall notify Borrower of any records it deems insufficient. Borrower shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of said notice to correct any deficiency in the records specified by City in said notice, or, if more than fifteen (15) days shall be reasonably necessary to correct the deficiency, Borrower shall begin to correct the deficiency within fifteen (I 5) days and correct the deficiency as soon as reasonably possible. Borrower shall promptly comply with all requirements or conditions of the Loan Documents relating to notices, extensions and other events required to be reported or requested. Borrower shall promptly supply, upon the request of City, any and all information and documentation which involves the development of the Project. Borrower shall provide City with all records and books requested by City within one day of such request. Borrower shall provide that City shall have access to quarterly financial reports, including Balance Sheets, Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, Detailed Accounting Reports of Expenditures and Revenues. Borrower shall provide such items to City quarterly on the _ day of a subsequent quarter for the previous quarter, commencing_. Borrower shall provide to the City monthly updates of current expenditures, expected future expenditures and progress reports on the Project. -5- 4.2 AUDITS. Borrower shall make available for examination at reasonable intervals throughout the term of this Loan and during normal business hours to City all books, accounts, reports, files, and other papers or property with respect to all matters covered by these Loan Documents, and shall permit City to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records. City may make audits of any conditions relating to this Loan. Borrower shall provide City with its annual financial audit report by_ of each year. 4.3 BORROWER RESPONSIBILITIES DURING WORK. The Borrower shall be solely responsible for all actions necessary for the construction of work on the Project and cause all construction of the Project to be performed in accordance in accordance with all other applicable laws and regulations. The cost of constructing all of the improvements or work required to be done on the Project shall be borne by Borrower. Borrower acknowledges and agrees that the Project would be considered to be a "public work" "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds," as described in California Labor Code Section 1 720 such that Borrower shall pay prevailing wages in connection with the construction of the Project. Accordingly, Borrower shall defend and hold the City and the City Council and City Employees and City Consultants harmless from and against any all liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) arising from or as a result of any action or determination that Borrower's construction of the Project failed to comply with any applicable prevailing wage laws 4.4 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE; PROGRESS REPORTS. Borrower shall begin and complete all construction in accordance with the Project schedule to be provided by Borrower to the City by __ . Once construction is commenced, it shall be diligently pursued to completion, and shall not be abandoned for more than thirty (30) consecutive days. Borrower shall keep the City informed of the progress of construction and shall submit monthly written reports of the progress of the construction to the City in the form required by the City. Borrower shall also provide monthly reports on all expenditures on the Project. ARTICLE V INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 5.1 GENERAL INDEMNITY. To the full extent permitted by law, Borrower expressly agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, release, and hold City and City and their officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and contractors harmless from and against, any claim, liability, loss, damage, entry, cost, or expense (including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and court costs) which arises out of or is in any way connected with Borrower's construction of and/or work on the Project and any act, omission or item related to or arising out of the Loan Documents. City shall not be responsible for any acts, errors or omissions of any person or entity and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees or contractors. The parties expressly agree that the obligations of Borrower under this Section shall survive the expiration or early termination of the Agreement. 5.2 INSURANCE. Prior to the commencement of any construction by Borrower on the Project, Borrower shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and -6- content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of such entry or construction, insurance satisfactory to the work being performed on the Project, including but not limited to casualty insurance, workers compensation insurance, and builders risk insurance. All the policies of insurance, [except the Builder's Risk Insurance], shall be primary insurance and shall name City, City, and their officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against City, and their officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice to City and City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, Borrower shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section to the City. No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Borrower has provided City with Certificates of Insurance or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders are approved by City. The Borrower agrees that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Borrower may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Borrower's activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the Borrower is otherwise responsible. 5.3 NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS. No officials, employees and agents of City shall be personally liable to Borrower for any obligation created under the terms of these Loan Documents. 5.4 RIGHTS OF ACCESS. Representatives of the City shall have the reasonable right to access the Project without charges or fees, at any time during normal construction hours during the period of construction and upon reasonable notice to Borrower, for the purpose of assuring compliance with this Agreement, including but not limited to the inspection of the construction work being performed by or on behalf of Borrower. Such representatives of City shall be those who are so identified in writing by the City Manager, City Engineer, or Public Works Director. ARTICLE VI DEFAULT AND REMEDIES 6.1 EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute an "Event of Default" under this Loan Agreement: 6.1.1 Monetary. (A) Borrower's failure to pay when due any sums payable under the Note and Loan; and (B) Borrower's use of Loan funds for costs other than approved costs or for uses inconsistent with other terms and restrictions in the Loan Documents; 6.1.2 General Performance of Loan Obligations. Any substantial breach by Borrower beyond applicable notice and cure periods of any material obligations on Borrower imposed in the Loan Document. -7- 6.1.3 Representations and Warranties. A determination by City that any of Borrower's representations or warranties made in the Loan Documents, or any certificates, documents, or schedules supplied to City by Borrower were untrue in any material respect when made, or that Borrower concealed or failed to disclose a material fact from City. 6.1.4 Damage to Property. Material damage or destruction of the Project by fire or other casualty, if Borrower does not take steps to reconstruct the Project; or 6.1.5 Bankruptcy, Dissolution, and Insolvency. Borrower's: (A) filing for bankruptcy, dissolution, or reorganization, (B) making a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (C) applying for the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, or liquidator; (D) insolvency; or (E) failure, inability or admission in writing of its inability to pay its debts as they become due. 6.2 NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. For all Events of Default, City shall give written notice to Borrower of any Event of Default by specifying: (a) the nature of the event or deficiency giving rise to the Default, (b) the action required to cure the deficiency, if an action to cure is possible, and (c) a date, which shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the notice or the date the notice was refused, by which such action to cure must be taken or if a cure is not possible within thirty (30) days, to begin such cure and diligently prosecute such cure to completion which shall, in any event, not exceed ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the notice to cure. The City has the sole discretion to determine whatever additional reasonable time is needed to cure. Following an Event of Default, interest shall accrue at five percent rate (5%). 6.3 CITY'S REMEDIES. Upon the happening of an Event of Default by Borrower and a failure to cure said Event of Default within the time specified in Section 6.2 above, City's obligation to disburse Loan proceeds shall terminate, and City may also, in addition to other rights and remedies permitted by the Loan Documents or applicable law, proceed with any or all of the following remedies in any order or combination City may choose in its sole discretion and/or any other remedy provided by Law or equity: 6.3.1 Terminate this Loan Agreement, in which event the entire principal amount outstanding and all accrued interest under the Note as well as any other monies advanced to Borrower by City under the Loan Documents including administrative costs, shall immediately become due and payable at the option of City; 6.3.2 Bring an action in equitable relief (A) seeking the specific performance by Borrower of the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents, and/or (B) enjoining, abating, or preventing any violation of said terms and conditions, and/or (C) seeking declaratory relief; 6.3.3 Accelerate the Loan and demand immediate full payment of the principal amount outstanding and all accrued interest under the Note as well as any other monies advanced to Borrower by City under the Loan Documents; 6.3.4 Disburse from Loan proceeds any amount necessary to cure any monetary default; -8- 6.3.5 Provide for an offset of any amounts due and amounts incurred in pursuing remedial action against the City's annual assessment due to the District, as such assessment becomes due. City may treat such offset as a remedy or an advance. 6.3.6 Pursue any other remedy allowed at law or in equity. ARTICLE VII GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 BORROWER'S WARRANTIES. Borrower represents and warrants (A) that it has access to professional advice and support to the extent necessary to enable Borrower to fully comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement and to otherwise carry out the Project, (B) that it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California, (C) that it has the full power and authority to undertake the Project and to execute the Loan Agreement and related agreements, (D) that the persons executing and delivering the Loan Documents are authorized to execute and deliver such document on behalf of Borrower, (E) and (E) that all representations in the Borrower's submissions of materials related to the loan or the annual assessments are true, correct and complete in all material respects and are offered to induce City to make this loan. 7.2 PROPOSITION 218. Borrower shall comply with Proposition 218 as it applies to Borrower's increase of assessments. 7.3 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Borrower covenants that no person who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities funded pursuant to this contract or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. Borrower shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the prohibition in this Section is followed. 7.4 TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Loan Agreement shall commence on the date set forth above and remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the loan. 7.5 GOVERNING LAW. The Loan Documents shall be interpreted under and be governed by the laws of the State of California, except for those provisions relating to choice of law or those provisions preempted by federal law. 7.6 STATUTORY REFERENCES. All references in the Loan Documents to particular statutes, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions of the United States, the State of California, or the County of Los Angeles, or the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall be deemed to include the same statute, regulation, ordinance, or resolution as hereafter amended or renumbered, or if repealed, to such other provisions as may thereafter govern the same subject as the provision to which specific reference was made. 7.7 TIME. Time is of the essence in these Loan Documents. -9- 7.8 CONSENTS AND APPROVALS. Any consent or approval of City or Borrower required under the Loan Documents shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any approval required under the Loan Documents shall be in writing and executed by an authorized representative of the party granting the approval. 7.9 NOTICES, DEMANDS AND COMMUNICATIONS. Formal notices, demands and communications between Borrower and City shall be sufficiently given and shall not be deemed given unless dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the principal offices of Borrower and City as follows: CITY: BORROWER: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard[s}~] Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention: City Manager Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Attn: ----- 7.10 RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The relationship of Borrower and City for this Project under this Loan Agreement is and at all times shall remain solely that of a debtor and a creditor, and shall not be construed as a joint venture, equity venture, partnership, or any other relationship. City neither undertakes nor assumes any responsibility or duty to Borrower or any third party with respect to the Project, or the Loan. 7.11 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION. Borrower shall not assign any of its interests under this Loan Agreement or the Loan Documents to any other party, except as specifically permitted under the terms of the Loan Documents, without the prior written consent of City. Any unauthorized assignment shall be void. 7.12 WAIVER. Any waiver by City of any obligation in these Loan Documents must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by City to take action on any breach or default of Borrower or to pursue any remedy allowed under the Loan Documents or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Borrower to perform any obligation under the Loan Documents shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under the Loan Documents. Consent by City to any act or omission by Borrower shall not be construed to be a consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for City's written consent to future waivers. 7.13 INTEGRATION. This Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents, including exhibits, executed by Borrower for the Property, if any, contain the entire agreement of the parties relating to this Project and supersede any and all prior negotiations. 7.14 OTHER AGREEMENTS. Borrower represents that it has not entered into any agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of the Loan Documents. Borrower shall not -10- enter into any agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of the Loan Documents without an express waiver by City in writing. 7.15 AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS. Any amendments or modifications to the Loan Documents must be in writing, and shall be made only if executed by both Borrower and City. 7.16 SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Loan Agreement is intended to be severable. If any provision of this Loan Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired. [Signatures on next page.] -11- In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Loan Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY: City of Rancho Palos Verdes By: ------------ Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Elena Gerli, City Attorney -12- BORROWER: ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT By: ___________ _ Name: ------------ Title: ------------- EXHIBIT "A" A-1 EXHIBIT "B PROMISSORY NOTE $ _______ ("Loan Amount") ______ , 20_ ("Note Date") FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (herein, "Maker") hereby promises to pay to the order of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation ("Holder" or "City"), at a place designated by Holder, the principal sum of ("Note Amount"), plus any accrued interest. The maximum Note Amount shall not exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000). This "Loan" is the result of a loan from City to Maker to assist in the cost of certain projects of stabilizing the Abalone Cove Landslide a subslide of the greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex in the area of Maker ("Project") pursuant to a Loan Agreement between City and Maker. The term "Loan" herein shall only refer to the amounts actually paid out by City and any interest thereon, if any, as provided herein. Except as otherwise provided herein, the defined terms used in this Note shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement. 1. Purpose of Loan. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, the Holder has contributed the Loan amount for the implementation and/or construction of the Project. The Holder accepts this Note as evidence of the Loan. 2. Loan Amount. The maximum principal amount of the Loan shall not exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000). The amount of the Loan shall be a draw down loan starting from zero and will increase with each disbursement on the Loan. Repayment of the Note shall include interest payments at the rate of two and a half percent (2.5%) per year on the Note. Payment of the Note shall be as described in Section 4. 3. Prepayment. Maker may prepay the outstanding balance of the Note, in whole or in part, at anytime without penalty. 4. Term of Fund Loan; Repayment. The principal and all current and accrued interest on the Note shall be due and payable (a) annually on December 1, commencing December 1, 2025 or the first disbursement date for a term of twelve years (12). The amortization schedule for the Loan shall be attached to the Loan Agreement and this Note based upon the first disbursement. The amortization schedule shall be updated semi-annually, and at least prior to the ensuing payment dates reflecting the prior B-1 disbursements on the Loan, by the Finance Director of the City and replace the prior amortization schedule, however the term shall remain from the initial disbursement. The updated amortization schedules shall be acknowledged by the __ of the Maker. The updated amortization schedules shall be attached hereto as Exhibit" " The City retains the right in its sole discretion to forgo the physical payment made to the Borrower for its annual assessment from Borrower and instead treat the City's total annual assessment as a credit toward the required loan payments from the Borrower. 5. Default; Cross-Default; Acceleration. 5.1 In addition to Maker's failure to perform the requirements of this Note, Maker shall also be in default of this Note if Maker violates or fails to perform any provision of the Loan Agreement. 5.2 Default by Maker of this Note or of the Loan Agreement, shall constitute a default of this Note and all of the Loan Agreement. 5.3 In the event Maker fails to perform hereunder or under the Loan Agreement, for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of written notice from Holder that such performance was due, Maker shall be in default of this Note. Prior to exercising any of its remedies hereunder, City shall give Maker written notice of such default, and Maker shall thereafter have thirty (30) days to cure such default; provided, however, that if the default hereunder is solely as a result of a default under the Loan Agreement, the default, notice, and cure provisions of the applicable document shall apply. If Maker cures a default within the cure period set forth in the applicable document, Maker shall be deemed to have also cured that default under this Note. If Maker does not cure a default within the cure period, Maker shall be deemed in default under this Note and the Loan Agreement. In the event Maker is deemed in default under this Note, and has not cured the default within the time set forth in the applicable notice of default, Holder may, at its option, declare this Note and the entire obligations hereby evidenced immediately due and payable and collectible then or thereafter as Holder may elect, regardless of the date of maturity. Upon such occurrence, the balance of the Note will be due and owing together with interest which shall accrue from the date of the default at five percent (5%) per year. In addition, City may advance and/or credit funds from City's annual assessment due to ACLAD for the default and any interest costs. At the time of such advance, City may, in its discretion determine that such amount is an advance and the event of default continues to accrue or City may determine that the credit cures such default. 6. Collection Costs; Attorneys' Fees. If, because of any event of default under this Note or the Loan Agreement, any attorney is engaged by Holder, including the City Attorney, to enforce or defend any provision of this instrument, whether or not suit is filed hereon, then Maker shall pay upon demand reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and all costs so incurred by Holder together with interest thereon until paid at the applicable rate of interest payable hereunder, as if such fees and costs had been added to the principal owing hereunder. B-2 7. Waivers by Maker. Maker and all endorsers, guarantors and persons liable or to become liable on this Note waive presentment, protest and demand, notice of protest, demand and dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and any and all other notices or matters of a like nature, and consent to any and all renewals and extensions near the time of payment hereof and agree further that at any time and from time to time without notice, the terms of payment herein may be modified between Holder and Maker. 8. Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision or provisions of this Note as to any persons or circumstances shall not render that provision or those provisions unenforceable or invalid as to any other provisions or circumstances, and all provisions hereof, in all other respects, shall remain valid and enforceable. 9. Notices. All notices, demands, requests, elections, approvals, disapprovals, consents or other communications given under this Note shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, certified mail, return receipt requested, or overnight guaranteed delivery service and addressed as follows: If to Holder: Ifto Maker: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard[s1~] Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attn: City Manager ACLAD Notices shall be effective upon the earlier of receipt or three days after the notice is placed in the mail. Each party shall promptly notify the other party of any change(s) of address to which notice shall be sent pursuant to this Note. 10. Attorneys' Fees. If this Note is not paid when due or if any Event of Default occurs, Maker promises to pay all costs of enforcement and collection, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or not any action or proceeding is brought to enforce the provisions hereof. B-3 11. Modifications. Neither this Note nor any term hereof may be waived, amended, discharged, modified, changed or terminated orally; nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective except by an instrument in writing signed by Maker and Holder. No delay or omission on the part of Holder in exercising any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right or of any other right under this Note. 12. No Waiver by Holder. No waiver of any breach, default or failure of condition under the terms of this Note shall be implied from any failure of the Holder to take action, or any delay be implied from any failure by the Holder in taking action, with respect to such breach, default or failure from any prior waiver of any similar or unrelated breach, default or failure. 13. Nonassignability. Maker may not transfer, assign, or encumber this Note in any manner without the prior, express, written authorization of Holder, which may be given or withheld by Holder in Holder's sole and absolute discretion. It shall be deemed reasonable for Holder to refuse authorization for any reason or no stated reason. Holder may freely transfer, assign, or encumber Holder's interest in this Note in any manner, at Holder's sole discretion. 14. Governing Law. This Note has been executed and delivered by Maker in the State of California and is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws thereof. Any litigation arising in connection with this Note shall be instituted in a court within the County of Los Angeles, California. 15. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the obligations and provisions set forth in this Note. B-4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Note as of the date first above written. B-5 "MAKER" ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT By: ------------ Its: ------------ By: ------------- Its: ___________ _ EXHIBIT "C" C-1 LOAN AGREEMENT Between CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and KLONDIKE CANYON GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (Klondike Canyon Subslide of Portuguese Bend Landslide Stabilization Project) 01203.0023/982387. l LOAN AGREEMENT (Portuguese Bend Landslide Abatement Project)) This Loan Agreement is made as of this _ day of ___ , 2024, by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District ("Borrower"). RECITALS A. Borrower is a geologic hazard abatement district duly organized pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 26500 et seq. (the "Law"). B. Borrower desires to take certain steps mitigate and stabilize the effects of the Portuguese Bend Landslide within its area, as described herein on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project"). C. Due to the recent rainstorms in Southern California which affected the landslide, Borrower needs to commence work on a portion of the Project to mitigate further detrimental effects on the landslide. D. Borrower has requested that the City assist the Borrower and loan it money to commence a portion of the Project. E. Pursuant to the Law, the City is permitted to provide financial assistance to the District. F. The financial assistance effectuates a public purpose as the Project is part of the overall stabilization of the Portuguese Bend Landslide within the City including Palos Verdes Drive South which is a major arterial roadway supporting approximately 16,000 daily trips. G. As described herein, the City desires to loan funds to Borrower to allow Borrower to commence and continue with portions of the Project. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONS ID ERA TION of the mutual agreements, obligations, and representations, and in further consideration for the making of the Loan ( described below), Borrower and City hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following terms have the meanings and content set forth in this section wherever used in this Loan Agreement, attached Exhibits, or documents incorporated into this Loan Agreement by reference. 1.1 "BORROWER" is the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District, a geologic hazard abatement district duly organized pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 26500 et seq. 1.2 "CITY" is the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. 1.3 "COUNTY" means the County of Los Angeles, political subdivision of the State of California. 1.4 "LOAN" means the contribution of funds to help finance the Project from the City in an amount not to exceed One Million Nine Hundred Seventeen Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($1,917,500). 1.5 "LOAN DOCUMENTS" means collectively this Loan Agreement and the Note, as they may be amended, modified, or restated from time to time, along with all exhibits and attachments to these documents. 1.6 "NOTE" means the promissory note executed by the Borrower in favor of City in the amount of the Loan to evidence the Loan of City funds in connection with the Project, as well as any amendments to, modifications of, or restatements of said promissory note, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 1.7 "PROJECT" means the certain work described on Exhibit A hereto related to the mitigation of the effects of the Portuguese Bend Landslide in the area of Borrower. ARTICLE II TERMS OF THE LOAN On and subject to the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents, City agrees to make and Borrower agrees to accept a loan with the following terms: 2.1 FUNDS ON LOAN. The total principal amount of the Loan shall not exceed One Million Five One Million Nine Hundred Seventeen Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($1,917,500) ("Maximum Amount"). The Loan may consist of several loans as the Borrower draws down amounts under this Loan Agreement up to the Maximum Amount. The Actual amount of the Loan shall be determined by the draw down schedules attached as Exhibit C hereto from time to time. 2.1.1 TERM OF FUNDS ON LOAN; REPAYMENT. The principal and all current and accrued interest on the Loan and Note shall be due and payable commencing on the first drawdown date on the Loan in accordance with the terms hereof, and on each subsequent draw down of principal as described hereunder. The maximum term of the loan shall be twelve (12) years from the first draw down date. The Finance Director will attach a revised amortization schedule on _ and __ evidencing the current loan amounts, including principal and interest due. Payments of principal and interest shall be made annually on __ of each year. A. The amortization schedule shall be updated semi-annually, and at least prior to the ensuing payment dates reflecting the prior disbursements on the Loan, by the Finance Director of the City and replace the prior amortization schedule, however the term shall remain from the initial disbursement. The updated amortization schedules shall be acknowledged -2- by the __ of the Maker. The updated amortization schedules shall be attached hereto as Exhibit" " _ B. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to forgo the physical payment made to the Borrower for its annual assessment from Borrower and instead treat the City's total annual assessment as a credit toward the required loan payments from the Borrower. 2.1.2 EVIDENCE. Borrower shall evidence and secure its obligation to repay the Loan of by executing the Promissory Note, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 2.2 INTEREST. The Note shall bear interest at a rate of 2.5 percent (2.5%) per year from the date of the initial disbursement until the Loan is repaid in full. 2.3 USE OF FUNDS. Loan proceeds may be used only for the purpose of constructing the Project as specified herein. Operational expenditures including administrative costs, legal and or litigation costs, and ongoing maintenance are not permitted uses of the loan. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. Borrower hereby agrees to use the Loan to assist with the costs to develop the Project as described in (Exhibit "A"). Borrower shall also carry out the Project in compliance with all applicable State and regulations. 2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. Borrower shall commence and diligently prosecute the completion of the Project within the time provided and otherwise in strict compliance with this Agreement. Construction of the Project shall commence within ____ and shall be completed by __ . 2.6 LIMIT ON ASSISTANCE. Except as is expressly provided for in this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation to provide Borrower with additional assistance, to make any monetary or financial contribution toward the Project, to pay any development costs, or to carry-out or complete the Project. ARTICLE III LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND REPAYMENT 3.1 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISBURSEMENT. City shall not be obligated to make any disbursements of the Loan proceeds or take any other action under the Loan Documents unless the following conditions precedent are satisfied prior to the disbursement of the Loan: 3.1.1 Borrower has provided and City has accepted a certified Engineer's Report (Report), in connection with the portion of the Project being undertaken, which Report purports to describe that the work being undertaken will have the effect of stabilizing the Landslide for which disbursements will be made from this Loan. 3.1.2 Borrower has delivered to City executed contracts and schedules for the portion of the Project being undertaken, and all required proof of insurance in a form acceptable to City; and -3- 3.1.3 Borrower has received all approvals necessary to commence construction of the Project. 3.1.4. The City has received a resolution of the Borrower approving the Loan Agreement and the City has approved the Loan Agreement. 3.1.5. Borrower has worked with the City to develop a 10-Y ear Financial Model outlining estimated Sources of Revenues and Expenditures. The Financial Model tool shall assist in upholding Borrower's repayment obligations to the City and in identifying financial challenges early, if any, allowing for appropriate measures to be taken. The Financial Model shall be completed by December 1, 2024. The Loan funds are to be used by Borrower for the construction of the Project and shall be disbursed as described in Sections 3.2 though 3.3. Conditions _ and_ may, upon approval of the City Manager, may be continued to a date certain following a loan disbursement. 3.2 DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN. The Loan shall be disbursed by City to Borrower from time to time and shall not exceed the Maximum Amount or the amount required for the Project, if lower. Disbursements shall occur as follows: (i) Borrower may request a draw down on amounts necessary to pay City-approved costs, which draw, if requested, shall be funded, provided that Borrower has submitted all required documentation to the City in connection with such draw (as further described below) and (ii) after construction has commenced, construction disbursements shall be disbursed to contractors or the District following receipt of invoices and contracts relating to the work for which a disbursement is requested, also pursuant to 3.3. 3.2.1 ENGINEERING; CONSTRUCTION COSTS. City agrees to provide the Loan to Borrower, to provide financial assistance the Borrower for certain Project costs such that the draw down on the Loan shall be in phases or from time to time. Soft costs may not be paid for from the proceeds of the Loan unless agreed to by the City Manager. 3.2.2 APPROVAL AND PAYMENT. Upon receipt of the Application for Disbursement the City shall review the same and shall approve the same subject to such exceptions as the City deems reasonably necessary and appropriate under the then current circumstances. Such approval may not unreasonably be withheld or delayed. The City shall pay, or cause to be paid, any approved disbursements within twenty (20) days following the City's receipt of the corresponding complete Application for Disbursement. In addition, on or about the _of each month, a City representative will attend a monthly job site inspection, conducted by the Borrower, to verify that the portion of the application for disbursement is complete. 3.3 APPLICATIONS FOR DISBURSEMENT. From time to time after execution of this Loan Agreement and continuing until all of the Loan has been disbursed, subject to the limitations of Section 3.2, Borrower may submit to the City an "Application for Disbursement." Each Application for Disbursement shall include: -4- 3.3.1 A written, itemized statement, signed by a representative of the Borrower which sets forth: (i) a description of the work performed or being performed, material supplied, and/or costs incurred or due for which disbursement is requested; and (ii) the total amount incurred, expended and/or due for the requested disbursement. Back up documentation shall be presented to substantiate the disbursement request, including contracts, invoices, etc.. All moneys applied for and disbursed pursuant to this Section shall be applied only for the corresponding improvements and the statement(s) by the representative of the Borrower shall so affirm, in a writing signed under penalty of perjury. 3.3.2 Certification that items in the Application for Disbursement have not been subject to a previous request and that there are no mechanics liens in connection with the work or that upon payment, a release of mechanics lien shall be made for such progress payment and that upon the final payment, an unconditional waiver and release shall be made. 3.3.3 Certification that in completing work pursuant to this Section, the Borrower has complied with all applicable laws or is complying with all applicable laws. Each Application for Disbursement by the Borrower shall constitute a representation and warranty by the Borrower that all work encompassed by the Application has been accomplished in accordance with sound construction practices and laws, and that the Borrower is in compliance with all of the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE IV CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT; RELATED COVENANTS 4.1 RECORDS. Borrower shall be accountable to City for all funds disbursed to Borrower pursuant to the Loan Documents and agrees to maintain records that accurately and fully show the date, amount, purpose, and payee of all expenditures drawn from Loan funds, and to keep all invoices, receipts, and other docum~nts related to expenditures from said Loan funds for not less than the term of the Loan. Records must be kept accurate and current. Borrower shall provide such records to City upon request of City. City shall notify Borrower of any records it deems insufficient. Borrower shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of said notice to correct any deficiency in the records specified by City in said notice, or, if more than fifteen (15) days shall be reasonably necessary to correct the deficiency, Borrower shall begin to correct the deficiency within fifteen (15) days and correct the deficiency as soon as reasonably possible. Borrower shall promptly comply with all requirements or conditions of the Loan Documents relating to notices, extensions and other events required to be reported or requested. Borrower shall promptly supply, upon the request of City, any and all information and documentation which involves the development of the Project. Borrower shall provide City with all records and books requested by City within one day of such request. Borrower shall provide that City shall have access to quarterly financial reports, including Balance Sheets, Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, Detailed Accounting Reports of Expenditures and Revenues. Borrower shall provide such items to City quarterly on the _ day of a subsequent quarter for the previous quarter, commencing_. -5- Borrower shall provide to the City monthly updates of current expenditures, expected future expenditures and progress reports on the Project. 4.2 AUDITS. Borrower shall make available for examination at reasonable intervals throughout the term of this Loan and during normal business hours to City all books, accounts, reports, files, and other papers or property with respect to all matters covered by these Loan Documents, and shall permit City to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records. City may make audits of any conditions relating to this Loan. Borrower shall provide City with its annual financial audit report by _ of each year. 4.3 BORROWER RESPONSIBILITIES DURING WORK. The Borrower shall be solely responsible for all actions necessary for the construction of work on the Project and cause all construction of the Project to be performed in accordance in accordance with all other applicable laws and regulations. The cost of constructing all of the improvements or work required to be done on the Project shall be borne by Borrower. Borrower acknowledges and agrees that the Project would be considered to be a "public work" "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds," as described in California Labor Code Section 1720 such that Borrower shall pay prevailing wages in connection with the construction of the Project. Accordingly, Borrower shall defend and hold the City and the City Council and City Employees and City Consultants harmless from and against any all liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) arising from or as a result of any action or determination that Borrower's construction of the Project failed to comply with any applicable prevailing wage laws 4.4 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE; PROGRESS REPORTS. Borrower shall begin and complete all construction in accordance with the Project schedule to be provided by Borrower to the City by __ . Once construction is commenced, it shall be diligently pursued to completion, and shall not be abandoned for more than thirty (30) consecutive days. Borrower shall keep the City informed of the progress of construction and shall submit monthly written reports of the progress of the construction to the City in the form required by the City. Borrower shall also provide monthly reports on all expenditures on the Project. ARTICLE V INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 5.1 GENERAL INDEMNITY. To the full extent permitted by law, Borrower expressly agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, release, and hold City and City and their officers, officials, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and contractors harmless from and against, any claim, liability, loss, damage, entry, cost, or expense (including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and court costs) which arises out of or is in any way connected with Borrower's construction of and/or work on the Project and any act, omission or item related to or arising out of the Loan Documents. City shall not be responsible for any acts, errors or omissions of any person or entity and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees or contractors. The parties expressly agree that the obligations of Borrower under this Section shall survive the expiration or early termination of the Agreement. -6- 5.2 INSURANCE. Prior to the commencement of any construction by Borrower on the Project, Borrower shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of such entry or construction, insurance satisfactory to the work being performed on the Project, including but not limited to casualty insurance, workers compensation insurance, and builders risk insurance. All the policies of insurance, [ except the Builder's Risk Insurance], shall be primary insurance and shall name City, City, and their officers, employees, and agents as additional insureds. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against City, and their officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice to City and City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, Borrower shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section to the City. No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Borrower has provided City with Certificates of Insurance or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders are approved by City. The Borrower agrees that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Borrower may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Borrower's activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the Borrower is otherwise responsible. 5.3 NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS. No officials, employees and agents of City shall be personally liable to Borrower for any obligation created under the terms of these Loan Documents. 5.4 RIGHTS OF ACCESS. Representatives of the City shall have the reasonable right to access the Project without charges or fees, at any time during normal construction hours during the period of construction and upon reasonable notice to Borrower, for the purpose of assuring compliance with this Agreement, including but not limited to the inspection of the construction work being performed by or on behalf of Borrower. Such representatives of City shall be those who are so identified in writing by the City Manager, City Engineer, or Public Works Director. ARTICLE VI DEFAULT AND REMEDIES 6.1 EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute an "Event of Default" under this Loan Agreement: 6.1.1 Monetary. (A) Borrower's failure to pay when due any sums payable under the Note and Loan; and (B) Borrower's use of Loan funds for costs other than approved costs or for uses inconsistent with other terms and restrictions in the Loan Documents; 6.1.2 General Performance of Loan Obligations. Any substantial breach by Borrower beyond applicable notice and cure periods of any material obligations on Borrower imposed in the Loan Document. -7- 6.1.3 Representations and Warranties. A determination by City that any of Borrower's representations or warranties made in the Loan Documents, or any certificates, documents, or schedules supplied to City by Borrower were untrue in any material respect when made, or that Borrower concealed or failed to disclose a material fact from City. 6.1.4 Damage to Property. Material damage or destruction of the Project by fire or other casualty, if Borrower does not take steps to reconstruct the Project; or 6.1.5 Bankruptcy, Dissolution, and Insolvency. Borrower's: (A) filing for bankruptcy, dissolution, or reorganization, (B) making a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (C) applying for the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, or liquidator; (D) insolvency; or (E) failure, inability or admission in writing of its inability to pay its debts as they become due. 6.2 NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. For all Events of Default, City shall give written notice to Borrower of any Event of Default by specifying: (a) the nature of the event or deficiency giving rise to the Default, (b) the action required to cure the deficiency, if an action to cure is possible, and (c) a date, which shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the notice or the date the notice was refused, by which such action to cure must be taken or if a cure is not possible within thirty (30) days, to begin such cure and diligently prosecute such cure to completion which shall, in any event, not exceed ninety (90) days after the date of receipt of the notice to cure. The City has the sole discretion to determine whatever additional reasonable time is needed to cure. Following an Event of Default, interest shall accrue at five percent rate (5%). 6.3 CITY'S REMEDIES. Upon the happening of an Event of Default by Borrower and a failure to cure said Event of Default within the time specified in Section 6.2 above, City's obligation to disburse Loan proceeds shall terminate, and City may also, in addition to other rights and remedies permitted by the Loan Documents or applicable law, proceed with any or all of the following remedies in any order or combination City may choose in its sole discretion and/or any other remedy provided by Law or equity: 6.3.1 Terminate this Loan Agreement, in which event the entire principal amount outstanding and all accrued interest under the Note as well as any other monies advanced to Borrower by City under the Loan Documents including administrative costs, shall immediately become due and payable at the option of City; 6.3.2 Bring an action in equitable relief (A) seeking the specific performance by Borrower of the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents, and/or (B) enjoining, abating, or preventing any violation of said terms and conditions, and/or (C) seeking declaratory relief; 6.3.3 Accelerate the Loan and demand immediate full payment of the principal amount outstanding and all accrued interest under the Note as well as any other monies advanced to Borrower by City under the Loan Documents; 6.3.4 Disburse from Loan proceeds any amount necessary to cure any monetary default; -8- 6.3.5 Provide for an offset of any amounts due and amounts incurred in pursuing remedial action against the City's annual assessment due to the District, as such assessment becomes due. City may treat such offset as a remedy or an advance. 6.3.6 Pursue any other remedy allowed at law or in equity. ARTICLE VII GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 BORROWER'S WARRANTIES. Borrower represents and warrants (A) that it has access to professional advice and support to the extent necessary to enable Borrower to fully comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement and to otherwise carry out the Project, (B) that it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California, (C) that it has the full power and authority to undertake the Project and to execute the Loan Agreement and related agreements, (D) that the persons executing and delivering the Loan Documents are authorized to execute and deliver such document on behalf of Borrower, (E) and (E) that all representations in the Borrower's submissions of materials related to the loan or the annual assessments are true, correct and complete in all material respects and are offered to induce City to make this loan. 7.2 PROPOSITION 218. Borrower shall comply with Proposition 218 as it applies to Borrower's increase of assessments. 7.3 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Borrower covenants that no person who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to the activities funded pursuant to this contract or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from the activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during, or at any time after, such person's tenure. Borrower shall exercise due diligence to ensure that the prohibition in this Section is followed. 7.4 TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Loan Agreement shall commence on the date set forth above and remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the loan. 7.5 GOVERNING LAW. The Loan Documents shall be interpreted under and be governed by the laws of the State of California, except for those provisions relating to choice of law or those provisions preempted by federal law. 7.6 STATUTORY REFERENCES. All references in the Loan Documents to particular statutes, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions of the United States, the State of California, or the County of Los Angeles, or the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall be deemed to include the same statute, regulation, ordinance, or resolution as hereafter amended or renumbered, or if repealed, to such other provisions as may thereafter govern the same subject as the provision to which specific reference was made. 7.7 TIME. Time is of the essence in these Loan Documents. -9- 7.8 CONSENTS AND APPROVALS. Any consent or approval of City or Borrower required under the Loan Documents shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any approval required under the Loan Documents shall be in writing and executed by an authorized representative of the party granting the approval. 7.9 NOTICES, DEMANDS AND COMMUNICATIONS. Formal notices, demands and communications between Borrower and City shall be sufficiently given and shall not be deemed given unless dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the principal offices of Borrower and City as follows: CITY: BORROWER: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard[s}~J Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention: City Manager Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Attn: 7.10 RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The relationship of Borrower and City for this Project under this Loan Agreement is and at all times shall remain solely that of a debtor and a creditor, and shall not be construed as a joint venture, equity venture, partnership, or any other relationship. City neither undertakes nor assumes any responsibility or duty to Borrower or any third party with respect to the Project, or the Loan. 7.11 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION. Borrower shall not assign any of its interests under this· Loan Agreement or the Loan Documents to any other party, except as specifically permitted under the terms of the Loan Documents, without the prior written consent of City. Any unauthorized assignment shall be void. 7.12 W AIYER. Any waiver by City of any obligation in these Loan Documents must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by City to take action on any breach or default of Borrower or to pursue any remedy allowed under the Loan Documents or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Borrower to perform any obligation under the Loan Documents shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under the Loan Documents. Consent by City to any act or omission by Borrower shall not be construed to be a consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for City's written consent to future waivers. 7.13 INTEGRATION. This Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents, including exhibits, executed by Borrower for the Property, if any, contain the entire agreement of the parties relating to this Project and supersede any and all prior negotiations. 7.14 OTHER AGREEMENTS. Borrower represents that it has not entered into any agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of the Loan Documents. Borrower shall not -10- enter into any agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of the Loan Documents without an express waiver by City in writing. 7.15 AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS. Any amendments or modifications to the Loan Documents must be in writing, and shall be made only if executed by both Borrower and City. 7.16 SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Loan Agreement is intended to be severable. If any provision of this Loan Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired. [Signatures on next page.] -11- In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Loan Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY: City of Rancho Palos Verdes By: ------------ Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Elena Gerli, City Attorney -12- BORROWER: Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District By: __________ _ Name: ------------- Title: ------------- EXHIBIT "A" A-1 EXHIBIT "B PROMISSORY NOTE $ _______ ("Loan Amount") _______ , 20_ ("Note Date") FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (herein, "Maker") hereby promises to pay to the order of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation ("Holder" or "City"), at a place designated by Holder, the principal sum of ("Note Amount"), plus any accrued interest. The maximum Note Amount shall not exceed One Million Nine Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars and Five Hundred Dollars ($1,917,500). This "Loan" is the result ofa loan from City to Maker to assist in the cost of certain projects of stabilizing the Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District a subslide of the greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex in the area of Maker ("Project") pursuant to a Loan Agreement between City and Maker. The term "Loan" herein shall only refer to the amounts actually paid out by City and any interest thereon, if any, as provided herein. Except as otherwise provided herein, the defined terms used in this Note shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement. 1. Purpose of Loan. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, the Holder has contributed the Loan amount for the implementation and/or construction of the Project. The Holder accepts this Note as evidence of the Loan. 2. Loan Amount. The maximum principal amount of the Loan shall not exceed One Million Nine Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars and Five Hundred Dollars ($1,917,500). The amount of the Loan shall be a draw down loan starting from zero and will increase with each disbursement on the Loan. Repayment of the Note shall include interest payments at the rate of two and a half percent (2.5%) per year on the Note. Payment of the Note shall be as described in Section 4. 3. Prepayment. Maker may prepay the outstanding balance of the Note, in whole or in part, at anytime without penalty. 4. Term of Fund Loan; Repayment. The principal and all current and accrued interest on the Note shall be due and payable (a) annually on December 1, commencing December 1, 2025 or the first disbursement date for a term of twelve years (12). The amortization schedule for the Loan shall be attached to the Loan Agreement and this Note based upon the first disbursement. The amortization schedule shall be B-1 updated semi-annually, and at least prior to the ensuing payment dates reflecting the prior disbursements on the Loan, by the Finance Director of the City and replace the prior amortization schedule, however the term shall remain from the initial disbursement. The updated amortization schedules shall be acknowledged by the __ of the Maker. The updated amortization schedules shall be attached hereto as Exhibit " " The City retains the right in its sole discretion to forgo the physical payment made to the Borrower for its annual assessment from Borrower and instead treat the City's total annual assessment as a credit toward the required loan payments from the Borrower. 5. Default; Cross-Default; Acceleration. 5.1 In addition to Maker's failure to perform the requirements of this Note, Maker shall also be in default of this Note if Maker violates or fails to perform any provision of the Loan Agreement. 5.2 Default by Maker of this Note or of the Loan Agreement, shall constitute a default of this Note and all of the Loan Agreement. 5.3 In the event Maker fails to perform hereunder or under the Loan Agreement, for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of written notice from Holder that such performance was due, Maker shall be in default of this Note. Prior to exercising any of its remedies hereunder, City shall give Maker written notice of such default, and Maker shall thereafter have thirty (30) days to cure such default; provided, however, that if the default hereunder is solely as a result of a default under the Loan Agreement, the default, notice, and cure provisions of the applicable document shall apply. If Maker cures a default within the cure period set forth in the applicable document, Maker shall be deemed to have also cured that default under this Note. If Maker does not cure a default within the cure period, Maker shall be deemed in default under this Note and the Loan Agreement. In the event Maker is deemed in default under this Note, and has not cured the default within the time set forth in the applicable notice of default, Holder may, at its option, declare this Note and the entire obligations hereby evidenced immediately due and payable and collectible then or thereafter as Holder may elect, regardless of the date of maturity. Upon such occurrence, the balance of the Note will be due and owing together with interest which shall accrue from the date of the default at five percent (5%) per year. In addition, City may advance and/or credit funds from City's annual assessment due to KCLAD for the default and any interest costs. At the time of such advance, City may, in its discretion determine that such amount is an advance and the event of default continues to accrue or City may determine that the credit cures such default. 6. Collection Costs; Attorneys' Fees. If, because of any event of default under this Note or the Loan Agreement, any attorney is engaged by Holder, including the City Attorney, to enforce or defend any provision of this instrument, whether or not suit is filed hereon, then Maker shall pay upon demand reasonable B-2 attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and all costs so incurred by Holder together with interest thereon until paid at the applicable rate of interest payable hereunder, as if such fees and costs had been added to the principal owing hereunder. 7. Waivers by Maker. Maker and all endorsers, guarantors and persons liable or to become liable on this Note waive presentment, protest and demand, notice of protest, demand and dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and any and all other notices or matters of a like nature, and consent to any and all renewals and extensions near the time of payment hereof and agree further that at any time and from time to time without notice, the terms of payment herein may be modified between Holder and Maker. 8. Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision or provisions of this Note as to any persons or circumstances shall not render that provision or those provisions unenforceable or invalid as to any other provisions or circumstances, and all provisions hereof, in all other respects, shall remain valid and enforceable. 9. Notices. All notices, demands, requests, elections, approvals, disapprovals, consents or other communications given under this Note shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, certified mail, return receipt requested, or overnight guaranteed delivery service and addressed as follows: If to Holder: Ifto Maker: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard[s}~] Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attn: City Manager KCLAD Notices shall be effective upon the earlier of receipt or three days after the notice is placed in the mail. Each party shall promptly notify the other party of any change(s) of address to which notice shall be sent pursuant to this Note. 10. Attorneys' Fees. B-3 If this Note is not paid when due or if any Event of Default occurs, Maker promises to pay all costs of enforcement and collection, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or not any action or proceeding is brought to enforce the provisions hereof. 11. Modifications. Neither this Note nor any term hereof may be waived, amended, discharged, modified, changed or terminated orally; nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective except by an instrument in writing signed by Maker and Holder. No delay or omission on the part of Holder in exercising any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right or of any other right under this Note. 12. No Waiver by Holder. No waiver of any breach, default or failure of condition under the terms of this Note shall be implied from any failure of the Holder to take action, or any delay be implied from any failure by the Holder in taking action, with respect to such breach, default or failure from any prior waiver of any similar or unrelated breach, default or failure. 13. Nonassignability. Maker may not transfer, assign, or encumber this Note in any manner without the prior, express, written authorization of Holder, which may be given or withheld by Holder in Holder's sole and absolute discretion. It shall be deemed reasonable for Holder to refuse authorization for any reason or no stated reason. Holder may freely transfer, assign, or encumber Holder's interest in this Note in any manner, at Holder's sole discretion. 14. Governing Law. This Note has been executed and delivered by Maker in the State of California and is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws thereof. Any litigation arising in connection with this Note shall be instituted in a court within the County of Los Angeles, California. 15. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the obligations and provisions set forth in this Note. B-4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Note as of the date first above written. B-5 "MAKER" KLONDIKE CANYON LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT By: ------------- Its: ------------ By: ------------ Its: ___________ _ EXHIBIT "C" C-1 Subject: FW: ACLAD Assessment Correction and other resolutions Attachments: Resolution 24-4.doc; Resolution 24-6.doc; Resolution 24-5.doc; Letter to Ara & Ramzi re Resolutions 06032024.doc From: Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 9:25 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: ACLAD Assessment Correction and other resolutions June 3, 2024 To: Ara Mihranian -Director, RPV Public Works Ramzi Awaad, Director, RPV Public Works, City Council, From: Gordon Leon, Chairman, Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) Subject: Resolution 24-5 and 24-6 regarding the Proposed Budget Dear Mr. Mihranian and Mr. Awad: At its June 3, 2024 special emergency board meeting, the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District passed Resolution 24-5 to correct the city allocation of the recently purchased York lots from residential usage (1 unit per acre) to government usage (2 units per acre). These lots are APN # 7572 018 900 and APN # 7572 019 900. Below are the amounts now due for the above parcels #7572-018-900 $28,298.74; and #7572-019-900 $30,289.48. In addition, the new amounts for the other city parcels are as follows. #7572-001-003 $39,007.1 O; #7572-001-004 $74,768.11; #7572-012-028 $14,675.38; #7581-023-035 $26,501.94; #7581-023-902 $147,719.95 and $12,136.73 public streets. In addition, at its June 3, 2024 special emergency board meeting, the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District passed Resolution 24-6 which removed the $50,000 line item for surface water drainage, thus reducing the overall proposed budget to $598,000. Please add this additional information to your city council agenda for June 4, 2024. Thank you. Cordially, Gordon Leon, Chairman Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Gordon Leon 31 0-463-9244 1 Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement Distnct P. 0. Box 4351 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 9027 4 (310) 753-7117 (310) 787-7193FAX e-mail smarshall7@ao1com To: Ara Mihranian-Director, RPV Public Works Ramzi Awaad, Director, RPV Public Works June 3, 2024 From: Gordon Leon, Chairman, Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) Subject: Resolution 24-5 and 24-6 regarding the Proposed Budget Dear Mr. Mihranian and Mr. Awad: At its June 3, 2024 special emergency board meeting, the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District passed Resolution 24-5 to correct the city allocation of the recently purchased York lots from residential usage (1 unit per acre) to government usage (2 units per acre). These lots are APN # 7572 018 900 and APN # 7572 019 900. Below are the amounts now due for the above parcels #7572-018-900 $28,298.74; and #7572-019-900 $30,289.48. In addition, the new amounts for the other city parcels are as follows. #7572-001-003 $39,007.10; #7572-001-004 $74,768.11; #7572-012-028 $14,675.38; #7581-023-035 $26,501.94; #7581-023-902 $147,719.95 and $12,136.73 public streets. In addition, at its June 3, 2024 special emergency board meeting, the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District passed Resolution 24-6 which removed the $50,000 line item for surface water drainage, thus reducing the overall proposed budget to $598,000. Please add this additional information to your city council agenda for June 4, 2024. Thank you. Cordially, Gordon Leon, Chairman Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District P.O. Box 4351 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 (310) 753-7117 Resolution No. 24-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT DECLARING THAT: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT IS ASSEMBLING ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2024 TO PASS RESOLUTION 24-4. THIS RESOLUTON PROVIDES THAT: RESOLVED THAT: THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT (ACLAD) HAS THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS BELOW: ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT % CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 HAWTHORNE BL VD. RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT PURSUANT TO AN UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, THE DISTRICT MAINTAINS ITS PHYSICAL OFFICES WITHIN THE CITY HALL, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 HAWTHORNE BL VD, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275. (ATTENTION: ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2024 Chairman ATTEST: Sandra E. Marshall CERTIFICATION I, Sandra E. Marshall, duly appointed Clerk of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-4 was regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the District at a special emergency meeting that was appropriately announced and posted 24 hours in advance held on the 3rd day of June 2024, by the following vote: A YES: Leon, Barth, Miller NOES: 0 ABSENT: Knight ACLAD RESOLUTION NO. 24-4 Sandra E. Marshall Sandra E. Marshall, District Clerk -2- Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District P.O. Box 4351 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 (310) 753-7117 Resolution No. 24-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT DECLARING THAT: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT IS ASSEMBLING ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2024 TO PASS RESOLUTION 24-5. THIS RESOLUTON PROVIDES THAT: RESOLVED: THAT THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT (A CLAD) IS MEETING ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2024 TO CORRECT THE CITY ALLOCATION OF THE RECENTLY PURCHASED YORK LOTS, APN #7572-018-900 and APN #7572-019-900 FROM RESIDENTIAL MEMBERSHIP (1 UNIT PER ACRE) TO GOVERNMENT MEMBERSHIP (2 UNIT PER ACRE). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2024 ~p--t:--.J Chairman ATTEST: Sandra E. Marshall CERTIFICATION I, Sandra E. Marshall, duly appointed Clerk of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-5 was regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the District at a special emergency meeting that was appropriately announced and posted 24 hours in advance held on the 3rd day of June 2024, by the following vote: A YES: Leon, Barth, Miller NOES: 0 ABSENT: Knight ACLAD RESOLUTION NO. 24-5 Sandra E. Marshall Sandra E. Marshall, District Clerk -2- Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District P.O. Box 4351 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 (310) 753-7117 Resolution No. 24-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT DECLARING THAT: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT IS ASSEMBLING ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2024 TO PASS RESOLUTION 24-6. THIS RESOLUTON PROVIDES THAT: RESOLVED: THAT ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT (ACLAD) IS MEETING ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2024 TO REMOVE THE $50,000 LINE ITEM FOR SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THUS REDUCING THE OVERALL PROPOSED BUDGET TO $598,000 AND: FURTHER RESOLVED: THAT ABALONE COVE LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT (ACLAD) IS MEETING ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2024 TO RECALCULATE THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE UPCOMING BILLNG AND NOTIFY THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PRIOR TO THE JUNE 4, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2024 Chairman ATTEST: Sandra E. Marshall CERTIFICATION I, Sandra E. Marshall, duly appointed Clerk of the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24-6 was regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the District at a special emergency meeting that was appropriately announced and posted 24 hours in advance held on the 3rd day of June 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Leon, Barth, Miller NOES: 0 ABSENT: Knight ACLAD RESOLUTION NO. 24-6 Sandra E. Marshall Sandra E. Marshall, District Clerk -2- From: Sent: To: Subject: Karen Miller <kmillermft@me.com> Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:10 PM CityClerk City Council Meeting June 4 EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Hi Enyssa Sisson, My name is Karen Miller and I am a resident of the SeaView Neighborhood in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am responding to Agenda Item #3 under Regular Business on the June 4 City Council agenda. I fully support and urge the City Council to support the proposed increases to the tax assessments for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 and to accept the terms of a financial assistance package for the Klondike Canyon Landslide Abatement District. We are in need of the increased funding in order to immediately begin our 5-Step Mitigation Project in order to slow the current landslide. Our neighborhood is in desperate need of this increased funding. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Miller 4370 Admirable Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 310-569-4995 1 3. Subject: Importance: FW: KCLAD - High From: Bob Locke <boblocke@avalonmooringsforsale.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 1:16 PM To: Enyssa Sisson <esisson@rpvca.gov> Subject: KCLAD - Importance: High I live in Seaview and am in the hazard abatement district; I've been here for 48+years I'd like the City of RPV to know that I support item #3 of tonight's meeting, increasing our assessments and the loan we need to get hopping on our mitigation efforts Thanks, Bob Bob Locke 310 795 2311 cell 310 544 4667 office BOBLOCKE@A V ALONMOORINGSFORSALE.COM Website -www.avalonmooringsforsale.com 1 3. Subject: FW: City Council re: ACLAD Ballot June 10 From: Nina Ritter <nina@doubletmanagement.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 2:01 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Gordon LEON <gordon.leon@gmail.com>; Miller Colleen <colleen.miller1014@aol.com>; KNIGHT Jim <Knightjim22@gmail.com>; Michael Barth <michael@barthlaw.com>; MARSHALL Sandy <smarshall7@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: City Council re: ACLAD Ballot June 10 Dear City Council Members, Last night AC LAD had a meeting and withdrew the budgetary item for surface drainage from the ballot and addressed several other issues and questions members have had, of which one was the proper billing for missing AINs which we have been told will be corrected. We have also been told the City will be providing an accounting of the Horan interest funds. Therefore I wanted to withdraw my objection per my email below: thank AC LAD for their response and the RPV CC for their attention, and to support the assessment and the higher budget and ask the City Council to do the same. Respectfully, Nina Ritter 100 Vanderlip RPV Begin forwarded message: From: Nina Ritter <nina@doubletmanagement.com> Subject: City Council re: A CLAD Ballot June 10 Date: May 29, 2024 at 8:25: 13 PM PDT To: RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <cc@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <eric.alegria@rpvca.gov>, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2023/2024 <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <paul.seo@rpvca.gov> Cc: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2023/2024 <aram@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <citymanager@rpvca.gov>, Jeri Tabback <jeri@tabbacklaw.com>, HAMRICK & EVANS <tpjschmidt@gmail.com>, HAMRICK & EVANS <jpoole@hamricklaw.com>, HAMRICK & EVANS <GBenitez@hamricklaw.com> Members of the City Council, in the best interests of your constituency, I respectfully ask you to put off or amend the ACLAD ballot and vote which is scheduled to occur June 10, or vote to deny the assessment as written. 1 3. For brevity I will make my objections short and hopefully concise. Albeit, I may be missing some information, but I suspect these are important questions other voting members of ACLAD have as well. Importantly, I must say first, I am NOT against an assessment for ACLAD members in and of itself. I realize ACLAD desperately needs funding. But like many Bills and Motions up for ratification, the devil is in the details. This is the case at hand. 1) Responsibility -and the liability for negligence -of Surface/storm drainage water in "known drainage channels" is considered to be the responsibility of the uphill owner {Contra Costa v Pinole Pines). Considering the City of RPV owns the majority of the "uphill" Altamira drainage channels in the Abalone Cove slide area currently moving about about a foot a week in our area, and in conjunction with the the Horan lawsuit set aside and the 40+ years of expert recommendations to line Altamira Canyon, I do not believe ACLAD should officially accept financial responsibility via a vote {and possibly liability) for the Altamira Canyon or any "surface drainage" in "known channels"{even by inference or implication evidenced by the Ballot and Budget) -at least not without indemnity or hold harmless agreements from the City of RPV. The budget presented in the most recent ballot proposal to ACLAD members mentions surface drainage several times as well as setting aside more money to study "Altamira Canyon". We should not take on these responsibilities, or even allow the implication we have voted to take on responsibility for what has been long neglected by others. It is my concern the membership {as opposed to board members who are usually indemnified by their position) may stand the chance of being named in future lawsuits, and may not be insured or covered by RPV or ACLAD insurance. Furthermore, what happens to the personal insurance liability of ACLAD members if we vote "Yes" to responsibilities {ie surface drainage) which puts us under a cloud of liability? Do we lose our rights to even be protected by our own surplus or homeowner policies? Aside from the fact expert opinions and reports on Altamira Canyon reach back decades making it clear what needed to be done; it hasn't been done. RPV recently applied for a $23 FEMA grant, and to the surprise of many at the Town Meeting last month, we were told the funds could only be used for the Portuguese Bend Slide. RPV said this was because they didn't know at the time the grant was applied for that there was notable movement in the Abalone Cove slide area. I don't know the exact time of the grant writing, but experts were called in to PBCA as early as 2018 because increased movement and utility line breakage was being noted in our area-even though we were in the middle ofa drought at that time. Furthermore, the importance of lining Altamira Canyon to prevent movement in the Abalone Cove slide area has been known and litigated since the mid 1980s. Why wasn't a grant or application made for funding the Abalone Cove area {for example to line the Canyons) based on this long known need? Instead, the CA Water Board {and thus RPV?) permitted UNOCAL to pump 57,000 gallons of day of water polluted with petroleum compounds into Altimira Canyon (see attached 2 below). Since the canyons are not lined, those pollutants bled into our hillsides, so as well as possibly being responsible for the cause of our ancient landslide activating, they may have additionally polluted our groundwater and our land. That these canyons (with the addition of Kelvin Canyon Creek aka the "East fork of the Altamira Canyon") haven't been dealt with for decades, opens RPV up to h_uge liability given the destruction now occurring and the lawsuits which may soon rain down. I don't think ACLAD should hitch their horse to City liability by voting to ratify an assessment which links us in any way for responsibility for surface drainage channels. Google: "San Diego+ storm drainage+ Lawsuit". 2) Historically, none of the agreements I can find between ACLAD and the City of RPV or the RDA, mention ACLAD being responsible in any way for "surface drainage"*. While perhaps ACLAD chipped in to help with surface drainage repairs occasionally, it seems not to have been legally been memorialized that ACLAD had any legal -and certainly not financial responsibility to control surface storm water. And why would it? Owners and cities are responsible for their own surface drainage in known channels. ACLAD was formed under the Beverly Act to deal with Geological Hazard Abatement (GHAD). Surface drainage isn't in and of itself a "Geological Hazard". That storm water and surface drainage may need to be abated because it is going into the landslide could be found to be a factor of neglect or malfeasance-not necessarily a "natural" effect of a landslide. For just one example: the developers (Rutter Development) of Island View above the Abalone Cove Slide were supposed to install surface drainage and they didn't, earning them a $100k fine (equal to approximately $330k today) in the early 1980s. Where did this money go? Where is either the legal judgement or settlement agreement on what that money was supposed to be spent on and how it was spent? 3)The issue of settlement money also brings me to the $1 million Horan Settlement set-aside and the contribution the investment of this set-aside was supposed to contribute yearly to ACLAD. What were the actual terms of the settlement? Who managed the money? Where is it now? Why does this investment income not appear on the 2025 budget? 4) Similarly, there was a April 5, 1994 Agreement between ACLAD and RPV that RPV pays for the maintenance and repair of their RPV wells*. While the line item for this is "0"--how many wells is ACLAD actually maintaining for RPV? What is the cost of their maintenance/oversight/installation and where is RPV's contribution to that (per the agreement) on the budget? 5) Similarly, it's come to my attention there are voting "units" missing from this ballot which make the divisor for the assessment incorrect and would serve to lower the total assessment for each property. There is at least one missing private (vacant) lot, and another approx 28.9 acre lot (the Plumtree parcel) which went from being private land (assessed at 1 voting "unit" per acre) to being public land (assessed at 2 voting "units" per acre). Are those increased voting units included in the divisor (to lower the assessment)? The list of AINs or APNs needs to be audited for accuracy; to my knowledge, the list has neither been audited or 3 updated. Furthermore, addition of investment income from the Horan Settlement could also go towards lowering the budget-and thus the assessments. 6 ) If our assessments are raised, 1) will they ever realistically ever go down again? If the budget should go down in succeeding years, can ACLAD continue to bill us at the 2025 assessment rate and set aside any surplus? Who takes responsibility for theoretical surplus funds and how it is held and invested? 2) In the future, can surplus assessment funds be directed to other uses the ACLAD board finds compelling--without the approval of the ACLAD membership? For example, do the ACLAD members put ourselves in the position of having our assessment money used to take a loan from RPV (per the ballot information) without further input legally necessary from us? It would be my opinion, no loan should be taken until we get the answers to why no grant was applied to for Abalone Cove landslide, or if RPV owes ACLAD funds/interest income from the Horan settlement-not to mention the terms of the loan etc. We may be members of ACLAD but we are also RPV taxpayers deserving equal attention. Why should we be taking loans to perform a duty which rightly belonged to RPV? 7) Is this vote/ballot really just a pretense? Individual homeowners in the ACLAD area don't have any true control over the outcome of this vote because the City of RPV -at a minimum-controls 55% of the ACLAD "units" (ie votes). What real say do the individual ACLAD homeowners/taxpayers--who may in fact numerically be in the majority-have? Is RPV going to bind ACLAD residents (however unwittingly) to legal liability we cannot possibly afford in terms of perhaps multiple lawsuits related to the most recent movement and the lack of attention to controlling surface drainage? While the City of RPV may hold a majority vote due to its "units"- -empty land can't pay for lawsuits. Homeowners are not likely to have the deep pockets, the insurance and resources RPV has to deal with the legal matters stemming from being swept into RPV's potential liability. However right or wrong anyone may be, as we all know, it's expensive to be right in a Courtroom. ACLAD members cannot afford let RPV pass the buck for inaction which may reach to civil negligence (RPV?LA COUNTY? THE WATER BOARD?). We need to be very careful how this ballot is crafted, and this one is full of pitfalls which may hand ACLAD the hot potato. In sum, this ballot will go on affect ACLAD owners into the foreseeable future, without their say, in ways in which have not been explored or explained. Currently there are too many errors and/or mitigating factors which make passing this particular budget and assessment unduly burdensome at this time. Thank you for consideration and the withdrawal of this ballot or a vote "No". Respectfully, Nina Ritter 4 State of California CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION 320 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles FACT SHEET WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR· UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (Former UNOCAL Station #5894) NPDES NO. CAG834001 PROJECT LOCATION 5656 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION Cl-7816 FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS 711 Mission Avenue, #344 Oceanside, CA 92054 Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) is currently conducting groundwater remediation at its former Service Station #5894 located at 5656 Crest Road, Rancho Palos Verdes. Groundwater beneath the site is impacted by petroleum compounds. Groundwater is extracted and treated, then discharged to a storm drain located at the site. The treatment system consists of a bag filter, air stripping unit. and two canisters containing granular activated carbon (GAC) to polish the treated groundwater prior to discharge. VOLUME AND DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE Up to 57,000 gallons per day of treated groundwater is discharged into a storm drain that drains into Altamira Creek j.atitude 33'45' 37". Longitude 118°22· 27"), and then to the Pacific Ocean, a water of the United States, The site location and the schematic of waste flow diagram are shown as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. FREQUENCY OF DISCHARGE The discharge is continuous through the life of the remediation project REUSE OF WATER Irrigation is not feasible at the site due to lack of landscaping area. There are no other feasible reuse options for the discharge. Therefore, the treated groundwater is being discharged into the storm drain. *In fact, the two agreements listed on ACLAD's (April 5, 1994) refer ONLY to dewatering wells. #3 states " Except as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement, none of the costs referred to in Sections 1 and 2 [solely referring to dewatering wells] of this Agreement shall be borne by A CLAD." #7 Goes on to state: "7. ACLAD and RDA shall share the cost of maintenance and repair of any drainage facilities which serve both ACLAD wells and RDA wells. These costs shall be shared proportionally and shall be based upon the annual output of the wells which are served by the particular drainage facilities. By way of example, a particular drainage facility discharges water produced from five dewatering wells; three of the wells are owned by A CLAD and two of the wells are owned by RDA. To compute each entity' s share of the annual maintenance or repair cost of the drainage facilities which serve those five wells, a percentage will be determined by dividing the total output of all five wells into the output of the wells owned by the particular entity. 5 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 3, 2024 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA _____________________________________________________________________ Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 4, 2024, City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 1 Emails from: Susan and John Beckman; Greg Gawlik and Patricia Gawlik; Anthony De Clue; Michele Carbone Email exchanges between Staff and Michele Carbone Letters provided by Stasys Petravicius (Community of Abalone Cove) 3 Emails from Nina Ritter Respectfully submitted, __________________ Teresa Takaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2024\2024 Coversheets\20240604 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx Subject: FW: Clipper Lot Rezoning From: SUSAN BECKMAN <rpvbeckman@cox.net> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 8:45 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Clipper Lot Rezoning Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Susan and John Beckman Abalone Cove Residents I. From: Sent: To: Cc: Octavio Silva Monday, June 3, 2024 10:57 AM CityClerk Brandy Forbes; Jessica Bobbett Subject: FW: Signed Letter to Re-zone Clipper Lot to R4 Attachments: SignedLetterAgainst RPV.png; Signed City Council Letter Clipper Rd.pdf Hello, Late correspondence for tomorrow's CC meeting regarding Housing Element and rezoning project. Thank you, \ \"' ,✓.,:._(_' { ;; ·:) ,·;; ··;, Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development Octavios@rpvca.gov Phone -{310) 544-5234 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov i:;:·otecbed fror;;·: dt.;do:Su re, 1rr~,:;r-rnatJor~ is Un3L,,tb oriz0cl dis;:;i::;TT'iiP:ztion, dislnb:Jtior\. er ~n inte:-n'.7,2d rredpfen':, please From: Greg Gawlik <gmgawlik@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 10:07 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> I Do,,~ •n.id ,:,r, z:,,."' • AppStore = = ~~ ~,-,-r~-~ ~•~ ► ~~lePlay ?~:v·-~}Y be nr.,.,,,,,rn,,>1 rn:!f ~<.)r LJSB cf the y,::iu r12-c.et·-/~2d )'C<.J for your Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Greg Gawlik <gmgawlik@yahoo.com>; Patty Woods-Gawlik <mspattywoods@gmail.com> Subject: Signed Letter to Re-zone Clipper Lot to R4 H·1 I. We are out of town. We urge city council to re-zone vacant Clipper lot back to R4. See attached signed letters (one has my wife and I signatures and the other has my signature). Thanks, Greg Gawlik Patricia W Gawlik 1 / May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family {R4} to High Density (R22}. We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD} recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, -~~ Greg Gawlik 16 Sea Cove Drive Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Abalone Cove Resident From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hello, Octavio Silva Monday, June 3, 2024 10:56 AM CityClerk Brandy Forbes; Jessica Bobbett; Ara Mihranian FW: Rezoning Clipper Lot Clipper Lot -LTR to City Mgr .. pdf Please see email and attachment for CC meeting late corresponding regarding Housing Element and rezoning project. Thank you, Octavio -----Origi na I Message----- From: T & L De Clue <declue5@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 4:21 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Stasys Petravicius <stasys1@cox.net>; JANET YAMAMOTO <rjec@cox.net>; Kathy Millea <kathymillea@gmail.com> Subject: Rezoning Clipper Lot EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Mr. Mihranian, City Manager Please reconsider the recommendation to rezone the Clipper Lot from R4 to R22. Your support to this community would be greatly appreciated. Some the community concerns are included in the attached letter. Please include the attached correspondence in the package being prepared for the Council hearing on June 4, 2024. Anthony De Clue, Chairperson Clipper Lot Task Force 1 /. May 23, 2024 Ara Mihranian, City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes Housing Element -Rezoning Clipper Lot Dear Mr. Mihranian, As part of the 2021-29 Housing Element, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) plans to rezone Site #16, a 1-1/2 acre lot, from R4 to RM22 and allow a developer to build 18 to 30 units up to 3 stories high. We have repeatedly asked that RPV not to rezone the property due to its close proximity to the encroaching Portuguese Bend landslide, improper notification to the public and the resulting lack of community input, distance of the site from any services, destruction of existing view corridors and a variety of safety, traffic, water runoff and land movement issues. RPV has stated that the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) had demanded that Site #16 be rezoned from R4 to R22 and nothing can be done to change that decision. Additionally, RPV told its residents at recent Planning and Council meetings that unless the existing Plan was approved "as is" the HCD would declare the Plan noncompliant and therefore, invite Builders Remedy. A formal complaint was filed by community members with HCD. It is our understanding that last week HCD staff responded to RPV, advising that the rezoning of this parcel was not required for approval of the RPV Housing Element. RPV staff indicated they were reviewing the matter, but expressed concerned that such action would adversely affect other elements of the RPV Housing Element. Our representatives met with Ms. Forbes and Mr. Silva of your staff on Wednesday May 22, 2024 to discuss this matter. We appreciate their time and the information provided. However they made it abundantly clear that the City is moving forward with rezoning the Clipper lot; and will not change course unless they receive direction form City Council. Please instruct your staff to prepare alternatives for the City Council prior to the June 4th meeting so they have an opportunity to move forward without rezoning the Clipper lot to R 22. Your assistance is urgently needed! Anthony R. Declue, Chairperson Clipper Lot Task Force c. Brandy Forbes, Octavio Silva From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jessica Bobbett Monday, June 3, 2024 4:47 PM CityClerk Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva FW: City Council agenda items Abalone Cove Petition with comments and signatures .pdf; Petition and Signatures from Abalone Cove Community 04122024.pdf Please see the attached as late correspondence for Public Hearing Item No. 1. Thank you, Jessica Jessica Bobbett Senior Planner jhobbett_@.rWc_a.gmt Phone -(31 O) 544-5224 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.J]Jvca.ggy DOWNLOAD -'fll.r ~ GHIJON Pfi' Google Play Th,s o mail n1essago contains inforrnation bclongin9 to the City of R,mcho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential, and/or from disclosure. lhe information is intended only fo:· use of the individual or f,ntity nilrned. Unauthorized dissemination, is stricl:ly prohibited. If you receivecl this email in error·, or are not an intended recipient:, please 1101:ify the you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:51 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: City Council agenda items Hello It seems all the signatures were not attached to this original email and signatures from the residents and would like to add it again for the Council agenda for tomorrow night's council meeting As wilth all meetings that we have attended, Abalone Cove oppose the re-zoining especially since HCD provided informative direction that the O Clipper lot is not needed to meet the RHNA numbers. "Not needed" so thus zoning, coastal and view preservation changes are also NOT NEEDED, NOT NEEDED! Sincerely, Michele Carbone 1 ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 4:44 PM Subject: City Council agenda items To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>, Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Dear Octvio and Ara My neighbors and I are so disappointed in our city officials and the missed deadlines and the impact on our community what we are facing: 1) Builders Remedy 2) Clipper Lot decision and the environmental impact Attached is a petition signed by Lower Abalone Cove residents opposing the rezoning and asking to reconsider the environmental issues which were not even considered especially with all the new land slide movement and we ask to follow the planning commission recommendation and preserve the view. The response from the staff as they totally ignored all the neighbors and the neighborhood and their concerns at the planning commission meeting and neighborhood impact and my community and chose not support the planning commission recommendations. They could have remained neutral or given a different response or been supportive and support those of us who pay our taxes and live here. and they chose not to do that and the consequences of those responses. Michele Carbone 2 April 1, 2024 To: The Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee Re: Re zoning the vacant lot on Clipper/PV Drive South AIN # 7573-006 -024 Dear Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee and City Council Members: RPV Geologist, Mike Phipps "The land movement, is unprecedented. I'm just worried that we're going to start losing roads and we're going to start losing access. People are going to start losing access to their private properties. And so this is very serious. And you know, the infrastructure is going to be tested and there's going to be issues with it. The land has been "slowly creeping for many years, probably decades, but the recent storms have damaged infrastructure like roads, utilities -sewers, water and gas (electrical is predominately above ground)-while the land movement accelerates." City Manager, Ara Mihranian "I think we're at a point where we may need to ask the governor to declare an emergency for our city. I really feel very strongly that we are now at that point," We, the residents of Abalone Cove Community, respectfully submit our objections to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposed rezoning plan of the subject property to a RM -22 in finali zing its Housing Element update. The state -mandated process requires that all California cities undertake every eight years (or "cycles") to demonstrate how they will meet housing needs . We, the Abalone Cove Community, do not see any correlation between this mandated process and re zoning the RS -2 residential lot to Residential Multiple Family (RM -22). The Staff Report requesting to adopt this proposed plan has many incorrect analysis and specific improper demon st ration of facts, needs and requirements. It also seems to ignore the facts that this neighborhood is in a slide area and is already unsafe for those of us here . Di scu ss ion w ith our views to the related portions of staff report highlighted in ye ll ow: 1 The report on Page 2 indicates that the site-by-site analysis completed by Dudek studied the topographic and view conditions of each MUOD, ROD and RM -2 2 rezoned parcel and prepared a potential development framework that minimized adverse impacts to neighbors. We disagree with this unsubstantiated conclusion. • Housing Element by facilitating the development of a MUOD project of residential-only or mixed -use development with residential and commercial uses on select parcels. • Housing Element by facilitating a ROD development of residential-only or residential with limited nonresidential uses on select parcels with an ex isting Institutional underlying base district designation. • Housing Element by facilitating the rezoning of a Single Residential Family to a high density Multiple Residential Family. The Report lays out that a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map is also required to include the new MUOD and ROD Overlay Districts as well as to reclassify two residential properties (Assessor Parcel No . 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) (Clipper) and Assessor Parcel No. 7578-002 -011 (Site No. 17)) to a higher density. We believe that Assessor Parcel No. 7573-006 -024 (Site No. 16) ( Clipper) cannot and shall not be rezoned to a RM-22. Beside all the topographic and geographic impact, it is in direct violation of neighborhood compatibility . Zone Change The Potential Housing Sites Inventory included in the Draft Revised Final Housing Element revised March 15, 2024 proposes to amend the zo ning designation and corresponding City Zoning Map (Exhibit E) for Assessor Parcel No . 7573-006-024 (Site No. 16) and Assessor Parcel No . 7578 -002 -011 (Site No. 17) from Residential Single Family (RS-4) and Residential Single Family (RS -A -5), respectively, to Residential Multiple Family (RM-22). It appears to us, the Abalone cove Community, that this report has been prepared merely to satisfy one and only one purpose, at all cost, and, that is to accommodate the City's 647 housing unit RHNA during the 6th Housing Cycle. The proposal of rezoning Clipper property to RM -22 has severe impact on Palos Verdes Drive South road conditions, traffic, load and land slide. The Report further on Pages 7 and 8, introduces the list of 30 Potential Housing Sites identified in the City's adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element including additional site at 500 Silver Spur Road (Site No . 15- Assessor Parcel No. 7586-028 -019) for a total of 31 Potential Housing Sites . Further, it establishes that Proposed RHNA implementation measures include General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Local Coastal Program (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendments and associated code amendments, which are 2 outlined in further detail below: Draft Revised Final Housing Element & Housing Programs (Case Nos. PLGP2022 -0001, PLGP2024 -001, PLZC2024-001, PLCA2024 -001 & PLCA 2024 -002) On Page 8 the Report illustrates the Concerns of HCD with the environmental impact of this proposal as follows: On August 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 2022-49, adopting the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated environmental review, which included a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The adopted Housing Element was subsequently forwarded to HCD for compliance review with State Housing Element Law. In October 2022, HCD notified the City's Community Development Department via letter that although the adopted Housing Element met many of the statutory requirements, the document was ultimately not found to be in compliance . As part of its review, HCD outlined additional document corrections required to be completed to achieve compliance . HCD corrections included, but were not limited to, providing support information related to affirmatively furthering fair housing efforts and clarifying the realistic capacity of residential development on identified Potential Housing Sites outlined in the City's Housing Element. The Housing Element update has involved efforts by City staff and consultants, public outreach, virtual and in -person workshop s, and meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council -all aimed at identifying ways the City can re zone to accommodate 647 potential new housing units in RPV across various income levels through 20 29. This target figure, called a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, was assigned to the City by the state, and the City is required to demonstrate the capacity of providing that additional housing by adequately zoning for the RHNA. To meet its RHNA, the City is proposing the creation of a Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) and Residential Overlay District (ROD). The City is also proposing to reclassify the zoning of two residential properties to a higher density. Both of the proposed districts and the rezoning effort are outlined in the Rev ised Fina l Ho using Element (PDF), which was recently submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency that determines whether cities have compliant housing elements. We, the Abalone Cove Community believe that while MUOD o r ROD m ight have possible work around environment impact, the RM-2 2 on a one -acre lot located on the most Unstabl e Costal Road will have high environmental impact, view impairment and adverse affect on durability and desirability of the 3 Adjacent to landslide moratorium 0.1 mile - community . As stated at the open ing of our objections, it appears that this report has centered on t he state mandated cyclic housing element and focused entirely on addition of 647 high density housing at all costs not acceptable to the rest of commun ity. Based on all the signatures from the Abalone Cove Community from Packet, Clipper Sea Cove and Barkentine, which are submitted with this document, we understand the need to approve the Housing Element Approval but would ask that City Council reconsider the proposed zoning and recommendations by the Planning Commission and consider the environmental impact based and the recent new additional slide movement and recent issues within this area adjacent to the site #16 that needs to be re -assessed and more updated assessment. We are also asking to consider preserving the view. 4 . Con s ide r the pro x imity of th e C li p per Site #16 o n t he sit es invento ry to th e la ndsli de c omp lex and the geolog ica 'I impact of deve lopment at the site and comm un ica te wi th HCD to consider t he remova l of th is site or sh ifti ng the un its to another s ite; To determine which sites to consider, the City started with the SCAG recommendations of eligible sites. HCD is looking for sites that are vacant, of a minimum size, and to be added at a minimum density to be viably considered for the sites inventory. The potential housing site located at APN: 7573-006- 024 (Site No. 16) was in the initial SCAG recommended sites and met the criteria HCD requires , and therefore was included in the initial City Council adop tion of the Housing Element in August 2022 . Since the adoption of the Housing Element in 2022, in response to HCD 's comments , a site -by-site 12 analysis of the Potentia l Housing Sites Inventory in the City's Housing Element was prepared by the City's housing consultant, Dudek, detailing the physical development feasibility of each proposed housing site. Site No . 16 is located outside of the lands lide moratorium area and the Ancient Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex . 4 Additionally, it should be noted that any proposed development would require geotechnical analysis and compliance with California Building Code requirements. Should the landslide complex boundaries expand, Staff can initiate a discussion for potential alternative housing sites with HCD. At this time , should the City Council remove or revise a potential housing site , the Revised Housing Element would need to return to HCD for additional review for compliance . 6. Consider not eliminating v iew preservat ion for the two sites #16 and #17 that are proposed for upzon .ing. Sincerely, Abalone Cove HOA 5 April 1, 2024 To: The Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee Re: Rezoning the vacant lot on Clipper/PV Drive South AIN # 7573-006 -024 Dear Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Committee and City Council Members: RPV Geologist, Mike Phipps "The land movement, is unprecedented. I'm just worried that we're going to start losing roads and we're going to start losing access. People are going to start losing access to their private properties . And so this is very serious . And you know, the infrastructure is going to be tested and there's going to be issues with it. The land has been "slowly creeping for many years, probably decades, but the recent storms have damaged infrastructure like roads, utilities -sewers, water and gas (electrical is predominately above ground)-while the land movement accelerates. 11 City Manager, Ara Mihranian "I think we're at a point where we may need to ask the governor to declare an emergency for our city. I really feel very strongly that we are now at that point, 11 We, the residents of Abalone Cove Community, respectfully submit our objections to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposed rezoning plan of the subject property to a RM -22 in finalizing its Housing Element update . The state-mandated process requires that all California cities undertake every eight years (or "cycles") to demonstrate how they will meet housing needs. We. the Abalone Cove Community. do not see any correlation between this mandated process and rezoning the RS -2 residential lot to Residential Multiple Family (RM-22). The Staff Report requesting to adopt this proposed plan has many incorrect analysis and specific improper demonstration of facts, needs and requirements. It also seems to ignore the facts that this neighborhood is in a slide area and is already unsafe for those of us here . Discuss ion w ith our views to the re lated port ions of staff report high lighted in yellow : 1 The report on Page 2 indicates that the site-by-site analysis completed by Dudek studied the topographic and view conditions of each MUOD, ROD and RM-22 rezoned parcel and prepared a potential development framework that minimized adverse impacts to neighbors. We d isagree w ith th is unsubstantiated conclus ion. • Housing Element by facilitating the development of a MUOD project of residential-only or mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses on select parcels. • Housing Element by facilitating a ROD development of residential-only or residential with limited nonresidential uses on select parcels with an ex isting Institutional underlying base district designation. • Housing Element by facilitating the rezoning of a Single Residential Family to a high density Multiple Residential Family. The Report lays out that a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map is also required to include the new MUOD and ROD Overlay Districts as well as to reclassify two residential properties (Assessor Parcel No . 7573 -006-024 (Site No. 16) (Clipper) and Assessor Parcel No. 7578-002 -011 (Site No. 17)) to a higher density . We believe that Assessor Parcel No . 7573-006-024 (Site No . 16) ( Clipper) cannot and shall not be rezoned to a RM-22. Beside all the topographic and geographic impact, it is in direct violation of neighborhood compatibility . Zone Change The Potential Housing Sites Inventory included in the Draft Revised Final Housing Element revised March 15, 2024 proposes to amend the zoning designation and corresponding City Zoning Map (Exhibit E) for Assessor Parcel No . 7573 -006 -024 (Site No. 16) and Assessor Parcel No. 7578 -002-011 (Site No . 17) from Residential Single Family (RS -4) and Residential Single Family (RS-A -5), respectively, to Residential Multiple Family (RM -22). It appears to us, the Abalone cove Community, that this report has been prepared merely to satisfy one and only one purpose, at all cost, and, that is to accommodate the City's 647 housing un it RHNA d uri ng the 6th Housing Cycle . The proposal of rezoning Clipper property to RM-22 has severe impact on Palos Verdes Drive South road conditions, traffic, load and land slide. The Report further on Pages 7 and 8, introduces the list of 30 Potential Housing Sites identified in the City's adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element including additional site at 500 Silver Spur Road (Site No. 15 - Assessor Parcel No. 7586 -028-019) for a total of 31 Potential Housing Sites. Further, it establishes that Proposed RHNA implementation measures include General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Local Coastal Program (Coastal Specific Plan) Amendments and associated code amendments, which are 2 outlined in further detail below : Draft Revised Final Housing Element & Housing Programs (Case Nos. PLGP2022-0001, PLGP2024 -001, PLZC2024 -001, PLCA2024 -001 & PLCA 2024 -002) On Page 8 the Report illustrates the Concerns of HCD with the environmental impact of this proposal as follows: On August 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 2022 -49, adopting the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated environmental review, which included a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). The adopted Housing Element was subsequently forwarded to HCD for compliance review with State Housing Element Law . In October 2022, HCD notified the City's Community Development Department via letter that although the adopted Housing Element met many of the statutory requirements, the document was ultimately not found to be in compliance. As part of its review, HCD outlined additional document corrections required to be completed to achieve compliance. HCD corrections included, but were not limited to, providing support information related to affirmatively furthering fair housing efforts and clarifying the realistic capacity of residential development on identified Potential Housing Sites outlined in the City's Housing Element. The Housing Element update has involved efforts by City staff and consultants, public outreach, virtual and in -person workshops, and meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council -all aimed at identifying ways the City can rezone to accommodate 647 potential new housing units in RPV across various income levels through 2029. This target figure, called a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, was assigned to the City by the state, and the City is required to demonstrate the capacity of providing that additional housing by adequately zoning for the RHNA. To meet its RHNA, the City is proposing the creation of a Mi xed -Use Overlay District (MUOD) and Residential Overlay District (ROD). The City is also proposing to reclassify the zoning of two residential properties to a higher density. Both of the proposed districts and the rezoning effort are outlined in the Revised Final Housing Element (PDF), which was recently submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency that determines whether cities have compliant housing elements. We, the Aba lone Cov e Community be lieve that while MUOD o r ROD might have possib le work around environment impact, the RM -22 on a one -acr e lot located on the most Unstable Costa l Road w ill have high environmental impact, v iew impairment and adverse affect on durability and desi rability of the 3 Adjacent to landslide moratorium 0.1 mile - community . As stated at the opening of our objections, it appears that t his report has centered on the state mandated cyclic housing element and focused entirely on addition of 647 high density housing at all costs not acceptable to the rest of community . Based on all the signatures from the Abalone Cove Community from Packet, Clipper Sea Cove and Barkentine, which are submitted with this document, we understand the need to approve the Housing Element Approval but would ask that City Council reconsider the proposed zoning and recommendations by the Planning Commission and consider the environmental impact based and the recent new additional slide movement and recent issues within this area adjacent to the site #16 that needs to be re -assessed and more updated assessment. We are also asking to consider preserving the view. 4. Cons ider the prox im ity of the C li p per Site #16 on the s ites invento ry to the landsli de co mp lex a nd t he geo log ic a l impa ct of deve lo pme nt at th e site a nd commun ica te w it h HC D to cons ider t he removal of this s ite or sh iftin g t he un its to an oth er si te; To determine which sites to conside r, the City started with the SCAG recommendations of eligible sites. HCD is looking for sites that are vacant, of a minimum size, and to be added at a minimum density to be viably considered for the sites inventory. The potential housing site located at APN: 7573-006- 024 (Site No. 16) was in the initial SCAG recommended sites and met the criteria HCD requires , and therefore was included in the in itial City Council adoption of the Housing Element in August 2022. Since the adoption of the Housing Element in 2022 , in response to HCD 's comments, a site-by-site 12 analysis of the Potential Housing Sites Inventory in the City 's Housing Element was prepared by the City 's housing consultant, Dudek, detailing the ph y sical development feasibility of each proposed housing site . Site No . ·f 6 is located outside of the landslide moratorium area and the Ancient Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex . 4 Additionally, it should be noted that any proposed development would require geotechnical analysis and compliance with California Building Code requirements. Should the landslide complex boundaries e xpand, Staff can initiate a discussion for potential alternative housing sites with HCD. At this time, should the City Council remove or revise a potential housing site , the Revised Housing Element would need to return to HCD for additional review for compliance . 6. Consider not el im inat in g v iew prese rvation for the two s ites #16 and #17 that a re pro po sed fo r up zon ing . Sincerely, Abalone Cove HOA 5 Street No. Barkentine 1 Barkentine /2 Barkentine / 3 Barkentine ✓4 5 6 Barkentine I 7 Attended Contact info Chris & Aiko Watanabe (Joyce Golden, Jane Harrod, Judi Bostick) Home: (310) 541-3705 Joyce: (310) 372-2500 Jane: (310) 545-5849 Judi: (310) 515-1115 chrisaiko@jucikins.com Keith Davison & Michele Carbone Home: (310) 370-0105 Cell: (310) 908-0535 m ichele~carbone~~mail.com Hayato & Anna Nishigushi Home: (310) 750-6825 Cell: (310) 953-1582 Email: annanishiguchi@lgmail.com Child: Andrew Ryuto Ben & Anita Brining 703-853-9837 Esther and Lodovico Pizzati Esther and Lodovico Home: (310) 377-6096 Nico, Jeya and samuel Emajl:estherpizzati@gmail.com Eric & Mary Schneider Home: (310) 541-9967 Email: eas@amclaw.com Ryan and Kim Mueller 310 265-1794 koughton@msn.com l-o ?>o ✓ I i' Signature -:; ~ ~;:,, /p./ a,,p.. 4£.,,.,;z_ ~ --~✓ .J ,I-. __, ~ --r~ //l~ : I~/-+ Siignature Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature (3 -~-,L( Alice Parker and Joseph Bebel I ; ,'\ 0~£ .\ Barkentine 8 310 377-3298 ,i--VI;\ ,)'(.1/ c. aliceparker@cox.net jose12h.bebel@gmail.com II . Richard & Nena Schleicher ;(d}v / ✓ v Barkentine .j 9 /~·L / Home: (310) 377-1291 !)w Al~ Email: kenvarich{ci)cox.net V Barkentine ✓ 10 Kelly Connelly ½ __ , Kell.connellv(a)gmail .com /11 James Thomas and Sonji Kay Riple ~ gttl!if½---Barkentine 310 3654985 -S"T1~\fL~~~t?/11e,6.1 ""\ l;t;''---jriple33@me.com i soni.riole@outlook.com ,, /,7·~ -/1 Barkentine / 12 Eldon & Marchelle Griffis ~ ~l!itfM:1114 :)~Vik_~-·, IA Home: (310) 544-2425 \1 Email: eldongriffis®vahoo.com A~;/ I -..., / l J John & Christine Campbell I .. John: (424) 210-1797 Barkentine 13 Christine: (424) 210-1798 Email: jscami;1bell626@gmail.com Email: christinecamobell407(a)gmail.com Barkentine 14 Street No. Barkentine ·------ Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine 15 16 r/ 17 18 19 Contact info Karen Mills & Kevin Hudspith Home: (310) 750-6182 Cell: (310) 503-8985 email: kevinhuspith@gmail.com Bill Nuttman (310) 377-7394 wgnuttman@i;1:mail.com Dave & Jan Black Home: (310) 541-6470 Cell: (310) 930-1705 Email: iblack@on-board-usa.com Scott and Miki Schoenfeld Kai and Kent Cell : 973-558-6229 Cell: (425)-753-3701 smiki@hotmail.com scottschoendedl@hotmail.com B~tn BatJ9aR arn:r je11Aif0F ~4c;;C;;11:tby 41-k-----r. • /),~ --...;' , ~~£ \J,>(LJ ~2.l_-~L-\- ~zoi 2:-y'~ \~ '2... ~ '1 ~ e._. lo.---, ...,. 20 / J Cindy Jensen 21 (Erica & Kelsey) Home: {310) 544-4436 Email: dr.cindviensen@i;1:mail.com j James & Catherine Hwang (Patrick & Anthony) Home: (310) 370-2156 23 Cell: (310) 408-1751 (J) Signature Siignature h l\-J-; -=----.::......:..... __ .::....._'""-:-::==-_-: ______________ _ ~~ JPJ G/4t:fi-✓ I -~ I I ~,,.£~ / ~ ,.,,~~ ~ Street No. Clipper 7A Clipper 8 Clipper 9 Clipper 10 Clipper 11 Clipper 13 rOa /? ~· '-"7Y l½ I.·-, ... Contact info Charles McGuire Mailing address: ~ P.O. Box 1034 ~ ~() PVE, CA 90274 ~ -~ 1 (/f/ Dan & Jill Bridleman (Caitlin Waddell) (310) 377-5640 Emc:111: bridJeman@~ox.net Steve & Lydia Hsu (Sharon & Selene) (310) 544-8675 Email: I.S428@cox.net Terry and Susan Ostrom (Yvanna & Athena) Home: (310) 544-2358 Cell: (310) 291-9362 Email: dec-370@vahoo.com Lowell & Linda Wedemeyer (Loretta & Rebecca) Home: (310) 541-7042 Cell: (310) 704-6393 Office: (310) 378-0609 Em~il; Lowell@deJtao~t&orn Signature Siignature C /'• c4 A , ~ d/--- L-----,~µ ~ -M. ') t ... I " '. ' ' ' ' l JJ r V 1(--- ' / u -· / ,..----k ' Street No. Packet 1 2 Packet 3 Packet 4 Packet 5 Packet 6 Packet 7 Packet 8 Contact info John & Susan Beckman Home: (310) 377-7596 Email: RPVBeckman@cox.net Patricia (Photographer) & Adam Feingold (Noah, Gabriel & David) Home: (310) 544-3132 Cell: (310) 697-9164 Email: patricia.feingold@gmail.com l:maH: adam.d.feingold@gmail.co_m David & Joanie Shoemaker (Chris & Scott 749-4208) (310} 749-0521 (J) (310} 683-8280 (0) r,_y Signature Siignature Email: jjensendesign@cox.net; dc1_vidshoemaker..@d!.mcanshoemq_keu:om Ted Shirley & Elisabeth Ryan /)/Y'l-€?~-~-- Home: (310) 833-3651 1.-- Email: ·asminllS verizon.net ' 'i- Chi Hyun and Kathy You ' ~ ~-• Home 626-715-8990 Email:leekathv.rn@gmail.ee>_m Andy & Maria Olvera (Daniel, Gabriel, and Rebecca) Home: (424) 206-2829 Cell: QJO} 418-0496 Jami Chang 310 541 3780 koavi@vahoo.com Tracey Vranich Cole and Marina 213 321-9131 vranich.@usc.edu Street No. Packet 9 Packet 10 Contact info Don & l'mF!e~ 88FR88"'"' Home: (310) 377-9544 Email: donald2ibarnes@aol.com Emajl: nancv@raisinkids.com Tony & Laurie DeClue Horne: (818) 631-1981 Horne: (818) 631-1984 Email: declueS@earthlin~net Signature Siignature ( _j -\ 0 l '""-· Street No. Kel IV Packet 11 Packet ) 12 Packet 13 Packet / 14 Packet .I 15 • Packet ;· 16 Contact info Home: (818) 631-1984 Email: declue5@earthlink.net Karen Doolittle & Giovanni Bohorquez (Gia and George) Home: (310) 750-6633 Cell: (310) 722-7377 (K) Cell: (310) 722-4582 (G) Matt and Lisa Hawk 310 4898749 matthawphd@msn.com lisahawpv1@gmail.com Eric and Amie Nulman Cell: 805-570-9090 Email: etnulman@gmail.com Email: amnulman@gmail.com Children: Lucas and Adelaide Chris & Elsa Messano Home: (310) 265-1152 Nancy Flynn {310) 265-9795 -ii: nancvj103@hotmail.com Dan & Michele Marcus (Haley and Jenna) Home: (310) 316-5295 Cell: {310) 339-0495 Emi:!il: michr1031@vahoo.com Signature Siignature r 10 -,G M.~u· ,~ ~ I}µ{~~~ Street No. Packet Packet Packet Packet Packet Packet Contact info Eric Krusell / Peggy Nelson 17 703-517-5532 703 819 8077 ehnelsonva@gmail.com ✓ Ben & Michelle Granville 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Home: (310) 701-7483 Home: (310) 386-7483 Email: m2onthego@yahoo.com Email: bentoo@gmail.com Klaus and Joan Mockenhaupt Home: (310) 541-4098 Email: klaus.mockenhaulilt@gmail.com George & Mary Horeczko Home: (310) 541-6925 Email: ghoreczko@yahoo.com Chris & Lydia Rich (Wesley & Glenys) (310) 541-2228 Email: Lvdia@wft.b2 Nancy & Michael Cristillo Home: (310) 502-1245 michaelcristillo@gmail.com nancycristillo@gmail.com Keith Kelly Erin Kelly Michael (11), Pierce (9), Theodore (7), drew (4) Erin 248-890-2693 Keith 248-890-2692 Farnaz Ehtessabian and Richard Perez Montes Home ( 310) 293-0040 ~~·--·---·-----..... ,,,_. ---· ? l :r Siignature ~~ Signature 17; ,~ . ...__ ? -- Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature }· \ ?-yl ./4 Bob and Linda Levine ~4-rl?,~~ Packet 310 739-7803 relvine.aia®ti-mail.com Maureen and Chris Trivers 203 751 2676 Packet 26 203 751 3810 \ trivs@charter.net moetrivisgmail.com /21 Lynn Eastwood hr1a.t:. Packet Home: (310) 377-1717 Palm Desert: (760) 674-0308 ynneastwood7@gmaii.com Michael & Alyson D'Auteuil Packet /28 (David & Peter) Home: (310) 377-0516 --s Email: dauteuil41@aol.com Packet 29 Paul and Suzanne Bruguera sbru~uera ~ lasu~eriorcourt.or Kathy Swenson 31 (Billy, Rob & John) Home: (310) 377-1818 Email: abalonesurf@cox.net p.£ Kim St Hilare & Matthew Neagle Emma and Anglica ~ ' 'Q_ ~ _, I ~#' t1 ' 32 415-328-9337 4Jj kim.m.sthilare@gmail.com ~---· -------~•·· -----··~-· ...... t --¼ - s Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature I~ Dana & Paige Ireland Sea Cove 1 (Ethan & Piper) Home: (310)544-2115 Email: iedy60@yahoo.com Shaun (John) Phillips Sea Cove 7 Home: (310) 375-0779 Cell: (310) 422-1159 iii: joh1 Hiroki Nakamura Sea Cove 8 310 860-7214 hiroki@msn.tv Johathan and Kate Whitehead /. Sea Cove 9 310 809-0037 jonathanwhiteheadjr@gmail.com katelindawalsh mail.com Richard & Janet Yamamoto i)14z ~ 11 (Evan & Corey) \ -r' ~. . Home: (310) 544-5125 /!':\.-i \ i\,' • 7 Cell: 310-408-5030 12 Bijain Partovi Kathy Millea ~0.-:::tl f'n\lO 1~ cell 949-751-7944 \ kathymillea@gmail.com • ,. S-- Siignature \ ~ -)-\ "-J'Cic;:J '-'-YV ,,., s~/~ (7J-f'- ~~hitfv" lt1\ j _/ ./ Stasys & Irene Petravicius (Board Member) 0 . ~~ Sea Cove 15 Home: (310) 377-8737 l~ 1~· stasvsl@cox.net SeaCove I 16 Greg & Patty Gawilk {Thomas, Anthony & Brian) Home: (310) 377-2531 Email: gmgawlik@vahoo.com ~C~ .. Thomas & Eva Wildey Sea Cove , 17 Home: (424) 206-2021 7,,,0~ C~~el evawildey@gmail.com /20 Robert & Elena Haase ~~=--I--=-= Sea Cove Home: (310) 377-7328 ' , Lj;_;---Yb h -t antonia@antonialavender.com 1/f I Sea Cove 22 Pamela Simes ~~ 14 Brian and Jenifer Conroy (Joshua, Jessica, Jacob, & Brianna) Sea Cove Cell: (310) 541-1295 Email: bfconroy@cox.net Email: jeniferconroy@cox.net Geoff and Angeline Lyle Syndney, William Sea Cove 25 Cell: 760 696-1467-G Cell: 310 751-8335 (A) angeliquelvle@gmail.com lD . . Street No. 26 28 Sea Cove 29 , Sea Cove /30 Sea Cove 32 Sea Cove 34 Sea Cove 36 Sea Cove I 38 Sea Cove 40 Contact info mail.c_9m Daniel and Sunhee Suh Tom & Shannon Hartman (Jeremy & Skylar) Home: (310) 265-8813 Email: srhartman24@cQJ(_.n~t Kimmy and Steve Koo 213-923-1889 koo@aol.com John and Sheryl Lewin (Geoffrey and Kaci Cell 310 344 9507 (J) Cell 310 291-2078 (S) johnlewin@roadrunner.com shervllewinmd@gmail.com Mark Weinstein 408 482-9979 weinstei n mr@gma ii .com Soo Chui & Yunja Chung Home:(310) 541-6264 Suresh aChandra jhawar & Veena Jhwar Gene Rolle Home: (310) 377-4814 Cell: (310) 850-3309 E__mail: iolanta.neuert@gmail.com Signature ·~rl--- Siignature 'S )--0 -J 4 ~~a~ ~ Street No. Sea Cove /42 Sea Cove /44 ~----....... , ---~-• Contact info Tao Li & Song Song Wang 626-673-1595 songsongwang21@gmai~com Shane & Corie Hickson (Tanner & Makenna) Home: ( 31 0) 544-0433 Email: shanehicksonl@aol.com CJ Wfe1/1 rz+,7-1--t> ~~ e.___cr ~~ L~ \-t c-/ • ·3,0 :lci?-C(5S4 [sicce/1) Q~lne_~ou',T~A-t\ .ca Signature '•, .. : c--- Siignature :> .. ct 1---L{<..,/ ~~-~i-~ 3'\0-y f 0 -51/03 Subject: FW: Responses to the Planning committee From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2024 12:24 AM To: Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Responses to the Planning committee Hi Michele, First and foremost, as you know, it is of utmost importance for the community of Rancho Palos Verdes to secure a certified Housing Element by HCD sooner than later. As you also know from our past conversations, without a certified Housing Element, properties, whether developed or undeveloped in the City, including the Clipper Lot, are vulnerable to Builder's Remedy applications among other state laws. The City is aware that HCD's analyst, Fidel Herrera, indicated to residents that the Clipper Lot rezone is not needed for the City to meet its RHNA requirement. It would have been helpful if HCD told the City that earlier in the year when we were going through the consultation process, but that wasn't the case as the public record will reveal. That said, there is more to consider until the City has a certified Housing Element. To summarize what the City's Community Development Director Brady Forbes said to some of your neighbors, the City has also spoken to Fidel Herrera from HCD about the Clipper Lot (Site #16) on a call with him on May 6th . To clarify, what Fidel confirmed with RPV staff was that if Site #16 was not included in the sites inventory, the City would still meet the required number of units for our Regional Housing Needs Allotment (RHNA). However. demonstrating that we ha~acity to meet our RHNA is only one of many requirements that HCD and the State have for having a compliant Housing Element and meeting State Housing Law. The City (and HCD) have to consider if removing this site would have Qtb_erlm.plicatio__n.s that would prevent our Housing Element from being deemed compliant with State Housing Law. Although we are still moving forward with the steps to get a letter from HCD certifying our Housing Element and necessary implementation actions as adopted, we are also concurrently reviewing the feedback from HCD regarding removal of Site #16 from the Housing Element and will continue the dialog with HCD as to whether we can make this future amendment and remain in compliance with State Housing Law. It should also be said that HCD ne.v_er said, in writing, that if the City removed the Clipper Lot from the proposed rezone, they wouldn't restart the clock which would further delay securing a certified Housing Element. I have said this to you and others before, one of the primary reasons the City incorporated in 1973 was to protect local control and to maintain low density especially along our coastal zone that was being threatened as an unincorporated area. The City, similar to other Peninsula cities and cities throughout California, are making decisions based on state laws. Ultimately, any amendment to the Housing Element will require Council approval, and that doesn't mean it cannot happen once a certified Housing Element is in place. Ara 1 I Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager aram@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5202 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov l!ll,,.. (;(TITOI< ~ Google Play Verd,.,,',,,, \\hich nldy ptivih:~lf:d, use indivicii.1ai t:ntity is ~itt!ctly prohi!.:1h'.d. If you icccivcd thl:> c:nk1il in ~~rror, From: Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 3:05 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Responses to the Planning committee Ara y(-,iu your assi<.iance and Why hasn't' the clipper lot been removed from the rezoning. HCD notified you and the city that it was not needed in the housing element and can be removed so there is no reason for the re-zoning Pls put in writing why that lot is not removed from the re-zoning On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 8:39 PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good evening Michele, The recommendations are just that, recommendations prepared by Staff (including me) for the Council to consider. The staff recommendations take into account the recommendations from the Planning Commission; public comments received; input from the City Geologist; requirements from state law including the Housing Accountability Act, SB 35/423, and Housing Crisis Act (SB 330); and input from HCD to name a few. The recommendations will be considered as part of a public hearing which include receiving public comments in an open and transparent setting. I have copied the City Council on my response so that my response is part of the public record and provided to the Council and public as late correspondence. Ara 2 Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager aram@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5202 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rp)Lca.gov DOWNLOAD 'lfl~ ~ c-tTrTON Iii'>~ Google Play lo of Rancho Vcn:.k:s, \',hich i1;lk:tY<t Th<:: infonrklLon h intended only of the lndviduni (A distribuUun! ur cupyln~) sU k:tli pr1JLibHed. H vuu t_his em<JH \n t)rrot, nutify thi:: i;cnder irnrned:'dtdv, Thank you for ''/Otli' a:1slstance From: Michele Carbone <michelepcarbone@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 12:49 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Responses to the Planning committee Ara Who wrote the responses as we as a community are just livid at their 11th hour responses Just livid ..... Your staff recommendation who could care less about those of us who live here which is clear and I see it over and over again with their recommendations. -they are reflection of you Ara as you are the manager and you are the approval We are asking for those recommendations to be pulled back and reconsidered for discussion You cannot have recommendations from a planning committee and from the neighborhood just ignored by govt employees . It is just not right.. It is just not right Who is responsible and who wrote and who approved it? 3 Secretary, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Please make a copy of each letter and deliver to the Mayor and each City Councilman. This must be done today. Thank you, Stasys Petravicius, Community of Abalone Cove, V-P I . May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South . I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size . It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure . 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, r:.,A&'L ~1 f~~IN~ [& ... .+essJ; •th-- May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident\ Jue 1, 2024 I writing regarding the parcel of land on Clipper Rd -Site 16. I know that all cities in California have had to demonstrate how they will meet the required additional housing units mandated by the state of California, but i have major concern;; about the possible rezoning & development of the Clipper Rd parcel as part of this effort. :1f you have ever visited this community, you will see that the 80 or so homes there are mostly single-family residences. Many of them are 50, 60, 70 years old, and many homes have been occupied by the same families for decades. This is a place where people come, and they stay, mostly because of the small community feel of our neighborhood. Adding a 22 3-story housing unit development on this parcel on Clipper will significantly change the character of our neighborhood -expanding our small community by over 25% and removing view ordinances for surrounding neighbors. There are no 3 story buildings in this neighborhood and even the multi-unit 'apartments' that are on Clipper Rd look more like a single-family home than a condo or townhouse development. I am also very concerned about the possible addition of another 22 housing units in an area that is an environmental treasure. It's adjacent to the marine preserve and is surrounded by land that has been reclaimed by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy in order to restore & protect valuable habitat for flora and fauna, including all the work done to restore the natural environment at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. But more importantly, this parcel is right on the active landslide area. It's about a 1/4 of a mile from Wayfarers Chapel which is now closed due to damage from the landslide, it's across the road from Catalina View Gardens which is part of the Ab Cove Landslide Abatement District. A recent article in the Daily Breeze said that the Ab Cove reserve has seen 1.5 -3.5 feet of movement in the last few months and miles of hiking trails are now closed! I worry about the further impact of this geological disaster on our neighborhood if the rezoning is approved and a developer goes ahead with a potential 22-unit development. The earthworks, the construction, the heavy vehicles coming and going will certainly not help with the fallout from the landslide that ALL of us in that Abalone Cove/Portuguese Bend/Seaview areas are dealing with on a daily basis. The developer will be long gone with a hefty profit before the long-term effects are known and it will be OUR community and OUR Citv that will be left to deal with that I ask you please, in light of all this, that you reconsider the rezoning of Clipper Road. Please -let's not add more environmental stress to these neighborhoods and those who live there. Just last month RPV asked the Governor to declare a state of emergency for this area, and now you want to rezone this parcel and add more high density housing? That seems very contradictory. Please -listen to the voices of your residents, I respectfully ask that you leave this parcel zoning at Single Family -R4. PV Drive South neighborhoods are struggling right now. Karen M I am including my name and address to confirm my identity & residency in this community but ask that this is not published. Thank you. Karen Mills 15 Barkentine Rd. Rancho Palos Verdes May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, ~ucfi~lz_; . Abalone Cove Resident rZ,{( Pa.,~ /(d_, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, f) (. Cl+-· 1 cc)_ 3-)- May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, _{ __ / ----;-----,----~-, 61 /h/ I<_() May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously sh ared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22 . The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, t-0 \ Se'\ -:s eC\.Se\'\ ~ \ ~°' \' \Le(\~\ N.-~ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of {[Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be {[market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4} to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD} recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is locatt~d at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project ishvill be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs df the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from Mo R22. The Lot ,/ '\ should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. R 4 Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members ofthe City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, c:·~ ~ (/er £ ,1121UJ rf ,01- Abalone Cove Resident ,._ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South . I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4} to High Density (R22}. We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD} recently had a change of heart and now ~his project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size . It is gettin closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State , and even our President h ave declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now need ~ to be a ~~ _Q_ f act orinyourfinaldecision . "'A-dd~+;uY\cv( s+v&1..~+ure.s Vi I /l l~'t-ydq;-~ A-cc e ro___ 4 ~ ~ p v a 6 \-e_ vtA-7 -A"--e:_ I f>-V ":'hat has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and \)-.)i \ l tl2_ City Staff are: fe;pn ; b~6~ 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice dJ/ldl. if our concerns until March 2024 . By that time the City refused to support us because they fo m were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". ,_.,Lj l P/f w -eCIJA I 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. v I.... 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22 . The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Resident /4-J't::-ViJse {[s: ~ (Ir<-Iv£ ~-c)f(_ /7 ~q_c fe+ f:oocZ__ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. l/ftls very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident I~ f(J. c/Je f R r vr C 01 t< l ~ 0 > f--) o ct vi Ao ct{ elt-J ~ a'1 p 1 I\✓. 902 7£ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project is will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident .. May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the States' goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. SincerelY, b====1-:- J~wits ~ (~-64(m,. t-fwij 2 3 i3ql(c,1-t,r1c, Ro.,,i ~c,Jw ?tih> V-crJe-;, qi\ '70>.-7) May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate'' units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident fvf/l<'l/J ~/ Sv jJI l-- 6/1/ 2-u2--~ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development {HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, <i9J -~ ,..., F a_ i--i< \ j C-u. S 0 {~ vl~1 <Lo~~✓ ol~CtG~ • o\k v ( ~~ow yvt:/ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the C~lifornia Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It ,s very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs In Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4 . Please favorably consider this request. Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning ofthe empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs In Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper lot from R12 to R22. The lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper lot from R12 to R22. The lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Li /4, / Abalone Cove 7fesident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stage~ of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4} to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It ,s very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development {HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stortnwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It Is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, I (11 v c--n1 YJ /1, c ~ 91..(3 0 bq / c1 ·r Abalone Covb Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members ofthe City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22}. We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development {HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs. of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family {R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Plea~e favorably consider this request. Sincerely, "t Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the C~lifornia Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. • The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4).to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City,, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development {HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known an~ was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's Incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It 'is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. SincerelY, . ~- £~ p -- Abalone Cove Resident Abaione&ue May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Pa los Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, 1-~-vJ,/ -o/ r/<l/<uu__ ~ Rv't.'S~'-'-L. L1-11Zo~tJ b f/; w~f ~ Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4 . Please favorably consider this request. SincerelY, ,--f4(/Sv( Abalone Cove Resident Aba&Jne&Joo May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. SincerelY, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone Co May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, !L 11c.1 . fi~✓NV Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abalone CowRes'd;nt }~~l<l :nl:J 4 '(!,;1-:z/Li"VJ I J./( :'R_!) May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, A6alone Cove Resident l~\~0 /r: jOJl~p\r\ May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th , you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development {HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very Important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend land slide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. l believe that next Tuesday, June 4tn, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, Abo/one Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. !t is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of 11 Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure. 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper Lot from R12 to R22. The Lot should remain at R4. Please favorably consider this request. Sincerely, ! /' _,.·"' .:Y·/r:_:<<: .. S: ... ,.,-,•'······ Abalone Cove Resident May 31, 2024 Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council, The City is in its last stages of approving of the rezoning of the empty lot on Clipper and Palos Verdes Drive South. I believe that next Tuesday, June 4th, you will be considering rezoning the lot from single family (R4) to High Density (R22). We understand that the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) recently had a change of heart and now this project is not needed to meet the State's minimum numbers for new Rancho Palos Verdes housing. Since this high density designation was originally drafted, and considered by the City, the winter rains caused the Portuguese Bend landslide to dramatically increase in severity and size. It is getting closer to Abalone Cove each day. The City, the State, and even our President have declared this a State Of Emergency. This was unknown six months ago, but now needs to be a factor in your final decision. What has been known and was previously shared with the Council, Planning Commission and City Staff are: 1. The Community was not properly notified of the rezoning and we were not able to voice our concerns until March 2024. By that time the City refused to support us because they were staring down the specter of "Builders Remedy". 2. The coastline bluffs in Abalone Cove are already experiencing indications of failure . 3. This project will negatively impact traffic, street safety, local soils/geology, view corridors, and stormwater runoff. 4. The project site is located at the farthest point on the peninsula from any services. 5. The proposed project will be "market rate" units, and will not advance the State's goal of meeting the needs of the unhoused, or affordable housing. It is a builder's incentive and ignores our community's voices and continuity. It is very important to me that you do NOT REZONE the Clipper lot from R12 to R22. The lot should remain at R4 . Please favorably consider this request. SincerelY, \ (V\ TD~ E r\::1 A~alone Cove Resident Subject: FW: City Council Meeting June 4, 2024, Regular Business Item #3 From: Nina Ritter <nina@doubletmanagement.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 4:15 PM To: Gordon LEON <gordon.leon@gmail.com>; KNIGHT Jim <Knightjim22@gmail.com>; Miller Colleen <colleen.mil1er1014@aol.com>; MARSHALL Sandy <smarshall7@aol.com>; Sheri & Mike HASTINGS <sherihastings@yahoo.com> Cc: Sheri & Mike HASTINGS <sherihastings@yahoo.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; MARSHALL Sandy <smarshall7@aol.com> Subject: Re: City Council Meeting June 4, 2024, Regular Business Item #3 Gordon, et all. I think it's important not to mix apples with oranges or get. No one is saying everyone on the AC LAD board hasn't done a good job and volunteered their time. No one is saying everyone here in our area is not affected to greater and lesser extents. ACLAD will still have money coming in from assessments: no one is voting to cut AC LAD off. No one is saying the core of the issue is just the issue of APN units. The APN issue is just one example of the problem. ALL of us know AC LAD needs money, but there seems to be a lack of understanding about putting ourselves in the way of liability in order to get it. I believe you all know all of us want to collect money to seNice the wells and support AC LAD, but it doesn't mean this process should be done incorrectly possibly causing AC LAD members to take on loan debt or liability of which we have no clear picture. At a minimum, the ballot needs clearly state the role the BOD has in approving future loans and RPV must give AC LAD members (not just the BOD) a hold harmless or liability release before AC LAD members take on anything which might make us liable by association for previous negligence re: surface drainage. There are still too many other issues which are inconsistent or remain unanswered-more important than AIN units (in and of themselves). I'm not sure why the focus in only on that one aspect when there are multiple issues with the budget and the ballot. For example: • Why is there no investment income from the Horan Settlement-the $1 million principle of which was to remain untouched-reflected in the budget (and all the questions which would stem for whatever the answer is). • as Carl Gutierrez asked: where are the itemized expenses to fix the RPV wells and where is the corresponding line item credit to our budget for income coming from RPV (which would be in addition to the ACLAD assessment funds they will owe?). In the 1994 agreement it is specifically stated RPV expenses would be detailed. • What are the circumstances of taking a loan as it applies to this ballot? If we vote now on the budget and ballot as written (which contemplates a loan from RPV at unspecified terms), can the BOD then go on to approve the taking of loans (using our newly raised assessments per this ballot) without coming back to the membership for a further vote on the terms of said loan? I'm sure you can understand that if 1 34 the BOD can take on loans (particularly if that ability is triggered by this ballot), the membership then can't NOT vote to raise future assessments should the loan terms demand it. • I can find no signed document between the RPV and AC LAD agreeing to responsibility of any kind relating to surface drainage in the AC LAD area. It remains a concern this ballot could be seen to get around this lack of an agreement, thereby drawing ACAD into liability with RPV which AC LAD did not previously have. • RPV holds a majority vote per numbers of units-while not representing the majority of land holders with improvements and homes in AC LAD. This puts resident AC LAD members at a distinct disadvantage. Being in the minority as compared to RPV, they have no true say in a vote; no matter which way they vote, their vote is immaterial. RPV's is the only vote which will count-is that really a vote? It seems to me, for ACLAD residents to agree to this ballot is to agree to disenfranchise ourselves. Best, Nina Ritter From: Nina Ritter <nina@doubletmanagement.com> Subject: City Council re: ACLAD Ballot June 10 Date: May 29, 2024 at 8:25:13 PM PDT To: RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <cc@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <eric.alegria@rpvca.gov>, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2023/2024 <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <paul.seo@rpvca.gov> Cc: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2023/2024 <aram@rpvca.gov>, RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2024 <citymanager@rpvca.gov>, Jeri Tabback <jeri@tabbacklaw.com>, HAMRICK & EVANS <tpjschmidt@gmail.com>, HAMRICK & EVANS <jpoole@hamricklaw.com>, HAMRICK & EVANS <GBenitez@ham rick law. com> Members of the City Council, in the best interests of your constituency, I respectfully ask you to put off or amend the ACLAD ballot and vote which is scheduled to occur June 10, or vote to deny the assessment as written. For brevity I will make my objections short and hopefully concise. Albeit, I may be missing some information, but I suspect these are important questions other voting members of ACLAD have as well. Importantly, I must say first, I am NOT against an assessment for ACLAD members in and of itself. I realize ACLAD desperately needs funding. But like many Bills and Motions up for ratification, the devil is in the details. This is the case at hand. 1) Responsibility -and the liability for negligence -of Surface/storm drainage water in "known drainage channels" is considered to be the responsibility of the uphill owner {Contra Costa v Pinole Pines). Considering the City of RPV owns the 2 majority of the "uphill" Altamira drainage channels in the Abalone Cove slide area currently moving about about a foot a week in our area, and in conjunction with the the Horan lawsuit set aside and the 40+ years of expert recommendations to line Altamira Canyon, I do not believe ACLAD should officially accept financial responsibility via a vote {and possibly liability) for the Altamira Canyon or any "surface drainage" in "known channels"{even by inference or implication evidenced by the Ballot and Budget) -at least not without indemnity or hold harmless agreements from the City of RPV. The budget presented in the most recent ballot proposal to ACLAD members mentions surface drainage several times as well as setting aside more money to study "Altamira Canyon". We should not take on these responsibilities, or even allow the implication we have voted to take on responsibility for what has been long neglected by others. It is my concern the membership {as opposed to board members who are usually indemnified by their position) may stand the chance of being named in future lawsuits, and may not be insured or covered by RPV or ACLAD insurance. Furthermore, what happens to the personal insurance liability of ACLAD members if we vote "Yes" to responsibilities {ie surface drainage) which puts us under a cloud of liability? Do we lose our rights to even be protected by our own surplus or homeowner policies? Aside from the fact expert opinions and reports on Altamira Canyon reach back decades making it clear what needed to be done; it hasn't been done. RPV recently applied for a $23 FEMA grant, and to the surprise of many at the Town Meeting last month, we were told the funds could only be used for the Portuguese Bend Slide. RPV said this was because they didn't know at the time the grant was applied for that there was notable movement in the Abalone Cove slide area. I don't know the exact time of the grant writing, but experts were called in to PBCA as early as 2018 because increased movement and utility line breakage was being noted in our area-even though we were in the middle ofa drought at that time. Furthermore, the importance of lining Altamira Canyon to prevent movement in the Abalone Cove slide area has been known and litigated since the mid 1980s. Why wasn't a grant or application made for funding the Abalone Cove area {for example to line the Canyons) based on this long known need? Instead, the CA Water Board {and thus RPV?) permitted UNOCAL to pump 57,000 gallons of day of water polluted with petroleum compounds into Altimira Canyon (see attached below). Since the canyons are not lined, those pollutants bled into our hillsides, so as well as possibly being responsible for the cause of our ancient landslide activating, they may have additionally polluted our groundwater and our land. That these canyons {with the addition of Kelvin Canyon Creek aka the "East fork of the Altamira Canyon") haven't been dealt with for decades, opens RPV up to huge liability given the destruction now occurring and the lawsuits which may soon rain down. I don't think ACLAD should hitch their horse to City liability by voting to ratify 3 an assessment which links us in any way for responsibility for surface drainage channels. Google: "San Diego + storm drainage+ Lawsuit". 2) Historically, none of the agreements I can find between ACLAD and the City of RPV or the RDA, mention ACLAD being responsible in any way for "surface drainage"*. While perhaps ACLAD chipped in to help with surface drainage repairs occasionally, it seems not to have been legally been memorialized that ACLAD had any legal -and certainly not financial responsibility to control surface storm water. And why would it? Owners and cities are responsible for their own surface drainage in known channels. ACLAD was formed under the Beverly Act to deal with Geological Hazard Abatement {GHAD). Surface drainage isn't in and of itself a "Geological Hazard". That storm water and surface drainage may need to be abated because it is going into the landslide could be found to be a factor of neglect or malfeasance-not necessarily a "natural" effect of a landslide. For just one example: the developers (Rutter Development) of Island View above the Abalone Cove Slide were supposed to install surface drainage and they didn't, earning them a $100k fine (equal to approximately $330k today) in the early 1980s. Where did this money go? Where is either the legal judgement or settlement agreement on what that money was supposed to be spent on and how it was spent? 3)The issue of settlement money also brings me to the $1 million Horan Settlement set-aside and the contribution the investment of this set-aside was supposed to contribute yearly to ACLAD. What were the actual terms of the settlement? Who managed the money? Where is it now? Why does this investment income not appear on the 2025 budget? 4) Similarly, there was a April 5, 1994 Agreement between ACLAD and RPV that RPV pays for the maintenance and repair of their RPV wells*. While the line item for this is "0" --how many wells is AC LAD actually maintaining for RPV? What is the cost of their maintenance/oversight/installation and where is RPV's contribution to that (per the agreement) on the budget? 5) Similarly, it's come to my attention there are voting "units" missing from this ballot which make the divisor for the assessment incorrect and would serve to lower the total assessment for each property. There is at least one missing private (vacant) lot, and another approx 28.9 acre lot (the Plumtree parcel) which went from being private land (assessed at 1 voting "unit" per acre) to being public land (assessed at 2 voting "units" per acre). Are those increased voting units included in the divisor (to lower the assessment)? The list of AINs or APNs needs to be audited for accuracy; to my knowledge, the list has neither been audited or updated. Furthermore, addition of investment income from the Horan Settlement could also go towards lowering the budget-and thus the assessments. 6 ) If our assessments are raised, 1) will they ever realistically ever go down again? If the budget should go down in succeeding years, can ACLAD continue to bill us at the 2025 assessment rate and set aside any surplus? Who takes responsibility for theoretical surplus funds and how it is held and invested? 2) In the future, can surplus assessment funds be directed to other uses the ACLAD board finds compelling--without the approval of the ACLAD membership? For example, do the 4 ACLAD members put ourselves in the position of having our assessment money used to take a loan from RPV (per the ballot information) without further input legally necessary from us? It would be my opinion, no loan should be taken until we get the answers to why no grant was applied to for Abalone Cove landslide, or if RPV owes ACLAD funds/interest income from the Horan settlement-not to mention the terms of the loan etc. We may be members of ACLAD but we are also RPV taxpayers deserving equal attention. Why should we be taking loans to perform a duty which rightly belonged to RPV? 7) Is this vote/ballot really just a pretense? Individual homeowners in the ACLAD area don't have any true control over the outcome of this vote because the City of RPV -at a minimum-controls 55% of the ACLAD "units" (ie votes). What real say do the individual ACLAD homeowners/taxpayers--who may in fact numerically be in the majority-have? Is RPV going to bind ACLAD residents (however unwittingly) to legal liability we cannot possibly afford in terms of perhaps multiple lawsuits related to the most recent movement and the lack of attention to controlling surface drainage? While the City of RPV may hold a majority vote due to its "units" - -empty land can't pay for lawsuits. Homeowners are not likely to have the deep pockets, the insurance and resources RPV has to deal with the legal matters stemming from being swept into RPV's potential liability. However right or wrong anyone may be, as we all know, it's expensive to be right in a Courtroom. ACLAD members cannot afford let RPV pass the buck for inaction which may reach to civil negligence (RPV?LA COUNTY? THE WATER BOARD?). We need to be very careful how this ballot is crafted, and this one is full of pitfalls which may hand ACLAD the hot potato. In sum, this ballot will go on affect ACLAD owners into the foreseeable future, without their say, in ways in which have not been explored or explained. Currently there are too many errors and/or mitigating factors which make passing this particular budget and assessment unduly burdensome at this time. Thank you for consideration and the withdrawal of this ballot or a vote "No". Respectfully, Nina Ritter On May 31, 2024, at 11 :56 AM, Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com> wrote: Sheri and Nina, Updating APNs is a continual process. There are often APN changes initiated by property owners and the county as well as changes to improvements. The result is small fractional changes to the member's assessments. Several of the changes suggested by Carl Gutierrez have already been corrected and others of his comments are taken out of 5 context. We take input from the members seriously, especially when they are constructive. We will look into all the issues that he is raising and make updates as appropriate. That said, AC LAD has spent through our reserves to increase seNice over the past year. We have one member/contractor who is delaying his billing until the next fiscal year. We will not be able to pay our bills if we delay the vote. Gordon On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 9:27 AM Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo.com> wrote: For my part I am happy to pay the increase but I don't want to be liable for the city storm drain runoff as a member of aclad. And it sounds like there errors in the billing need to be corrected for what the city owes. SO though I know ACLAD needs money right now, I am very much in favor of postponing the vote until those things are corrected. On Friday, May 31, 2024 at 09:24:22 AM PDT, Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo.com> wrote: FYI -----Forwarded Message ----- From: Carl Gutierrez <cwgutz@yahoo.com> To: John.cruikshank@rpvca.gov <john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; eric.alegria@rpvca.gov <eric.alegria@rpvca.gov>; paul.seo@rpvca.gov <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>; david.bradley@rpvca.gov <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; AraM@rpvca.gov <aram@rpvca.gov> Cc: clauderpv@hotmail.com <clauderpv@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 at 07:44:39 AM PDT Subject: City Council Meeting June 4, 2024, Regular Business Item #3 Good morning Mayor Cruikshank and City Council Members, I am writing regarding the Regular Business item #3 on your Agenda for June 4th. For the past two years myself and my wife, Claudia, have been emailing corrections to ACLAD regarding the Assessment list. Claudia found 34 mistakes last year, and some were corrected by ACLAD, but the City owned properties were not corrected. The City owned parcels are public land and should be assessed 2 units, but that is not being done, which is another mistake in the billing process by ACLAD. This was discussed at an ACLAD meeting, and the District Clerk for ACLAD, Sandy Marshall's response was that doesn't matter. When it fact it matters very much to the members. Refer to Appendix A: ACLAD Assessments by APN numbers and page in your staff report, they are not correct, the APN numbers and parcel sizes for the City owned 6 parcels are not correct. I also refer to Nina Ritter's email dated May 29, 2024 to the City Council. One of her parcels is missing from the ACLAD Assessment list, which she has confirmed with Claudia. The ACLAD Budget is not correct, the City owns 9 Dewatering Wells that ACLAD manages and maintains but yet the budget shows zero reimbursement by the City. Why is that? Because ACLAD uses a contractor who is not licensed to work on dewatering wells according to the State of California Contractors Licensing Board. Claudia emailed Gordon Leon, Chair of ACLAD and suggested ACLAD amend the Budget presented with the corrections. This was not done. The letter from Tim Kelly, as Assessment Engineer should not be accepted as a conflict of interest being a past Director on ACLAD and also a member in the ACLAD District. We urge the City Council to vote to oppose the budget and assessment increase as presented. ACLAD needs to make corrections to the members assessment list and amend the Budget. After the corrections are made ACLAD can do another mailing for the members to vote on. Sincerely, Carl & Claudia Gutierrez 3 Clovetree Place Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Gordon Leon 310-463-9244 7 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Thursday, May 30, 2024 11 :46 AM CityClerk FW: City Council re: ACLAD Ballot June 10 From: Nina Ritter <nina@doubletmanagement.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 9:51 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Jeri Tabback <jeri@tabbacklaw.com>; HAMRICK & EVANS <tpjschmidt@gmail.com>; HAMRICK & EVANS <jpoole@hamricklaw.com>; HAMRICK & EVANS <GBenitez@hamricklaw.com>; Elena Gerli <egerli@awattorneys.com>; John Fox <jfox@awattorneys.com> Subject: Re: City Council re: ACLAD Ballot June 10 Thank you Ara: while RPV itself cannot per se stop the June 1 O ballot from going forward in its current form, as you indicate, an RPV CC vote "no" would gave the same effect as forcing the ballot to be recalled so the budget can be audited and amended properly. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2024, at 4:34 AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@a:2'ica_g_oy> wrote: Ms. Ritter, The City Council is in receipt of your email, and it will be provided as late correspondence at the June 4 meeting. That said, Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts, such as the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District, are independent governmental agencies/districts, such as school or library districts. The City owns property in the District similar to you and are a voting member. The City does not have the authority to amend their ballot. At its meeting on June 4, the City Council will be asked to provide direction to staff on whether to cast a protest vote on the proposed assessment tax for FY 2024-25 pursuant to Prop 218. As a landowner, the City's assessment is increasing by approximately 58% equating to approximately $380.000. Ara 1 3. Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager aram@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5202 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov to the Oty of F(ancho ~ C.HITON ~ Google Play inforrnaUori ir,tt.1ndcd only foe use of the !ndl\·L::Jua! oc en~ttv is ptT:hiblh:d. If y(1u n::(el\/Pd in (~rrcr 1 irnrnedidtcl\< ··)"hzmk frn ths!sL:ince and From: Nina Ritter <nina@doubletmanagement.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 8:25 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <clavicl.bradley@rpvca.go'-'.>; Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Jeri Tabback <jeri@tabbacklaw.corn>; HAMRICK & EVANS <!J)jschmidt@gmail.com>; HAMRICK & EVANS <ipoole@hamricklaw.com>; HAMRICK & EVANS <GBenitez@hamricklaw.com> Subject: City Council re: ACLAD Ballot June 10 Members of the City Council, in the best interests of your constituency, I respectfully ask you to put off or amend the ACLAD ballot and vote which is scheduled to occur June 10, or vote to deny the assessment as written. For brevity I will make my objections short and hopefully concise. Albeit, I may be missing some information, but I suspect these are important questions other voting members of ACLAD have as well. Importantly, I must say first, I am NOT against an assessment for ACLAD members in and of itself. I realize ACLAD desperately needs funding. But like many Bills and Motions up for ratification, the devil is in the details. This is the case at hand. 1) Responsibility -and the liability for negligence -of Surface/storm drainage water in "known drainage channels" is considered to be the responsibility of the uphill owner (Contra Costa v Pinole Pines). Considering the City of RPV owns the majority of the "uphill" Altamira drainage channels in the Abalone Cove slide area currently moving about about a foot a week in our area, and in conjunction with the the Horan lawsuit set aside and the 40+ years of expert recommendations to line Altamira Canyon, I do not believe ACLAD should officially accept financial responsibility via a vote (and possibly liability) for the Altamira Canyon or any "surface drainage" in "known channels"(even by inference or implication 2 evidenced by the Ballot and Budget) -at least not without indemnity or hold harmless agreements from the City of RPV. The budget presented in the most recent ballot proposal to ACLAD members mentions surface drainage several times as well as setting aside more money to study "Altamira Canyon". We should not take on these responsibilities, or even allow the implication we have voted to take on responsibility for what has been long neglected by others. It is my concern the membership {as opposed to board members who are usually indemnified by their position) may stand the chance of being named in future lawsuits, and may not be insured or covered by RPV or ACLAD insurance. Furthermore, what happens to the personal insurance liability of ACLAD members if we vote "Yes" to responsibilities (ie surface drainage) which puts us under a cloud of liability? Do we lose our rights to even be protected by our own surplus or homeowner policies? Aside from the fact expert opinions and reports on Altamira Canyon reach back decades making it clear what needed to be done; it hasn't been done. RPV recently applied for a $23 FEMA grant, and to the surprise of many at the Town Meeting last month, we were told the funds could only be used for the Portuguese Bend Slide. RPV said this was because they didn't know at the time the grant was applied for that there was notable movement in the Abalone Cove slide area. I don't know the exact time of the grant writing, but experts were called in to PBCA as early as 2018 because increased movement and utility line breakage was being noted in our area-even though we were in the middle ofa drought at that time. Furthermore, the importance of lining Altamira Canyon to prevent movement in the Abalone Cove slide area has been known and litigated since the mid 1980s. Why wasn't a grant or application made for funding the Abalone Cove area {for example to line the Canyons) based on this long known need? Instead, the CA Water Board {and thus RPV?) permitted UNOCAL to pump 57,000 gallons of day of water polluted with petroleum compounds into Altimira Canyon (see attached below). Since the canyons are not lined, those pollutants bled into our hillsides, so as well as possibly being responsible for the cause of our ancient landslide activating, they may have additionally polluted our groundwater and our land. That these canyons {with the addition of Kelvin Canyon Creek aka the "East fork of the Altamira Canyon") haven't been dealt with for decades, opens RPV up to huge liability given the destruction now occurring and the lawsuits which may soon rain down. I don't think ACLAD should hitch their horse to City liability by voting to ratify an assessment which links us in any way for responsibility for surface drainage channels. Google: "San Diego + storm drainage+ Lawsuit". 2) Historically, none of the agreements I can find between ACLAD and the City of RPV or the RDA, mention ACLAD being responsible in any way for "surface drainage"*. While perhaps ACLAD chipped in to help with surface drainage repairs occasionally, it seems not to have been legally been memorialized that ACLAD had 3 any legal -and certainly not financial responsibility to control surface storm water. And why would it? Owners and cities are responsible for their own surface drainage in known channels. ACLAD was formed under the Beverly Act to deal with Geological Hazard Abatement (GHAD). Surface drainage isn't in and of itself a "Geological Hazard". That storm water and surface drainage may need to be abated because it is going into the landslide could be found to be a factor of neglect or malfeasance-not necessarily a "natural" effect of a landslide. For just one example: the developers (Rutter Development) of Island View above the Abalone Cove Slide were supposed to install surface drainage and they didn't, earning them a $100k fine (equal to approximately $3.30k today) in the early 1980s. Where did this money go? Where is either the legal judgement or settlement agreement on what that money was supposed to be spent on and how it was spent? 3)The issue of settlement money also brings me to the $1 million Horan Settlement set-aside and the contribution the investment of this set-aside was supposed to contribute yearly to ACLAD. What were the actual terms of the settlement? Who managed the money? Where is it now? Why does this investment income not appear on the 2025 budget? 4) Similarly, there was a April 5, 1994 Agreement between ACLAD and RPV that RPV pays for the maintenance and repair of their RPV wells*. While the line item for this is "0" --how many wells is ACLAD actually maintaining for RPV? What is the cost of their maintenance/oversight/installation and where is RPV's contribution to that (per the agreement) on the budget? 5) Similarly, it's come to my attention there are voting "units" missing from this ballot which make the divisor for the assessment incorrect and would serve to lower the total assessment for each property. There is at least one missing private (vacant) lot, and another approx 28.9 acre lot (the Plumtree parcel) which went from being private land (assessed at 1 voting "unit" per acre) to being public land (assessed at 2 voting "units" per acre). Are those increased voting units included in the divisor (to lower the assessment)? The list of AINs or APNs needs to be audited for accuracy; to my knowledge, the list has neither been audited or updated. Furthermore, addition of investment income from the Horan Settlement could also go towards lowering the budget-and thus the assessments. 6 ) If our assessments are raised, 1) will they ever realistically ever go down again? If the budget should go down in succeeding years, can ACLAD continue to bill us at the 2025 assessment rate and set aside any surplus? Who takes responsibility for theoretical surplus funds and how it is held and invested? 2) In the future, can surplus assessment funds be directed to other uses the ACLAD board finds compelling--without the approval of the ACLAD membership? For example, do the ACLAD members put ourselves in the position of having our assessment money used to take a loan from RPV (per the ballot information) without further input legally necessary from us? It would be my opinion, no loan should be taken until we get the answers to why no grant was applied to for Abalone Cove landslide, or if RPV owes ACLAD funds/interest income from the Horan settlement-not to mention the terms of the loan etc. We may be members of ACLAD but we are also RPV taxpayers deserving equal attention. Why should we be taking loans to perform a duty which rightly belonged to RPV? 4 7) Is this vote/ballot really just a pretense? Individual homeowners in the ACLAD area don't have any true control over the outcome of this vote because the City of RPV -at a minimum-controls 55% of the ACLAD "units" (ie votes). What real say do the individual ACLAD homeowners/taxpayers--who may in fact numerically be in the majority-have? Is RPV going to bind ACLAD residents (however unwittingly) to legal liability we cannot possibly afford in terms of perhaps multiple lawsuits related to the most recent movement and the lack of attention to controlling surface drainage? While the City of RPV may hold a majority vote due to its "units"- -empty land can't pay for lawsuits. Homeowners are not likely to have the deep pockets, the insurance and resources RPV has to deal with the legal matters stemming from being swept into RPV's potential liability. However right or wrong anyone may be, as we all know, it's expensive to be right in a Courtroom. ACLAD members cannot afford let RPV pass the buck for inaction which may reach to civil negligence (RPV?LA COUNTY? THE WATER BOARD?). We need to be very careful how this ballot is crafted, and this one is full of pitfalls which may hand ACLAD the hot potato. In sum, this ballot will go on affect ACLAD owners into the foreseeable future, without their say, in ways in which have not been explored or explained. Currently there are too many errors and/or mitigating factors which make passing this particular budget and assessment unduly burdensome at this time. Thank you for consideration and the withdrawal of this ballot or a vote "No". Respectfu I ly, Nina Ritter 5 State of California CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BO, LOS ANGELES REGION 320 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles FACT SHEET WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (Former UNOCAL Station #5894) NPDES NO. CAG834001 PROJECT LOCATION 5656 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION Cl-7816 FACILITY MAILING 711 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 920! Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) is currently condu remediation at its former Service Station #5894 located at 5656 Crest R Verdes. Groundwater beneath the site is impacted by petroleum compo is extracted and treated, then discharged to a storm drain located at the: system consists of a bag filter, air stripping unit, and two canisters < activated carbon (GAC) to polish the treated groundwater prior to dischar VOLUME AND DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE Up to 57,000 gallons per day of treated groundwater is discharged intc drains into Altamira Creek 4-atitude 33°45' 37", Longitude 118°22' 27 Pacific Ocean, a water of the United States. The site location and the : flow diagram are shown as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. FREQUENCY OF DISCHARGE The discharge is continuous through the life of the remediation project REUSE OF WATER Irrigation is not feasible at the site due to lack of landscaping area. feasible reuse options for the discharge. Therefore, the treated grc discharged into the storm drain. 6 *In fact, the two agreements listed on ACLAD's (April 5, 1994) refer ONLY to dewatering wells. #3 states " Except as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement, none of the costs referred to in Sections 1 and 2 [solely referring to dewatering wells] of this Agreement shall be borne by A CLAD." #7 Goes on to state: "7. A CLAD and RDA shall share the cost of maintenance and repair of any drainage facilities which serve both ACLAD wells and RDA wells. These costs shall be shared proportionally and shall be based upon the annual output of the wells which are served by the particular drainage facilities. By way of example, a particular drainage facility discharges water produced from five dewatering wells; three of the wells are owned by A CLAD and two of the wells are owned by RDA. To compute each entity' s share of the annual maintenance or repair cost of the drainage facilities which serve those five wells, a percentage will be determined by dividing the total output of all five wells into the output of the wells owned by the particular entity. 7