The URL can be used to link to this page

20240618 Late CorrespondenceMy name is Mario Obejas, I'm the Vice President of Beach Cities Cycling Club, South Bay aka BCCCSB. In Summary I'm here to express my opposition to a so called temporary ban on bicycles on PV Drive South. I believe the city should adopt traffic calming measures first, and put in signage about specific hazards, not just general hazards -eg the Ski Jump east of Narcissa. I also worry that a temporary ban is hard to lift once it's in place. I want to thank PV Estates for doing outreach to the local Bike Clubs. The initial email to our club was sent to an incorrect address and returned undeliverable. The URL for our 250+ member bicycle club is BCCCSB.org and all our contact information is there. We have 11 members with PVE addresses. For the record: we are currently monitoring conditions and *voluntarily* avoiding PV Drive .South. Per the staff report, the goals of the prohibition are to "reduce the likelihood of injuries" and to "reduce the number of claims and lawsuits tendered to the City." While we share these goals, we do not share the belief that the prohibition is the only way to get there, or that other measures have been exhausted -they haven't. The staff report makes no mention of any effort to use traffic calming measures in the traffic engineer's toolbox. For example, for that problematic two mile stretch from Sea Cove to Schooner drive, how about : Reduced speed limits -eg 25mph Flashing yellow lights in multiple location s , reminding vehicles they are still in the landslide zone Signs warning about specific, current dangers These cost effective measures are reasonable for an area with a State disaster designation. Also, it would really really help if you stop putting signs in the shoulders and bike lanes where bikes travel. This practice creates an unnecessary, manmade hazardous obstacle, forcing cyclists to make last minute moves out into traffic lanes . Please put traffic control signs where cyclists do not ride -that should be common sense, no? Please do that as a best practice long after the landslide is resolved. In summary, no one envies the city's task in dealing with the landslide. You have plenty of other issues to deal with. But respectfully, you really should deploy traffic .calming measures first, and post specific danger signs, before you jump to the drastic step of a prohibition. I don't want to have to fight to get a so called temporary prohibition lifted, someday. AGENDA ITEM: ..Ji.t!...------- RECE IVED FROM: rt~,\'o obw,S AND MADE PART O HE REC 9 RD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF: '2h gf ol().;>..'f: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi, Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com> Tuesday, June 18, 2024 5:31 PM CityClerk Erin Grubisich; Elena Gerli Re: Comment to City Council re June 18, 2024 Meeting The prior email stated incorrectly that this letter was in response to Public Hearing Item 2. Please correct this as the letter is intended to address Consent Calendar Item F. Thank you, [J Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Carney Mehr, a legal corporation t: (949) 629-4676 e: klcm@carneymehr.com w: carneymehr.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE --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, distr·ibution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error1 please immediately return e--mail ancl 1 F. delete the original t1·ansmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 4:00 PM Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide the attached correspondence related to Public Hearing Item 2 on the June 18, 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. Kendra L. Carney Mehr Principal Carney Mehr, a legal corporation t: (949) 629-4676 e: klcm@carneymehr.com w: carneymehr.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -· This e-·mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e--rr1ail 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 and its attachments without reading or saving in any rnanner. Thank you. 2 From: Enyssa Sisson Sent: To: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 5:39 PM tony b Cc: CityClerk Subject: RE: Read during 6/18 meeting Hello Mr. Buesing, We will enter this as late correspondence, and this will be provided to council. Best, Enyssa Sisson, CMC Deputy City Clerk esisson@rpvca ,gov Phone -(310)544-5274 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.r~g.QY From: tony b <tonybuesing@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 5:31 PM To: Enyssa Sisson <esisson@rpvca.gov> Subject: Read during 6/18 meeting Hello Enyssa Please read this during the city meeting of 6/18/2024. Readingitem L concerning the landslide. Thank you 1 L. Good Evening City Council, Mayor, Ara, Ramzi, and Staff, PV Drive is in a dangerous situation of becoming extinct. Your banker hours of performing work on the road is not going to save the road. You need to be working around the clock. You spend more time conducting social media campaigns and TV spot lights than you spend having the E1 and E2 getting activated quickly. Have you done the math on how quickly we are moving to the ocean side? It is 12 inches per week and you are busy playing videos and shutting down the work day at 4 pm. You are wasting time. We need a plan for when the sewer pipe goes down which is approaching quickly. How many hundreds of homes will loose their sewer systems when the sewer system fails in PV drive? We are losing homes with all the Cal Water breaks that destroy foundations. Please get the pipes above ground in the next two months Please help with these issues. Thank you James Buesing 4348 Exultant 2 Subject: FW : Agenda for Tomorrow's Council Meeting From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 3:42 PM To: Thompson, Joseph <joseph.thompso n @t-mob ile.com > Cc: Rajput, Areej <A r eej.Rajput15@T-Mo bil e.com > Subject: RE: Agenda for Tomorrow's Council Meeting Hi Joe- Please note that the RPV City Attorney 's office spoke with the counsel for both Verizon and AT&T today to discuss allowing the current code amendment to proceed on the consent agenda for approval. They have checked with their respective clients, and they are open to having a discussion about possible minor amendments in the upcoming weeks . If agreement can be reached between the carriers and the City , we would bring any needed amendments back to the City Council for approval. You may wish to consult with your contacts at Verizon and AT&T to get more information . Please also note that regarding your additional concern expressed below, if T-Mobile has an existing , perm itted site , it would be allowed to remain as -is at this time . That is , we would not be requiring updates to all the existing sites at this time . An existing site would only need to be brought into compliance with the new code at this time if the underlying planning permits expired . If a CUP is renewed prior to the expiration , the existing sites could continue to remain without being modified to meet the new code. (However, see RPVMC Section 17 . 73 .100 regarding amortization of nonconforming sites .) And of course new sites would have to comply with the new code. Please let me know if you have any questions , thank you. Sincerely , Amy Seeraty Senior Planner amys@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5231 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rgvca.gov -0 • -. --. --' -- , GET IT ON i" • Google Play Th,s ,:-ma il message contains infor mation belonging to the City of Rancho Pillos Verdes, which may be privi leged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, di•,tribution, or COP'/1ng is strictly prohib ited. ft you received this email ,n error, or are not an intended recipient, please not ify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From : Thompson, Joseph <jo seph .thompson@t-mobile.com > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 5:22 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca .gov> Cc: Rajput, Areej <Aree j.Rajput15@T -Mob i le .com > Subject: RE: Agenda for Tomorrow's Council Meeting Hi Amy, Yes, T-Mobile agrees with the concerns brought forth by both Verizon and AT&T. As also discussed, we have issue with proposed code section 17 .85.030 (E)(1 )(b)(ii). If a cell site is within 200 -feet of residential , it requires all equipment except antennas to be undergrounded. Since most of our cell sites are less than 200-feet from residential, it will be very cost prohibitive to place our equipment underground, not to mention these sites are at much greater risk of failing due to water intrusion. We also understand the City will review all sites for compliance to the new code after the 10-year permit expiration. If for some reason, the equipment cannot be undergrounded, due to space, existing undergrounded utility lines, etc., is there any relief from the code. These sites work on a line of sight basis , and it will be very difficult to move them, while delivering the same level of service. Thank You Joe Thompson Site Development and Advocacy Manager, Southern California and Desert West ~Mobile · Mobile (949) 350-5376 Joseph.Thompson@T -Mobile.com T-Mobi le.com I Follow T-Mobile on Twitter, Facebook and l nstagram www.HowMobileWor ks.com From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 5:05 PM To: Thompson, Joseph <joseph.thompson@t-mobile .com > Subject: Agenda for Tomorrow's Council Meeting I [External] Hello Joe- Thank you for taking my call today. Please see the link below to the agenda and note that the 2nd reading is on the consent agenda, item "J". Please also note that we have a proposed fee schedule update for the newly proposed permits in the proposed code, which is Public Hearing Item No . 1, in case you are interested in that as well. I look forward to hearing back from you today regarding our discussion just now that the Verizon letter likely encompasses most of your concerns, but that there is still one about undergrounding which you will explain a bit more in your response . That way we can look into it and have a response prepared for the meeting tomorrow . https://rpv.qranicus.com/GeneratedAqendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=2397 Thank you, 2 Amy Seeraty Senior Planner amys@rp~ Phone -(310) 544-5231 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rgvca.gov -. -. DOWNLOAD 'l'ilr ,-:, ?V G ET IT ON ., • Google Play This e-milil message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Ver·des, 1vhich may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from liisclosure. The information is intended only For use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictlv prol1ib 1ted. If you received this email 111 error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediate ly . Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 3 CITY OF TO: "~ "°c ... ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 18, 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 Non-Agenda Email exchange between Staff and Sha Tahmasebi; Email from Carol Mueller; Linda Webb F Email from Janet Yamamoto 2 Email from Kendra L. Carney Mehr 4 Emails from: Jim Baross; Clint Sandusky 5 Email from Sharon Yarber 8 Update from Staff ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 17, 2024**. Respectfully submitted, l:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\202412024 Coversheets\20240618 additions revisions to agenda .docx Subject: FW: possible late corr From: Hi Sha <hisha2023@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:04 PM To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: possible late corr Hi Ramzi, Thanks for your email. Most of my comment below was read at the May 7 City Council meeting in the form of a voice message so it's not necessary to submit it again. However, I would appreciate it if it can be included in the upcoming "late correspondence" section published on City's website. Best, Sha On Jun 17, 2024, at 4:43 PM, Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.~ov> wrote: Sha, Sorry it took some time to get back to you. Your email will be provided to the City Council as public comment for the July 2, 2024 meeting. For that meeting, there are two landslide related items; one concerning extending the landslide emergency and the other concerning a loan to AC LAD and KC LAD. Which item would you like your email to address, or would you like it to address both? Thanks. Ramzi From: Sha <hisha2023@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 4:05 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Dear City Clerk, 1 Please publish the following comment to the upcoming public correspondence of the City Council Meeting Agenda: Thanks, Sha Comment Regarding KCLAD Landslide: May 7, 2024 A few nights ago, blinding construction lights shining through our windows and the sounds of truck sirens on Dauntless Drive woke us up mid-sleep. Our water was suddenly shut off to repair a main pipe on the street. Water was restored, but each time the water company charges its lines, the sudden pressure causes our pipes to be affected. So we were left without water for another day until we did repairs. This morning, around 3 am, we woke up to the beeping sounds of the gas/carbon monoxide alarm, which we realized was due to a power outage. We were without electrical power and internet for most of the day today. The week before, the gas company had knocked on our door at 3 am, alerting us to a gas leak on the street in front of our property. We are grateful to the utility companies' technicians and employees working on the ground day and night to repair and restore our services. I would like to reiterate that while today the disaster affects all utilities, prior to 2023 and for some time after the land damage of this disaster first became noticeable, the interruptions were almost exclusively with water and due to main water utility leaks and breaks. Today, losing electricity, water, gas, sewer, internet, all of life's essential utilities is a weekly and now daily event in our lives. Being without the ability to wash our hands, take care of hygiene, shower, inability to work and live a normal life, living in fear of losing our homes or having the hills bury us alive for such a LONG DURATION has caused us irreversible and permanent harm. No amount of mitigation will ever reverse what we have gone through for nearly a year and continue to suffer every day. A natural disaster like a fire, a hurricane, or a tornado lasts a few hours or a few days, and then residents know their fate. But living like this for nearly a year is NOT natural. Had the City sought the truth from the first day Cal Water pipes started breaking in the hills, releasing millions of gallons of pressurized water underground and out of sight, we would not have been here today. Instead of holding Cal Water accountable for its unimaginable negligence, the City has fit its narrative to the easiest source of money, the "natural" disaster money, and in the process undermined its tax-paying residents. 2 It's been decided by experts that pumping water out of the ground is the essential step of landslide mitigation. And by far, the greatest expense is the installation, operation, and maintenance of underground pumps and hydraugers to pull water out of the ground. A pump has to work continuously for thousands of hours to pump the water that's released from a single Cal Water main pipe break. I ask our City officials this question: Why should we, the residents, pay to remove the water that Cal Water has and continues to flood beneath our grounds? Sincerely, Sha Tahmasebi 3 Subject: FW: Cayotes From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:48 AM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Cayotes Heard on radio news yesterday that the coyotes are no longer afraid ... makes noises, they leave and come back. Killing cats and dogs ... perhaps just waiting for human beings? Thank you, Carol Mueller 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi team, This landed in our junk mail. -----Original Message----- Enyssa Sisson Tuesday, June 18, 2024 8:43 AM CityClerk FW: Ban the use of toxic biosolids as fertilizer and compost From: Linda Webb <lwebb@dmjca.org> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 5:21 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ban the use of toxic biosolids as fertilizer and compost Some people who received this message don't often get email from lwebb@dmjca.org. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear Ms. Takaoka, I urge you to institute an immediate moratorium on the land application of biosolids and prohibit the sale of compost, fertilizer, or other agricultural products and materials containing sludge and septage. The use of toxic PFAS-laden sewage sludge as fertilizers and compost has led to the contamination of soil and water, and in turn, food, across the nation. Thousands of farms covering millions of acres are likely contaminated, with PFAS chemicals making their way into farm animals and crops, in some documented cases, at levels thousands of times higher than what is deemed safe. Tests have shown vegetables, meat, milk and eggs may be poisoned with PFAS. Not even certified organic farms, which are prohibited from using biosolids, have escaped the crisis. Many organic farms that were once under conventional production have been found to be contaminated. PFAS chemicals, also known as Forever Chemicals, do not break down in the natural environment and can linger in soil for, theoretically, forever. Municipalities and for-profit companies have also sold and distributed compost and fertilizers made from biosolids to homes and businesses for landscaping needs, further exposing communities to harmful PFAS. Local municipalities have played a role in promoting toxic fertilizers and compost made from biosolids as a waste management strategy. Now, municipalities must correct their misguided policies. Because of federal inaction, this problem has become a devastating crisis. Every day that passes means more cancer, more sickness, more disease. Municipalities must take action to ban biosolids NOW. 1 Sincerely, Linda Webb 5300 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: City Clerk, rjec < rjec@cox.net> Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11 :12 AM CityClerk; CC Richard Schleicher; Stasys and Irene Petravicius; Michele/Keith Carbone/Davison; angelique lyle; Kathy Millea; tony DeClue Comment and Response to City Council Meeting Agenda Item F June 18 Meeting Ref. Item #F.docx Please submit my correspondence for tonight council meeting, item F. Thank you, Janet Yamamoto 1 f. Reference Item F. City Council Meeting for June 18, 2024 Members of the City Council, Below is my letter of protest to rezoning of the Clipper Lot that was not read on my behalf by a designee who did not follow through, for the June 4, 2024 council meeting. In regards to tonight's meeting: The city has passed the ordinance and has obtained the approval of HCD for the RPV Housing Element. It is now time to proceed with an amendment to the Housing Element. It is time for the Council to direct the staff to remove the Clipper Lot that HCD said was not necessary for the Housing Element. Staff states this would require a study. Please direct staff to proceed and do what is necessary to remove Clipper site #16. Staff is waiting to hear from our city council to direct them to proceed with removing the Clipper site. It is now time to proceed with an amendment and represent our community. We would also like to work with staff on this investigation and view first hand, step by step, what road blocks there are, if any, or the many, on the removal of Clipper. We would like to understand, assist and investigate in the removal of any road blocks that could arise that staff discovers. I sincerely hope that city council will give staff this direction. What other excuses does this community and the citizens of RPV have to hear on the "can't do's"? HCD says RPV can have Clipper removed. Respectfully submitted, Janet Yamamoto Members of the City Council, To be put simply, please remove the Clipper Lot for from the Housing Element Study. A resident was able to make contact with HCD in regards to the removal of the Clipper lot from the Housing Element Study. Something, we citizens would have thought our City would have investigated on our behest. It has been revealed that City Staff had conversation with HCD Fidel Herrera. Mr. Herrera has in fact stated that the Clipper Lot can be removed from the Housing Element Study. "Removal of the Clipper lot is not needed for Regional Housing Need Allocation {RHNA)." Telecon with staff was on May 6th . We met with Brandy Forbes and Octavio Silva, on May 22, and this was also verified. Brandy stated that she needed "Direction of the City Council,, to do this. Please do so and let staff proceed with a study, to investigate the ramifications. The effects needing investigation were asked. Brandy drew a blank on when asked to elaborate on the details. The City must communicate to HCD that RPV will be removing site #16. I find under staff's Public Hearing Section page 2 Background in bold: "A city is not required to build housing, but to simply ensure that the housing can be built through zoning 11 Comment: Save Clipper. It does not have to take part in this rezoning! Page 4: "the Housing Element only provides the regulatory framework to accommodate and support the construction of new housing units. The document does not require or approve the construction of a specific project. Remove the Clipper Lot. This is accommodating the owner/developer before the Housing Element has even been certified. Because HCD has relayed to the City that the Clipper Lot can be removed with no harm to the existing Housing Element Study, please use the take the alternative route that Staff has put forth for your consideration: (page 11 of the staff report) Provide Staff with additional feedback and continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow Staff the opportunity to prepare and present revisions! We urge you to Remove the Clipper Lot that HCD says is not required to meet the required allotment and do the Study that Staff says they need to do. It does no harm but will validate what is unknown. Staff can make the adjustments where required. Revisions-Removing the Clipper Lot, as stated by the HCD has no affect. In fact, moving the 11 units to accommodate the move from Clipper to elsewhere {as was recommended by the Planning Commission) such as, will be a service to the Housing Study Element Gov't code Section 65589.5 in all respects. The Clipper Lot is designated as "market rate 11 and has no value to the Housing Element philosophy. This lot is only a builder's jackpot and grand trip to the bank. High Density Housing in our small Community of 80 homes will progress to the downfall of our gem of a neighborhood. Staff puts forth much effort in responding to letters that were submitted in negating much that is said in correspondence. However, much of the backup is outdated and taken out of context. That being said, again let the Staff use their efforts for the "good" of our concerned citizens of RPV and Remove the Clipper Lot from the Housing Element Study. We demand as citizens that Staff and City Council hear us out and work on our behalf. This Lot as stated by HCD has no consequence if removed. Work with HCD and have it removed. What good reason do you have not too? Because you refuse? Because you promised the developer this up zoning even before the lot was purchased? There are emails between the developer, real estate agent, planning and mayor before the land was sold and the desire to rezone the lot from single family homes to town homes. Remove the Clipper Lot from the rezone and proceed with removing it from the Housing Element. Your immediate action is requested by your citizens. Please work with our community, our city. Janet Yamamoto I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi, Kendra Carney Mehr <klcm@carneymehr.com> Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4:01 PM CityClerk Erin Grubisich; Elena Gerli Comment to City Council re June 18, 2024 Meeting 6.18.24 Comment in Opposition to Public Hearing Item 2.pdf Please provide the attached correspondence related to Public Hearing Item 2 on the June 18, 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 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-· 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 per·son responsible for delivering lt to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transm:ssion and that any disclosure, copying, printing, J. . 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 and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. 2 CARNEY MEHR LAW June 18, 2024 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Kendra L. Camey Mehr 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA (949) 629-4676 klcm@cameymehr.com Re: Concerns and Conflict of Interest regarding the City's Attempt to Rezone 0 Clipper Road and Continued 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 further effectuate the City's Revised Final 2021-2029 Housing Element (June 18, 2024 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item No 2.) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: As you may be aware, this firm represents the Community of Abalone Cove, an organization of 80 homeowners who hold property adjacent to the parcel identified as 0 Clipper, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 7573-006-024 (the "Clipper Lot") within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Community of Abalone Cove hereby reasserts its strong opposition to the rezoning of the Clipper Lot on the grounds raised in its June 4, 2024 letter to the City Council and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. However, there are additional concerns relating to the Mayor's apparent conflict of interest in approving this action that are discussed here. The Clipper Lot is one parcel considered in a City amendment which proposes to rezone the Clipper Lot from RS-4 to RM-22. I previously submitted a comment on June 4, 2024 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. However, statements by the City's Mayor, John Cruikshank, during the June 4, 2024 City Council meeting have revealed both that (1) the Mayor acted to approve this amendment despite an ongoing conflict of interest that prevents the City from re zoning this lot and (2) that the City has failed to comply with its obligations pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Conflict of Interest Under the Public Reform Act, a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public's interest in favor of the official's private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision. While there are five types of interests that may result in disqualification, the concern here is the income the Mayor has received from the developer/owner of the Clipper Lot. Should the official receive income or promised income aggregating to $500 or more in the 12 months preceding the decision, the official has a potentially disqualifying interest in the decision. If a decision may have a financial impact or effect on any of the foregoing interests, an official is disqualifi~d from governmental decision if the following two conditions are met: • The financial impact or effect is foreseeable, and • The financial impact or effect is significant enough to be considered material. Generally, a financial impact or effect is presumed to be both foreseeable and material if the financial interest is "explicitly" or directly involved in the decision. A financial interest is explicitly involved in the decision whenever the interest is a named party in, or the subject of: a governmental decision before the official or the official's agency. If the interest is "not explicitly involved" in the decision, a financial impact or effect is reasonably foreseeable if the effect can be recognized as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical. A financial effect need not be likely to occur to be considered reasonably foreseeable. However, for interests "not explicitly involved" in the decision, different standards apply to determine whether a foreseeable effect on an interest will be material depending on the nature of the interest. Regulation 18702.3 sets forth the materiality standards applicable to a decision's reasonably foreseeable financial effect on a source of income to an official, and provides that the effect is material when any of the following criteria is met: • The source is explicitly involved in the decision because it is '·a named party in, or the subject ot: the decision," including a claimant, applicant, respondent, or contracting party. (Regulation 18702.3( a)( I).) • The source is an individual and any of the following applies: The official knows or has reason to know that the individual: (i) has a real property interest and the property is explicitly involved in the decision; or (ii) there is clear and convincing evidence the 2 decision would have a substantial effect on the property. (Regulation l 8702.3(a)(2)(C).) Here, the Mayor stated during the City Council meeting that the current ovvner/developer of the Clipper Lot is the Mayor's client. Further, the Mayor has provided engineering services for the current owner/developer on multiple other projects outside of the City. While the Mayor stated he has not received income for his work on behalf of the current owner/developer pertaining to the Clipper Lot, he further disclosed that he himself had communicated with City staff on behalf of the current owner/developer regarding the rezoning of the Clipper Lot and obviously was aware that his client was the owner/developer of this property. An official with a disqualifying conflict of interest may not make, participate in making, or use his or her position to influence a governmental decision. To our knowledge, the Mayor does not meet any exception to this rule, however he failed to recuse himself from the City's action and has clearly used his position to influence the City's rezoning effort on behalf of his client. Failure to Comply with California Public Records Act The Mayor's same statements also revealed further evidence that the City failed to comply with its obligations pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("PRA") by redacting and withholding responsive documents from the public. The PRA requires that "each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable." (Gov. Code, § 7922.530, subd. (a) [ emphasis added].) In April 2024, Community members submitted a PRA request ("Request") to the City asking for multiple documents relating to the Clipper Lot and the City's rezoning efforts. In response to this Request, the City produced documents, but withheld 109 documents. Many of the documents produced were redacted without explanation. And, one email showed the Mayor had been copied on a response from the City pertaining directly to the rezoning of the Clipper Lot. Importantly, this email included the Mayor's work email address, not his City email address. When members of the public raised concerns about his involvement during the Public Comment portion of the Public Hearing Item No. 1 during the June 4, 2024 City Council meeting, the Mayor responded and referenced an email that was not included in the documents produced. The Mayor stated that he had emailed from his work email address to request information from staff pertaining to the rezoning of the Clipper Lot on behalf of his client, the owner/developer. The City did not produce this email. In addition the emails produced failed to include numerous emails previously sent by members of the Community seeking information about the Clipper Lot and potential development or rezoning. There is no provision of the Public Records Act that permits a City to withhold the public records responsive to a request. The City's response to the Request is, at best, negligent, and at worst, intentional 3 obstruction of the public's right to information. The City had a duty to provide all responsive records. The City failed to do either. We respectfully request that the City produce all responsive documents no later than June 25, 2024 to address this error. cc: egerli@awattorneys.com 4 Best regards, /(f[a:Aru/{_~ Kendra L. Camey Mehr Principal Attorney EXHIBIT A 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. Camey Mehr 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA (949) 629-4676 klcm@cameymehr.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 fitrther 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 Council members 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 along four streets: Barkentine Road, Clipper Road , Packet Road and Sea Cove Drive , shown in yellow here : n,.,"~11..-1 • Unl\~5'•1• ·~ •-1. ,..,.,,,,.s ,.s w \ \ f "' . " " ll. ! • ,00.-b_r ll. II, ,J ,..,.,,. ..,l\-s i ~teOf • I AbalffleCOY • I <fl"" Shord lnePa,1 .,, """""'""' • 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 earthquake 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 $1.8M 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's hip v. City of 5 San Clemente, 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268-69 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).) In Ross v. City of Yorba Linda ( 1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, the court found a city guilty of spot zoning when it denied a property owner's request to rezone the owner's property to a designation consistent with surrounding properties. 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 Clipper 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 Alternative 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 sole 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 could have maintained the existing zoning and density. There is no project proposed to increase affordable housing of any kind. Instead , emails with the current owner indicate a desire to build "luxury 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 prm,1de 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. Best regards, /f!(a:,n: i;i,di{ Principal Attorney 8 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 re zoning 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 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. Disc ussio n wi t h o ur v ie w s t o t he r el at ed port io ns of st aff rep o rt highl ighted in y ellow : 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 re zoning 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 geogra direct violation of neighborhood compatibility. Zone Change The Potential Housing Sites Inventory included in the Praft 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 th is report has been prepared merely to satisfy one and only one purpose, at all cost, and, that is to accommodate the City's 647 hous ing 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 (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 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 re zoning effort are outlined in the Revised Final Hous ing 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 be lieve that while MUOD o r 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, v iew impairment and adverse affect on durab ility and desirability of the 3 Adjacent to landslide moratorium 0.1 mile - co m munity. As stated at the open in g of o ur obj ectio ns, it appears that t his report has cente red o n the st ate mandate d cycli c ho usin g element and focused ent ire ly o n add it ion of 647 hi gh de nsity ho using at all costs no t acceptab le to the rest of co mmunit y. 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 . Consider the proximity of the C lipper S ite #16 on the sites inventory to the landslide comp lex and the geolog ical impact of deve lopme nt at t he site a nd communicate with HCC to cons ider the removal of this s ite or shift in g the un its to another s ite; To determine which sites to consider, the City starled 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 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 Andent Porluguese Bend Landslide Complex. 4 Additionally, it should be noted that any proposed development woul d 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 n ot e lim inat in g v iew prese rvat ion for the two s·ites #16 and #17 tha t a re proposed for u pzon ing. Sincerely, Abalone Cove HOA 5 Street No. Barkentine 1 Barkentine /2 Barkentine v'/ 3 Barkentine / 4 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 chr_L~ai_ko@iucikins.cQm Keith Davison & Michele Carbone Home: (310) 370-0105 Cell: (310) 908-0535 mlc.:helepcarbone@_gmaJtcom Hayato & Anna Nishigushi Home: (310) 750-6825 Cell: (310) 953-1582 Email: annanishiguchi@gmail.com Child: Andrew Ry_uto Ben & Anita Brining 703-853-9837 Esther and Lodovico Pizzati Esther and Lodovico 5 Home: (310) 377-6096 Nico, Jeya and samuel 6 Email: estherpizz.ati@gm_aiJ~com L..o ?>o ✓ 1<...9~ Eric & Mary Schneider Home: (310) 541-9967 Email: eas@amclaw.com Ryan and Kim Mueller 310 265-1794 ,! Signature l~~h /M ,:;:t,,JA 4,/,.,e_ ~ Barkentine I 7 koughton@msn.com ----,C.,,,l4--. 1 u, : /(_) /-~ Siignature Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature ~-?-1½' Alice Parker and Joseph Bebel •• I ; ~~~£.\ Barkentine 8 310 377-3298 , ....-f'\1\ Cl,,~ ! c. aliceparker@cox.net joseph.bebe!@gmail.com I I - Richard & Nena Schleicher iit.L ✓ / Barkentine .j 9 !/ Home: (310) 377-1291 l)kJ Al~ v Email: kenyarich@cox.net Barkentine 7 10 Kelly Connelly 1z __ ., -- Kell.connellvra>e:mail .corn /11 James Thomas and Sonji Kay Riple ~ ~&0-~ Barkentine 310 3654985 -sDQ\PLE~~e fr)e.~ M /;t;~ jrip!e33@me.com II sonj.riple@outlook.com , / /.1~ --l'I Barkentine / 12 Eldon & Marchelle Griffis r ~1:pf;~ .. ·· ,r,1.«{ cJ-·vlk JrJ, .h Home: (310) 544-2425 \. ( --~T,-l/2 1 •. ' ) Email: eldongriffis@yahoo.com .,-i_, / .J'-7 John & Christine Campbell ~-/ • John: (424) 210-1797 Barkentine 13 Christine: (424) 210-1798 Email: jscampbell626@gmail.com Email: christinecamobell407 (@gmail.com Barkentine 14 Street No. Barkentine ----- Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine Barkentine 15 16 c/ 17 18 19 Contact info Karen Mills & Kevin Hudspith Home: (310) 750-6182 Cell: (310) 503-8985 e_mail: kevinhuspith@gmail.com Bill Nuttman (310) 377-7394 w1muttman{wernail.com Dave & Jan Black Home: (310) 541-6470 Cell: (310) 930-1705 Email: jblack@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 Bat:lya~ a11d je11fli~r: ~4cCai:tbi,' f:tU-::----y. -/:),~\'-~~~~) 4Z.l_-b-'~- Azoi z:v~ \ ~ ,.L ~ q ~ e_ ·-c.o,...., w 20 / J Cindy Jensen 21 (Erica & Kelsey) Home: (310) 544-4436 Email: dr .cindviensen(ci)e:mail.com j James & Catherine Hwang (Patrick & Anthony} Home: (310) 370-2156 23 Cell: (310) 408-1751 (J) Signature Siignature '~ l\-J.-J )~ .J,ffe} {dJC!~t~L, ! ! . ...._____ \ ~-::~ / ~ ----~~ ~ Street No. Clipper 7A Clipper 8 Clipper 9 Clipper 10 Clipper 11 Clipper 13 rOo /! /.' ~y /)\ Contact info Charles McGuire Mailing address: ~ P.O. Box 1034 ~ 8() PVE, CA 90274 ~--• i 'r/ri Dan & Jill Bridleman (Caitlin Waddell) (310) 377-5640 Email: bridleman@cox.net Steve & Lydia Hsu (Sharon & Selene) (310) 544-8675 Email: ls428@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 E__mijil: Lowell@deltanetJ;om Signature Siignature C /~, c~ ti,/--~r (\ 0 J)~ J j (! ' ! ~0-u-t v ir- L: Street No. Packet 1 2 Packet 3 Contact info John & Susan Beckman Home: (310) 377-7596 Email: RPVBeckm~n.@cox.net Patricia (Photographer) & Adam Feingold (Noah, Gabriel & David) Home: (310) 544-3132 Cell: (310) 697-9164 mail.com David & Joanie Shoemaker (Chris & Scott 749-4208) (310) 749-0521 (J) (310) 683-8280 (D) Email: iiensendesign@cox.net; david~hoemaker@duncarisho~makeLcom r,_y Siignature Packet 4 Home: (310) 833-3651 C • .. 1.- Ted Shirley & Elisabeth Ryan c;,.:._ ( l . / PL-€?_~~- Packet 5 Packet 6 Packet 7 Packet 8 Email: ·asminllS verizon.net • ~ Chi Hyun and Kathy You ' .,,--· ' Mina • Home 626-715-8990 Emai t ;Jeekath_y. rn@_g~Jtcom Andy & Maria Olvera (Daniel, Gabriel, and Rebecca) Home: (424) 206-2829 Cell: (310) 418-0496 Jami Chang 310 541 3780 koavi@vahoo.corn Tracey Vranich Cole and Marina 213 321-9131 vranich@.us~.edu Street No. Packet 9 Packet 10 Contact info Don & ~y B8Rl98""' Home: (310) 377-9544 Email: donald2jbarnes@aol.com Email: nancy_@raisinkids.com Tony & Laurie DeClue Home: (818) 631-1981 Home: (818) 631-1984 Email: declue5@~rthlink.net Signature Siignature ( 9 -\ 0 l Street No. -,--d\J1'Cl 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) Email: karen@algrita.com Email: giovanni@algrita.com 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: michr1031@y~hoo.com Signature Siignature r ,o-lG M~ 'IV~ ILL-\, ,f/v· Jµ{~~~ Street No. Packet Packet Packet Packet Packet Packet 17 Contact info Eric Krusell / Peggy Nelson 703-517 -5532 703 819 8077 ehnelsonva@gmail.com ✓ Ben & Michelle Granville Home: (310) 701-7483 18 Home: (310) 386-7483 19 20 21 22 23 24 Email: m2onthego@yahoo.com Email:J:ie_otoo@gmail.c:om Klaus and Joan Mockenhaupt Home: (310) 541-4098 Email: klaus.moc~nhaupt@gmail.com George & Mary Horeczko Home: (310) 541-6925 Email: ghoreczko@vahoo.com Chris & Lydia Rich (Wesley & Glenys) (310) 541-2228 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 ? [ :t Signature Siignature ~'-f I ~ ~~I ·---- r -- Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature ,}-\ ~2- /4 Bob and Linda Levine ~4-1~x.e_, Packet 310 739-7803 relvine.aia(ci)gmail.com Maureen and Chris Trivers 203 751 2676 Packet 26 203 751 3810 \ trivs@charter.net moetrivi sgmai I. com IY1a±. /21 Lynn Eastwood 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) IJ1J.{J l/ 0in\fr Home: (310) 377-1818 Email: abalonesurf@cox.net Pa£ Kim St Hilare & Matthew Neagle Emma and Anglica ~ , "'L 4... _, I .,..,, _,,. ,, ' 32 415-328-9337 1/Jj_ kim.m.sthilare@gmail.com Street No. Contact info Signature Siignature s ,- 1 ')J 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 Email: john@ddsplumbing.corn 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 \~ ~ 11 (Evan & Corey) -r ~. j \ ' ' • Home: (310) 544-5125 A. i· "-\ i\t~ • Cell: 310-408-5030 /: I 12 Bijain Partovi Kathy Millea ~0-::3 f'n\lo 1~ cell 949-751-7944 \ kathymillea@gm.ail.com . Street No. ~'vO------OVVe-,~ / Sea Cove • 15 Sea Cove I 16 Sea Cove / 17 Sea Cove / 20 Sea Cove 22 Sea Cove Sea Cove 25 Contact info Stasys & Irene Petravicius (Board Member) Home: {310) 377-8737 sta syg@_ 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 anto_nia.@_antQ_nialaven_der.com Pamela Simes Brian and Jenifer Conroy (Joshua, Jessica, Jacob, & Brianna) Cell: (310) 541-1295 Email: bfconroy@cox.net Email: jeniferconroy@cox.net Geoff and Angeline Lyle Syndney, William Cell: 760 696-1467-G Cell: 310 751-8335 (Al angeliguelyle@groaiLcom C - Signature ,., .. d - Siignature \ ~ ;)--\ l.~l? -sr~t__,- L~1\_ ~J"-./ -; ! I \'e" V ·= r✓,'y --'/. ~~--. , l \ . . ii ' ' /\.) ~~~ f , ~ ,1'' !JJ\) /i~-:?/; t -t-/f I . . Street No. 26 28 Sea Cove 29 Sea Cove ,, /30 Sea Cove 32 Sea Cove 34 Sea Cove 36 SeaCove / 38 Sea Cove 40 Contact info maiLcQm 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 shervllewinmd@gmail.com Mark Weinstein 408 482-9979 weinsteinmr.@gmail.com Sao Chui & Yunja Chung Home:{310) 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 4 ~~a~ qL 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 Email: shanehicksonl@aof.com -----'.h ,,.., Cf X.:{-k-y,..____ t::-t+/v...l ~ T} ,1 D (:!);\Kie cr-s4c I /', 17c._ c.e{ l 0J lf RYL-,W" .>--D 3 IO 307 -' ?~ ?I-,\ CcJ L • / Q~rnt_ Wb,,OU I I · U , Signature ',, Siignature s ~c_."4J ~-s.il-~ 3'\0-y Y0 r r/03 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 . Discussion with our views to the related portions of staff report highlighted 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 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. 1 • Housing Element by facilitating the rezoning of a Single Residential Family to a high density Multi ple 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 Ma rch 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 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 Clippe r property to RM-22 has severe impact on Palos Verdes Drive South road condition s, 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 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 (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 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 (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. 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 Costal Road will have high environmental impact, view impairment and adverse affect on durability 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 high density housing at all costs not acceptable to the rest of community. 4 NAME EMAIL RES IDENTIAL ADDRESS .. SIGNATURE Appe ll, Ro b ert <!.!~m84@2Q l.~Q m > <denny@producti o ne lements .co m> 6 1 SO Arrowroot -___ ...,. .....> ~ Bea ubien, De ni s .::..,..,. -·~ •J • ' • ...... ,I Bridelman, Dan acro ss from lot on C lipper Bru enin g , Da n <da n bru~ning@ hotm ail.co m > 6 162 Arrowroo t Ln !:--( .... ,,,·-: ~~ Bru enin g , Rho nda <~ .Qn~a t>ruening@Q~lootq;;QM > 6 16 2 Arrowroot Ln R-i-/}_ a. ·,ij Cowl ey, Pat <pcowl ey09@g mail .com > ~3?>1111f-.~At\GN R\l. :7~~ /J Cowl ey, Sh aro n <sharonkcowl e~gmail .com C,:3 3 1 ~~v/{J. lg£A 't,&-1(_ ~-L - D a Costa-Gomez, Tammy <tamm;.:g~~aboQ.cQm > .,. • Q -... - Da hlin, Ell en <ed2 hli o@v~[izQn,□~1> 3 15 1 Barkentine Roa d Ellen Dahlin t J}/l {)(A.__ Da hlin, Jo hn <dabl ij o@v~rizo n.net> 3 15 1 Bark entin e Roa d J o hn Dahlin .. (faA \,,I Da hlin, Joseph Qs!Dli njQ@v~ri ZQ[l.n~t l ,,, Da ve and Ta mmy <daveza bniser@ya boo.com > de Vl ees cho uwer, Fra nk <frank@a-ro un d -wo rl d .com > d e Vl eesc ho uwer, Odette od~tte{f;Ja-rol,!ryg-worlQ .com Decambra, Hank <pvhenri@yahoo.com> ~ -..o \11 \ f)9-, ~ Vrn ") <f2vhaok@aol.com> # • .... - Decambra, Hank /?/ ~ D oty, Grego ry <gr~gQ()'.Qoty@gmai !-~m> _a.~ /4,/L ~-1~/If/ Fe ri a, Lui z //(/ Fe ri a, Lu z <lurl~da l J22@gma i l.i;;Q m > • • Fe rn andez. Isabe l <fi~52 b~l2 1 ~ahQQ.i;;Qm> 1)\~n l'Af\L ,,,- R-__ lJ Ga rcia, M ike <fergusli!l:y@yahoo.co m> V ' Micha~i~A /\ _ 635 0 Tarrag on Road . / V - NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ~N~RE .. Garcia, Theresa <fgr,g yslilly@yabQQ .~Q rn > 6350 Tarragon Ro ad Th eresa Ga rci a '--J) LI ~~ "' -A.ILIAc,... #~_;WJ T - G ianch andani, Sunil <~g igach @gma il.~Qm> ~ \61 {?w~.J-~~ ~ ,1,,. - 11 -- Gianch andari, Supriya <~ypmgth!Jr®hgtmail.i;Qm> 1ttl g~~~~ " A 'i!J.,.---- Gomez Agnes and H ector a@ briteminds.com 6132 Arrowroot /1. __ ~~.~ l f -- Haber, Brigitte ot\·(J . -, I I I 11 0 <bmkhaber@gmail.com> ·J".~V j I Hindman, Be rnie <bemiehindman@ao l.~om> .,.. W-,,: . ~1-1 ... £1 . I a. , / /• JI . -. ) Hindman, Ca rol <caroljea nhindman@ao l.com> ~ t .... ~/I --f . Jose ph, Li sa <lisasea ljosepb@g m ail.com> Joseph, Tim <lim,josephgm@g m 2il.~om> Katza ro ff, Peter <pet~r1 kgt@g t!;.n ~t> Knotek , David <davi g@~rn2 rtwgx.i;om> Knotek, Sylvi e <dreamlife@gmail.com> Koyano, Marylou <mari aluisa mate o 1@g m ail.com> Koyano, Yuki Kw an, Cathy <catnkwan~ab oo.com > Kwon,Linda <lindax224~ah oo.com > LaRose , Russell <ru~h~rQ~g@m~o -~Qm> .,7.~1?-v I Leveniec, Emile <lgveni ~c@,02!(.n gt> Leveni e c, Lannee Micucci, J anin e <jsminem iQ.!~i@grng il.~om> 6 150 Arrowroot ·,rV\ .f\---. Moustacas, J eff <albacorgguy@yahoo.~om> '-, V' I I NAME EMAIL RES IDENTIAL ADDRESS SIGNATURE M o ust acas , Tracy Muto, Hideki <hmY1Q@vjnt2getQm p.cQ m > 6 128 Arrowroot Hideki Muto /J I A~ Muto , Yumiko <~ymiko9Q2Z5@g m ail.~Q m> 61 28 Arrowroot Yumiko Muto //.A':A... ~ J (I - Nuttman, Bobbie <ba nuttman@g m 2 il.com> Nutbnan, Thomas <tmei □~plsi~ti~s@sbQglobal.net> bounced b ack -wron g em ail? Paul <f2kafut12n~2hQQ.~Qill> Plantamura, Rita <rita p lant@ao l .co m >. ~ Roberts, Debbie <d gbbi e~l to□roberts@verizo n .n e1 F'f),M1 ~---------- Ro binson, Philip <pr2bio~2 01 @tQx .n ~t > ~ --~~ Ryan, G e rlinda <gerlio d~Si!rt@g m s!il.i;Qm > I /\ Se naratna, Ami <ami_se naratna@hotmail.com> 6149 Arrowroot Lan e Ami Sen aratn a ~/k~ ~·~, ( ~- Shook, Victoria I • - I\ . l . fi'}(baligh-' ~~hV\-6 <smkbali g h~2hoo.com > 6100 Arrowroot lane -_Nc..V<?'-\ °' ~ q/c Till, Ath e na <ath enaostrom @g mail.co m> 63 17 Tarra g on Ro ad Ath ena Till .... ( ~ ) '- Till, Ern est <em gstd avidtill @g m ail.~o m > b)l{ ~-~ ·Wl"v,;tr"' -~ ~ Trull, Lori <lo ritrull@yrna il.com> •. 0 i\ \"ttt\?'3 ~ "r2 Un gar, Mich ae l <mich2~ly ag2 r@c Qx.n g1> 3 24 5 BARK EN1INE RD Un gar, Paula <psH.!l2!,mga r@ i;Q x.n e!> 3245 BARKENTINE RD Val erio, Christiana <christi si ns:i v2 lgri Q@g m2 il -~Q m > Yun, Hubert <hubertyl!O ~s!bQQ.i;o m > I NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS (i \ \ \ ~ NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SIGNATURE Appell, Robert <y~crx84@aQI -~Qm> Bea ubien, Denis <denny@productjon e lement s.com> 61 SO Arrowroot -~~. ~ - , Bridelman, Dan across from lot on Clipper Bruening, Dan <dao bru~ning@hotmail.com> 6162 Arrowroot Ln :~ .. t,-.--: ~~ Bruening, Rhonda <r.·.onQa b_rue<" ~g '@cu :1QO,(. ~Q"'l > 6162 Arrowroot Ln R~~ R~---,~ Cowl ey, Pat <~owle~9@gmail.com> ~ ~~ 1 T"' R.ilA ~tJ Q_~. ~:~ -:J ii f) CoWley, Sharon <~haronkcowle)t:@gmail.com ~ J3 I ~~~J. _,!! A U"1L ~ .L - D a Costa-Gomez, Tammy <tamm)'.dcg~aboo,com> .,, • u _ ... - Dahlin, Ell en <edablin@v~r im a.n et> 31 S 1 Barkentine Road Ellen Dahlin j 'f)\ i_J(/4.. Dahlin, John <d2blijo@verizQn.ne:t> 3151 Barke ntine Road Jo hn Dahlin .. (JM, \/I . Dahlin, Joseph dab!i aj o@veciz2n.o~t l ,r Dave and Tammy <davezahni~er@yahoo.com> d e Vl ees chouwer, Frank <frank@a-round-world.com> de Vl eeschouwer, Odette ugett~@2~m~~n~'.",., .. rad .com Decambra, Hank <pvhenri@yahoo.com> ~ -~ l11 \b9> ~Vrn ) <i2vhaok~aol.com> ~--DeCambra, Hank 4/ L. Doty, Gregory <gregocydoty@gmai l.com> -~ ... .1 /,/L .11=" ..... ,, -'~. /~-'/ Fe ria, Luiz / /\/ Feria, Luz <luzfe ri a 1322@g mgil.~Q m > • . Fe rnand ez, Isabe l <fi~bel21 ~aboo.~Qm> ~\~nW\L --~ R-_l-2 Ga rci a, Mike <fergus1illy@yahoo.com> V °' Micha~ci a{A /\ _ 6350 Tarragon Road / # V - NAME EMAIL RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ~~RE Garcia, Th e resa <f~rg y ~lilly®ya bQQ.s;;Q m> 6350 Tarragon Road Th eresa Garcia'--/): !...I .a'< ~ A~c.... ,~ ~--' - Gianchandani, Su nil <sg i,ms;;b@gmai!.s;;Q m> ~16 f ew~.J-M.,~ Gianchandari,Supriya <~upm athur@hQtmail,~Qm> 1ttf Sa--~~IU a A '/ll...---- Gomez Agnes and Hector a@britem inds,com 6132 Arrowroot /l __ -~.~ 1 I ~ Haber, Brigitte <bmkhaber@g mail.co m> ,,, • ""I I u 0 t tk iu .. .,..\"\ ~'" J I -We~ ----+4 .. JI Hindman, Berni e <bemi~hindrnan@aQ l.com> --- < ~~~ .~~'/•_ ) Hindman, Carol <ca rQljeaoh indman@aQ l.c om> -~ .-,_~ Joseph, Li sa <lisasea ljoseph@g m~il.cQm > fl Joseph, nm <tirnj osephgm@grna il.!;;Q m> Katzaroff, Peter <p~t~r1 k2t®2:tt -n~t> Knotek , Da vid <g2 vi d@~ma~2 x.co m > Knotek, Sy lvi e <drea mlife@g mai1.com> Koyano, Marylou <msrialM i~a mateo 1@gma il .com> Koyano, Yuki Kw an, Cathy <cstnkwan~ahoo.com> Kwon,Linda <lindax224~ahoo.!;;om> LaRo se , Russell <ru ~larQ ~~@ m~n -~Qm> "7 7.~<f?-v Lev eni ec, Emile <l~veoiec@!:;Qx.oet> I Leveniec, L.annee Micu cci, Janine <ja nio~mi~!:;cj@gmail.s;;Qm> 6150 Arrowroot \ ~(\\ A -------- Moustacas, Jeff <albacor~uy@yahoo.com> I ' V NAME EMAIL RES IDENTIAL ADDRESS SIGNATURE Moustacas, Tracy Muto, Hideki <bm!.ltQ @viot 2g~Qm p .cQm> 6128 Arrowroot Hideki Muto IJ~/: / , zV Muto, Yumiko <~mil<Q9027 S@g m ail.cQm> 61 28 Arrowroot Yumiko Muto /[A:,...._ ~ J V - Nuttman, Bobbie <banunm2a@ g m 2il.com> Nuttman, Thom as <tmei □~f2ls!fili~@~bQ9lobsil.net> bounced back -wron g em ail? Paul <52kafultQO~ahQQ.~QID> Pl antamura, Rita <rita Rl2nt@aol.co m> _,. Roberts, Debbie <dgbbiee lto nroberts@v erizo n.n et (1) ,M1 ~ ------------ ~ -·,,,,-~ Robinson, Philip <prQbin~Q n 1@cox.ne!> Ry an, Gerlind a <ggrlind~s1 rt@ g m 2il .~2m > . I /1 Se nar atna, Ami <ami_se nara tna@h otmail .com > 6149 Arrowroot lane Ami Sena ratna /xrvJ£ \ ~ .. / v Shook, Victoria I , - =-I\ t 1 flt'i<ba ligh., ~ '\t\1)\-~ . )L .. U ~ ~ 0/c <~khalig h~2hoo.c om> 6100 Arrowroot lane .. (._ '\ , TIii, Ath ena <ath enaogro m@g m ail.co m> 6317 Tarragon Roa d Ath ena Till.,.. ( )< ) ' - Till, Ern est <emestd avidt ill@g m ail.co m > b)\( ~vxf~ ~ ~ ~ Trull, Lori <l o ri t[ull @~ail.com> :. ?1~\ Whui. tn.1f Ungar, Mich ael <mich a~h.1 ngar@cQx.n gt> 3245 BARKENTIN E RD Ungar, Paula <~!.!h~!.!a ga r@ s;;Qx.net> 3 245 BARKENTIN E RD Val erio, Christiana <chcistt 2 n a v 2 l g □Q@g m 2 il .c 2m> Yun, Hubert <bubertyun~5;1 bQQ.~m> I Subject: FW: Agenda item 4, prohibiting bicycling on Palos Verdes Drive South From: Jim Baross <jimbaross@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 10:35 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: CABO Directors <CABODIR@googlegroups.com> Subject: Agenda item 4, prohibiting bicycling on Palos Verdes Drive South On behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations, I wish to communicate to you our opposition to the illegal proposal for the RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL decision on June 18 regarding Regular Agenda Item 4: "Consideration and possible action to temporarily prohibit bicycles, motorcycles, and other two- wheeled vehicles on Palos Verdes Drive South within the landslide area. (Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING TRAVEL BY BICYCLES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OTHER TWO-WHEELED VEHICLES ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH WITHIN THE LANDSLIDE COMPLEX DUE TO THE ACCELERATED RA TE OF LAND MOVEMENT. We recommend that the City Council adopt alternative 1. "Do not adopt a resolution temporarily prohibiting bicycles, motorcycles, and other two-wheeled vehicles on PVDS within the Landslide Complex." It's concerning that the shifting ground is affecting the safety of Palos Verdes Drive South. We hope that necessary action can be taken to eliminate this hazard. Meanwhile, if motor vehicle travel is allowed on the roadway, we insist that bicycle travel should also be permitted. According to the California Vehicle Code, a person riding a bicycle on a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except for some specific provisions. While local regulations may exist, they cannot remove any rights listed in the state traffic laws unless expressly permitted by the state. Local authorities may only regulate the registration and operation of bicycles on bicycle facilities per the California Vehicle Code. The California Vehicle Code governs all bicycling on public roads in this state. CVC 21200, "Current as of January 01, 2023, (a)(1) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16. 7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000. 1 ), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application." Although many counties, cities/towns, campuses, and military bases may have their own traffic regulations, usually known as ordinances or codes; these local regulations may not take away any i/. rights listed in the state traffic laws unless the state expressly permits this option. Local authorities may only regulate the registration and operation of bicycles on bicycle facilities (Class I, II, IV) per California Vehicle Code 21206, which reads: "This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code." For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council not adopt a local ordinance prohibiting bicycling on Palos Verdes Drive. Jim Baross President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations Board Member, League of American Bicyclists □ Sender notified by Mailtrack 2 From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, June 18, 2024 2:36 PM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: [CABOdir) Agenda item 4, prohibiting bicycling on Palos Verdes Drive South Late corr Teresa Takaoka City Clerk terit@rpvca..grut Phone -(310) 544-5217 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.grut ~ G-ETITCN ~,-Google Play This t>miJil messaqe contains information helonqinq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privile9ed, confidcintiai, dnd/or protected frorn disclosure. The information is intondod only for use of the imlividua! or entity narned. Unauthorized cl,sscr,,inat!on, distribution, or· copyinq is strictly prnhibite:cl. If you received this email in error, or an: 110\ il,1 inlend,'ci recipient, please notify tl1E: sender immediately. Thank you for your assi!;\ance and coopciation. From: Clinton Sandusky <clint.sandusky@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12:12 PM To: jimbaross@gmail.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CABO Directors <CABODIR@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [CABOdir] Agenda item 4, prohibiting bicycling on Palos Verdes Drive South Hi Jim, We should ALWAYS cite eve Section 21(a) -General Provisions California Code, VEH 21. -a "local authority shall not enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution on the matters covered by this code ... " AND "unless expressly authorized by this code" (CVC) as shown below: • California Code, VEH 21206. • California Code, VEH 21207. • California Code, VEH 21207.5. 1 T • California Code, VEH 21100. -Subsection (h) Respectfully, Clint Sandusky Riverside (CA) Community College District PD (cpl., retired) CA POST-certified Bike Patrol Instructor (29+ yrs.) Cycling in Traffic Expert & Educator E-Bike Instructor, Presenter, Author & Consultant CABO, District 8 Rep. 2 Subject: FW: 6320 Via Colinita From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 2:30 PM To: Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: 6320 Via Colinita Late corr for closed session item 5 ?~ I. I 3..:1,<? ' Teresa Takaoka City Clerk terit@.rpvca.grut Phone -(310) 544-5217 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvc_a.gmt -Conn.,cl with •h• City from yau, pt.on<> or lobl.,.1! DOWNLOAD rtlf; Avoik>bl<> 1n th" App Stonr ond Googl,. Ploy ~ GETITON Pl'' Google Play This c ·mail rnessa(Je contains infonnat:ion b('longing to the City of Rancho Palos V,!rdc'.;, which rnay be pl'ivilegud, confid('11tia!, and/or protected fro1,1 disc:lo:1,Lirc:. The information is intenclccl only for use of the inclividuai or entity :1arncd. Unauti10rized disseminatim:, distribution, or· copyinq is strictly prohibited. If you received this ernciil in error, or arc l)Ot an intended recip!cnt1 please notify the sencler in1rr10diatc!y. Thank you for your assistance and coop1.',·at:ion. From: Sharon Yarber <sharon@sharonyarber.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 2:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.ga\[> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: 6320 Via Colinita Some people who received this message don't often get email from sharon@1sh:;1ro1:iygrb~r.co1Il, 1~mJ1 wby this i~_importaLlt Dear Mayor and Council, PLEASE buy the property on Via Colinita and turn it into a neighborhood park! The next HE Cycle will be here before we know it, and if the next exercise with HCD is as horrific as the last one, the Builder's Remedy might be employed to develop this property (assuming Builder's Remedy has not been repealed by then) while we are potentially in another period of noncompliance! 1 5 Good luck in the negotiations! Sharon Yarber 2 From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Ara Mihranian Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4:01 PM CityClerk Agenda Item No. 8 -LASO Service Contract (MLESA) (Late Correspondence) Attachments: Attach 1 Exhibit C Attachment C v5.doc; LA County Sheriff's Signed 575 (Service Level Authorization).pdf Importance: High Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, In considering the 5-year MLESA with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Contract to provide law enforcement services to the City, the following attachments were inadvertently not included and are attached for your review: • Attachment B -FY 2023-24 575 Rate Sheet (which was approved last year and will be adjusted by approximately 3.9% for FY 2024-25 for specific services provided to the City) • Attachment C -Public safety Equipment Requirements Let me know if you have any questions. 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 contains inf(x·r11.:'!tton protected ~ C.H!TON ~ Google Play Palos \Jerc.1es 1 \Nhfch rnay be privHe(1ed 1 only fey use the '.nclhi!drn.1! or entity UnJuthuri?t:rl dis.sr:irdqzifion, distrilYitton, an intended n:cipicnt, ph:tJSE! noUfy the is pn;hihtcd. rf yciu n::(clvPd this eiriall in r~rrcr 1 in1n1cciiat.0 iv. !i\,mk vou fo, assistance ,,ncl 1 g_ CITY : Lomita LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES SERVICE LEVEL AUTHORIZATION (SH-AD 575) FISCAL YEAR: 2023-2024 ATTACHMENT A EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/1/20.23 '1----·-i:---·· ·e: .... -·•--r -•r r ·-· ··-··-· I ' I -·--I -·--1 :· .. I y ---,---·--1 y I y I: I -,·--I -I -I --~-I 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Cost f0< Service Units: $ 3,968,109.50 Total Uablnty (1 2%):-'-$ ________ .:.;;...:....;c.._ The terms of this Service Level Authorization (SH-AD 57S} will remain in effect until a subsequent SH-AO S75 Is signed and received b)I LASO. Notwithstanding, annual rotes shall be revised annually per Sections 8.2 and ll.3 of the MLESA. LASO Approval By: Michael A. White /#1µ£1{ SIGNATURE ~hJ UNIT COMMANDER NAME 6ATE City ApproVllll By: "?, •1 certify that I am authon,ed to make this commitment on behalf of the City.• YA" {,,,,,,v [ -~~ CITY OFFICIAL NAME ~ &/4i~3 SH-AD 575 (REV . 04/18) 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 Esti mated Subtotal: ---"-------'---'-=-=- Report Prepared By: Mina Cho 5/30/2023 SERGEANT DATE Proasse!i?z~ D l -1 ?,-l--e l-:!> SERGEANT DATE Page 1 of5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES SERVICE LEVEL AUTHORIZATION (SH-AD 575) DEPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL ATTACHMENT A Lomita Fiscal Year: 2023-2024 Effective Date: __ 7_/_1/_20_2_3 __ • •.1 I,, l' ' ,, ·.,i ' '' DEPUTY SHEftlFf' . Non-Relief 1.00 40-Hour Unit 1.50 1.00 0.50 56-Hour Unit 5.25 1.25 2.00 2 .00 70-Hour Unit 0.00 Motor (Non-Relief) 0.00 DEPUTY BONUS Non-Rel ief 0.75 40-Hour Unit 0.00 56-Hour Unit o.oo 70-Hour Unit o.oo GROWTH DEPUTY Deputy 0.00 SAD 0.00 Bonus I 0.00 Motor (Non-Relief) 0.00 GRANT DEPUTY Deputy 0.00 SAD 1.00 Bonus I o.oo Motor (Non-Relief) 0.00 Routine City Helicopter Billing Agreement License Detail • Business License & Renewal Appllcatlons License Detail • Act& on Violations Observed within the City S .T .A.R. Deputy Program Other Supplemental Services NOTE. ~n,. Detal Is billtd on ,n hou,ty basis and billed monthly ,s u~ ls provfded. Lieuten ant Ser ean t Hours 0 0 1,342 Minutes 0 0 80,505 Personnel 0 .000 0 .000 0 .750 Hours Minutes Per sonnel FOR CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT BUREAU USE ONLY BILLING MEMO REQUIRED AND SUBM ITTED : YES Q NO Q JPERSONNEL TRANSACTION REQUEST) "Pffl" REQU IR ED ANO SUBMITTED : YES Q NO Q ORGANIZATIONAL CHART REQUIRED AND SUBMITTED : YES O NO 0 OUTY STATEMENT REQUIREO AND SUBMITTED : Yes □ No □ SMS DEPLOYMENT CONTRACT UPDA TEO : YES O NO 0 MINUTE PROGRAM IN RAPS UPDATED : YES □ NO □ SH -AD 575 (REV . 03/22) 0 0 0 .000 sso 0 0 0 .000 NIA Q NIA Q NIA □ NIA □ NtAO NIA □ ' " ·'' 1.00 1.00 1.50 5.25 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 1.00 1.00 o.oo o.oo - YES 0 NO YES .iJ NO YES 8' NO □ YES 0 NO: YES 0 NO SAO 18,459 3,578 1,107,540 214,680 10.317 2.000 LET /CSA/CA/PCO Clerical 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 l!!!tll!t 1= City Official : Unit Commander: Page 2 of 5 ',IAHf IIP V I HI< 11 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES SERVICE LEVEL AUTHORIZATION (SH-AO 575) PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT ATTACHMENT A CITY: Lomita FISCAL YEAR: 2023-2024 ------------------- ~t,~-~r~Jj~~;_~r~~~ IOUI PMf NT -IEml~-~~ ALPR New Install 1st Year (Syr Program) Year 1 680 2 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Tota l Publtc Safety Equipment Co st . $ 10 ,000 .00 City Official : ~-__ Unit Commander : ~ SH-AD 575 (REV . 03/22) Page 3 of 5 II DSSURata Fiscal Year: CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT MASTER RATE SHEET Liability Rate: ATTACHMENTS 2023-2024 12.0% R.i11k R,·l1Pf f ,H to, Annu,tl R,ttf '.Prv1c t• C.odt· Deputy Sheriff Deputy Sheriff Deputy Sheriff Deputy Sheriff Special Assignment Deputy Catalina Deputy DSSU lonus I Rites Deputy Sheriff, Bonus I Deputy Sheriff, Bonus I Deputy Sheriff, Bonus I Deputy Sheriff, Bonus I Growth/Grant Deputy Rites Non-Relief 40-Hour Unit 56-Hour Unit 70-Hour Un it Non-Relief Non -Relief Non-Relief 40-Hour Unit 56-Hour Unit 70-Hour Unit s s s $ $ s s s s $ 324,218 356,640 499,296 624,120 324,218 295 ,847 348,030 382,833 535,966 669 ,957 310 306 307 308 278 324 305 301 302 303 R.111~ R1•llf'f F.ictor Annu.11 Rc1t, 'l•·rv1c•• (odt' Growth Deputy Generalist Non-Relief s 226,605 335 ·Growth Deputy Generalist 40-Hour Unit s 264 ,221 573 Growth Deputy Generalist 56 -Hour Unit s 369,819 582 Growth Deputy Generalist 70-Hour Unit $ 462,274 583 Growth Special Assignment Deputy Non-Relief $ 226,605 204 Growth Deputy Bonus I Non -Relief s 246,740 336 Growth Motor Deputy Non -Relief $ 244,174 424 Grant Deputy Generalist Non -Relief s 226,605 386 Grant Special Assignment Deputy Non -Relief s 226,605 312 Grant Deputy Bonus I Non -Relief s 246,740 384 Grant Motor Deputy Non -Relief s 244,174 422 Supplemental Rates Captain Non -Relief s 448,565 321 Lieutenant Non -Relief s 354,112 342 Sergeant, Patrol Non -Relief s 377,917 631 Sergeant, Supplemental Non -Relief $ 298 ,507 353 Motor Sergeant Non -Relief s 314,708 348 Watch Deputy Non -Relief s 242,476 354 Motor Deputy Non -Relief s 324 ,218 305A Community Services Assistant (w/ veh) Non -Relief s 79,105 325 Community Services Assistant (w/out veh) Non -Relief $ 78 ,006 327 Crime Analyst Non -Relief $ 162,211 329 Custody Assistant Non-Relief s 132 ,846 331 Fore nsic ID Specialist II Non -Relief $ 200,989 356 Information Systems Analyst I Non -Relief s 176,380 332 Senior Informat ion Systems Analyst Non -Relief s 230,769 334 Intermediate Clerk Non-Relief $ 87 ,140 338 Law Enforcement Technician (w/out veh) Non-Relief $ 119 ,186 339 Law Enforcement Technician (w/ veh) Non -Relief $ 120,202 340 Operations Assistant I Non -Relief s 115,142 343 Operations Assistant II Non -Relief s 143,042 344 Operations Assistant Ill Non -Relief $ 163,826 345 Secretary V Non -Relief s 124,601 346 Security Assistant Non -Relief s 65,982 362 Security Officer Non -Relief $ 102 ,289 347 Station Clerk II Non -Relief s 108,540 351 Supervising Station Clerk Non -Relief $ 131 ,222 352 Skynight Observer Non -Relief s 348 ,030 349 Master Rate Sheet Page 4 of 5 CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT MASTER RA TE SHEET Vehkle a Equipment Rates B/W Patrol • Ford Explorer PIU Hybrid AWD B/W Tahoe 2WD B/W Motorcycle Solid Patrol Vehicle with Cage (SAO Sergeant/Detectives) Solid Patrol Vehicle without Cage (SAO Sergeant/Detectives) Ford Escape SUV Hybrid (White Fleet -CSA , SSO , LET) Ford Explorer PIU Hybrid (Street Package • Execut ive) Ford F-150 Police Responder BW K-9 Vehicle (B/W Tahoe 2WD) MDC New Purchase, Data & Maintenance • CF-31 MOC New Purchase, Data & Maintenance -GETAC VllO MDC Data & Maintenance Only ALPR New Install 1st Year (Syr Program ) ALPR System 2nd Year ALPR System 3rd Year ALPR System 4th Year ALPR System 5th Year 2023-2024 s 105,841 2023 -2024 s 102,552 2023 -2024 $ 65 ,292 2023 -2024 s 100,339 2023 -2024 s 98,168 2023 -2024 s 65,951 2023 -2024 s 80,689 2023 -2024 s 108,211 2023-2024 s 114,050 Year 1 S 8,785 Year 1 S 8,389 Year 2+ S 1,685 Year 1 S 5,000 Year 2 S 5,000 Year 3 $ 5,000 Year 4 S 4,650 Year 5 $ 4,650 Annual revised rates shall be readjusted annually per Sections 8.2 and 11 .3 of the MLESA . Master Rate Sheet 378 399 381 118A 118B 203 201 205 593 198 164 595 680 680A 6808 680C 680D Page 5 of 5 Attachment C PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT USE REQUIREMENTS 1.0 TRANSFER OF PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1.1 The County, through the Sheriffs Department, hereby transfers the public safety equipment set forth on Attachment A, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Service Level Authorization (SH-AD 575) Form, of this Agreement ("Equipment") for the exclusive use of the City during the term of the Agreement. 2.0 USE OF EQUIPMENT 2.1 The City may use the Equipment for any lawful purpose, including use in connection with public safety activities in all areas under the City's jurisdiction. 2.2 The City shall not use or operate the Equipment in violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance. 2.3 The Equipment shall not be used or operated as follows: 2.3 .1 In a manner subjecting the Equipment to depreciation above the normal depreciation associated with public safety use; and/or 2.3.2 For an illegal purpose or by a person under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. 3.0 SAFEKEEPING AND MAINTENANCE 3.1 The City shall exercise due care for the safekeeping of the Equipment during the term of the Agreement. 3.2 The City shall ensure that the Equipment is kept in good working order and condition, shall ensure that the Equipment is scheduled and available to County for the performance of its regularly scheduled maintenance by the County, and shall comply in every respect with any manufacturer's/owner's manual that comes with the Equipment. 3.3 The County shall perform all maintenance and repairs required for the proper operation of the Equipment. Except as otherwise set forth herein, such maintenance and repairs are provided in exchange for the City's payment of the annual billing rates set forth on Attachment B, Contract City Law Enforcement Services and Equipment Master Rate Sheet, of the Agreement. The City has the right to inspect said Equipment prior to acceptance of the Equipment following maintenance and repairs by the County. 1 3 .4 Maintenance and repairs provided by the County under the Agreement may be performed by the County, its third party vendors, and/or the manufacturer of the Equipment. 3.5 The County shall assume responsibility for ensuring that the Equipment has been inspected or otherwise tested in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the United States prior to use by the City. 3 .6 The City shall inspect the Equipment upon initial delivery and return from County following maintenance and repair, and, by acceptance thereof, finds the Equipment in good working order and condition. 3.7 The Equipment shall be maintained and repaired solely by the County. The City and any of its third party vendors are prohibited from performing any maintenance and repairs on the Equipment. 3.8 All regularly scheduled maintenance shall be performed by the County, and the City shall timely present the Equipment to the County for the performance of regularly scheduled maintenance at the direction of, and in accordance with the policies and procedures of, the Sheriffs Department's Communications and Fleet Management Bureau. The Sheriffs Department shall make every effort to perform any maintenance in a timely manner. 3.9 Any Equipment requiring maintenance and repair by the County for any extended length of time, as determined by the Sheriffs Department's Communications and Fleet Management Bureau, will make best efforts to provide a temporary replacement piece of Equipment if such extended time exceeds or is projected to exceed sixty (60) calendar days. All terms and conditions set forth herein shall apply to the City's use of any temporary replacement Equipment provided by the County. The County shall not be responsible for any damages or liability resulting from the City's loss of use of the Equipment during the performance of maintenance and repair services by the County. 4.0 INSPECTION BY COUNTY 4.1 The County shall have the right to inspect the Equipment, immediately upon request by the County, at any time during the term of the Agreement. The City shall provide the County with such operating, and other information, or copies of any such records maintained by the City with respect to the Equipment, as the County or any government agency may require from time to time. 5.0 TITLES 5.1 The County shall retain ownership of the Equipment used by the City during the term of the Agreement. Legal title to the Equipment is, and shall, at all times, remain in the name of the County. The Equipment shall not be transferred or delivered by the City to any persons other than the County without the County's 2 prior written consent. 6.0 INDEMNIFICATION 6.1 The City agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County from any and all liability, losses, or damages the County may suffer and from any claims, demands, costs, or judgments against the County arising out of City's use or operation of the Equipment. This indemnification does not extend to (1) any liability resulting from inherent defects or malfunctions in such Equipment related to manufacturer's acts or omissions, or (2) negligent or wrongful maintenance or repair of the Equipment provided by the County. 7. RISK OF LOSS 7.1 The City shall assume all risk of loss to the Equipment from the time it is delivered by the County to the City, and inspected and accepted by the City, until ( 1) the Equipment is returned to the County upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, or (2) the County regains temporary possession of the Equipment for purposes of providing maintenance and repair. 7.2 Upon inspection/acceptance of the Equipment, the City shall be responsible for any and all damage to the Equipment, except those damages resulting from ( 1) inherent defects or malfunctions in such Equipment related to manufacturer's acts or omissions, or (2) the negligent or wrongful maintenance or repair of the Equipment provided by the County. 7.3 In the event of damage to the Equipment or the Equipment is in need ofrepair, the City shall notify the County to that effect and follow such instructions that the County may provide with respect to repair or disposal of the Equipment. If the Equipment is lost, stolen, destroyed, or declared to be a total constructive loss (subject to the County's agreement as to such condition), the City shall properly notify the County thereof and hold any Equipment for disposal by the County. With respect to any loss, theft, or destruction of the Equipment, the County and the City shall negotiate the value for comparable equipment in a condition similar to the lost, stolen, or destroyed Equipment immediately prior to any such loss. The City shall reimburse the County for the value of the lost, stolen, or destroyed Equipment. 8.0 BILLING RATES 8.1 As further discussed in Section 8.0, Billing Rates, of the Agreement, the City shall pay the County for the use of the Equipment provided under the Agreement at the annual billing rates set forth on Attachment B, Contract City Law Enforcement Services and Equipment Master Rate Sheet, of the Agreement, as established by the County Auditor-Controller. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: C, ~ ... CITY OF ~· l973 _· v~ 1'() "' ~ RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 17, 2024 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 18, 2024, City Council meeting: Item No. J 3 4 7 Description of Material Emails from: Paul Albritton; Aaron M. Shank Email from Jeanne Jackson Emails from: Joseph Lindorfer; Lori Chong Eurich Updates to Planning Commission Accomplishments Respectfully submitted, ~~ TereaTakaoka L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2024\2024 Coversheets\20240618 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday .docx Subject: FW: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Wireless Facilities Ordinance -Council Agenda Item J, June 18 [Rancho Palos Verdes] Attachments: Verizon Wireless Letter 06.14.24.pdf From: Paul Albritton <pa@mallp.com> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 4:41 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>; Christy Lopez <clopez@awattorneys.com> Subject: Verizon Wireless Comments on Draft Wireless Facilities Ordinance -Council Agenda Item J, June 18 [Rancho Palos Verdes] Dear Councilmembers, attached please find our follow-up letter prepared on behalf of Verizon Wireless regarding the wireless facilities ordinance to be considered at next Tuesday's meeting. We encourage the Council to defer adoption and direct staff to incorporate our suggested revisions. Thank you. Paul Albritton 155 Sansome Street, Suite 620 San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 288-4000 pa@mallp.com 1 J (P MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 620 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 VIA EMAIL Mayor John Cruikshank Mayor Pro Tern Eric Alegria Councilmembers David L. Bradley, Barbara Ferraro, and Paul Seo TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 /288-4010 June 14, 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 J, June 18, 2024 Dear Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tern Alegria, and Councilmembers: We write again on behalf of Verizon Wireless to urge you not to adopt the draft ordinance regulating wireless facilities on private property (the "Draft Ordinance"). Verizon Wireless remains concerned about the Draft Ordinance provisions described in our June 4, 2024 letter, as well as additional excessive requirements that contradict federal law. For example, restricting antennas to the City's 16-foot height limit is technically infeasible and therefore unreasonable according to Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regulations. Certain procedural requirements could cause the City to miss the FCC's "Shot Clock" deadline for a decision, in which case an application would be deemed approved automatically. Instead of subjective approval criteria, the City should adopt feasible, objective standards to provide clear direction to applicants, staff, and decision-makers. The Council should decline final passage of the Draft Ordinance, and direct staff to work with industry representatives to incorporate needed rev1s1ons. The FCC's Infrastructure Order In a 2018 order, the FCC determined that a local government's aesthetic criteria for wireless facilities must be "reasonable," that is, technically feasible and meant to avoid "out-of-character" deployments, and also "published in advance." See In Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment, etc., Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, 33 FCC Red. 9088, ,,r 86-88 (September 27, 2018) (the "Infrastructure Order"). Local requirements that "materially inhibit" service improvements and new technologies constitute an effective prohibition of service under the Telecommunications Act. Id, 33 FCC Red. at 9102-04, ,, 35-37; see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Federal courts have upheld these FCC requirements, and confirmed that they apply to small cells and macro wireless facilities. See City of Portland v. United Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 14, 2024 Page 2 of 5 States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9 th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2855 (Mem) (U.S. June 26, 2021); see also Cellco Partnership v. White Deer Township Zoning Hearing Board, 74 F.4th 96 (3rd Cir. 2023) (Board's denial of cell tower application was an effective prohibition according to the FCC's "materially inhibit" standard). Our comments on the Draft Ordinance are as follows. 17.73.030 -Standards Generally Applicable to All Wireless Facilities A(l). Restriction to zone height limits. The general 16-foot height limit in commercial and institutional zones is far too low for antennas to provide adequate coverage, so it is technically infeasible and unreasonable, and arbitrary as applied to communications technology. A typical wireless facility would always need an exemption from height limits under Draft Ordinance Section 17.73.070, which requires applicants to prove that denial would be an effective prohibition of service. However, City officials should not be making judicial determinations about federal prohibition of service claims, now properly evaluated according to FCC's "materially inhibit" standard. To avoid legal challenges, the City should ensure that its design standards such as height limits are reasonable at the outset. To ensure adequate signal propagation, the City should allow a concealed wireless facility to extend up to 15 feet over rooftop height, or 5 0 feet for a fully- concealed freestanding facility that complements existing on-site architecture. E(l)(b)(ii)(A). Accessory equipment underground. Another unreasonable standard, this generally would require associated equipment to be installed underground if near residential areas. (Section 17.73.210(F) requires this everywhere.) This is a costly, unnecessary, and atypical requirement that would materially inhibit service improvements. The decision-maker could forgive this requirement, but if enforced, this standard would be unreasonable. Underground equipment requires substantial additional excavation as well as dewatering and cooling equipment. It must be fully accessible, and because underground equipment requires nearby venting structures not needed for above- ground equipment, it requires even more ground space. This requirement should be deleted, and replaced with a requirement that associated equipment be fully screened if visible from off-site vantage points. 17.73.040-Application Content B(lO). Master Plans. Requiring a two-year master plan overlooks the dynamic nature of network planning, which constantly evolves based on user demand patterns, new technology available from manufacturers, and other factors. This provision would involve additional hurdles to submit a new application that is inconsistent with a prior master plan, requiring an applicant to justify the need for the facility, potentially with the dated "significant gap" standard. To refuse an application at intake based on the City's subjective evaluation of need would impose a moratorium, but that is preempted by FCC regulations. See In Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment, etc., Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Red. 7705, 7775, ~ 140 et seq. (FCC August 3, 2018). As a submittal requirement, a future master plan would require information irrelevant to a particular proposed facility. Each facility must be evaluated on its own Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 14, 2024 Page 3 of 5 merits, based on the evidence relevant to the particular proposal. This item should be deleted. B(14). Mock-ups. Few cities require on-site mock-ups of wireless facilities, which involve significant costs for applicants. The FCC found that costly local requirements are prohibitive and preempted, for example, determining that excessive fees in one jurisdiction drain a carrier's capital resources and "materially and improperly inhibit deployments that could have occurred elsewhere." Infrastructure Order, 33 FCC Red. at 9119, 160. The FCC also applied this reasoning to other non-fee legal requirements that are similarly preempted. Id., 33 FCC Red. at 9130, 1181-83. The photosimulations required by Draft Ordinance Section 17.73.040(B)(9) provide sufficient visual representation of a proposed facility, and the City could request that the photographs be taken showing a drone flown on-site at the exact location and height of a proposed facility. The requirement for mock-ups should be deleted B(19). Community meetings. Another atypical and costly requirement, this mandates that applicants host a community meeting four weeks before a Planning Commission hearing. That would add delay to the application process while the FCC Shot Clock is running (90 days for facilities on existing structures, 150 days on new structures, and 60 days for eligible facilities requests to modify facilities). 47 C.F.R. § l.6003(c), 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100( c )(2). This could cause the City to fail to act within the Shot Clock period, which includes resolution of any appeals. In that case, a new facility application would be deemed approved under state law, and an eligible facilities request deemed granted per FCC rules. California Govermnent Code§ 65964.1, 47 C.F.R. § l.6100(c)(4). Item (a) requires applicants to send notice to the City and nearby property owners of "the pendency of the filing of such an application," and we note that any mandatory pre- application process starts the Shot Clock. 4 7 C.F .R. § 1.6003( e ). The requirement for a community meeting should be deleted. 17.73.050 -Independent Consultant Review C. Deposit. The FCC ruled that exorbitant consultant fees are prohibitive. Infrastructure Order, 33 FCC Red. at 9116-17, 156. Outside consultants should not be required for straightfmward review of wireless facility applications, and certain tasks under Section (B), such as evaluation of a significant gap and unconstrained review of alternatives, could lead to runaway costs. At a minimum, this provision must allow applicants to review and object to a consultant's proposed scope of work and budget before paying a deposit. 17.73.210 -Wireless Facilities on Private Property (Standards) C(l)(b)(ii), E(l). View protection ordinance. Section (C)(l)(b)(ii) could convert a proposed wireless facility in a preferred location into a less-preferred location, subject to numerous subjective view impact standards that could lead to an unfounded denial. Late- stage denials would frustrate applicants who have attempted to design compliant facilities. Instead of invoking the view protection ordinance, Verizon Wireless encourages the City to adopt reasonable, objective standards/or both rooftop and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 14, 2024 Page 4 of 5 freestanding wireless facilities, with feasible options for concealment such as rooftop faux vent pipes and screening dimension thresholds. C(l)(h). Restriction to zone height limit. Per our comment on Section 17.73.030(A)(l) above, the City should adopt reasonable height allowances for wireless facilities. E(2). As visually unobtrusive as possible. This provision includes additional subjective criteria that could be used to deny otherwise-compliant facilities. In contrast, objective standards would provide clear criteria for decision-makers, avoiding appeals and legal challenges. Verizon Wireless encourages the City to rely on feasible, objective standards for wireless facility applications, rather than subjective criteria. F. Undergrounding of accessory equipment. This provision would apply anywhere in the City. As suggested in our comment on Section 17. 73.030(E)(l)(b)(ii)(A), the City should allow above-ground equipment if fully screenedfrom offsite vantage points. 17. 73.220 -Eligible Facilities Requests E(3). Pre-application appointment required. The Shot Clock period for eligible facilities requests is only 60 days, and starts upon the first mandatory procedural step required by a city, which would be the written request for an appointment required by this provision, as long as an applicant also submits application materials. See In Re: Implementation of State and Local Governments' Obligation To Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests under Section 6409(A) of The Spectrum Act, Declaratory Ruling, 35 FCC Red. 5977, 5986, 1116, 18 (FCC June 9, 2020). This would shorten the timeframe for City staff to review an eligible facilities request application. A pre-application meeting should be optional. G(4). Conditional approvals. While the FCC confirmed that a city can condition an eligible facilities request based on generally-applicable health and safety codes, the vague term "welfare" in this provision could lead to excessive conditions of approval beyond the City's authority. See In Re: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Etc., 29 FCC Rcd.12950, 12951, 1202 (FCC October 17, 2014). The reference to "welfare" must be deleted. 1(2). Twice-appealable. Anyone could appeal the Director's decision about an eligible facilities request to the Planning Commission, then the City Council. However, because eligible facilities requests are based on the FCC's objective "substantial change" criteria, any decision-maker should reach the same conclusions. Two appeals and required hearing notice periods could cause the City to miss the 60-day Shot Clock deadline, in which case the application would be deemed granted per FCC rules. We suggest that only an applicant can appeal an eligible facilities request, directly to the City Council. Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 14, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Verizon Wireless appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft Ordinance. We encourage the City Council to defer approval, and incorporate our suggested revisions. cc: Elena Q. Gerli, Esq. Christy Lopez, Esq. Brandy Forbes Arny Seeraty Very truly yours, Cii!!::~ Paul B. Albritton From: Sent: To: Amy Seeraty Wednesday, June 12, 2024 5:12 PM AShank@porterwright.com Subject: Attachments: FW: AT&T Comments on RPV's Proposed Wireless Ordinance AT&T Letter June 12 2024.pdf Hello- Thank you for your email and attached letter. Please note that it will be distributed to the City Council as late correspondence prior to next week's meeting, thank you. Sincerley, Amy Seeraty Senior Planner a mys.~ Phone -(310) 544-5231 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gm£ DOWNLOAD -. '111.r ~ GtTITON ~, Google Play Th;s e-mail message contains information belongincJ to tho City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which rnay be pr·ivilcqccl, conficlential, and/01· pro\ected front clisclos1.n-c. The inforrnation is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyinq ;s strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the <;;ender irnrnccli21tely. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Shank, Aaron M.<AShank@porterwright.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 4:07 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elena Gerli <egerli@awattorneys.com> Subject: AT&T Comments on RPV's Proposed Wireless Ordinance Dear Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tern Alegria, and Council members Bradley, Ferraro, and Seo, and Ms. Gerli: Please accept this letter on behalf of AT&T to provide comments on the city's proposed wireless ordinance. Please consider these comments in connection with your consideration of this item during your June 18, 2024 Council meeting. Thank you. Aaron M. Shank Outside Counsel for AT&T AARON M. SHANK 1 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP Bio / ashank@porterwriqht.com D: 614.227.2110 / M: 614.578.5036 I F: 614.227.2100 41 South High Street, Suites 2800 -3200 / Columbus, OH 43215 / MANSFIELD CERTIFIED PLUS We are moving the needle on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Learn more NOTICE FROM PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP: This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read, print or forward it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. END OF NOTICE 2 Aaron M. Shank ashank@porterwright.com www.porterwright.com Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 41 South High Street Suites 2800-3200 Columbus, OH 43215 Direct: 614.227.211 o Fax: 614.227.2100 Main: 614.227.2000 www.porterwright.com porterwright CHICAGO CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS DAYTON NAPLES PITTSBURGH TAMPA WASHINGTON, DC June 12, 2024 VIA EMAIL Rancho Palos Verdes City Council City Hall 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: AT&T Comments on Proposed Wireless Ordinance Dear Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tern Alegria, and Councilmembers Bradley, Ferraro, and Seo: I write on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") to urge you to reconsider certain provisions of the proposed wireless ordinance. We understand and appreciate the city's desire to protect community aesthetics, and AT&T supports responsible deployments that offer win-win solutions to also address the city's significant wireless service coverage needs. AT&T is very concerned, however, that some of the proposed provisions will actually hamper new deployments, including stealth facilities. In addition, several of the proposed provisions will result in deemed approvals under state and federal laws, which may lead to unnecessary disputes, inconsistent deployments, and loss of local control. AT&T offers the following comments in an effort to work with the city to revise the ordinance in mutually beneficial ways. We also welcome the opportunity to meet with city staff and officials to find effective ways for the city to protect its interests while accommodating wireless services that are essential to the city's residents, businesses, and visitors. Key Legal Concepts There is a balance between federal law and local rules in the context of wireless facility siting. While the city can legislate its preferences for wireless facility siting and design, the city must avoid rules that block or impede wireless deployments. For example, the city's proposed rule to require construction of full-size mock-ups would violate federal law by imposing such significant expenses as to frustrate deployments. The city's moratorium on handling and processing land use permits for wireless facilities also violates federal law. In fact, as Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 12, 2024 Page 2 discussed below, these and other procedures that delay application processing will cause the city more harm than any perceived benefits. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 ("TCA"), provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the TCA was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless technologies on a national basis. 1 The city must not prohibit or effectively prohibit wireless services. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). An unlawful effective prohibition occurs whenever the decision of a local government materially inhibits wireless services.2 Under the TCA, wireless providers must be permitted to deploy facilities to offer more robust and competitive wireless services. Overly burdensome application requirements may thus amount to an effective prohibition under the TCA. The FCC ruled that a local government "could materially inhibit service in numerous ways -not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services."3 In addition, a wireless provider may demonstrate an effective prohibition by showing a significant gap in its service coverage and its proposal is the least intrusive means to close that gap.4 The TCA also requires the city to act "within a reasonable period of time" on each application. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The FCC has codified "shot clocks" -presumptive maximum timeframes for processing applications. 5 The applicable deadline applies "to all aspects of and steps in the siting process."6 The shot clock starts once an applicant takes the first 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005) ("Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 110 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to 'encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.' Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers."). 2 See In the Matter of California Payphone Assoc. Petition for Preemption, Etc., Opinion and Order, FCC 97-251, 12 FCC Red 14191 (July 17, 1997); Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133, 30 FCC Red 9088, ,r,r 35-42 (rel. Sept. 27, 2018) ("Infrastructure Order"). 3 Infrastructure Order at ,r 3 7. 4 T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 995-999 (9th Cir. 2009). 5 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c). 6 See Infrastructure Order at ,r,r 132-13 7. Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 12, 2024 Page 3 step in the local process.7 And federal law flatly prohibits express or de facto moratoria on filing or processing applications as an unlawful prohibition on wireless facilities. 8 Indeed, the FCC shot clocks are not tolled by any moratorium.9 Violations of the shot clocks can result in deemed approvals under state law, at the option of the applicant.10 In 2012, Congress enacted Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). Section 6409(a) mandates approval of modifications to wireless communications facilities (eligible facilities requests, or EFRs) that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing tower or base station. The FCC' s implementing regulations provide details on when a modification meets objective criteria for approval.11 In addition, the city can only require information that is reasonably related to determining whether a request qualifies as an EFR.12 And the city must review EFRs within 60 days, accounting for applicable tolling, or the application is deemed granted upon notice by the applicant. 13 This 60-day shot clock for EFRs begins when the applicant takes the first required step in the local process ( even if that is simply calling to schedule a mandatory pre-application meeting) and provides the siting authority with information showing the proposed modification is an EFR (such as site plans).14 AT&T's Specific Comments on the City's Proposed Wireless Ordinance 1. Moratoria Are Illegal. The City must immediately lift its moratorium by repealing Urgency Ordinance 673U. The prohibition against moratoria on wireless applications is complete and it is not new. In 2014, the FCC did not mince words in ruling "that the shot clock 7 Id. at 145 (application is "duly filed" under the TCA even if the locality refuses to accept it). 8 Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-111, 33 FCC Red 7705 at ,i,i 147, 149 (rel. August 3, 2018) ("Anti-Moratoria Order") (local actions that "effectively halt or suspend the acceptance, processing, or approval of applications or permits for telecommunications services or facilities ... prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting deployment of telecommunications services" in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996). 9 See In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Etc., FCC 14-153, 29 FCC Red 12865 at ,i 265 (rel. Oct. 21, 2014) ("Spectrum Act Order"). 10 See Cal Govt Code§ 65964. l(a). 11 See 47 C.F.R. 1.6100(b)(7). 12 See 47 C.F.R. § l.6100(c)(l). 13 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(c)(2)-(4). 14 In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments' Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, FCC 20-75, 33 FCC Red 5977 at ,i,i 14-18 (rel. June 10, 2020). Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 12, 2024 Page 4 runs regardless of any moratorium."15 In 2018, the FCC ruled that all moratoria on processing or approving wireless siting applications are unlawful.16 There is no room for the city to assert that its moratorium is lawful. If the city seeks to enforce its moratorium, the shot clock will be unaffected and the city will risk deemed approvals. 2. Mock-Ups Effectively Prohibit Service. The City's proposed new requirement for mock-up facilities is overly burdensome and completely impractical. Nor will this requirement protect aesthetics as intended. There is no need for a "full-sized, structural model built to scale" for every application. Not only will this effectively prohibit many deployments, it is entirely impractical and unhelpful to the city's goal of preserving aesthetics. Mock-ups are not needed at all because proposed facilities can be evaluated using photosimulations, which the city already requires. Especially with today's technologies, professional photosimulations from multiple accessible vantage points provide accurate representations of proposed new construction. Because these other established and cost-effective modes of simulating aesthetics already exist, a full-scale mock-up would be cumulative only. Full-size mock-ups would be very costly, and in many instances these will be economically infeasible. Plus, AT&T is not aware of any company that offers construction of a full-size mock-up of a faux tree facility (such as a monopine, monoeucalyptus, monopalm, etc.). This means that some of the best stealth designs would not be viable solutions in the city. Similarly, mocking-up a church steeple or faux water tank would require significant coordination and expense, which would cost-out these designs that the city prefers. Imposing such an additional cost on a wireless siting application would effectively prohibit services in violation of the Act. Clearly, excessive costs can rise to the level of an effective prohibition in violation of the Act. See, e.g., P.R. Tel. Co. v. Municipality of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d 9, 18-19 (1st Cir. 2006) (local requirement that significantly increases provider costs of delivering telecommunications materially inhibits, and thus effectively prohibits, such services); In the Matter of Public Utility Comm 'n of Texas Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/or Preemption of Certain Provisions of Texas Public Utility regulatory Act of 1995, FCC 97-346, 13 FCC Red 3460, at 1113, 78-81 (rel. Oct. 1, 1997) ("Texas PUC Order") (prohibitively expensive application requirements effectively prohibit service in violation of the TCA). The city needs to scrap this mock-up requirement. 3. Facility Height Flexibility. Strictly limiting facility height to zoning district maximum height is often impractical or infeasible. Because wireless service is essentially a line- of-sight technology, antennas typically need to be placed somewhat higher than area buildings 15 Spectrum Act Order at ,r 265. 16 Anti-Moratoria Order at ,r,r 147, 149. Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 12, 2024 Page 5 and vegetation. The city's proposed ordinance sufficiently protects aesthetics by requiring screening or concealment. The city should thus provide some allowance for a concealed facility to rise somewhat above the zoning district maximum height. For example, a faux tree or steeple would not appear out of place simply because they are somewhat higher than area rooftops. 4. Master Plan Unlawful. The city cannot require filing of a "master plan," which has little practical value anyway because network plans are continuously updated. Nor can the city lawfully enforce its proposed rule to disallow construction of facilities that are not listed in a previous master plan. Local governments are preempted under the TCA from regulating the ways in which wireless networks are designed. See e.g., New York SMSA L.P. v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105-106 (2d Cir. 2010) (local governments are preempted from interfering with the federal government's plenary regulation of technical and operational aspects of wireless telecommunications technology); Texas PUC Order 174 (it is unlawful for a locality to specify the "means and facilities" by which a service provider may offer services). The city thus cannot hold AT&T or other wireless providers design their wireless networks or deploy their wireless facilities pursuant to previous network plans. 5. Violations of Section 6409(a). As technologies advance, many wireless facility projects propose modifications to existing facilities. These projects have the least impact on the city as they are -by definition -not substantial changes. Unfortunately, the city's proposed wireless ordinance would violate Section 6409(a) in many ways, which almost certainly will result in deemed granted permits under federal law. The following are the most egregious unlawful requirements proposed by this ordinance: (a) Shot Clock Problem With Mandatory Pre-Application Meetings. The city should not require a pre-application meeting for EFRs because this risks violating the 60- day shot clock and increases the likelihood for deemed granted permits. While AT&T often finds benefits in collaborating with city Staff on applications for new sites, it is not necessary for non-substantial modifications. This requirement will routinely result in shot clock violations, and thus sets the stage for routine deemed grants. (b) Shot Clock Problem With Submittal Appointments. The city should reconsider requiring pre-scheduled intake appointments for the same reason. The city cannot delay the start of the 60-day clock by adding steps at the beginning of its process. This sets up a problem where the shot clock may start several days (or longer) before city Staff can act under the ordinance. ( c) Shot Clock Problem With Appeals. AT&T recommends the city eliminate or truncate the right to appeal approval of an EFR under Section 6409(a). The proposed appeal process will never be completed within the 60-day shot clock. And it does not make practical sense to add time to re-review a non-discretionary approval that was based Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 12, 2024 Page 6 on objective standards. This will result in every appealed EFR decision to be deemed granted at the applicant's option. (d) Excessive Application Requirements. Proposed Section 17.73.040 contains application requirements for all applications, but many of these cannot be required under Section 6409(a). In fact, the city may only require information necessary to determine whether the proposed modification is an EFR. See 47 C.F.R. § l.6100(c)(l). AT&T recommends the city establish a different, streamlined set of requirements for EFRs. For example, the city cannot require new screening for an EFR. While the city can require screening to avoid defeating existing concealment elements, it cannot enforce proposed Section 17.73.040(B)(5) with respect to EFRs. ( e) Likewise, the city cannot require an analysis of alternatives for an EFR. See proposed Section 17.73.040(B)(l 1). (f) The city also cannot require written authorization from a property owner. See proposed Section 17.73.040(B)(16). (g) Nor can the city require a community meeting for an EFR. See proposed Section l 7.73.040(B)(l 9). Moreover, there should be no need to evaluate community input for a minor modification that the city should encourage and that it cannot deny. Conclusion. The proposed ordinance requires some revisions to fall in line with applicable federal laws. AT&T believes these revisions can be accomplished in ways that will meet providers' and the city's needs, such as allowing the city to retain reasonable control over aesthetics without routinely risking deemed approvals. AT&T stands ready to assist the city in implementing these revisions. Please let us know if you would like to discuss this important matter further. cc: Elena Q. Gerli, Esq., City Attorney 24254940vl From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good afternoon, Victoria Powers Thursday, June 13, 2024 2:29 PM CityClerk Public Comment for June 18th City Council Meeting -2024 Peafowl Census Peafowl notification I received the attached email regarding recent peafowl activity. Her property is located outside of the 6 peafowl census neighborhoods. I spoke with them regarding their concerns and shared information for our webpage on peafowl deterrents and helpful tips. She requested the email below be provided to City Council as a public comment for the June 18, 2024, City Council meeting regarding the peafowl census. Respectfully, Victoria Powers Code Enforcement Officer vpowers@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5299 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov DOWNLOAD -ntr ~ GE.TITON I!:" Google Play Thi'i o·inail rnessage contciins inforrnilt:ion belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidentiill, and/or from disclosure. The information is intended only for· use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, OI' copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not ,m intended recipient, please notify the sender irnrnccliately. Thank you for you1· ai,sistance and coope1·ation. 1 3. From: Sent: To: Subject: Jeanne Jackson <jeannejackson@cox.net> Thursday, June 13, 20241:45 PM Victoria Powers Peafowl notification [You don't often get email from jeannejackson@cox.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Hello Victoria, I've been told to report sightings of peafowl in our neighborhood to you. Two or three months ago we started hearing the call of a peacock and witnessed two to three peahens in the vicinity. This presence is very new to our immediate neighborhood. As I understand it, there is a peafowl census taking place and it's important that we notify the powers that be of this most recent "invasion". The location is on or near the Via Colinita Trail near Palos Verdes Drive East. Yes, there are differing responses to this non- native species in our midst and the City has decided to try to keep the number of these birds to the levels in 2000. I don't believe the birds were here at that time. To maintain this standard, it would make sense to relocate these most recent additions soon to prevent what has occurred in other communities on the peninsula. Thank you for your consideration, Jeanne Jackson 4520 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV 310-200-3022 1 Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Departments From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 11:24 AM To: CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Departments Contact City Departments Contact City Departments Use this form to electronically communicate with the City for just about anything! An email will automatically be sent to the appropriate person to handle your request. For emergency service please contact the appropriate public service agency. Public Works Service Request Please select the Department you would like to contact First Name Last Name Street Number Street Name Street Type Apartment Number City State ZIP Home Phone Office or Other Phone Public Works Service Request City Manager joseph lindorfer 4207 PVDS Field not completed. Field not completed. rancho palos verdes CA 90275 3105413803 3105289540 1 tf. Email 1indorfer1@cox.net Best place to reach you Office I Other should questions arise: Should we inform you of No, do not contact me. the action taken? Message, Inquiry or Comment Provide us with information regarding your request, inquiry or comment. Please be as specific as possible. Location or Address of Inquiry or Comment Description Upload Supporting Document Palos Verdes Drive South Bicycle and Motorcycle Prohibition Recommend that you include 3 wheeled vehicles in the PVDS prohibition. I would not dare to ride my tricycle thru the slide area with such uneven bumps side to side to throw off the inherent balance such vehicles normally provide. Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 Subject: FW: PV Drive South ban -comment From: Lori Chong Eurich <lace167@hotrnail.com> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 9:47 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: PV Drive South ban -comment Hello RPV City Council, I support a temporary ban of bicyclists and motorcycles on Palos Verdes Drive South due to the incredibly unsafe conditions of this road due to land movement. As a motorist, I find this road really difficult to drive on due to the deep cracks and uneven surfaces especially at the ski jump which is very unsafe at night. Any bicyclist or motorcycle rider that travels on this road does so at their own risk and any injuries incurred should not be the responsibility of the city. Thank you, Lori Chong Eurich RPV resident for 12 years (Los Verdes area) Graduate of the 2023 Leadership Academy 1 From: Octavio Silva Sent: To: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:06 AM CityClerk Subject: Attachments: RE: City Council Late Correspondence_ Agenda Item No. 7 Planning Commission ACCOMPLISHMENTS_2.pdf Hi, Can you replace with this one? Thanks! ~:"'::::,.. .~ ~, ~ 'o' \~/~§· ,, ·'"•·<:'.,:! 1 f) ;~ 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 contains:. ln~orrnat1Gr! befon,;iir1q k~ Cit•~i < p':fJ'::ected 'Thf::' \nfr)r «•• Ii Ar;pst~;; ~~o/ ~-----,. --~=- ► G~~le Play 0ntit/ UnaLJl"N::irizsri disserqin2tk)f\, dlstriL:·-:..itJe1n~ If you rece}\•·2d +!n1aJ! in ,2:rr<:it1 or ars not an intEU'ic!2d redpia2.nt. pli-::;:::::e th>:: sende; ~mP1;d2cle.~t,-~;\:, T',,.,,ank yc-:J fer 'fJUT .2ssis:i~:'~'.::e an:! cooperabon, From: Octavio Silva Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 8:29 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Cc: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council Late Correspondence_ Agenda Item No. 7 Hello, Please see attached late correspondence for tomorrow's City Council meeting related to Agenda Item No. 7. The list of Planning Commission accomplishments was updated to include the completion of 3 meetings with the Planning Commission's Zoning Code Update Subcommittee. Staff also clarified one of the accomplishments to read "sign program" as opposed to "sing program". Thank you, 1 7 Octavio Silva Deputy Director of Community Development Octavios@rpvca.gov Phone -{310) 544-5234 Address: 30940 Havvthome Blvd. Rancho Pafos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov • ;:;;;·s;~;; ~----------- ► G~;le Play Cily uf Rancho ~1a'.·8:f Verd1::·:i,, d~Edas1_r:12. inforroabrnt, is inl'-2-nd2d -01~,f,1• ior us2 of "''-''"~""" or di£,s1::tT1inJtk1n, distrib·Jtlanr or pn.:hibi1:~d, you retti\"~2d th!1: not an ir,b:::-~·1G2d r-ecq:it~nt~ ple25e the sender wnf'.~12dfBt.e'ly, Thank yc,u for your 2.s·::is::&r ::)2 and coc-;::ttra:::;c•,-,, 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MISSION STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION ACCOMPLISHMENTS The seven-member Planning Commission makes decisions on specific private land use planning applications such as subdivision maps, variances, and conditional use permits; reviews environmental assessments, such as Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations; makes decisions on view restoration permits; and considers appeals of staff decisions on land use planning applications. Below is the Planning Commission's biannual update listing its duties, accomplishments from December 2023 to July 2024. SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Made recommendations to the City Council regarding the adoption of revisions to the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element including code amendments and zone changes to effectuate the housing programs in the City's Housing Element. • Made recommendations to the City Council regarding code amendments to the City's Antenna Code, Sign Code and Filing of Multiple Applications. • Conducted 1 0 hybrid Planning Commission meetings to consider land use development applications including, but not limited to: o Height Variation Permit (3 applications); o Conditional Use Permit (4 applications); o Variance (1 application); o Coastal Development Permit (2 applications); o General Plan Amendment (1 application); o Zone Change (1 application); o Code Amendment (4 applications); o Site Plan Review (5 applications); o Major Grading Permit (1 application); o Sign Program (1 application); o Appeal (1 application); and o View Restoration Permit (2 applications) • Conducted 3 meetings with the Planning Commission's Zoning Code Update Sub-committee Page 1 of 1