Loading...
20240820 Late Correspondencet7� C11TY of TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 20, 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 2 Email from: Nikki Noushkam 3 Emails from: Deputy City Manager Jun; Erica Hsu; Lenee Bilski; Mickey Rodich; Peter Gasteiger ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 19, 2024**. Respectfully submitted, Ter a ✓Takaoka LALATE CORRESPONDEN CE\2024\2024 Coversheets\20240716 additions revisions to agenda.docx Teresa Takaoka From: nnoushkam@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 11:09 PM To: CityClerk; Enyssa Sisson Subject: August 20th RPV City Council -Agenda Item#2 Public Comments Material Attachments: Noushkam RPV City Council Landslide August 20 2024 Briefing.pdf EXi t R' FIfL. C3o not click [fnks dr open any attaehmerits unless yourecognize the sender�nd know t e cntent Attached please find the material I would like to use during my public comments period for Agenda item#2 on 08/20/2024. Regards, Nikki Noushkam Landslide Discussion Points August 20, 2024 Nikki Noushkam Item #1: Housing Assistance to Impacted Homeowners — Current Hydrauger Activities Are Needed, But Will Not Yield Results in 3 months • The recent vertical borings indicate that the Lower slip slide known as the Ancient Altamira Canyon Landside is moving at a rate of 50 ftfvr • Although the current collaborative plan between the City of RPV, KCLAD, and ACLAD is very much needed, the implementation of such plan will take place after the 2024-25 rainy season has b�n • Expectation are normal precipitation in southern California this winter • Many homeowners are still being impacted by accelerating land movement and need to make alternative Living arrangements • Many damaged homes will not be habitable during and after this rainy season ........___. .......... ... __ ...... __...... .. ............ ................ .. _........ Request the City to step up efforts to provide it . using assistance to impacted homeowners ........ _ ....... .............................. .................. . _ ............ ....... Item m #2: Request for Addressing the Sewer Issues at Seaview • There is continuing sewer leaks on Exultant Drive • Sewer has moved under in residents' homes in western Seaview • Significant moisture under residents' home after months of no rain and almost 2 months of no water break in the impacted area • Sewer break has resulted in increased rodent activity and infestation ........................._._____..... Request he City of RP and LACPW to address Sewersituation at Seaview ! This s a ratter of Public health and safety and shOUld, be addressed expeditiously Recent rodent droppings and traicl<s in some western aSeaview hornes Item #3: Request 60-Day Plan Ahead Status Briefing from Utilities & Abatement Districts • City of RPV has provided millions of dollars in loans to ACLAD and KCLAD • The residents have also seen their taxes increased dramatically and need to know how the money is being spent • Request that the RPV City Council request staff reports on future planned & upcoming milestones at every 60-day declaration of emergency revisit • Abatement Districts and utility status in staff reports focus on activities that have been performed with no outline of planned activities for the next 60 days Teresa Takaoka From: Catherine Jun Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 10:49 PM Cc: Ara Mihranian; CityClerk Subject: 8/20 Bond Measure Item Attachments: Re: Bond Measure - 8/20 RPV City Council Agenda; School Bond Questions & Comments.docx Dear City Council — When the PVUSD Bond Measure item comes up for discussion at tomorrow night's meeting, I will briefly introduce the item before Superintendent Devin Serrano comes up to provide an informational presentation to the Council. She will also make herself available to answer any questions you might have. Also, resident Aaron Chan sent us several questions about the Measure. Superintendent Serrano was able to provide answers to the first set of questions and will do her best to respond to the second set before the meeting. She will also be able to answer them during the meeting, if asked. Both sets are attached for your review. Thank you! Catherine Jun Deputy City Manager ciun rpvca.gov (310) 544-5203 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov por A6P.d"0" 4Hi t7 C?MpStore Goo*Play Teresa Takaoka From: Devin Serrano <serranod@pvpusd.net> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 3:33 PM To: Catherine Jun; Ami Gandhi Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Bond Measure - 8/20 RPV City Council Agenda EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do hot click �iriks or.,rspen +any at achri�er is unless you recognize the sender, and know t e content s sa e� Hello Catherine, Here are the responses to Mr. Chan's questions. 1. Does the council know the actual proposed increase in property tax? YES; the Tax Rate Statement states the tax rate is projected to be $29.49 per $100K of assessed value. PVPUSD has the lowest school bond tax rate among unified school districts in Los Angeles County. Even with a $29.49 rate, the school bond tax rate will still be in the bottom tier of the County. Resolution 28-2023 24 provided inconsistent numbers. It stated that $16.8 million property tax will be collected annually, costing homeowners $29.49 per $100K of assessed value. In a separate document, the district indicated that its current assessed value is $31.73 billion. To get $16.8 million from $37.73 billion, the cost per $100I< is around $53 and not $29.49. Which is the correct number? I think RPV residents would like to know. $16.8 million annually is the average debt service required for the bond program; bond programs have assessed value growth built into them; the correct tax rate is the stated rate of $29.49. 2. The previous bond in 2020 known as Measure PV failed to pass by a margin of 63 to 37. Has the district determined why this bond failed? Is the city council aware of the root causes and know that the district has addressed these root causes? The primary cause of the failure was Covid 19. PVPUSD's measure was not alone as the vast majority of all school bonds failed on that March 2020 election date, which has never happened in nearly 25 years. Typical success rates for CA school bonds have been 80%. There has also been some community feedback that the bond was too large of an ask, and thus we've reduced the tax rate and ask of voters. Finally, there has been some talk about district leadership and trust issues at the time. With a new administration and team, the district believes we've addressed many of these issues. It should be noted that seven of the last eight school tax elections were successful in PVPUSD with the Covid election the only loss. Multiple surveys and direct community feedback this last year have shown great support for our Measure as currently constituted. Please let me know if I should plan to bring a presentation on Tuesday? Have a nice weekend. Thankyou, 1 Devin Devin Serrano, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District From: Devin Serrano <serranod@pvpusd.net> Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 8:17 PM To: Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>, Ami Gandhi <gandhia@pvpusd.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Bond Measure - 8/20 RPV City Council Agenda Hello Catherine, I will attend the City Council meeting to present information on the bond measure. Would you like me to present a PPT to outline the information provided in the staff report or just attend the meeting? I will send you answers to Aaron Chan's questions tomorrow. Thankyou, Devin Serrano, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District From: Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov> Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 4:03 PM To: Devin Serrano <serranod@pvpusd.net>, Ami Gandhi <gandhia@pvpusd.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Bond Measure - 8/20 RPV City Council Agenda 'Some people who received this message don't often get email from cjun@rpvca.gov. Learn why this is 0rtant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the district. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Devin and Ami, I wanted to bring your attention to an email from resident, Aaron Chan, who has 2 questions about the bond measure (see attached). Would you be able to send that information to me, so I can share it with Council and the resident prior to our Tuesday, August 20 meeting? Thank you kindly. Catherine Jun From: Catherine Jun Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:50 PM To: serranod@pvpusd.net; gandhia@pvpusd.net Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Bond Measure - 8/20 RPV City Council Agenda Dear Devin and Ami, My name is Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager for Rancho Palos Verdes, and I was forwarded your information by City Manager Ara Mihranian. Councilmember Paul Seo requested a Council discussion of PVPUSD's Classroom Repair/Student Safety Bond Measure and potential consideration to take a support position. We prepared a staff report that includes information about the measure and have placed it on the August 20 City Council Agenda: We invite you to review and reach out to us if you have any questions. Furthermore, if you would like to attend the discussion, please let me know. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. Kind regards, Catherine Jun Deputy City Manager ciun rpvca.gov (310) 544-5203 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov pnwnNrad AppStore an 44ea GCt tl qyN CtitraglePlay To: Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) City Council From: Aaron Chan Date: August 19, 2024 Subject: Considerations for School Bond Endorsement Discussion I am respectfully requesting that the RPV City Council considers the following items when deciding if the City of RPV would endorse the $298 million school bond ($455 million including interest). There are many questions I and others have on this bond. The six items below are the key ones I come up with at this time. The last item (seven) is what I see as a more reasonable approach to funding the school district on facilities improvement projects. I am not against improving school facilities, just the way the bond is structured currently. Endorsing this bond as -is might send the message that the council supports tax increases on all homeowners without sufficient clarity on the actual property tax increase, the projects that will be completed, the costs for the project, and the oversight process, and that the city council approves of the way the District manages fund and projects. I have provided documents to substantiate my questions and comments below. Please use the hyperlinks to access the documents. Sincerely, Aaron Chan 1 1. Does the council know the actual proposed increase in property tax? Resolution 8-023 24 appears to severely understate the amount residents must pay by 80%. The District stated they need to collect $16.8 million in taxes annually to service the bond debt, and that homeowners would pay "approximately" $29.49 per $100K of assessed value for all PV homes. In response to a resident's question, the District indicated that the current assessed value of all PV homes combined is approximately $31.7 billion. A straightforward calculation shows that $29.50 per $100,000 assessed value will only generate $9.5 million ($31.7 Billion / $100,000 * $29.50) much less than the $16.8 million required as stated by the District. To provide $16.8 million annually, homeowners must pay $53 per $100,000 of assessed value ($31.7 Billion / $100,000 * $53.00), 80% more than the District claimed. So, for example, a home assessed at $2 million will pay an additional $590 ($2 million / $100,000 * $29.50) annually if this bond is passed. Proportionally, a $4 million home will pay $1,180 per year, and so on. I submitted a Public Request Act (ERA) request to the Districts on August 5 requesting clarification and back up for these figures. As of today (August 19), 1 have not received any usable information. 2. Measure PV in 2020 failed by a margin of 63 to 37. Is the City Council aware of the root causes? Has the District addressed these root causes? As the saying goes, „Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Some of the reasons that Measure PV failed also apply to this new bond: Bond is too big and takes too long to pay off. OA • No senior opt -out. Every property owner will pay higher property taxes. Landlords will likely pass the tax increase on to renters and local businesses will likely raise prices. • Residents are tired of ever-increasing taxes. • The District has a history of poor financial management and priorities: o Deficit spending: The district spent more money than it received in 9 out of 14 years. (Example: 019-220 CAI) o The District rejected a rem to create policies to maintain a balanced budget, eliminate deficits, and create 5-year forecasts. o The District wasted $500K to design a $4+ Million Marine Science Center. o District repurposed $9 million on updating the administrative facilities using funds voters approved to improve schools. o District has nothing to show for $85 Million Measure M taxes o Soft costs (33%) are way too high. Soft costs such as services and fees for consultants, legal, accounting, management, etc. are 33% of total cost. The Political Action Committee (PAC) to pass Measure PV collected $250K contributions from contractors, consultants, and AYSO ($50K). A private "Vote No Measure PV" PAC had about $13K in donations. Yet, Measure PV was defeated 63 to 37. This reflected how strongly voters were against Measure PV and similar bond measures. It appears that the District is using the same approach on this new bond. Has the district addressed the above issues? 3. The project list in the bond Resolution lacks clarity and cost details. Measure PV's stated goals were "To repair aging Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District sites; improve campus safety/security systems; make seismic, roofing, plumbing, electrical, air conditioning, and disabled student access improvements; ..." The full text of the bond contained a list of generic improvement projects. 3 The reality was that Measure PV included many items not related to the stated goals. These items included: HVAC $59 million Soft Costs (construction management, architects, etc.) $90 million New Gym (RIS) $12 million New Gym (PVIS) $12 million Performing Arts Center $5.5 million Playgrounds/Fields $9.5 million Replace Pen HS "H" and "S" Classroom Buildings $48 million MIS Pool $2 million These details were presented to the School Board on 11/1/2019 as "Facility Modernization Project List". Resolution 28-2023 24 contained a long list of projects with the same generic wording as Measure PV. The Resolution stated that "The District has partnered with architects, school facilities experts, parents, teachers, staff, students, and the community to conduct a thorough assessment and prioritization of needed projects at each school campus." I submitted a Public Request Act (PA) request to the Districts on August 5 seeking specific clarification on the bond, individual project, associated costs, and priorities of these projects. As of today (August 19), 1 have not received any usable information. If the District has done what it claimed in the Resolution, why would this information be so difficult to obtain? Should the voters take the District's words on face value? 4. The District has not demonstrated transparency and accountability. Any reasonable and responsible voter would ask: • How did the district come up with the $298.7 million price tag? • Will all the projects listed in the Resolution be completed? • What are the priorities and costs for each project as stated in the Resolution? 4 • The District may receive matching funds from Sacramento. If this bond is approved, which projects are eligible for State matching funds? How much? • What if matching funds do not materialize? Which projects will be excluded? The district has not provided any details to convince the voters of its willingness to be transparent and be accountable. Voters deserve to know these details. s. District restricted bond fund use. What about matching funds from Sacramento? The Resolution clearly stated that "No Workforce Housing or Administrative Facility Projects" would be part of this bond. But the District will have no control over the matching funds from Sacramento. The Rol[irg Hi[[s`s HousinFlement (Item 17 on reference) stated that PVPUSD told them they were interested in housing at the Rancho Del Mar site and thus rezoned this location for housing? Why would the District seek this rezoning if it has no interest in building housing of any kind? Is the city council aware of this? Passing this bond may enable Sacramento to build housing on our school's land. 6. Oversight committee lacks independence and authority to make changes. The proposed Independent Oversight Committee is neither. Members are selected and removed by the Board, and are not given any authority to stop waste, fraud or abuse. Similar examples of the limitation of citizen committees can be seen in this Budget Advisory Committee LBAC} purpose statement: 1.1 The BAC shall not have the authority to vote or take action on behalf of the Board. 1.4 The BAC has no decision -making authority, and will report its suggestions to the Board as do the other standing Board committees. 5 1.5 The Board shall be authorized to dissolve the BAC at any time it determines it no longer requires the advice of the BAC. 7. A reasonable alternative approach. Propose smaller bonds ($40 to $50 million) over shorter periods (3 to 5 years). This approach will provide the District opportunities to demonstrate accountability, transparency, and the ability to manage large projects. This goes a long way to regaining public trust. With these smaller and shorter bonds, voters can disapprove of subsequent bonds if waste and abuse occur. Teresa Takaoka From: Erica Hsu <meikomb@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 9:27 AM To: CC Subject: School Bond Measure [Some people who received this message don't often get email from meikomb@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear RPV City Council, Please remains neutral in regards to the School Bond Measure. As a parent of 2 children, I'm tired of things being so politically charged. Ask people to read and make their own decisions. Thank you, Erica Hsu Los Verdes area Sent from my Whone Teresa Takaoka From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 8:22 AM To: CC; CityClerk Subject: School Bond Measure on CC Agenda August 20, 2024 T B lAL 1L Cso not citck Etnks €►r openayaaR"teswnde Dear answer is NO. This is a highly charged issue with strong opinions on both sides of the School Bond Measure. The RPV City Council should remain neutral on this and allow the voters in the four cities in the PVUSD to decide the issue without influence from our RPV City Council. Choosing to take a support position would lead to what in the future? It would lead to pressure placed on Council to take positions in the future on issues where they should remain neutral as too politically charged. Please take no action on this item and do Not adopt proposed resolution. Thank You! Lenee Bilski From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 4:46 PM To: CC Subject: Council Meeting On Aug.20- PVPUSD Bond Measure -Agenda Item You don't often get email from mickeyrodich@gmail.com. Learn why this is important T AL N l L?a'rtot c[�ck lrnks: or ap, n any attachments unless you recce r�ixg the sender and knouv the content rs sa e.. ; As much as all of our residents are interested in all things related to the PVPUSD, I don't think our City Council should take a position on the proposed $290 million dollar plus additional interest Bond Measure, by the same token that I don't think the PVPUSD should take a position on any of our City's Bond Measures. I feel that this would be crossing a line that can lead to attempting to interfere in each others operations. As individuals each City Council member has the right to express their personal opinion on any PVPUSD matter and each School Board member, as an individual, has the right to express their personal opinion on their City's matters. The PVPUSD provides education for all 4 cities on the Peninsula and not just RPV. 3 From: PETER GASTEIGER <peter.gasteiger@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:48 AM To: CityClerk Subject: August 20 2024 City Council meeting - Public Hearing agenda comment [Some people who received this message don't often get email from peter.gasteiger@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, I would like to comment on Public Agenda item #3 (regarding whether the RPV City Council should take a position on the PVPUSD's upcoming school repair bond measure). I am opposed to the City Council giving voice to either support or opposition to this bond measure. This is a homeowner's issue to decide in the district, and the Council has no way of knowing whether or to what extent such a bond measure is supported by the homeowners in RPV. If the Council were to go on official record in support of this bond measure, PVPUSD would in all likelihood use this in their campaign to win voter support; the opposite however would be just as unlikely. If the Council feels it must take a position, I would prefer one that encourages the PVPUSD to not utilize Prop 39 (where the 'pass' threshold is only 55%), but wait until 2025 (or another odd -year) where the threshold is two-thirds or 66% (this would signify solid community support if passed). Thank you, Pete Gasteiger sent from my mobil C Gp�Alps LA �+ U 4 'n CITY OF'4 �' RANCHO 73_20 PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 19, 2024 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, August 20, 2024, City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Email from Bob Nelson 3 Emails from: Jenny Chen; Sharon Yarber; Aaron Chan Respectfully submitted, d! �- - �'� Tere a Takaoka LALATE CORRESPONDENCE\2024\2024 Coversheets\20240820 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Robert Nemeth Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 10:21 AM To: CityClerk Subject: CC 8/20: Public Hearing Item 1: Public Correspondence. Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a View Restoration Permit at 29624 S. Trotwood Dr. Fyi Late correspondence and I blind copied the City Council. From: Bob Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:38 PM To: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Cc: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov> Subject: CC 8/20: Public Hearing Item 1: Public Correspondence Brandy, Robert, Terri copy Past Commissioners Mayor Cruikshank„ Dave Bradley Would appreciate this being included in Council's packet as public comment. Bob Nelson This is written in support of staff recommendation to Council to deny this appeal of Planning Commission's approval of view restoration at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive (case # PLVR 2022-0010). This is a 'de novo' presentation so, as a past Commissioner who voted on this item, I am briefly entering into evidence my thoughts. 1. At issue is appellant Wells desire to continue to block harbor views from 3 neighbors. 2. Asso. Planner Robert Nemeth's staff report is, again, very thorough and clearly details these blockages. 3. Like other RPV views (Catatlina, city, etc) these are protected views, to be enjoyed by our residents, not obstructed. 4. Our Commission spent almost 2 hours reviewing, in minutia detail, every angle, every picture, every tree, every bush, listening carefully throughout and concluded these trees were an obstruction, full stop. 5. 1 would ask you join your Commissioners. and do the same. 1 ° (Robert — once again a great job — thank you for all your thought, detail and analysis!) Bob Nelson From: Jenny Chen <jennychensoprano@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 3:35 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Please support PVPUSD Bond Some people who received this message don't often get email from jennychensoprano@gmail.com. Learn why this is important xE�€T�f�[,����I[�-`i� i`���rt�►t CL�GI� f��k�!� ol��r����;��i���C��'1��.��!!���5�`'(C�!� ���t��= �fp`,���.��` J�..t����`��?l �_�.����� Dear City Council, As a resident and parent of two elementary school age children in RPV, I urge you to support the PVPUSD Classroom Repair/Student Safety Bond Measure. Many school facilities are old, especially at Miraleste; ceilings at many schools leak when there is rain -- issues like these disrupt school life, and may affect home prices should younger families decide to not move to PV due to our dilapidated school sites. Please vote to support the Bond to help PVPUSD in better serving the many children of RPV. Thank you. 3 From: Sharon Yarber <sharon@sharonyarber.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2024 1:04 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; CityClerk Subject: Agenda item re: school bond measure regarding Dear Mayor Cruikshank and Council Members, The issue of the upcoming bond measure is controversial. There are many residents in favor and many opposed. I think it best if the City stays out of the fray and does not take a position on the measure, whether for or against. The Council should not deign to speak for the residents of the City. Please decline to take a position as a Council. Obviously, individual Council members are free to voice their personal opinions. If you start to take positions on ballot measures or other election matters, I suggest you would be opening the proverbial can of worms. Thank you for your consideration. Sharon Yarber From: Catherine Jun Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 4:00 PM To: Aaron Chan; CC Subject: RE: Questions on the school bond Aaron, We will post your email as a late communication, so it is included in the record. In addition, we will share it with school district representatives to see if they can provide any clarification prior to the meeting. Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to reach out to me any time. Sincerely, Catherine Jun Deputy City Manager c-un@rpvca.gov (310) 544-5203 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov From: Aaron Chan <chanaaron815@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:50 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Questions on the school bond Some people who received this message don't often get email from chanaaron815@gmail.com. Learn why this is important �tL' f u' L`t' R f 6, tom' �.y E-xY'2 F> §dL ^Vi R-sJ' 1£ 'ti fi" x RiS1 J At Do not el ck links pen,any,atiar [ etst nlessya rr�ca n � tt ctat e xt r v Hi Megan, Please post the following questions to the city council in tonight's meeting: 1. Does the council know the actual proposed increase in property tax? Resolution 28-2023 24 provided inconsistent numbers. It stated that $16.8 million property tax will be collected annually, costing homeowners $29.49 per $100K of assessed value. In a separate document, the district indicated that its current assessed value is $31.73 billion. To get $16.8 million from $37.73 billion, the cost per $100K is around $53 and not $29.49. Which is the correct number? I think RPV residents would like to know. 2. The previous bond in 2020 known as Measure PV failed to pass by a margin of 63 to 37. Has the district determined why this bond failed? Is the city council aware of the root causes and know that the district has addressed these root causes? Thankyou. 1 — Aaron Chan 5011 Rockvalley Road, Rancho Palos Verdes.