20250520 Late Correspondence1 2
Subject:FW: Street vendor permits
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 4:53 PM
To: 2hunter <2hunter@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CodeEnforcement <CodeEnforcement@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Brandy Forbes
<bforbes@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Street vendor permits
Hi Marianne,
The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing your concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed
code amendments on sidewalk vending.
As you imply, the City is unable to regulate or prohibit the content of merchandise being sold. Nor does state
law allow the City to deny a permit application if compliant with the regulations of the Municipal Code and State
Law. Yes, this is not a law that the City choose to adopt but is in response to state law that is intended to
decriminalize sidewalk vending. The City Council is limited on what they can or cannot approve.
The proposed code amendment is intended to strengthen the City’s regulatory authority within the limits of the
law.
Ara
From: 2hunter <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 3:04 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Street vendor permits
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!.
Dear City Council,
I hope this message will prompt a discussion and decision to deny permits that disrupt the tranquility
while driving in RPV.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from 2hunter@cox.net. Learn why this is important
2
I truly hope you will STOP allowing vendors selling political propaganda on our streets. They prominently
display and promote inflammatory messages that are offensive to at least half the people passing by and
incredibly offensive to many. They raise my blood pressure everytime I see them in my city! They aren’t of
benefit to the city or citizens in any way.
If the members of a party or organization want to offer information or petitions, that is an entirely different
circumstance. I support freedom of speech. These vendors aren’t speaking, they’re selling for their own
benefit. In my opinion, it is hate speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
Thank you for making our RPV streets neutral territory.
Marianne Hunter
RPV 90275
2hunter@cox.net
310-809-1569
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 20, 2025
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
1
2
Description of Material
Email from Jim Hevener
Email from Marianne Hunter
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, May 19, 2025**.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
TereaTakaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Coversheets\20250520 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Outlook
Letter Re Item 1 -May 20 Council Meeting -Ganado/PVDE Intersection
From jhevener@cox.net <jhevener@cox.net>
Date Mon 5/19/2025 10:52 PM
To CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Paul Seo
< paul.seo@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro < barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; George Lewis
<George.Lewis@rpvca.gov>; Stephen Perestam <stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad
<rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
@ 1 attachment (896 KB)
Ltr. to City Council May 20 Item 1 (GanadoPVDE).pdf;
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
Please find attached my letter regarding the referenced matter for the Council Meeting tomorrow May
20, 2025.
Jim Hevener
I
May 19, 2025
via e-mail only
Re: City Council Meeting May 20, 2025 -Item No. 1 -PV Drive East
Dear Members of the City Council and Staff:
I am a resident of the City with my wife and 3 boys. We live in the Mediterrania HOA
neighborhood, and I am a member of the HOA Board. My family and I drive in and out of the
Ganado/PV Drive East intersection and up and down the switchbacks daily.
~ need real action now, because this is a matter of life.and death.
1) ~peed limit should be 30 miles per hour where the Switchbacks start (just
b_elow Casalina) down to the Ganado/PVDE intersectio_n.
• J_b_e_existing..s.peed advisory~sJgo__&theJ.Qp__Qf the switcJ1backs (Casalina) already
warns drivers not to excae..d_3.Q_miLe.s_per hour througb.Jbac..urve down to Ganad.Q.
(Exhibit A). All we are asking is that the posted speed limit match the speed already
advised.
• The speed advisory signage makes perfect sense because it is the area where the
road not only curves but becomes steep and cars naturally accelerate. Cars should
be alerted to slow down -not accelerate.
• This is only a 5 mile per hour reduction from 35 to 30.
• The Staff Report recommends no reduction for this stretch of road without any
explanation, even though the Traffic Study fully supports a reduction to 30 mph.
• There are 3 factors to consider in setting the speed limit under Vehicle Code Sections
22358.6 and 627, but the Staff Report only addresses the first factor which is the
"85% prevailing speed." (Exhibit B).
• The Traffic Report states that a 30 mile an hour speed limit is supported by the other
two factors which are the accident history-and conditions not readily apparent to
drivers (which apply throughout the switchbacks from Casalina to PVDS):
" ... given the high collision rate, presence of a nearby university campus (which
has the potential to generate pedestrian and bicycle traffic), the terrain, and
switchbacks, the City Council can consider further reducing the speed limit by 5
mph to 30 mph."
• A 30 mph limit would be consistent with the other side of PVDE from Mira Leste down
to the bottom of the hill before the intersection with PVDN. (Exhibit C)
2) Ib..e_speed limit should also be 30 miles ~Low Ganado__do_wn_to__~
Drive South intersection.
• The road below Ganado currently has a 40 mile per hour speed limit which frankly
makes no sense. Right below Ganado the posted limit goes from 35 up to 40 which
would indicate that it is safe to accelerate -but this is right before the start of the first
hairpin when people should be slowing down. (Exhibit D). Instead of a sign telling
people it is ok to increase their speed, there should be speed advisory sign warning
people to slow down!
• Once people drive around this first curve there are in fact a series of warning signs
advising people not to exceed 20-25 mph through the hairpin curves. (Exhibit E).
• A reduction to 30 mph is consistent with the speed advisory signs (20-25 mph) and
would not be a surprise to motorists.
• After the hairpins the posted speed is again 40 mph, indicating that it is safe to
accelerate. But, again, the opposite is true. While it might be safe to increase
slightly from 25 up to 30, there is still a final "S" turn where there have been two
fatalities in the past few years.
3) h.tst because pe_ople may violate the_speed limit is.rrum excuse for delaying
action. The truth is that most people won't go more than 7-1 O over the limit, and when
the flagrant offenders get caught, the lower limit will result in higher fines and a greater
likelihood of reckless driving or racing charges.
4) Most importantly, we need to_get a clear and mEtilfilJn1.ble-8.U_stained_e.niQr..c_ement
effort -how many patrols, when will they occur, and for how long.
• We need to have a real surge for at least 90 day_s_Qlli;.e__ilie_speed limit is lowered to
really change behavior, and then some reasonable sustained enforcement to ensure
the message sticks.
• And we need to be able to hold the LASD accountable to their commitments_.
Otherwise, the whole effort is basically a waste of money and the lives of our
residents will remain at risk.
• Directing Staff to "p_rioritize traffic law enforcement on PVDE between Crest R_osid_
and PVDS to the extent allowable by enforcement resources and cam{Jfiling
priorities" is basically a meaningless statement. We have heard this type of
assurance time after time with no real action since the retirement of Deputy Knox.
• Staff should be directed to work with LASD representatives and return to Council
within 60 days with a clear and measurable p_la_n.
5) The City needs to implement the upgraded sig.nage__and other infrastructure
without delay; not six months or more from now. Quite frankly the slurry project on
PV Drive East should already have been completed (it is years overdue) and waiting
longer is not the answer. Regardless, Council should set clear dates for completion and
hold Staff accountable.
6) We agree with the other Staff recommendations, with small but important
modifications.
• Waiting more than a year after implementation to conduct a follow up study is.
WllY-too long. Staff should be directed to report back on a 90 day rolling basis until
implementation is completed. A more comprehensive assessment, including with
respect to the results of the enforcement "surge" should be possible after 6 months.
• ~lacement of the landscaping but disagree that the current
landscaping should immediately be cut back to 24 inches which would destroy
the current aesthetic. The current landscaping is slow growing (mainly juniper) and
there is no reason why it can't be cut back to the recommended 30 inches (and then
28 inches if needed) to minimize the aesthetic impact. If the Staff moves forward in
a timely manner, the proposed landscaping p.lan should take no more than 90 days
to complete. Allowing staff to hack the current landscaping all the way down to 24
inches will destroy the current aesthetic and without motivation to regularly trim the
current landscaping will invite further delays.
7) We support the effort of the Mira Catalina neighborhood to also address the Crest
Road and Casa Lina intersections, but those issues should not delay action_no_w._
The Crest Road intersection, including issues with bike riders, is serious but it was not
part of the Traffic Study. The switchbacks don't start until below Casalina and further
consideration of the areas above should not delay the actions centered on the Ganado/
PV Drive East intersection.
8) While we~p_ect City Staff, including the City Manage_r__and Public Works Directo_r,
we feel that Staff has been overly focused on the Landslide to the detriment of the
rest of the City. We certainly want to support our neighbors in the Landslide Zone, but
City Staff must also take care of pressing issues in other areas of the City. Given the
continued fatalities and other life changing accidents it is no exaggeration to say
tb1sls a matter of life and death..
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.
Jim Hevener
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
Vehicle Code Section 22358.G(b) (emphasis added)
In cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded down to the nearest five
miles per hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed, the Department of
Transportation or a local authority may lower the speed limit by five miles per
hour from the nearest five mile per hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed,
in compliance with Sections 627 and 22358.5 and the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, as it read on March 30, 2021, if the reasons for the lower
speed limit are documented in an engineering and traffic survey. The Department
of Transportation or a local authority may also take into consideration Sections
22353, 22353.2, 22353.3, 22353.4, and 22353.5, if applicable.
Vehicle Code 627. (bl (emphasis added)
An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed
necessary by the department, consideration of all of the following:
(1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements.
(2) Accident records.
(3) Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.
EXHIBITC
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBITE
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, May 20, 2025 3:04 PM
CityClerk
FW: Street vendor permits
From: 2hunter <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 3:04 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Street vendor permits
Dear City Council,
I hope this message will prompt a discussion and decision to deny permits that disrupt the tranquility
while driving in RPV.
I truly hope you will STOP allowing vendors selling political propaganda on our streets. They prominently
display and promote inflammatory messages that are offensive to at least half the people passing by and
incredibly offensive to many. They raise my blood pressure everytime I see them in my city! They aren't of
benefit to the city or citizens in any way.
If the members of a party or organization want to offer information or petitions, that is an entirely different
circumstance. I support freedom of speech. These vendors aren't speaking, they're selling for their own
benefit. In my opinion, it is hate speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment.
Thank you for making our RPV streets neutral territory.
Marianne Hunter
RPV 90275
2hunter@cox.net
310-809-1569
1