Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20260303 Late Correspondence
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK MARCH 3, 2026 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 Description of Material Emails from: Alexander Chin ; Dana Graham; Amy Chan ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, March 2, 2026 ** Respectfully submitted , kaoka L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2026\2026 Coversheets\20260303 additions revisions to agenda .docx From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:19 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Avenida Classica Traffic Circles : Oppose them , please remove LC -----Original Message ----- From: ALEXANDER Chin <ironmanalex@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:09 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Avenida Classica Traffic Circles : Oppose them, please remove Some people who received this message don't often get email from ironmanalex@outlook .com . 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 City Council and to whom it may concern: As a homeowner at the corner of one of these traffic circles, Ave Celestial and Classica, I strongly oppose these circles and encourage the city to remove them. I have witnessed many cases of cars coming downhill and turning into opposing lane of traffic when making a left turn from Classica to Celestial instead of using the round-about circle. As I walk my dog, I also see many cars driving along Ave Classica swerving into the walking area as pedestrians cross Ave Celestial. The roundabout/ traffic circle and the shrubs along Ave Classica also obstructs the view of cars coming up along Classica for drivers about to enter the circle from Celestial. I feel that instead of increasing safety, the chances for a motor vehicle accident or a vehicle hitting a pedestrian has increased significantly since these circles were installed . Sincerely yours, Alexander Chin Homeowner at 30104 Avenida Celestial 1 Subject: FW : Ave Classica Traffic Circles From: Dana H Graham <danahgraham@cs .co m > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:15 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: Ave Classica Traffic Circles I XTERNAL EMAIL: D Hi Council: Just a quick note to say that, apart from providing no long-term benefit, the "traffic circles" are a waste of City funds, expecially given the expense of maintaining PVDS and when people in the City are losing their homes. This just looks frivolous, and most of the people in the neighborhood don't want the things to boot. Even speed humps such as those on Rousseau Lane in Academy Hill or on Willow Wood off Silver Spur would be a better alternative if the aim is to slow traffic. Since the steepness of the grade was raised by the Traffic and Safety Committee, Ave Classica is less steep than Rousseau. Most of the houses on that street have been there since the 1960's and, other than construction of the PV Victoria Apartments, I can't imagine any new construction that has added to the traffic since then. And the instigator, Dave Tomblin, has sold his house and moved . How many accidents have there been at Classica and Celestial or Esplendida? I believe the answer is none, and I don't recall any pedestrians being hit. I'll leave it to others to discuss the safety concerns --I just hate to see the City fritter away precious funds on something so un-needed and un wanted. In closing , I was sent a copy of Mary Alice Fosse's pool boy's email to you in which he, to facilitate his defamation of me, describes an "incident" which I'm pretty sure never happened. Dana Graham DRE #00877973 Top 10 PV agents (Listings Sold) Top-Producing PV Agent for 40 years Palos Verdes Resident since 194 7 Berkshire Hathaway Chairman's Circle Platinum President, Palos Verdes Historical Society Website: www .DanaGraham .com 310 613-1076 (cell) --310 265-2141 (office) 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: LC Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:26 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: Please vote to remove the traffic circles on Avenida Classica From: Amy Chan <mizmini@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Please vote to remove the traffic circles on Avenida Classica Some people who received this message don't often get ema I from mizmi ni @hotmai l .com . Learn w hy this is important Dear City Council, I hope you are well. I am a resident on Avenida Celestial. In regards to your upcoming vote on whether or not to keep the traffic circles that were installed on Avenida Classica, I would like to express my opposition to these circles and ask you to vote for their removal. My objections to these circles are many. Most importantly, I believe these circles make our neighborhood unsafe. I have been nearly hit multiple times trying to turn onto my street. People do not seem to know who has the right of way in the circles. Further, one is on a steep slope (Celestial) and the other has a steep slope going into it (Esplendida). I have almost been t-boned turning onto my street, and I also have had cars tailgate me and almost hit me from behind as I enter the circles. These are dangerous. I am also worried if fire trucks can get onto my street easily in case there is an emergency. I am also quite upset that these circles were installed without asking the community if they wanted them. appreciate your attention to this issue. Thank you! Sincerely, Amy Chan 1 /. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK MARCH 2, 2026 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 3, 2026, City Council meeting: Item No. I. 1. Description of Material Corrected Resolution Email exchange between Staff and Dan Meyers; Correspondence received from Dan Meyers; Emails from: Sue Hsieh; Dane Mott; Brad Spellberg; Catherine Spellberg; Alexander Chin; Sandy Draffen; Tommy Draffen; Yoomin Kim Respectfully submitted, L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2026\20260303 additions revisions to agenda through Monday.docx RESOLUTION NO. 2026-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FINDING AND DECLARING, BY A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL, THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS WHICH WILL NOT PERMIT THE COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION OF BIDS TO REPAIR A STORM DRAIN LOCATED ON CRENSHAW BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 830-FEET NORTH OF CREST ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO REPAIR AND REMEDIATE THE SAME WHEREAS, Public Contract Code § 1102 defines "emergency" as "a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services;" and WHEREAS, Public Contracts Code § 22050 set forth the procedure for the emergency contracting for a public works as follows: (a)(1) In the case of an emergency, a public agency, pursuant to a four fifths vote of its governing body, may repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts.(2) Before a governing body takes any action pursuant to paragraph (1), it shall make a finding, based on substantial evidence set forth in the minutes of its meeting, that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. (b)(1) The governing body, by a four-fifths vote, may delegate, by resolution or ordinance, to the appropriate county administrative officer, city manager, chief engineer, or other nonelected agency officer, the authority to order any action pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).(2) If the public agency has no county administrative officer, city manager, chief engineer, or other nonelected agency officer, the governing body, by a four-fifths vote, may delegate to an elected officer the authority to order any action specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).(3) If a person with authority delegated pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) orders any action specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), that person shall report to the governing body, at its next meeting required pursuant to this section, the reasons justifying why the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and why the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. 01203.0006 2098323. l I. (c)(1) If the governing body orders any action specified in subdivision (a), the governing body shall review the emergency action at its next regularly scheduled meeting and, except as specified below, at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated, to determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action. If the governing body meets weekly, it may review the emergency action in accordance with this paragraph every 14 days. (2) If a person with authority delegated pursuant to subdivision (b) orders any action specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the governing body shall initially review the emergency action not later than seven days after the action, or at its next regularly scheduled meeting if that meeting will occur not later than 14 days after the action, and at least at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated, to determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action, unless a person with authority delegated pursuant to subdivision (b) has terminated that action prior to the governing body reviewing the emergency action and making a determination pursuant to this subdivision. If the governing body meets weekly, it may, after the initial review, review the emergency action in accordance with this paragraph every 14 days.(3) When the governing body reviews the emergency action pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2), it shall terminate the action at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant so that the remainder of the emergency action may be completed by giving notice for bids to let contracts; and WHEREAS, Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code §§ 2.44.060 and 2.44.0?0(c), authorizes the City to procure services from a vendor outside of the normal bidding process and further authorizes the finding of "exigent circumstances" warranting the immediate procurement of the same. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Based on substantial evidence provided in the staff report accompanying this resolution, the City Council hereby makes the following findings: a. In January 2025, a resident reported concerns that a location on Crenshaw Boulevard appeared to be sinking. Shortly thereafter, Staff conducted a camera inspection of the existing storm drain system at the reported location. The camera inspection revealed that the existing metal pipe was rusted out along the flowline and required replacement; however, there was no indication at that time that the pipe was collapsing or the roadway was subsiding. Staff began the process of preparing 01203.0006 2098323.1 Resolution 2026-_ Page 2 of 4 engineered plans and specifications, through a consultant engineer, to obtain construction bids for replacement of the pipe; and b. In August 2025, as part of a routine inspection, Staff observed separation of a portion of the curb and gutter located above the storm drain line. As a precautionary measure, the City installed steel plates across Crenshaw Boulevard while engineering design of the replacement project was in progress; and c. After observing the expansion of a sinkhole on Hawthorne Boulevard at Indian Valley Road shortly after recent rainstorms, Staff immediately obtained an additional camera inspection of the Crenshaw Boulevard storm drain to be sure that the condition there was not also worsening due to the recent rainstorms; and d. The new camera inspection results identified separation and settlement of a portion of the metal storm pipe near the median, indicating further deterioration of the system and the possibility of a sinkhole forming; and e. In light of the accelerating deteriorating conditions, the City Council finds and determines that immediate action to replace the storm drain pipe as quickly as possible is needed; and f. The foregoing constitutes an emergency within the meaning of Public Contracts Code § 1102 authorizing emergency repairs pursuant to Public Contracts Code § 22050. SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council approves the following emergency actions to repair and remediate the sinkhole: a. The City Manager and Director of Public Works are hereby authorized to develop a scope of work to repair the storm drain on Crenshaw Boulevard approximately 830-feet north of Crest Road and to do so without the use of competitive proposals as an emergency scope of work; and b. The City Manager and Director of Public Works are further directed to finalize negotiations for $450,000 in the CIP Fund from Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program -Storm Drain Improvements at Montemalaga Canyon (Project 8726) to Storm Drain Asset Management Program & Master Plan Update (Project 8701 ); and c. The City Manager and Director of Public Works are further authorized to execute agreements to conduct the repairs and associated work in a form approved by the City Attorney; and d. The City Manager and Director of Public Works are further authorized to undertake emergency repairs to the storm drain on Crenshaw Boulevard; and 012030006 2098323.1 Resolution 2026-_ Page 3 of 4 e. The City Council hereby reallocated the sum of $450,000 to fund the costs of such emergency work and services. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Contract Code § 22050, The City Manager and Director of Public Works shall report to the City Council, at the next regular meeting of the City Council, the reasons justifying why the emergency continues to exist and why action, outside of the normal bidding process is necessary to respond to the emergency. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Public Contract Code § 22050, the City Council shall, at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter, consider and reaffirm by a four-fifths vote there is a need to continue to remediate the emergency until the authorized emergency repairs have been completed. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by a four-fifths vote of the entire City Council on this 3rd day of March, 2026. Paul Seo, Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) ) I, Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2026-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 3, 2026. City Clerk 01203.0006 2098323.1 Resolution 2026-_ Page 4 of 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 2, 2026 7:46 AM CityClerk FW: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica From: jm ma fosse <jmafosse@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2026 11:37 PM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Noel Casi! <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cheri Bailiff <Cherib@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica Hello eve1yone, I am writing all of you on behalf of myself, Mary Alice Fosse and several of our neighbors, in regards to moving fonvard with the much needed modifications/improvements of the Roundabouts (Traffic Calming Measures) here on Avenida Classica at Avenida Esplendida and Avenida Celestial. I have emailed you all previously on October 31, 2025, (please read previous email) regarding this matter. I was able to get in contact with one of the City Staff members last week (by phone and email) asking about having my correspondence and photos that were used for the Traffic Safety Committee meeting (on November 3, 2025) to be forwarded to the agenda report for the upcoming City Council meeting (March 3, 2026). The staff member told me that the correspondence and photos would be forwarded, but as of this evening I do not see any of it added to the agenda report for the upcoming City Council meeting. In addition to the previous correspondence and photos, I would like to submit more photos and this correspondence. On Thursday,Januai:y 15, 2026 at approx. 11:45 a.m. Mary Alice and I were traveling on Avenida Esplendida heading towards Avenida Classica from Los Verdes Dr., when we were nearly involved in a head on accident at the intersection of A venida Esplendida and A venida Classica, with a white Lexus 2 door convertible with a black top driven by Dana Graham, who had cut the corner coming down from A venida Classica and making a left on to Avenida Esplendida (driving against the posted signage, showing to go around the Roundabout in a counterclockwise motion). Obviously he still feels that traffic laws do not apply to him, even though on November 3, 2025 at the Traffic Safety Committee meeting, I had shown the Traffic Safety Committee members as well as City Staff members (several photos) of both he and his wife as well as several other residents in this neighborhood (as well as non-residents) making illegal turns and driving against the posted flow of traffic (which he (Dana Graham) publicly admitted too at the meeting while laughing and shrugging it off as though he can do what ever he wants, without any recourse). Please (City Council members and Ara) feel free to view the archived video from the November 3, 2025 Traffic Safety Committee meeting for reference. We desperately need these Roundabouts to be modified/improved (with additional signage, deflectors, delineators in conjunction with Bot Dots and to increase the diameter of the Roundabouts, to truly make them effective) not only because of speeding, but the illegal (potentially dangerous) illegal left turns. These modifications/improvements have already been recommended and approved by City Staff, an independent 3rd I. party Traffic Engineer, the Traffic Safety Committee members and has also been approved, "signed off' on by the Fire Dept. on at least 3 different occasions. At this point we are at nearly 2 1/2 years since the City Council recommended and approved these roundabouts (Traffic Calming Measures). PLEASE, can we (without delay) move fo1ward and make these necessary modifications/improvements to these Roundabouts (Traffic Calming Measures) so that we can begin to feel like this is a safe place to live again. The speeding traffic and the constant disregard for Public Safety on this street is absolutely out of hand. Mary Alice who has lived on this street for over 57 years, remembers this being a peaceful and safe place to live. She constantly comments on how she doesn't see any kids outside playing anymore and refers to Avenida Classica as the Harbor Freeway. Thank You for Your Time, Dan Myers and Mary Alice Fosse On Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 10:40:30 AM PST, Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Dan, Thank you for sending this. You information has/will be added as late correspondence. Thanks, Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer df ra_ley@rpv_ca_.._gmt Phone -(310) 544- 5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rp~caJgov ~ Oovrnlo;,d on th(! • AppStore b...._ G-ETITON V Google Play rn;;:iii rncssage cc;ntains infonn;::1Uon bc!onqlnq to tr1c of l"'<.ancho F>alos Vei<lc~-~, v1Y1ich inay be pdvilc~JC:d, confo:lent!a! and/or protected from disc!osuro. The inforrnat1nn is it1tended o:rlv 1100 of the indiviUuai nr r::~tity n/H'nf)d. Ur\Juthori1.cd dissemination dir~ri!)ution, er copyi:19 is r.;trict!y prohih:tccL if received this err;:;!! xi error. or nnt <:tn intr:ndr:d notify th(~ ~~cncicr 1rn!r1~.:<1itit(;iy. lhank you for ynur :::.~;~,~i~:>tance and ccopcratiorL From: jm ma fosse <jmafosse@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 4:02 PM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica Hi Deanna, After we talked a little while ago, I finished looking at the Agenda Report for the upcoming City Council meeting (March 3, 2026) and from what you told me, the correspondence for the Traffic Safety Committee meeting (November 3, 2025) was to be transferred to this Agenda Report for the City Council to view. I did not see any of 2 the correspondence I sent in, especially regarding the pictures of residents as well as non-residents purposely disobeying traffic laws by cutting corners and traveling the wrong direction around the Roundabouts (thus creating their own dangers and hazardous conditions). Can you please look into this for me a let me know what is going on. Thank You!! Dan On Wednesday, February 25, 2026 at 02:21: 11 PM PST, jm ma fosse <jmafosse@yahoo.com> wrote: Good afternoon Deanna, I have tried to get in contact with you via phone (and left messages for you) at least one time last week and twice so far this week, hopefully I will have better luck getting a hold of you through email. I would like to request a meeting with you before the City Council meeting next Tuesday (tvlarch 3, 2026) in regards to the Roundabouts on Avenida Classica at Avenida Celestial and Avenida Esplendida. Please call or email me. Thank You for Your Time, Dan On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 04:08: 19 PM PDT, Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good afternoon Dan, Thank you for reaching out. We have received your correspondence and will provide it as part of the agenda packet for the TSC. Thanks, Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer dfraley@Jwca.gov Phone -(310) 544- 5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpJtC~ov • 11 Dow-nlo.id on the App Store ..... GETITON V Google Play nkii! message con~ains infonnation be!onqing to the of F<,ancho Palos Verde~~. wr1ich 1nay he privik~:-;r:d, r;onfidentia! and/or proh•~cl.ed f101r <k:;c!osure. The !nfLrrrk1tnn intended only Utie of the indiv!dun! er ndrned. Ur1<1l/hor!2.nd rli~scminnt!Or' di:<rlhution, or l::l s\rict!y prohibited. ifyci rcc-:eived thi~> err:Ji! in error, or no~ /·in intt:nd~.:<i rccipi~~"'. p!(:a~,e notify the {-~end~:~r :rrH)1(·':<iintr:!v. you for your <Jf)~~1slance and coopr:rution. From: jm ma fos~e <jmafosse@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 3:42 PM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> 3 Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov>; Cheri Bailiff <Cherib@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica You don't often Good afternoon everyone, My name is Dan and I arn emailing you all on behalf of Mary Alice Fosse and myself, as well as several of our neighbors in regards to the Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica (at Avenida Celestial and Avenida Esplendida), here in Rancho Palos Verdes. \Y./e would like to address some issues that we are seeing with local residents as well as non-residents whom are speeding past the Traffic Circles (as if they are not even there) and making left turns before the Traffic Circles (instead of going around them in a counterclockwise motion, as directed by the posted signage) in an act of defiance. These acts of defiance seem to be brought on by ARROGANCE, IGNORANCE, A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT and A LACK OF CONVENIENCE. My question to you all is, what is more important, the SAFETY of the residents (as well as non-residents) in this conununity of Rancho Palos Verdes or their CONVENIENCE?? I have documentation of several residents (NEIGHBORS) as well as non-residents who continue to ignore Traffic Laws and put themselves, their families and the general public at 1·isk and in danger by driving the wrong way (against traffic), because they feel like they are being inconvenienced by having to go around the Traffic Circles. We would appreciate it very much if someone can make the necessary improvements to these Traffic Circles (in a timely manner), in order to make these illegal and dangerous actions, a thing of the past. Thank You for Your Time, Dan On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 12:22:24 PM PDT, Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Dan, I wanted to reach out to see if you had any questions on the Avenida Classica Traffic Circles. I know you gave public comment on Monday's (9/29) TSC meeting regarding the update and timing. Due to workload and other priorities, we were waiting for our consultant to get us updated plans. We are currently trying to get a contractor to perform the work. We are hopeful that the work can be completed in the upcoming weeks. Please feel free to reach out with any other questions. Thanks, 4 Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer dfrale~@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544- 5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpyca.goJL ,-'a, D1nrnlo11d on the • AppStore ~ GETlTON If"' Google Play Tt:1!:J c--niaii rncss~.19e contains lnform<:d.ion be!on~Jing to tfle of F<ancho i·)a!os Verde~~. v;h!ch inay be privilr:;oecL conndcntir1L arxl/or protcdt.::d trorn disc!o~;uro. ·rhe lnforniaLon is intended only U!:lC of the individudi or entity narr1cd. Unn,.:thori1.cd dL:>sc11'1inatior 1 distribution, or ccpyi!1g is strictly prol'iibi'.cd, ,t yo,,, rcrnivml ttis em,iil ,n error, or arc not ,m 'nlund,,1rJ rudpic•1'. p\,m,e notify tlw ,,1end,1r :rnrntxiintr:!y. n1anl< you for your asslstanco ;rnd cooperation. 5 Traffic af ty mitte i l ting ve b r 3,202 L t ce Cheri Bailiff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: dawn fortis <dmfortis@yahoo.com> Monday, November 3, 2025 9:59 AM Ramzi Awwad Traffic; PublicWorks; CC; Deanna Fraley; CityClerk Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica [Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmfortis@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Hello, I will likely not be able to attend tonight's meeting, but I feel quite strongly about having my voice heard. I have written periodically over the last two years about this issue, as I feel the circles pose a far greater danger than any they attempt to mitigate. I am strongly opposed to these circles, and have been from the start. As a resident on Avenida Esp!endida, turns around these circles have continually put me at more risk than I was before their installation. My safety, as well as the safety of my family, has been only further imperiled when making a turn onto Avenida Esplendida from Avenida Classica. On multiple occasions, I have been almost t-boned by someone driving up around the blind curve from the bottorn--from the apartment building/golf course side of Avenida Classica--and this almost never happened before. And to be clear, I am taking issue not with the speed of folks coming up from that end of the street, but the utter blindness they have when approaching the intersection, and the lack of visibility they have for approaching cross-traffic, which does not work well with the existence of a circle there. Specifically in the Avenida Esplendida/Avenida Classica intersection, the circle forces drivers to make a turn so low in the intersection--even closer to the blind curve than where one would turn naturally in the intersection, without the impediment--that each time I do, I am put in harm's way exponentially more than I would be otherwise. I would implore you to reconsider and apply a more holistic view to any changes to this area, asking how ALL residents in this neighborhood would be impacted and not only what a change would mean for a few. I ask for greater consideration of the many voices who believe this "cure" is in fact far worse than any narrowly perceived "problem" in the area, and to what detriment. The greater danger these circles pose to residents on Celestial and Esplendida--in addition to the logistical challenge the circles must pose for emergency vehicles, should they be needed in the area (heaven forbid)--is quite real. I attended the council meeting back in 2023 when various options were being considered, and I recall that this entire issue was born out of two phone calls to complain about perceived speed issues on Classica. l find it shocking that such a big, expensive mess was created by merely two phone calls; and now, with multiple voices in the chorus of dissent, I do not feel the same weight is being given to the counterpoints. Further, as there are many more serious and timely issues on the hill, I cannot support the expense of studies and pilot projects being thrown at this issue. Please remove the traffic circles and let's be done. 1 Cheri Bailiff From: Sent: To: Subject: wenni ng1 @ve riz on.net Monday, Novembe r 3, 2025 11 :17 AM Traffic; PublicWorks; CC; Dane Mott Traffic Circles -Avenida Classica Some people who received this message don't often get email from wenningl@verlzon.net. Lea rn why thi s is lm12Q.ttant I would like to take a moment to tell you that I strongly oppose these Traffic Circ les that have been installed on Avenida Classica . My question is why didn't you use traffic bumps in such a residential area? They cost less and they are not so intrusive . And they don't take away the beauty from this area . PLEASE CONSIDER REMOVING THESE TRAFFIC CIRCLES ASAP. PLEASE DO NOT PUT UP ANYMORE CIRCLES IN THIS AREAi I Connie Wenning (310) 612-2257 1 11/3/25, 1:56 PM Outlook Cornerstone From Mike Mendez <mike.k.mendez@gmail.com> Date Wed 10/22/2025 4:15 PM To Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov> lnbox -Deanna Fra ley -Outlook EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click finks or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe Ill. I've lived at the corner of Groveoak place and springcreek road since May 1996. My 2 sons attended cornerstone . I was a weekly teac hing parent I retired in 2017 and observe morning cornerstone traffic everyday. The speed issue is not Groveoak place. It is grays lake road and springcreek road. Parents rushing to drop off t heir kids and then rushing to their next destination drive fast on t hese parallel roads. Groveoak p lace is typically too crowded to drive fast. Drivers respect speed safety in front of the school, but not the parallel streets entering. Parents also park on nearby streets and walk their kids to school and routinely j-walk across groveoak place. It would be helpful to have a crosswalk and encourage parents to use it Additionally, parents block the fire hydrant on Groveoak place and ignore red curbs . I realize there is a very small chance of a fire, but look what happened just a few days ago on via Sonoma. Solutions: 1. Add a crosswalk across Groveoak place to access cornerstone. 2. Enforce speed limits and increase parent awareness at monthly parent meetings to drive slowly in Grayslake road and springcreek road. 3. Enforce red zones on Groveoak place. Empower residents to photograph illegally parked vehicles and provide an email, or text number to send photos. 4. A speed bump is not necessary on Groveoak place. 5. Collect baseline data on what you're trying to fix. Then take the same data again after implementation to measure effectiveness. Mike Mendez 6086 Groveoak Place, RPV, CA 90275 310.433.4831 httn.,• //n, 1tlnnk nffir:A r:nml mAll /fci/ AAkALoAAAAAA HYQDEaomEc2bvACoAC%2FEWg0AOM %2 FdPOZWVk2QTclzRobb6AAApcoSpAAA ?nativeVersio .. . 1 /1 11/3/25, 1:58 PM To: Traffic <Traffic@r™gov> Subject: Cornerstone Re: Cornerstone -Deanna Fraley -Outlook EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Is safe Ill. I've lived at the corner of Groveoak place and springcreek road since May 1996. My 2 sons attended , cornerstone. I was a weekly teaching parent. I retired in 2017 and observe morning cornerstone traffic everyday. The speed issue is not Groveoak place. It is grayslake road and springcreek road. Parents rushing to drop off their kids and then rushing to their next destination drive fast on these parallel roads. Groveoak place is typically too crowded to drive fast. Drivers respect speed safety in front of the school, but not the parallel streets entering. Parents also park on nearby streets and walk their kids to school and routinely j-walk across groveoak place. It would be helpful to have a crosswalk and encourage parents to use it. Additionally, parents block the fire hydrant on Groveoak place and ignore red curbs. I realize there is a very small chance of a fire, but look what happened just a few days ago on via Sonoma. Solutions: 1. Add a crosswalk across Groveoak place to access cornerstone. 2. Enforce speed limits and increase parent awareness at monthly parent meetings to drive slowly in Grayslake road and springcreek road. 3. Enforce red zones on Groveoak place. Empower residents to photograph illegally parked vehicles and provide an email, or text number to send photos. 4. A speed bump is not necessary on Groveoak place. 5. Collect baseline data on what you're trying to f ix. Then take the same data again after implementation to measure effectiveness. Mike Mendez 6086 Groveoak Place,..BeY, CA 90275 310.433.4831 aboul:blank?windowld=SecondaryReadingPane17 2/2 11 /3/25, 2:01 PM lnbox -Deanna Fraley -uuttooK https://outlook.office.corn/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AOM%2FclPOZWVk2QTctzRobb5AAApcqCzQAA/sxs/AAkALg... 1/1 11 /3/25, 1 :59 PM lnbox • Deanna Fraley -Outlook Good afternoon Mike, Thank you for reaching out. We have received your correspondence and will provide it as part of the agenda packet for the TSC. Thanks, Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer dfraley_@.rP.vca.gov Phone -(310) 544~5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: ~rpvca.gov This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information Is Intended only for use of the Individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying Is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an Intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Mike Mendez <mike.k.mendez@g[llilil.cQJn> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 4:15 PM To: Traffic <Traffic;;..@.1~ggy> Subject: Cornerstone /EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is l safe!II. I've lived at the corner of Groveoak place and springcreek road since May 1996. My 2 sons attended cornerstone. I was a weekly teaching parent I retired in 2017 and observe morning cornerstone traffic everyday. The speed issue is not Groveoak place. It is grayslake road and springcreek road. Parents rushing to drop off their kids and then rushing to their next destination drive fast on these parallel roads. Groveoak place is typically too crowded to drive fast. Drivers respect speed safety in front of the school, but not the parallel streets entering. Parents also park on nearby streets and walk their kids to school and routinely j-walk across groveoak place. It would be helpful to have a crosswalk and encourage parents to use it. Additionally, parents block the fire hydrant on Groveoak place and ignore red curbs. I realize there is a very small chance of a fire, but look what happened just a few days ago on via Sonoma. Solutions: ilttps://outlook:.offlce.com/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AOM%2FdPOZWVk2QTctzRobb6Nv\qTWsPwAA?nativeVersi... 2/3 From: To: Subject: Date: Oksana Beregova Traffic Aven ida Classica Traffic Circle Pi lot Project Monday, November 3, 2025 6:16:33 PM Some peop le who received th is message don't often get emai l from oksanaberegova999@gmai l.com. Learn why this is important r" • • RNAL' MA1 Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Greetings Sir or Madam, I tried to attend the meeting on November 3 via Zoom, but something went wrong . I'd like to voice our opin ion and vote to REMOVE both traffic circles . It appears that they don't serve the intended purpose but present an impediment. Traffic bumps would be a better option to consider. Oksana & Aleksey Beregova 30150 Avenida Esplendida, RPV 3 mo :mta11\Y.111£). .. .~ RlElPDl l'SI SlE ;Jr0 PR©,P 'OS!EQ "TiR~,F.'E lt: CAIL~1llN .G PLAN Pl9"R A \\t1E1NIIIIDA C:.~S:sfU£A / , ....... _..l,__j,__~;;:~~-';;;!'. --;;~ -'i"~~,--....__-, _____ _ ::!:/.. ";-..... ' -----. 10/31/25 , 4 :08 PM Outlook Re: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica From jm ma fosse <jmafosse@yahoo .com > Date Fri 10/31/2025 3:44 PM To Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov > lnbox -Deanna Fraley -Outlook Cc Noel Casi! <ncasil@rpvca.gov >; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov >; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca .gov >; Cheri Bailiff <Cherib@rpvca.gov > You don't often get emai l from jmafosse@yahoo .co m. Learn why th is is imi:2ortant EXTERNAL EMA IL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Good afternoon everyone, My name is D an an d I am emailing you all o n behalf of Mary Alice Fosse and m yself, as well as several of our n eighbor s in regards to the Traffic Circles o n Avenida Cla ssica (at Avenida Celestial and Avenida Es plendid a), h ere in Ranch o Palos Verdes . We would like to address so me issues that we are seeing with local resid ents as well as non-residents whom are speeding past the Traffic Circles (as if the y are not even there) and making left turns before the Traffic Circles (instead of goi ng arou nd them in a counterclockwise motion, as directed b y the posted sign age) in an act of defiance . These acts of d efiance seem to be b ro ught on by ARROGANCE, IGNORANCE, A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT and A LACK OF CONVENIENCE. My question to yo u all is, wh at is more impo rtant, the SAFETY of the residents (as well as non -resid ents) in this community of Rancho Palos Verdes or their CONVENIENCE?? I h ave documentation of several residents (NEIGHBORS) as well as non-residents who continue to ignore Traffic Laws and put themselves, their families and the general public at risk and in danger b y driving the wrong way (against traffic), because they feel like they are being inconvenienced by having to go aroun d th e Traffic Circles. We would apprecia te it very much if someone can m ake the necessar y improvements to the se Traffic Circle s (in a timely m anner), in order to make these illegal and dangerous actions, a thing of the past. Thank You for Your Time, Dan On Fr iday, October 3 , 2025 at 12:22:24 PM PDT, Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Dan, I wanted to reach out to see if you had any questions on the Avenida Classica Traffic Circles. I know you gave public comment on Monday's (9/29} TSC meeting regarding the update and timing. Due to workload and other priorities, we were waiting for our consultant to get us updated plans. We are currently trying to get a contractor to perform the work. We are hopeful that the work can be completed in the upcoming weeks. Please feel free to reach out with any other questions. Thanks, https ://outlook.office .com /mail /inbo x/id /AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmE c2 byACqAC %2 FEWg0AOM %2 FdPOZWVk2QTctzRobb6AAAq4gtzAAA?native... 1/2 10/31 /2 5, 4:08 PM lnbox -Deanna Fraley -Outlook Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer c~"'" .,,. •h• Clly , .... ,_-·~,obi•• dfraleY..@rnvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 Website: www.ruvca.gov -DOWNLOAD 'tttr , GET IT ON , • Google Play This e-mai l message contains information be longing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, wh ich may be privi leged, confidential, and/or protected from disc losure . The information is intended on ly for use of the individual or ent ity named . Unauthorized disseminat ion , distribution , or copy ing is strictl y proh ibited. If you received this ema il in erro r, or are not an intended recipie nt, please notify the sender immed iately. Thank you for you r ass istance and cooperation . https ://outlook .office.com/ma il/inb ox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AOM%2FdPOZWVk2QTctzRobb6AAAq4gtZAAA?native... 2/2 These vehicles are associated with 30039 Avenida Celestial. I have docu1nented both him and his wife several ti1nes, doing the same thing. All the vehicles were confirmed to be parked at their address. !, Between 2021 and 2023 the City of Rancho Palos Verdes notified and took action against the residents at 30049 Avenida Celestial for over grown trees and vegetation which were a municipal code violation, because th.ey were blocking the Intersection Visibility Triangle (IVT), ( the documentation for this should be on file with code enforcement). I'm pretty sure they were told that their hedges could not exceed 30" in height and they had to maintain that requirement, which they fail to do. Now they park a least one of their cars h.anging out of their driveway and in.to the street, which adds to blocking the view of on coming cars in the (IVT), even though they place a constn1ction cone in front of their house (on a public street) so th·ey can reserve themselves an extra parking spot. This vehicle is associated with 30103 Avenida Celestial. This vehicle is associated with 30145 Avenida Celestial. This vehicle is associated with 30138 Avenida Celestial. This vehicle is associated with Avenida Celestial, not sure of the address, feel free to check the license plate. Caught this person on more than . one occasion. These vehicles are associated with Avenida Celestial, as residents and one non-resident. This vehicle (silver SUV) is associated with 30119 Avenida Esplendida. This vehicle is associated with Avenida Esplendida. ... I believe this is a non-resident. Late Correspondence Received In-Person from Dan Meyers on March 2, 2026. May 19,2023 THIS IS A SURVEY /PETITION FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES. We are asking the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to consider adding a Traffic Light at Los Verdes and Hawthorne Blvd., which should be beneficial to residents, going to and from the Los Verdes Golf Course and the P.V. Victoria Apartment Complex, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. We are also asking for them to make it a NO right hand tum at the end of Avenida Classica and Avenida Esplendida on to Los Verdes, with a NO left hand tum from Los Verdes on to Avenida Classica and Avenida Esplendida as well. The reason for this is to help alleviate the speeding cars and the sheer volume of traffic that comes through the surrounding residential neighborhood. Please let us know if you approve of the proposed changes in the traffic patterns at the intersections of Avenida Classica/Los Verdes, Avenida Esplendida/Los Verdes and Hawthorne Blvd./Los Verdes. Please sign and give your contact information (phone# and/or email address) and indicate if you are a resident of either Avenida Classica, Avenida Esplendida or P.V. Victoria Apartment Complex. If you do not approve, please give reason's why and any alternate suggestions. Thank You for Your Time and Support R,E,: Avenida Classica Speeding Follow-Up From: Ramzi Awwad (rawwad@rpvca.gov) To: • jmafosse@yahoo.com Cc: tomblin@sbcglobal.net; david.tomblin@rpvca.gov Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 04:44 PM PDT Hi Dan, I am writing to update you on the Avenida Classica traffic study. The draft traffic study has now been completed. The draft study concluded that a diverter preventing southbound right turns and northbound left turns at the intersection of Los Verdes Drive with Avenida Classica and with Avenida Esplendida along with a signal at the intersection of Los Verdes Drive and Hawthorne Blvd can be implemented from a traffic engineering perspective. I spoke with Traffic Safety Committee Member David Tomblin (copied) and asked that he gather community feedback which I will then use to bring this item before the Traffic Safety Committee for their recommendation to the City Council. I will await that feedback and then schedule this item accordingly. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Thank you. ~incerely, l.\wwad ,\_\ \ '· \ 'R}J_J>/t5 \ ~\/Pt:,·R-0 ~Rk!f -,. \\. .. \~ ~ A.\ft iJ l p /\ C..B L-fST l A,L ,. ______ _ \ \ ~o ------~ - \Grttf ~ \J-c.r-J t DA 5'f;,/_£J:Jtt v~ I __ -,...--~~ WO LfFi T'uW L-65 \}E~1)£45 f-_~:1 r f\ f\t JV~~- r_d s \J t.l-J:>€. 5 . .. t>l v ~ ·v_{ c-rDt-lAi ~f /\JZ. T lv\ t)J T CD t-4.-P L £. )( \ Go~ o.ib R.. A.. "2\ s;. c ,J l ll \ C\ C\ ~~\'0\/~ (0 YL i) S-~~ -·2Dl.J::; l!..<2.-;,.,c.t« "'\ u\ i~....:e V'\.l'i1c, Cee..~ s. \;--k\ L"W .... .....,\JJ) ft/4,,_ .,,~,:;.,,.-01., ·0 l; rt"',.._ ~~ o ( a L/ IJ v'Erv1 f)f) {.'E L£JT.I'/JL- . J>EA~ ·f>f(~ (.A-P@,)'°x'C) ' ,~ ( b/o) or.;; · S--\2C7/ :B Q;:;.,S~~ D·~ A\J ~t~ l'D,A C L_t.."\S ~10\ - G-JC\-·VV\ V-1 _ Ti1 !J _c ~ 1 o 11<J>{J .. rt z.. -2 .? 1--o 1-.ro ( e, > t'c;,U,>tt lo-/\-V-t-hc( l'l\ ('._ { C'j/'f,J/Cl( 3'<i. C>(j ,m t;, /JI-e ,-?7 /J :7,, & ,,,, .e ,_., !Jf/ ;;a .;c ,:3../;; -Us -s ts I ~~~,..fl .. ~a~~· , ·;'~l:t:;14t;; 5"~~-?,-iO-j'f'.L-JJ7y' Ny, ~'-f '-iy IV"'--1'l': 11tfvt,1,!e__ 11• -Jn-1 ?6°3 "' Jc ,;-1 a{ e.cf '1; _ /V uf "-9 5, c "'- 3 lo. -'S .. o+, C/\_ ~-i ·-Z.,-2,·~( c:£r--,·-/Jc.() p Y-0 v.e. ~ ( 0 -0, 8-0 -6 ~, c;c- (e.. ~·101. eAl"')t of "1~·v_e.,V\·,c)\v\ e-e., t <L"S:--hC\) -=;·'1 ~· 1, I, citAhifle_ 2un ';zj"~ L 0J?0,'T)ve., :?iO-<PfCf..,9\91 r.es1dwi, { a{__v t:~n 1da _ Ce, f.esna.fL 3, t, Y CN.6 C "f L ~ l-r ' Af}'"Y. DIJ C..,. ..21 5-J9j'--/ J' /1' IR.<Fc:. J.. bC¼ 7 cfj;i ~VH;.p;,. f'-<; f' [{"-ND Z ofr 3 4 ~ ;vrrc.,1-rt-y{ ~ ,-· ~L ~/,uvCvi ~ L}~ / tr·r:l ;q, D u E , )~ V (j .;;_/ 110. /2+SCJJ&,,,, ""f h Ue'/l/ZDA • r 5:_lfFND?~,A_ if /3e<..,. Yt fi.?-rYt/.J1-~f Pvo v:ed-'".$ \.-;, ~---1t·,2-ob b.e,.l<'-\,,,.~W'• J, -;;) 1/4-J,t.t••', '3~,CJ".i'J-.,A ,/,zvrl'cJ0-(i-,/7/e//, J/ c/.;v J~✓,1'. /£ ___ __, ~ f i CAttvYr;,0 Veils ff1'tvov;-:. ?'. 0 --~"' -1'8>§ Y-e <;, ,' ct-t, vt , \ Ne ;_· d. v.. ls/° I ~Nl\ o{°' t,. lf 2 , t' I\\ M12V<=e' 'fld '--'«A'(-,,~ AfW. OVGD \,_ '.3 lo) 377-232: 1 TL:GSb?&v·r OF AV~JJ!l>A !?S'?Le!J l)/lJ/t -57,_ -fc:!__~~f _ --y~;~ /~ &;-A_f-f-f~: .. i~.N~r; .. •.• _ r; .. _ _ °r_/ ~ __, 7L{ l___,_J (/'I_Cj _ '?A 'j-M ~ _2-oe;S_cfi 'J_oJ': _ , (-tYM_ , A'.'_e f<c.[.e-,~cf-._ -':'_'f,_, -~ ---/f:r -'° Id 111. c, All> T ~ ._ --.fffff~e>V'E1esf~Gf. •• -, :20 l -).D86 ~'1cffr11orvP /O cJ t,/'er~.rv:>rl -~ • --··-·. ··----_ .. l 42--y)_zo~.~~--z .os0 _ . . __ ·-.. _ ··-. . • ... -·-------.. ·--.. _ . ······-. . .... . _ ~6< ___ Jo.'Cff:-\: -~11l _ { __ -_ _____ ____ _ -_ ~ ~f'~ _ _ __ ,·; ·-··---·-. ·-~~-·_tQ~ • s?~-~~-·-d~"{~t-.\t~1/\~~-~!.1_._u~. ~~~-~.tAJ~:,~..., (c-f ._ ~I,__ -~ICO/,{_ JttJV'J __ ~-~ i±PP~-_ ___ _ : ---. .., _ _ 1,;,1-1, :JJ (-00tp1q rnf<l ~;iru..:J'_,~(I.J, ~-_ t: tv,,,._,~ t:rr-/·"- _C.,t, __ ':f.f~~~i: :-,;.,iC.f.... ____ . -_-·---------i.i.•flk~:ile~A c:.:c --·····---------- -~-I -~~~~~:~-~-@-_/;:-_----_-_ --••·--------~:;;;;;;~-:: :--~:~--~~~--- • lf!-"m?/J -~ ~ /-/bf' t?}l:2~ • ~ ,ke11,-~ ce1~ti-& __ JoY_c ____ '-./ ~.J'c-eM . A a ./GA J ,A ,,vo ____ ·-·-··-------.. ---·-··-· . ~~----·¥e--r-:::o __ (('"~_ --f' (:/-<'-£-<f,A' /2 _c;_4 "~-'11;,-~ _ _l 3-<Ey f-9'1£U .6 ~ ,;1~ ~~~,-f, --.0.::2.~ ~~~o{~_!i: __ f/?_~_<-1~.----------· ·-·--VrJ cz~~~-Af PR6 v t --.. ····--------3-('o _=_Q ~.~=£~_/._ .. _. __ ~_ ---·--·-··---·-·--·-·-~4 ·~~-·· -·---. . ~f, .. ··-~~~\f-~-2-------~~ !lt,q\~~'"' - ::, ~~)~~~ o ~ ~'\)"" . ex ... '-'°~"'~-"" ----. ~------·----· ···---~-. -------·--·--· •---------·· ··-.. ----..... ·--------·------------------·------·--------------·-----·-------· .... -·-..... ·--····-·--···•·-------. --····---··· .. --~7, ~-~-;~~ i~1~~~;_~~:-~~-~~!:{~~ --_i:e/~Jti4\ • kt;, __ ~~;!~,~~)_-;~ ---• -t~;'Aen ;f7\iln-tf~J;'j,,ic7 ----- J◊L _¼_ /(35 ---, : ~=;:,; ~,,.: (:;;,Y,;J~ -;(;ri -€[rw-t-0,r~ :i, t)..~:,f ~ -c-;; i1ii--- --------• ---------------------. -- • • -----------·-----------------------------·-----------------------·· --------------- _9i 1 -·--------------·-----------------------------------------------··· ---------·---------------- --· ·-----·· --------·---------------------·---------------------· -----------\ / ( ~ oflO ,110 Palos Verdes becomes one of the country's bes ... http://blogs.dailybreeze.com/history/2016/12/31/los-verdes-in-rancho. GOL.f' COVH$f,; PLANS for HI(' County's Los \'erdei. (•,1ur,1I' rm i1;1lo11 \'i•r-dt•,; l'Pnin sula are studit~d by SUJ)(ffVi11or Burton W. Chan.•. Ill len, nnd J!~ n 'c\kPht•nun. rnn· tractor Ch1:1ct• said the $141nilh11n nH1rH!-muy be opt.>11 for pnhlH' Irne l)y !.\o\'t•mtwr l Palos Verdes News, March 28, 1964, Page 9. Grading for the hilly course began in early 1963. A road needed to~ built leading to the course, and the construction of Los Verdes Drive ) began in late 1963. The course's first address, 30201 South Hawthorne ... Boulevard, would change to 7000 Los Verdes Drive once the road was completed. A plan to build a high-rise hotel also was floated in 1963, when a developer, Palos Verdes Properties, petitioned for the necessary zoning change to build such a structure. As late as February 1965, the idea still had traction, but ultimately, the hotel never became a reality. Several multistory apartment buildings were constructed along the entrance road to the course, however, and sales at nearby housing tracts such as Monte Verde boomed once the course was announced. ,/ 7/11/2023, 3:16 P ) 76A638A CE lf8v3 ~-69 t!Yta ·o 01S-fl' APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT \ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES t DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER I B.UILOING ANO SAFETY DIVISION f JOHN A, LAMBIE, COUNTY ENGINEER \ COLEMAN W, JENKINS, SUP'T OF BUILDING FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN (PRINT OR TYPE ONLYL Driye BUILDING ADORES LOCALITY ST CLASS NO, /) ~ I ~ I BCOC, r~ '°."' I Q z t/Lt, Wt31 ) I TRACT l(?4f •I _, ~NO. OF BLDGS. /<-.3 ___ ,,_,,,_,_,_ ~ ·· /, t, ¼,$': · : -NOW ON LOT none • E OF -nlSTING BLDG. none BL0:G, SETBACK FROM TEL FRO.NT PROP. LINE eF Vll'' 'Vl>) ';( A=--c u -:.. NER.~QjJ.izenJL-D. &. ~_Qo. No.· 981-4-400 • AooREss 138b,8 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CaliJornia + ARCHITECT DR • D t k . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . ENGINEER Matlin vore z • ··-· TYPE of' i::xisTiNGJ _s __ ·it_reA_ i:K 1"ii1GHw.i.v + YARD = ToTAL 11110 Oh • A HIGHWAY WIDTH FROM.C,L, ADDRESS J.O venue coNTRAcToR D. & • S. Co, 1~~-9_81-_Li.400 ADDREss 13848 Ventura Blvd. ~i~· 258788 _cny Sherman Oaks LI~. CLASS B-1 CONSTRUCTION LENDER , • NAME ANO BRANCH Sec. PacifJ._Q_ Bank AoDREss Bev. Drive &. Olym.:e_ic H. SQ, FT SIZE NO. OF FAMILIES NEW ~ P.C. FEE$ ADD ALTER REPAIR OEMOL £!2- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION • ANO STATE THAT THE ABOVE IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL ORDINANCES ANO LAWS REGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUC• TI0N, I CERTIFY THAT IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED HEREBY I WILL NOT EMPLOY ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN REL,.TING TO WORKMEN'S COM- D D D D PENSATION INSURANCE. . ~ SIGNATURE OF \ '\..:._. PERMITTEE __ --'-f"'--'-----=------------ ADORE!"S tll/C at\t» ~ .. L,/\, + ::: CORNER CUTOFF YES D NO ~~,j SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SPECIAL APPROVALS APPROVALS FOUNDATION: LOCATION F.Q_RMS, MATS:RIA~ FRAME: FIRE STOPS, . J3RACING, BOLTS FURNACE: LOCATION, GAS VENT, DUCTS LATH, INT.- LATH, EXT, HOUSE NUMBER CORRECT AND POSTED FINAL DATE INSPECTOR'.fo. _SIGNATURE JOHN F. LEWIS, PRINCIPAL STRUCTUR(L,ENGINEER PLAN CHECK VALIDATION //'[;) M,O. CASH -; .\Co 5 1 3 9 70 FEB 2 7 2 '3'-i 1 1 2 .2 0 •. /;; PERMIT VALIDATION G M,O. CASH ~.:b, (' \l,o0 1 ' 1 -, '7 . ~1 ,, .., : f1 -·-(.) • t~ ~l:JM · !I~ E ~O PROPOSED TRAFF1H: CALMil,NI:~ PLAN f.!©R A~'l:]~fl!DA C'lASSICA 0 0 0 <l r..-o O O 8 • 0 ' 1i ' • • ' .,, ' •• J::... ~•, ':;!-.: ... ~ ~--- . t t . November 4, 2025 3:37 PM Screenshot_20251104_ 153709_Gallery.jpg /SD card/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 888.69 KB I 1080x2400 i 3MP Edit # Add tag November 4, 2025 6:36 PM Screenshot_20251104_ 183659_Gallery.jpg /SD card/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 811.00 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit # Add tag December 23, 2025 4:55 PM Screenshot_20251223_ 165544_Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 599.71 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit January 18, 2026 4:39 PM Screenshot_20260118_ 163917 _Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 634.65 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit January 18, 2026 4:32 PM Screenshot_20260118_ 163217 _Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 769.57 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit # Add tag January 19, 2026 5:04 PM Screenshot_20260119_ 170400_Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 774.97 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit February 1, 2026 7:26 PM Screenshot_20260201_ 192651_Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screens hots 750.48 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit February 4, 2026 6:11 PM Screenshot_20260204_ 181103_Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 665.71 KB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit February 3, 2026 3:18 PM 20260203_ 151836.jpg /SD card/DCIM/Camera Samsung SM-G781V 2.85 MB I 3024x4032 I 12MP ISO 25 I 76mm I O.Oev I F2.4 I 1/1073 s Location 30016 Avenida Classica, Edit 0 R~n~hn P~ln~ V~rrl~~ f'.A > December 9, 2025 8:41 AM Screenshot_20251209_084108_Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screenshots 1.17 MB I 1080x2400 I 3MP Edit November 21, 2025 7:41 AM Screenshot_20251121_074132_Gallery.jpg /Internal storage/DCIM/Screenshots Screens hots 789.92 KB I 2400x1080 I 3MP Edit February 24, 2026 1 :27 PM 20260224_ 132517.mp4 /SD card/DCIM/Camera Samsung SM-G781V 312.41 MB I 1080x1920 I FHD 2:31 I H.264 I AAC I 30fps Location 30016 Avenida Classica, Edit 0 R~nr.hn P~ln~ V~rti~~ <'.A > Subject: FW: removal of traffic circles on avenida classica From: Shu-chieng Hsieh <suehsieh70@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 4:11 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Brad Spellberg <bspellberg@dhs.lacounty.gov> Subject: removal of traffic circles on avenida classica EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Hello RPV City Council, I have resided on Avenida Celestial for more than 20 years and am asking that the traffic circles on Avenida Classica be removed. When the signs were first placed that traffic circles were to be installed, I thought it was rather strange as I have never seen traffic circles placed in residential neighborhoods. At the time I dismissed any concerns, because I thought the city knew what it was doing and would not place their residents in danger. However, since the installation of these traffic circles, I too have had several near accidents pulling out of the neighborhood on Avenida Celestial, which I never had prior to installation of the traffic circles. Currently, I DO NOT FEEL SAFE driving in our neighborhood. And still do not believe that speed bumps are not a better idea than traffic circles. Most drivers are familiar with speed bumps, even in neighborhoods with steep hills. BUT WHO HAS EVER SEEN TRAFFIC CIRCLES IN RESIDENTAL NEIGHBORHOODs??? Please restore our confidence in the city and REMOVE THE TRAFFIC CIRCLES. We want to drive safely! Sincerely, Sue Hsieh Homeowner Avenida Celestial /. Subject: FW: Formal Correspo nden ce Regarding Procedural Non -C ompliance -Aven ida Class ica -March 3rd City Counc il Meeting Agenda Item #1 Attachments: Legal_Position_Brief_NTCP _Comprehensive 02262026.pdf; RP V City Council Cover Letter 01182026.pdf; City Counc il letter 01182026 .pdf From: Dane Mott <dane mott@hotma i l.com > Sent: Thursday, Februar y 26, 2026 5 :3 0 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov >; wwynder@awattorneys .com Subject: Formal Correspondence Regarding Procedural Non-Compli ance -Avenida Class ica -March 3rd City Council Meeting Agenda Item #1 Some people who received this message don't often get ema il from dane mott@hotmail.com . Learn why this is important Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am writing as a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and a forensic accounting expert with over 25 years of experience in investigating procedural manipulation and document concealment. My objective is to provide the Council with a professional analysis of the traffic circle installations on Avenida Classica, which appear inconsistent with Council enacted policy. Inclusion in Official Record and Supporting Evidence I request that this email, along with the attached cover letter and letter emailed to you on January 18, 2026 through the city's Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline, and the attached legal brief outlining the legal basis for my conclusions, be added to the March 3rd meeting agenda packet. Further, to assist you in understanding the community's positions of opposition to these traffic circles, the following YouTube videos effectively summarize and articulate the views of the opposition to these devices: • Dangerous Slope Issue: https://youtu.be/fEih53Yz83E • People's Veto Power Stolen: https://youtu.be/xtPuloSbjrY 1 I . Full Video Documenting Violations: https://youtu.be/PO0G9TYD2u0 Key Findings of Procedural Non-Compliance My review of this project has identified several critical departures from established standards: . Engineering Safety Standards: The circles are installed on a roadway grade of 10-11%. Federal, state, and county guidance advises against circular intersections on grades exceeding 3-4% due to increased safety risks. https://youtu.be/fEih53Yz83E . Absence of Mandated Consent: The NTCP requires a petition demonstrating 60% support from affected residents. No such petition was pursued, bypassing the "veto power" explicitly reaffirmed by the Council in 2014. https://youtu.be/xtPuloSbjrY . Systematic Policy Departure: Public Works leadership has acknowledged in writing that the NTCP has not been followed for approximately five years, despite its status as binding City Council policy. https://youtu.be/PO0G9TYD2u0 . Transparency and Conflicts: One traffic circle was installed directly in front of the residence of a then-sitting TSC member, creating an appearance of preferential treatment. http s: //you tu.be/PO 0 G 9 TY D 2 u 0 Unfulfilled California Public Records Act (CPRA) Request In my correspondence dated January 18, 2026, I submitted specific requests for public information necessary to complete a full accounting of this project. To date, I have not received a response. Please be advised that under the California Public Records Act, the City is required to respond to such requests within 10 days of receipt. I am reiterating my 2 request for these records and ask that they be provided in a digital format to facilitate a transparent review. Requested Actions I urge the Council to take the following steps to restore procedural integrity: . Direct the immediate removal of both Avenida Classica traffic circles. . Conduct a formal investigation into the TSC and Public Works for operating outside of Council-enacted policy. • Suspend the TSC until the Council is confident they will follow the NTCP and act only within their advisory role as established by City Council Resolution 2008-77. Conclusion As the ultimate stewards of public trust, I hope the Council will take the necessary corrective steps to restore procedural integrity. Thank you for your service and your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dane Mott Rancho Palos Verdes Attached documents to this email to be included in the March 3, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda Packet: • January 18, 2026 cover letter: Associated with "FORMAL REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CIRCLES ON AVENI DA CLASSICA AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS" 3 • January 18, 2026 letter: "FORMAL REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CIRCLES ON AVENIDA CLASSICA AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS" • February 26, 2026 Legal Position Brief: THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES' OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THENEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM 4 Legal Position Brief: NTCP Compliance LEGAL POSITION BRIEF IN THE MATTER OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES' OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM Concerning the A venida Classica Traffic Circle Installations Delivered to Rancho Palos Verdes City Council February 26, 2026 Pagel TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Statement of Facts I. Applicable Legal Standards II. The NTCP Was and Remains Binding City Council Policy III. Public Works Has Admitted Ignoring Council Policy for Years IV. The TSC Framework Cannot Replace Council Policy V. The Traffic Circles Violate Engineering Standards for Grade VI. The Avenida Classica Project Failed Multiple NTCP Criteria VII. The Community Has Overwhelmingly Rejected the Traffic Circles VIII. Past Noncompliance Does Not Create Authority IX. The TSC Framework Cannot Be Applied Retroactively X. The City's Position Produces Unworkable Governance XI. Public Works and TSC Are Bound by City Council Policy XII. Evidence of Consciousness of Wrongdoing XIII. Available Remedies XIV. The Precedent This Decision Will Set Conclusion Appendix A: Key Admissions and Statements from City Officials Appendix B: Summary of Legal Authorities Appendix C: Anticipated Counterarguments and Rebuttals Page 2 legal Position Brief: NTCP Compliance Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' position that it had no legal obligation to follow the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) is incompatible with California municipal law, the City's own governing documents, explicit statements by City officials at Council meetings, and fundamental principles of administrative legality. The NTCP was adopted unanimously by City Council in 2008 and reaffirmed unanimously in 2014. It has never been rescinded, contains no expiration date, and therefore remained the controlling City policy at the time traffic calming measures were approved and installed on A venida Classica. At the 2014 reaffirmation meeting, Mayor Jerry Duhovic explicitly characterized the NTCP's 60% petition requirement as residents having mandatory "veto power" over Level 2 traffic calming devices, and the Public Works Director confirmed this interpretation on the record moments before the unanimous vote. Despite this clear Council direction, Public Works has admitted in writing that it ignored the NTCP for approximately five years. When these violations were raised, Public Works responded not by restoring compliance, but by removing the NTCP from the Traffic Safety Committee website. The City Engineer has stated in writing that there are no records showing the NTCP was ever formally rescinded, yet simultaneously claimed that NTCP compliance is "not relevant" to TSC recommendations. The January 26, 2026 Evidence The January 26, 2026 TSC meeting produced contemporaneous evidence that removes any ambiguity about the nature of these violations. TSC members explicitly discussed designing their framework with "creative outs" to avoid accountability. City Engineer Fraley confirmed on the record that the NTCP guidelines "have been removed from the website" because they "haven't been utilized for the past number of years" and to avoid "confusion," which is an admission of both prolonged noncompliance and deliberate concealment. Most remarkably, TSC Member Song admitted "So I rewrote the handbook," referring to a Council-approved, engineer-designed document, while Chairman Crossman confirmed the goal was to remove "the language of an engineer with what the warrants would be," to which Member Song responded: "And all of that should be taken out." If the City's Position Were Correct If the City's position were correct, it would imply that: (1) City Council policy may be ignored by staff or advisory bodies without Council action; (2) the Mayor's explicit characterization of residents' "veto power" is meaningless; (3) time alone nullifies duly adopted policy; ( 4) advisory committees may substitute their own "in house" frameworks for Council policy; and (5) procedural safeguards can be bypassed without consequence. California law does not permit any of these propositions. Page 3 Legal Position Brief' NTCP Compliance STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The NTCP's Adoption and Reaffirmation On October 27, 2008, the City Council and Traffic Safety Commission conducted a Joint Workshop during which City Council reviewed, provided substantive feedback on, and required material revisions to a draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program before approval. On December 2, 2008, Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to adopt the Citywide Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The motion passed unanimously. On August 19, 2014, Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to reaffirm the NTCP. That motion also passed unanimously. Immediately before the vote, Mayor Jerry Duhovic engaged in the following exchange: "Understood, but do the residents have veto power over that? ff there's, you know. is there a 60% have to approve it? Or what is the number? Is it 60?" -Mayor Jerry Duhovic "It would be 60%." -Public Works Director Michael Throne "Six zero. So it doesn't matter who initiates it. It has to be 60% approval. Okay, that's the answer to my question." -Mayor Je1Ty Duhovic Mayor Duhovic also expressed concern about past situations where traffic calming was "almost like it was a cram down versus the residents requesting it." The 60% petition requirement was specifically designed to prevent such "cram down" projects. B. The A venida Classica Traffic Circles On July 24, 2023, the TSC considered a traffic diversion proposal for A venida Classica. A resident had collected a petition supporting that traffic diversion proposal, though it did not meet the NTCP's 60% threshold and it did not relate to traffic circles. Under the NTCP, traffic circles require an explicit petition with 60% owner support before they can be approved for installation. After more than two hours of public testimony expressing widespread opposition to the traffic diversion proposal, the TSC rejected it. Rather than conclude the matter, the TSC pivoted to recommending traffic circles as an alternative. No petition was collected for this different Level 2 measure. The circles were installed in 2024 on a street with a 10-11 % grade, which is two to three times steeper than federal, state, and county engineering authorities recommend for such installations. Page 4 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance C. The City Engineer's Admissions On August 5, 2025, City Engineer Deanna Fraley admitted in writing: "I wanted to let you know that the City's Traffic Calming Guidelines have not been used for the past few years (-5 years). Understanding it is still linked on our City website, we will work to have it removed to hopefully relieve any fi1rther confusion." -City Engineer Deanna Fraley, August 5, 2025 On August 18, 2025, in response to a request for records of formal rescission, City Engineer Fraley confirmed: "Having diligently searched the records of the City, there are no documents in the possession, custody, control of the City in response to your request." -City Engineer Deanna Fraley, August 18, 2025 Yet on the same date, Fraley claimed: "The issue of when traffic calming guidelines were adopted, rescinded, and/or replaced is not relevant to this discussion because there is no legal or regulatory requirement for the TSC to take such steps in order to make a recommendation to the City Council." -City Engineer Deanna Fraley, August 18, 2025 D. The TSC Framework and "In-House" Designation On September 23, 2024, the Traffic Safety Committee adopted its own "Traffic Request Framework." At that meeting, the following exchange occurred: "I think before it goes to the City Council, we definitely need to have all of the, like, the sheet, in place ... " -TSC Member Jeanne Min "Yeah, I was actually not planning to take it to the City Council. I think it's a TSC. .. " -Director Ramzi A wwad "In-house. This is an in-house, yeah." -TSC Member John Tye Page 5 Legal Position Briel NTCP Compliance E. The January 26, 2026 TSC Meeting At the January 26, 2026 TSC meeting, members made a series of extraordinary admissions: "That's the issue is that there are individual circumstances. There's going to be circumstances where you're going to go with a gut feeling. .. It's very difficult to put into a writing that you're going tn -ifynu put it into writing then you essentially box yourself in to saying okay we must adhere to this and that's the only problem I have with this. So being very carefiil about putting ourselves into a situation where someone's going to say wait wait wait wait you know we didn't follow your ownfi'mnework and we've already gotten that." -TSC Member John Tye, January 26, 2026 "we just have to make sure that we leave ourselves creative outs that allows us to be able to make decisions and not put ourselves in a position where we are not contradicting ourselves in the fi1ture. " -TSC Member John Tye, January 26, 2026 City Engineer Fraley then admitted: "make sure the team's aware that the guidelines have been removed from the website. They are outdated and haven't been utilized for the past number ofyears. So, we decided to remove the document from the website to not create confi1sion with any current or fi1ture projects." -City Engineer Deanna Fraley, January 26, 2026 TSC Member Kit Song then admitted he had rewritten the Council-approved handbook: "So I rewrote the handbook. Yes." -TSC Member Kit Song, January 26, 2026 Chairman Crossman confirmed the intent to remove engineering standards: "the old one was more in the language ofan engineer with what the warrants would be for applications ... " -TSC Chairman Mark Crossman, January 26, 2026 To which Member Song responded: "And all of that should be taken out. 11 -TSC Member Kit Song, January 26, 2026 F. Community Opposition Atter installation, residents conducted the community survey that Public Works should have conducted before installation. The results were decisive: 53 residents responded; 50 respondents (94%) requested removal of the traffic circles; only 3 respondents (6%) supported keeping them; and 34 households submitted written petitions for removal. Page 6 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS A. Standard of Review for Ultra Vires Municipal Action When a municipal body acts beyond its delegated authority, the action is void ab initio, meaning void from the beginning, not merely voidable. (Summit Media, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 921.) Unlike discretionary decisions that receive deferential review, ultra vires actions receive no deference because there is no lawful discretion to exercise. The question is not whether the decision was reasonable, but whether the body had authority to make it at all. B. The Topanga Requirement for Rational Decision-Making California law requires that administrative decisions be supported by findings that "bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision." (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) This requirement serves two purposes: it ensures decisions are based on evidence rather than arbitrary preference, and it enables meaningful judicial review. A framework explicitly designed with "creative outs" to avoid accountability cannot satisfy Topanga because it is designed to prevent the very analytical bridging that Topanga requires. C. Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions California courts distinguish between "mandatory" provisions that must be followed and "directory" provisions that guide but do not bind. The test is whether the requirement goes "to the essence of the thing to be accomplished." (Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409.) A petition requirement designed to give residents "veto power" over traffic calming installations, as Mayor Duhovic explicitly characterized it, is quintessentially mandatory because it determines whether a project may proceed at all. The 60% threshold is not a suggestion; it is, in the Mayor's words, determinative: "it doesn't matter who initiates it. It has to be 60% approval." D. The Presumption Against Implied Repeal California courts apply a strong presumption against implied repeal of enacted policy. (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Monterey Bay Unified APCD ( 1989) 49 Cal.3d 408.) This presumption exists because allowing implied repeal would undermine the stability and predictability of law. If policies could be repealed through mere non-use, citizens could never rely on enacted protections. The City's position, that five years of noncompliance somehow nullified the NTCP, is precisely the kind of implied repeal that California law rejects. Page 7 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance II. THE NTCP WAS AND REMAINS BINDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY A. City Council Is the Sole Policy-Making Authority Under the City's Rules of Procedure and California's council-manager forn1 of government (Government Code Section 34851 et seq.), City Council is the City's exclusive policy-making body. The City Council Rules of Procedure Section 2.6(c) specifically requires the City Manager to "supervise staff to ensure that each staff member maintains the policies and direction of the Council." This duty cannot be delegated or waived. B. The NTCP Was Formally Adopted and Reaffirmed by City Council The City Council was not a passive recipient of the NTCP but an active participant in its drafting, revision, and confirmation. The City's Rules of Procedure expressly recognize policies adopted by City Council motion as City policy. The legal force of the NTCP derives from its adoption and reaffirmation by City Council, not from its title or format. Whether a document is labeled a "guideline" is not dispositive; if City Council adopted it as policy under its own Rules of Procedure, it is binding until rescinded. (Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors ( 1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 856: "The validity of the action taken depends not upon its label, but upon whether it was taken in the manner required by law. 11 ) C. Mayor Duhovic Confirmed the 60% Requirement Is Mandatory "Veto Power" The exchange between Mayor Duhovic and Public Works Director Throne at the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting establishes that the petition requirement is not a discretionary guideline but a mandatory condition precedent that Council understood and intended to be enforced. Mayor Duhovic's concern about past situations where traffic calming was "almost like it was a cram down versus the residents requesting it" underscores the purpose of the 60% petition requirement: to prevent exactly what occurred on Avenida Classica. D. The NTCP Has No Expiration and Has Never Been Rescinded The NTCP contains no sunset provision. City Engineer Fraley confirn1ed in writing on August 18, 2025 that no rescission records exist. Under settled principles of California municipal law, policy does not lapse with time, does not expire absent a sunset clause, and does not lose force due to administrative noncompliance. Only City Council may repeal or replace City Council policy. California courts apply a strong presumption against implied repeal: "The presumption against implied repeal is so strong that, to overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable ... The cou1is are bound, if possible, to maintain the integrity ofboth.11 (Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. Monterey Bay Unified APCD (1989) 49 Cal.3d 408.) Page 8 legal Position Brief' NTCP Compliance III. PUBLIC WORKS HAS ADMITTED IGNORING COUNCIL POLICY FOR YEARS A. The City Engineer's Admission City Engineer Fraley's August 5, 2025 admission establishes that Public Works knowingly abandoned Council adopted policy without authorization. Rather than restore compliance, Public Works proposed to remove evidence of the governing policy from public view. B. Public Works Removed the NTCP from the TSC Website Following the City Engineer's email, Public Works removed the NTCP from the Traffic Safety Committee website between October 13, 2025 and November 3, 2025. This occurred after residents met with Director Awwad and raised concerns about NTCP violations, and Director Awwad indicated Public Works would remove the NTCP from the website. Removing governing policy from public view without Council authorization, in response to documented violations of that policy, undermines transparency and public trust. It suggests an intent to conceal rather than correct the violations. C. The City Engineer Claimed NTCP Compliance Is "Not Relevant" This statement is legally incorrect. City Council Resolution 2008-77 explicitly states that the TSC's mission is to "review and advise on neighborhood traffic calming guidelines" as assigned by City Council. The TSC does not have authority to operate outside those guidelines. City-Council-enacted policy is always relevant to whether staff and advisory bodies are acting within their delegated authority. Page 9 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance IV. THE TSC FRAMEWORK CANNOT REPLACE COUNCIL POLICY A. The TSC Adopted an Unauthorized Framework Without Council Approval The September 23, 2024 exchange reveals that Public Works and TSC members explicitly decided not to seek Council approval for a framework they intended to use in place of the Council-adopted NTCP. They characterized traffic calming policy as an "in-house" matter despite Council having retained exclusive authority over such policy and having exercised that authority twice. B. TSC Members Discussed Deleting NTCP Provisions At the same meeting, TSC Chairman Mark Crossman stated: "The other thing was just, so, when this is approved, can we add this to the traffic manual that we have online now, in terms of perhaps deleting any existing flow charts from that manual, so that we're not redundant, or potentially, you know, confusing, in terms of having conflicting flow charts?" Director A wwad responded: "Yeah, I think we need to update the manual ... " This demonstrates explicit intent to replace Council-adopted policy with a TSC-created framework, without Council authorization. C. The TSC's Advisory Role Does Not Include Policy-Making City Council Resolution 2008-77 grants authority to "review and advise on" guidelines, not to create, replace, or ignore them. The "as assigned by City Council" clause makes clear that TSC authority exists only within the scope defined by Council. As the California Supreme Court held in Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371,375: "The Legislature may not abdicate its responsibility to declare fundamental policy, but it may delegate to others the authority to carry out the policy once declared." This principle means that City Council must establish traffic calming policy, while the Traffic Safety Committee may only operate within that policy framework. Page 10 legal Position Brief-NTCP Compliance V. THE TRAFFIC CIRCLES VIOLATE ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR GRADE A. Federal, State, and County Authorities Recommend Against Circular Intersections on Steep Grades Beyond the NTCP procedural violations, the traffic circles were installed on a roadway grade that federal, state, and local engineering authorities uniformly recommend against for such installations. Per the KOA traffic study commissioned by the City, Avenida Classica has a maximum grade of 11 % and a consistent I 0% grade before, through, and after one traffic circle, with a I 0% grade leading into the other traffic circle. This is not a marginal deviation from engineering standards; it is a fundamental violation of them. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidance The FHW A's Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, updated by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Report 672), provides explicit guidance: "Avoid locating roundabouts in areas where grades through the intersection are greater than 4%." The report further states: "On approach roadways with grades steeper than -4 percent, it is more difficult for entering drivers to slow or stop on the approach." County of Los Angeles Guidance The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Roundabout Policy and Design Practices states: "Steep Grades. Placement of a roundabout on grades greater than 3 percent are generally not recommended." Other Jurisdictions The State of Delaware explicitly states that 6% is the maximum recommended grade for "neighborhood traffic circles and mini-roundabouts." The City of San Diego states that "traffic circles" are "inappropriate for use where there is a grade that exceeds 5%." By any applicable standard, installation of traffic circles on A venida Classica's I 0-11 % grade disregards clear engineering guidance. B. The Speed Hump Contradiction Exposes the Error At the November 3, 2025 TSC meeting, Director Awwad explained why Public Works did not consider speed humps on Avenida Classica: "Speed humps were considered in the very original study and found by the traffic engineer. .. the traffic engineer found that they should not be installed on that street because the grade. The grade exceeds the thresholds that are recommended for installation of speed humps." Director Awwad is correct that speed humps should not be installed on grades exceeding approximately 8%. The City's own NTCP echoes this on page 28. This raises an obvious question: if traffic circles are generally considered suitable only for grades of 3-4%, a far lower threshold than the 8% maximum for speed humps, how could the traffic engineer, Public Works, and TSC possibly deem trafiic circles appropriate for Avenida Classica's I 0-11 % grade? Public Works cannot simultaneously argue that the grade is too steep for speed humps (8% limit) while maintaining that traffic circles (3-4% limit) are appropriate. This internal contradiction demonstrates that the decision to install traffic circles was not based on sound engineering judgment. Page 11 Legal Position Briel NTCP Compliance C. The Terminology Distinction Does Not Help the City's Position The City may argue that it installed "traffic circles" rather than "roundabouts," and that the engineering guidance applies only to roundabouts. This distinction does not help their case. According to the FHW A's Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, "modern roundabouts provide substantially better operational and safety characteristics than older traffic circles and rotaries." Traffic circles are a more primitive design with less engineering science behind them, not a safer alternative that permits steeper grades. The underlying physics do not change based on terminology. Gravity's effect on vehicle speed control entering a circular design is the same regardless of what the device is called. D. The Traffic Circles Have Created New Hazards Before inslallalion, Lraffic studies showed no accident history on A venida Classica. Since installation, the traffic circles' own supporters have documented new illegal and dangerous behavior. At the November 3, 2025 TSC meeting, supporter Dan Myers presented nearly 50 pages of photographs showing vehicles making illegal turns. When a project's own supporters are cataloging dangerous conduct that "put[ s] the general public at risk and in danger," the installation cannot be defended as a safety improvement. E. Design Immunity Does Not Protect the City The City may argue that Government Code Section 830.6 provides "design immunity" for roadway design decisions. This defense fails for three reasons. First, design immunity requires that the design be "approved in advance ... by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority." Here, the City Council approved traffic circles based on a TSC recommendation that did not disclose the grade violations or the failure to follow NTCP procedures. Approval procured through incomplete or misleading information does not trigger design immunity. Second, design immunity applies only to "discretionary" design decisions based on engineering judgment. A decision to install traffic circles on a 10-11 % grade, when every applicable engineering authority recommends against such installations on grades exceeding 3-4%, is not an exercise of engineering judgment; it is a disregard of engineering judgment. Third, even where design immunity initially applies, it is lost when changed conditions render the design dangerous. (Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023).) The documented evidence of drivers going the wrong way around the circles demonstrates that the design has created new hazards. The City now has actual notice of these dangers. Page 12 Legal Position Briel NTCP Compliance F. Liability Exposure from Engineering Deviations Under California Government Code Section 835, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that: ( 1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and ( 4) either a negligent act or omission of a public employee created the dangerous condition, or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition. The A venida Classica traffic circles present a textbook concealed trap scenario. Both traffic circles are situated between blind curves, meaning drivers cannot see the obstacles until they are already committed to the approach. Combined with the 10-11 % downhill grade, which extends stopping distances and makes speed control more difficult, drivers encounter an unexpected geometric feature at precisely the moment when their ability to react is most compromised. Rancho Palos Verdes is a city built on a hill. If these traffic circles stand as precedent, how many more streets exist with similar downhill dynamics where the City might install inappropriate devices? At what construction cost? At what level of assumed liability? The principle should be simple: first, do no harm. Page 13 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance VI. THE A VE NIDA CLASSICA PROJECT FAILED MULTIPLE NTCP CRITERIA The traffic circles installed on Avenida Classica failed at least five of the mandatory criteria established by the NTCP: I. No Public Petition for Traffic Circles (FAIL) · The NTCP requires: "Level 2 traffic calming measures must be initiated through a petition process." No petition was ever collected for the traffic circles that were ultimately installed. The NTCP is clear that each Level 2 traffic calming measure requires its own demonstration of 60% community support through the petition process. A petition supporting traffic diversion does not authorize installation of traffic circles, which are a distinct Level 2 device with different impacts on the community. By installing traffic circles without any petition, the City bypassed the mandatory process that would have allowed residents to exercise what Mayor Duhovic described as their "veto power." 2. No Crash History (FAIL) The KOA Traffic Study found: "From 2017 to 2022, there were no accidents reported in the S WITRS/TMIS database. Therefore, this warrant criteria is not met." 3. Traffic Volume Below Threshold (FAIL) The NTCP requires "streets with an average daily volume of at least 1,500 vehicles per day." The KOA study documented only 1,418 vehicles per day, 82 vehicles below the minimum. 4. Quantitative Score Below Threshold (FAIL) The NTCP requires a minimum score of 51 points for Level 2 devices. A venida Classica scored only 21 points, less than half the required threshold. 5. No Public Discussion of Traffic Circles Before TSC Vote (FAIL) On July 24, 2023, the TSC voted to install traffic circles without any public input on whether residents wanted these specific devices. The agenda item concerned a different proposal (trafiic diverters), and the TSC voted for circles without soliciting public comment specifically on that alternative. Because these mandatory criteria were not met, the NTCP expressly precluded advancing this recommendation. The petition requirement in particular was designed to ensure residents could exercise their "veto power" as characterized by Mayor Duhovic. That veto power was bypassed entirely. Page 14 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance VII. THE COMMUNITY HAS OVERWHELMINGLY REJECTED THE TRAFFIC CIRCLES After installation, residents conducted the community survey that Public Works should have conducted before installation: 53 residents responded to a community survey 50 respondents (94%) requested removal of the traffic circles Only 3 respondents ( 6%) supported keeping them 34 households submitted written petitions for removal This data conclusively demonstrates that the 60% community support threshold required by the NTCP cannot be met. The petition requirement was not a mere formality; it was outcome-determinative. Had the NTCP been followed, this project would never have proceeded. Page 15 Legal Position Brief' NTCP Compliance VIII. PAST NONCOMPLIANCE DOES NOT CREATE AUTHORITY The City has acknowledged that the NTCP was not followed for approximately five years. This fact does not diminish the NTCP's legal force. Under settled law: administrative noncompliance does not amend policy; repeated deviation does not create lawful authority; and an unlawful practice does not become lawful through repetition. As TSC member John Tye himself stated at the June 30, 2025 meeting: "Every time we are doing traffic controls. devices, signs, there is an approved manner to do that. There are engineering designs that, as someone else pointed out, that if we deviateji·om the norm, for whatever reason, there is potential liability." -TSC Member John Tye, June 30, 2025 Mr. Tye correctly identified that deviation from established standards exposes the City to liability. The deviations from the NTCP documented here are precisely the type of unauthorized departures that create legal exposure. Page 16 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance IX. THE TSC FRAMEWORK CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY The TSC adopted its framework on September 23, 2024. The trafiic circles were installed based on a July 24, 2023 TSC recommendation and October 3, 2023 Council approval. The framework did not exist when the relevant decisions were made. Retroactive application of governmental policy is strongly disfavored because it undermines reliance on existing rules and deprives citizens of legitimate expectations. As the California Supreme Court held in Western Security Bank v. Superior Court ( 1997) 15 Cal.4th 232: "Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations." Residents and decision-makers were entitled to rely on the NTCP as the governing policy when traffic calming measures were considered and approved. Moreover, the TSC, as an advisory body, lacks authority to impose retroactive policy effects under any circumstances. No Council action authorizes retroactive application of the TSC framework. Page l 7 Legal Position Brief' NTCP Compliance X. THE CITY'S POSITION PRODUCES UNWORKABLE GOVERNANCE If the City's position were accepted, it would establish the following precedents: City Council policy is optional for staff and advisory bodies The Mayor's explicit statements about policy requirements are meaningless Advisory committees may adopt "in-house" frameworks to replace Council policy Mandatory procedural safeguards (including residents' "veto power") may be ignored Staff may remove governing documents from websites when violations are raised Retroactive justification can cure prior deviations Such a framework is incompatible with the council-manager system, administrative law, and basic rule-of-law principles. The critical question is this: If the NTCP is not binding, what formal City Council action rescinded or superseded it? The City Engineer has confirmed no such records exist. The only legally coherent conclusion is that the NTCP remains binding and the deviations were unauthorized. Page 18 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance XI. PUBLIC WORKS AND TSC ARE BOUND BY CITY COUNCIL POLICY A. The Hierarchy of Authority in Council-Manager Government Rancho Palos Verdes operates under Cali fomia's council-manager form of government pursuant to Government Code Section 34851 et seq. Under this structure, there is a clear hierarchy of authority: l. City Council: The exclusive policy-making body. The Council sets policy through ordinances, resolutions, and motions. 2. City Manager: The chief administrative officer who serves "under the direction and control of the City Council." The City Manager is responsible for implementing Council policy and supervising all city staff. 3. Department Directors (including Public Works): Report to and take direction from the City Manager. They execute policy established by Council. 4. Advisory Bodies (including the TSC): Have no independent policy-making authority. Their role is purely advisory. This hierarchy is not merely administrative convenience; it is the legally mandated structure of municipal governance in California. When staff or advisory bodies act outside this hierarchy, they act ultra vires, meaning beyond their legal authority. B. The City Manager's Duty to Enforce Council Policy The City Council Rules of Procedure Section 2.6(c) establishes the City Manager's specific duty: the City Manager must "supervise staff to ensure that each staff member maintains the policies and direction of the Council." The duty to enforce Council policy is not discretionary. The City Manager cannot choose to ignore Council adopted programs, nor can the City Manager delegate away responsibility for ensuring staff compliance with Council directives. When staff abandons a Council-adopted policy for five years without Council authorization, accountability flows directly to the City Manager. C. The Traffic Safety Committee's Limited Role Resolution 2008-77 established the TSC as an advisory body. The key word is "advisory." The TSC has no independent authority to: establish traffic calming policy (that is Council's exclusive province); modify or rescind Council-adopted procedures ( only Council can do that); approve Level 2 traffic calming devices (the NTCP required Council approval); or create alternative frameworks that bypass Council policy (as was done in September 2024 ). Page 19 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance D. Specific Rules of Procedure Violations The conduct of Public Works and the TSC violated multiple provisions of proper municipal governance: Violation of Section 2.6(c): Staff failed to maintain Council policy by abandoning the NTCP petition requirement for approximately five years, and the City Manager failed to supervise staff to ensure compliance. Violation of the Advisory Body Role: The TSC acted as a decision-making body rather than an advisory body when it approved traffic circles without ensuring NTCP compliance and when it adopted an alternative framework without Council authorization. Violation of the Council's Exclusive Policy-Making Authority: By treating the NTCP as optional and creating an "in-house" alternative, Public Works and the TSC usurped Council's exclusive authority to establish traffic calming policy. Failure to Bring Policy Changes to Council: When staff determined they would no longer follow the NTCP ( approximately five years ago), that decision should have been brought to Council for fonnal action. E. The Accountability Question The City Manager must answer critical questions: 1. Did the City Manager know that Public Works and the TSC were ignoring the Council-adopted NTCP? If so, why was no cotTective action taken, and why was Council not informed that its policy was not being followed? 2. If the City Manager did not know, how did five years of policy abandonment occur without detection? What does this say about the supervision of staff that Section 2.6( c) requires? 3. When residents raised NTCP compliance concerns in October 2025, why was the response to remove the NTCP from the website rather than to ensure compliance? 4. Has the City Manager informed Council that staff has been ignoring a Council-adopted policy? If not, why not? Either explanation reflects a serious breakdown in governance requiring Council intervention. Page 20 Legal Position Brie( NTCP Compliance XII. EVIDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF WRONGDOING The January 26, 2026 TSC meeting transcript is not merely evidence of policy violations; it is evidence that the violators knew they were violating policy and took affirmative steps to avoid accountability. A. TSC's Own Words: Designing a Framework to Avoid Accountability Member Tye's statement that "we've already gotten" accusations of not following the framework is an admission that the TSC was aware of noncompliance. His proposal to include "creative outs" is evidence of intent to continue that noncompliance while avoiding consequences. When Chairman Crossman suggested using "some sort of euphemism like TSC preferred framework," and Member Tye agreed ("Yeah. Yeah. You know, recommended."), this demonstrates an intent to use language that obscures the non-binding nature of their procedures. B. Website Removal as Evidence of Concealment City Engineer Fraley's admission that the guidelines were removed "to not create confusion" is evidence of deliberate concealment. The "confusion" she sought to avoid was residents discovering that staff was not following the governing policy. Government Code Section 6250 establishes that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." Removing Council-adopted policy from the City website, paiiicularly in response to residents questioning compliance with that policy, violates this fundamental principle of transparent government. C. TSC Member Rewrote Council-Approved Handbook The traffic calming handbook, a document designed by a traffic engineer and twice approved by City Council (in 2008 and reaffirmed in 2014), was unilaterally rewritten by TSC Member Song without Council knowledge or authorization. This is a remarkable admission. A member of an advisory committee, not City Council, not even City staff, unilaterally rewrote a document that was designed by a professional traffic engineer and twice approved by the City Council. Member Song did this without Council authorization and apparently without even informing Council that their approved policy document was being replaced. The stated goal was to remove engineering standards: "the old one was more in the language of an engineer with what the warrants would be for applications" and "all of that should be taken out." The result would be a document with no measurable criteria, no professional engineering basis, and no accountability, exactly the "creative outs" that Member Tye advocated for earlier in the same meeting. D. Legal Implications Courts recognize such evidence as probative of bad faith, which defeats the deference normally afforded to administrative decisions. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559.) When government officials make decisions based on "gut feelings" rather than consistent standards, design frameworks specifically to avoid accountability, remove evidence of governing policy from public view, and Page 21 Legal Position Brief-NTCP Compliance unilaterally rewrite Council-approved documents, these are not good-faith mistakes; they are deliberate circumventions of Council policy. E. The Pattern of Unauthorized Policy Replacement The January 26, 2026 TSC meeting reveals a systematic pattern: Step I: Stop following the Council-adopted NTCP (admitted: "haven't been utilized for the past number of years") Step 2: Remove the NTCP from the City website to prevent residents from discovering the noncompliance ("to not create confusion") Step 3: Have a TSC member rewrite the Council-approved handbook ("So I rewrote the handbook. Yes.") Step 4: Remove all engineering standards from the rewritten document ("all of that should be taken out") Step 5: Convert mandatory procedures into optional suggestions ("a toolbox" instead of "necessary steps that we will always be taking") Step 6: Design the new framework with "creative outs" to avoid future accountability Step 7: Adopt the new framework as "in-house" policy without Council review or approval This is not administrative discretion or legitimate policy evolution. It is the systematic replacement of Council adopted, engineer-designed policy with TSC-created alternatives that have no engineering basis, no objective standards, and no accountability, all without Council knowledge or authorization. Page 22 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance XIII. AVAILABLE REMEDIES A. Administrative Remedies City Council has inherent authority to enforce its own policies and to direct the City Manager to ensure compliance. Council should: 1. Direct the City Manager to restore the NTCP to the City website immediately and to cease use of any unauthorized replacement frameworks. 2. Direct Public Works to conduct a proper NTCP evaluation for Avenida Classica, including the petition process that was bypassed. 3. Require the City Manager to report on all traffic calming projects approved during the approximately five-year period of admitted noncompliance, to determine whether other projects also violated the NTCP. 4. Clarify that any TSC framework must be approved by Council and may not contradict or replace Council-adopted policy. B. Judicial Remedies If administrative remedies prove inadequate, affected residents may pursue judicial relief: Traditional Mandamus (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085) A writ of mandate may be issued to "compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." Where City Council has adopted a mandatory policy, compliance with that policy constitutes a ministerial duty that may be compelled by mandamus. The City Manager's duty under Section 2.6(c) to "ensure that each staff member maintains the policies and direction of the Council" is ministerial when Council policy is clear. The NTCP's requirements are clear; compliance is therefore a ministerial duty. Administrative Mandamus (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5) For quasi-judicial decisions, administrative mandamus permits review of whether the agency's decision is "supported by the findings" and whether "the findings are supported by the evidence." The TSC's recommendation to install traffic circles, made without following NTCP procedures, fails all three prongs of review. Declaratory Relief A court may declare the rights and duties of the parties, including whether the NTCP remains binding and whether actions taken in violation of the NTCP are void. C. The Traffic Circles Should Be Removed The appropriate remedy for traffic calming installations that violated mandatory procedures is removal. The NTCP's petition requirement was designed to prevent exactly what occurred here: installation of unwanted traffic calming devices over community objection. The post-installation survey showing 94% opposition Page 23 legal Position Briel NTCP Compliance confirms that the petition requirement was outcome-determinative. Had the NTCP been followed, this project would never have proceeded. The remedy should restore the status quo ante. Page 24 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance XIV. THE PRECEDENT THIS DECISION WILL SET If the traffic circles remain despite the documented violations, the City will have established the following precedents: I. Staff may ignore Council policy without consequence. Any policy that becomes inconvenient can simply be abandoned, with violations cured by removing the policy from the website. 2. Advisory bodies may make binding policy. The distinction between "advisory" and "decision making" bodies becomes meaningless if advisory bodies can adopt "in-house" frameworks that override Council policy. 3. Procedural safeguards are optional. Requirements characterized as mandatory "veto power" by the Mayor can be bypassed whenever staff deems them inconvenient. 4. Engineering standards can be overridden by lay committees. Council-approved, engineer-designed handbooks can be rewritten by advisory committee members to remove engineering warrants. 5. Transparency is optional. Governing policies can be removed from public websites to prevent residents from discovering violations. These precedents would fundamentally undermine the council-manager form of government. They would render Council's policy-making authority nominal rather than real. And they would deprive residents of the procedural protections that Council established for their benefit. Page 25 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance CONCLUSION The City was legally obligated to follow the NTCP at the time traffic calming measures were approved and installed. That obligation arose from: Formal City Council adoption (2008) and reaffirmation (2014) by unanimous votes Mayor Duhovic's explicit characterization of the 60% petition requirement as mandatory "veto power" The absence of any Council action rescinding or superseding the NTCP The advisory-only status of the Traffic Safety Committee under Resolution 2008-77 The City Manager's duty under Section 2.6(c) to ensure staff maintains Council policy California's strong presumption against implied repeal of enacted policy The prohibition on retroactive application of later-adopted frameworks The structure of council-manager government in California is clear: Council makes policy, the City Manager implements it, and staff executes it. Advisory bodies like the TSC recommend; they do not decide. When Public Works admitted it had not followed the NTCP for five years, when Director Awwad stated the TSC framework was "in-house" and not going to Council, when the response to residents raising NTCP concerns was to remove the policy from the website, when TSC members discussed designing frameworks with "creative outs" to avoid accountability, and when a TSC member rewrote the Council-approved handbook to remove engineering standards, these actions inverted the proper hierarchy of authority. The NTCP remains binding unless and until City Council formally acts to change it. Neither advisory bodies nor staff possess authority to disregard, replace, or retroactively override City Council policy. The removal of the NTCP from the TSC website does not change its legal force; it merely removes public access to the evidence of what the governing policy requires. If the City maintains that the NTCP is not binding, it must identify the formal City Council action that rescinded it. That record does not exist because no such action was ever taken. Council must now decide: Will it enforce its own policy, or will it establish a precedent that staff may ignore Council directives without consequence? The integrity of council-manager government in Rancho Palos Verdes depends on the answer. Page 26 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance APPENDIX A: KEY ADMISSIONS AND STATEMENTS FROM CITY OFFICIALS Al. City Engineer Fraley's Admission of Five Years of Noncompliance Source: Email dated August 5, 2025 "I wanted to let you know that the City's Traffic Calming Guidelines have not been used.for the past few years (~5 years). Understanding it is still linked on our City website, we will work to have it removed to hopefitlly relieve any fitrther confitsion." A2. City Engineer Fraley's Confirmation No Rescission Records Exist Source: Email dated August 18, 2025 "Having diligently searched the records of the City, there are no documents in the possession, custody, control of the City in response to your request." A3. City Engineer Fraley's Claim That NTCP Compliance ls "Not Relevant" Source: Email dated August 18, 2025 "The issue of when traffic calming guidelines were adopted, rescinded, and/or replaced is not relevant to this discussion because there is no legal or regulatory requirement for the TSC to take such steps in order to make a recommendation to the City Council." A4. Director Awwad's Statement That TSC Framework ls "In-House" Source: September 23, 2024 TSC Meeting "Yeah, I was actually not planning to take it to the City Council. I think it's a TSC. .. In-house." AS. Mayor Duhovic's "Veto Power" Exchange Source: August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting "Understood, but do the residents have veto power over that? If there's, you know, is there a 60% have to approve it? Or what is the number? Is it 60? ... Six zero. So it doesn't matter who initiates it. It has to be 60% approval." A6. TSC Member Tye's Warning About Liability Source: June 30, 2025 TSC Meeting "Evety time we are doing traffic controls, devices, signs, there is an approved manner to do that. There are engineering designs that, as someone else pointed out, that ifwe deviate from the norm, for whatever reason, there is potential liability. " A 7. TSC Discussion of Designing Framework to Avoid Accountability Source: January 26, 2026 TSC Meeting ( 1 :36:41-1 :39: 17) Page 27 Legal Position Briel NTCP Compliance "we didn't follow our own framework and we've already gotten that ... we just have to make sure that we leave ourselves creative outs ... " -TSC Member John Tye "then somebody pulls up the framework and says aha ... you could even use some sort of euphemism like TSC preferred framework" -TSC Chairman Mark Crossman AS. TSC Member Song's Admission of Rewriting Council-Approved Handbook Source: January 26, 2026 TSC Meeting ( 1 :52:45-1 :52:58) "So I rewrote the handbook. Yes." A9. City Engineer Fraley's Admission of Website Removal Source: January 26, 2026 TSC Meeting (I :52: 14-1:52:33) -TSC Member Kit Song "make sure the team's aware that the guidelines have been removed from the website. They are outdated and haven't been utilized for the past number of years. So, we decided to remove the document from the website to not create confitsion with any current or fi1ture projects." AlO. TSC Intent to Remove Engineering Standards Source: January 26, 2026 TSC Meeting (1:51:26-1:53:23) "we should also look at the handbook and specifically probably move it more in a direction of educational as opposed to these are the necessmy steps that we will always be taking. So that more of a toolbox document ... " -TSC Chairman Mark Crossman "the old one was more in the language of an engineer with what the warrants would be for applications ... " -TSC Chairman Mark Crossman "And all of tlwt should be taken out." -TSC Member Kit Song Page 28 Legal Position Brief-NTCP Compliance APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES Bl. California Case Law Presumption Against Implied Repeal Western Oil & Gas Assn. v. 1\ifonterey Bay Unified APCD ( 1989) 49 Cal.3d 408 "The presumption against implied repeal is so strong that, to overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable ... The courts are bound, if possible, to maintain the integrity of both." City & County of San Francisco v. County of San Mateo ( 1995) IO Cal.4th 554 "So strong is the presumption against implied repeals ... " Prohibition on Retroactive Application Western Security Bank v. Superior Court ( 1997) 15 Cal.4th 232 "Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations." Evangelatos v. Superior Court ( 1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188 "A statute is presumed to operate prospectively unless there is a clear indication that the Legislature intended otherwise." Limits on Delegation Kugler v. Yocum ( I 968) 69 Cal.2d 3 71 "The Legislature may not abdicate its responsibility to declare fundamental policy, but it may delegate to others the authority to carry out the policy once declared." Ultra Vires Actions Summit Media, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 921 "A municipality may not be bound by an act that is ultra vires or beyond the scope of its lawful authority." Torres v. City of Montebello (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 382 "Municipal actions taken in violation of mandatory statutory procedures are void and unenforceable." Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions Edwards v. Steele ( 1979) 25 Cal.3d 406 Test is whether requirement is "of the essence of the thing to be accomplished." City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730 "Conditions precedent must be satisfied before governmental action may be taken." Page 29 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance Topanga Requirements and Arbitrary Action Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles ( 1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 Administrative agencies must provide findings that bridge the gap between evidence and decision, enabling meaningful judicial review and ensuring decisions are not arbitrary. Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court ( 1995) 9 Cal.4th 559 Agency action must be based on a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Due Process and Fair Notice Horn v. County of Ventura ( 1979) 24 Cal.3d 605 Administrative decisions affecting property rights must follow consistent procedures. Public Trust and Fiduciary Duty Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28 Public officials exercising discretionary authority must exercise independent judgment in the public interest. B2. California Statutory Law Government Code Section 34851 et seq.: Council-manager form of government; Council sets policy, manager implements. Code of Civil Procedure Section I 085: Traditional mandamus to compel ministerial duties. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5: Administrative mandamus for quasi-judicial decisions. Civil Code Section 3: Presumption of prospective application. Government Code Section 6250: "Access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." Government Code Section 835: Public entity liability for dangerous conditions of public property. Government Code Section 830.6: Design immunity requirements. B3. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Governing Documents City Council Rules of Procedure Section 2.6( c ): City Manager duty to ensure staff maintains Council policy. Resolution 2008-77: Establishes TSC in advisory role only; authority to "review and advise on" guidelines, not create or replace them. NTCP (December 2008): Adopted and reaffirmed by Council; mandatory petition requirement for Level 2 measures; quantitative scoring thresholds; no expiration provision. Page 30 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance APPENDIX C: ANTICIPATED COUNTERARGUMENTS AND REBUTTALS C 1. "The NTCP is old, so it no longer applies." Rebuttal: Age is not repeal. The City Engineer confirmed no rescission records exist. California courts strongly disfavor implied repeal. Only Council action can modify Council policy. C2. "The NTCP is only guidance, not binding policy." Rebuttal: Mayor Duhovic explicitly characterized the 60% requirement as mandatory "veto power." The NTCP was adopted and reaffirmed by unanimous Council votes after substantive Council patiicipation in its drafting. Labels do not control legal effect. (Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors ( 1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850.) C3. "The TSC can adopt its own in-house framework." Rebuttal: Resolution 2008-77 grants authority to "review and advise on" guidelines, not create or replace them. Director Awwad's statement that the framework would not go to Council confirms they knew Council approval was required but chose to bypass it. C4. "We have discretion to waive the petition requirement." Rebuttal: Mayor Duhovic characterized the petition requirement as mandatory "veto power." The NTCP uses mandatory language ("must"). There is no waiver provision. The petition requirement was outcome determinative: 94% of surveyed residents opposed the circles. CS. "Past noncompliance shows the NTCP was no longer operative." Rebuttal: The City Engineer admitted no rescission occurred. Administrative noncompliance cannot repeal Council policy. TSC member Tye correctly noted that "deviation from the norm" creates "potential liability." C6. "The TSC framework can be applied retroactively." Rebuttal: The framework was adopted September 23, 2024. The relevant decisions were made in July-October 2023. Western Security Bank prohibits retroactive application that deprives citizens of legitimate expectations. The TSC lacks authority to impose retroactive effects. Passage of framework by TSC is ultra vires act. C7. "NTCP compliance is not relevant to TSC recommendations." Rebuttal: This is the City Engineer's stated position, and it is legally incorrect. Resolution 2008-77 defines TSC authority as operating within Council-adopted guidelines. City-Council-enacted policy is always relevant to whether staff and advisory bodies are acting within delegated authority. CS. "Removing the NTCP from the website resolved the confusion." Rebuttal: Removing evidence of governing policy does not change its legal force. It suggests consciousness of wrongdoing and intent to conceal rather than correct violations. Page 31 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance C9. "The TSC framework is just an internal guideline, so it doesn't matter if it's non-binding." Rebuttal: The TSC's own words reveal the purpose of making the framework non-binding: to avoid accountability when they deviate from stated procedures. Member Tye explicitly stated they needed "creative outs" because "we've already gotten" accusations of not following their framework. California law requires consistent, reviewable standards for administrative decisions. (Topanga (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506.) ClO. "The handbook needed to be updated to be more user-friendly." Rebuttal: Even if the handbook needed updating, only City Council has authority to modify a Council-adopted document. TSC Member Song's unilateral rewriting of the handbook was unauthorized. Moreover, the stated goal was not merely to improve readability but to remove mandatory procedures ("necessary steps that we will always be taking") and engineering standards ("all of that should be taken out"). Converting objective engineering warrants into subjective "options" is not a formatting change; it is a fundamental pol icy change that requires Council approval. Cl 1. "The guidelines were removed because they were outdated." Rebuttal: City Engineer Fraley stated the guidelines were removed because they "haven't been utilized for the past number of years" and "to not create confusion." This is an admission of noncompliance, not a statement that the policy was formally rescinded. "Outdated" is not a legal basis for removing Council-adopted policy from public view. If the guidelines were legitimately superseded, the City should be able to identify the Council action that replaced them. No such record exists because no such action occurred. The removal was designed to conceal noncompliance, not to implement legitimate policy change. C12. "TSC members can propose changes to traffic calming procedures." Rebuttal: TSC members can propose changes to City Council. What they cannot do is unilaterally implement changes by rewriting Council-approved documents and posting the rewritten versions without Council review. Resolution 2008-77 grants the TSC authority to "review and advise on" traffic calming guidelines, not to rewrite and replace them. Member Song did not propose changes to Council; he rewrote the handbook himself and the TSC discussed posting it to the website without any Council involvement. C13. "The Council ratified the traffic circles by approving them in October 2023." Rebuttal: Council approval was procured without disclosure that mandatory NTCP procedures had not been followed. Ratification requires knowledge of the material facts. (Rakestraw v. Rodrigues (1972) 8 Cal.3d 67, 73: "Ratification requires full knowledge of all the material facts.") The staff report to Council did not disclose that no petition had been collected, that the quantitative score was below threshold, that the traffic volume was below threshold, or that the street had no crash history. This proposal should have never been before Council because TSC put forward a proposal that violated Council enacted policies. C14. "Residents had notice and opportunity to comment at the Council meeting." Rebuttal: Notice and comment procedures do not substitute for the specific procedural protections established by the NTCP. The petition requirement serves a different function than public comment: it requires affirmative demonstration of community support before a project may proceed, not merely the absence of sufficient Page 32 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance opposition to defeat it at a public hearing. Mayor Duhovic characterized this as "veto power," a protection that is nullified if projects can proceed to Council without first obtaining the required community support. C15. "The TSC has expertise in traffic matters and its judgment should be respected." Rebuttal: The TSC's role is advisory, not decisional. Expertise does not create authority. Resolution 2008-77 grants the TSC authority to "review and advise on" traffic calming matters, not to establish policy, override Council-adopted procedures, or make final decisions. Moreover, the TSC's "expertise" did not prevent it from recommending traffic circles on a grade that violates all applicable engineering standards, a decision that even TSC Member Tye acknowledged creates "potential liability." C16. "The NTCP was merely a guideline, not a regulation with force of law." Rebuttal: This argument proves too much. If the NTCP was merely a guideline with no binding effect, why did Council formally adopt it in 2008? Why did Council fonnally reaffirm it in 2014? Why did Mayor Duhovic characterize the petition requirement as mandatory "veto power"? Why did the City Engineer need to confirm that "there are no documents" showing it was rescinded? The City cannot simultaneously argue that the NTCP was so inconsequential that it could be ignored and that it was so significant that residents and Council members relied on it for over a decade. Cl 7. "Staff has inherent authority to adapt procedures to changing circumstances." Rebuttal: Staff may exercise discretion within the bounds of Council policy; staff may not exercise discretion to override Council policy. This is the fundamental distinction between implementation and policy-making. When the NTCP established a 60% petition requirement, staff may exercise discretion in how petitions are verified or how the 60% threshold is calculated, but staff may not exercise discretion to dispense with the petition requirement altogether. C 18. "The residents raising these concerns are a small minority who lost the political process." Rebuttal: First, this mischaracterizes the record. The post-installation survey showed 94% opposition, hardly a "small minority." Second, procedural protections exist precisely to protect minorities from majoritarian overreach. The NTCP's petition requirement ensured that traffic calming would not be imposed on neighborhoods without demonstrated community support. The residents raising these concerns are not "sore losers" in a political process; they are citizens whose procedural rights were violated when mandatory safeguards were bypassed. C 19. "Litigation would be costly and the City should not be exposed to liability for good-faith decisions." Rebuttal: The decisions at issue were not made in good faith. Good faith requires, at minimum, an attempt to comply with governing procedures. Here, the City Engineer admitted the NTCP "hasn't been utilized for the past number of years." The TSC discussed designing frameworks with "creative outs" specifically to avoid accountability. Staff removed the NTCP from the website to prevent "confusion." A TSC member unilaterally rewrote the Council-approved handbook to remove engineering standards. These are not good-faith mistakes; they are deliberate circumventions of Council policy. Page 33 Legal Position Brief NTCP Compliance C20. "Removing the traffic circles now would waste the money already spent." Rebuttal: The sunk cost fallacy is not a legal defense. Money spent on an unauthorized project does not retroactively authorize it. If anything, this argument underscores why procedural compliance matters: the time to determine community support is before construction, not after. The NTCP's petition requirement exists precisely to avoid situations where the City spends money on projects the community does not want. Moreover, the liability exposure from traffic circles installed on inappropriate grades may well exceed the sunk construction costs. Page 34 January 18, 2026 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: I am writing you as a concerned resident and as an internationally-recognized forensic accounting expert with more than 25 years of experience investigating corporate fraud. My career has been devoted to identifying patterns of procedural manipulation, conflicts of interest, document concealment, and the misappropriation of funds. It is with that professional background that I write to you today, because my interactions with Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee and my review of their work have raised grave concerns that fall squarely within my area of expertise . I am writing as a matter of courtesy and in good faith, and with respect for the City Council's role as the ultimate steward of public trust in Rancho Palos Verdes . Before escalating these matters to appropriate county and state oversight authorities, I am offering the Council a final opportunity to exercise its oversight responsibility and address a pattern of concerning actions by Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee that appear inconsistent with City Council-enacted policy and established due process . My purpose in raising these issues is not adversarial, but collaborative: I hope that, upon review of the evidence presented in this cover letter and the more detailed letter corroborated with indisputable evidence, the Council will take the necessary corrective steps to reaffirm its adopted policies, restore procedural integrity, and demonstrate to residents that accountability and transparency remain central to the City's governance . This correspondence is copied to relevant City staff and the Traffic Safety Committee for transparency and awareness. It has simultaneously been filed on the City's Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline website at https://rpv.tnwrepQrts.com . I respectfully request a formal investigation into the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) and Public Works Department's repeated pattern of actions that are inconsistent with City Council -enacted policy, and I further request the immediate removal of the two traffic circles on Avenida Classica, at Avenida Celestial and Avenida Esplendida. The traffic circles were implemented in violation of the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP), which remains binding City Council policy. The NTCP was adopted unanimously by the City Council in 2008 and reaffirmed in 2014 . It has never been rescinded. Despite this , required procedures were not followed in this case. Most concerning, the TSC , with the assistance of Public Works, has operated under and adopted its own traffic calming framework rather than follow the City-Council-enacted NTCP. This action exceeds the TSC's explicit authority as set forth in City Council Resolution 2008-77, which limits the committee to an advisory role and reserves policymaking authority exclusively to the City Council. The most critical issues are summarized below: • Unsafe installation on excessive grade: The traffic circles were installed on a long, continuous roadway grade of 1 O percent with a maximum grade of 11 percent in at least one section. Federal and state_traffic engirleering g_uLdance advises against circular intersections on grades exceadingJ:lppLQximately~to 4 percent due to increased safety risks. and further advises against steep approach gradesJeading into such intersections. Both conditions exist here. Both circles should be removed based on these established safety guidelines. • Failure to follow Council-adopted NTCP procedures: City staff and the TSC advanced this project without complying with mandatory NTCP requirements. Public Works leadership has acknowledged in writing that the NTCP has not been followed for approximately five years. despite its continued status as adopted City Council policy. • Elimination of residents' required petition and "veto power": The NTCP requires a petition demonstrating at least 60 percent support from affected residents before installation of Level 2 traffic calming measures such as traffic circles. No such petition was ever pursued for this project. During the City Coundt.s..2014 reaffirmatiQGJ21the NTCP. tb_e_ mayor attbe time expressly described this petition requirement as residents' explicit "vet9 power" over unwanted installations. That safeguard and numerous other NTCP guidelines were not honored here. Further, a community-generated petition has demonstrated that the 60 percent threshold could not be met today were such a petition to be undertaken. • Appearance of preferential treatment: One traffic circle was installed directly in front of the residence of a then-sitting TSC member with a second circle approximately 300 feet from his home. When combined with the project's advancement despite multiple NTCP deficiencies. this creates an appearance of favoritism and potential conflicts of interest that undermines public confidence in the process. • Additional traffic control actions creating safety and equity concerns: An existing posted speed limit sign on the downhill section of Avenida Classica was removed years ago and has not been replaced in a timely manner, leaving the roadway without clear speed guidance and contaminating speed studies used to establish need for these devices. In addition, "No Thru Traffic" sign age was installed by the citythat shifts traffic impacts to adjacent residents and raises safety and equity concerns. These actions further reflect a pattern of traffic control decisions made outside Council-adopted policy and established safety practices. This matter extends beyond a single neighborhood project. It raises serious concerns regarding adherence to established safety standards, compliance with City Council directives, and respect for the established limits of delegated authority. When advisory bodies and staff substitute their own frameworks for authoritative traffic engineering guidance and Council-adopted policy, public safety is compromised and the Council's role as the City's ultimate policymaking authority is undermined. I respectfully urge the City Council to take corrective action by: (1) conducting a formal investigation into TSC and Public Works conduct; (2) examining how the TSC came to disregard and operate outside of Council-enacted policy; and (3) directing the immediate removal of the Avenida Classica traffic circles. Doing so will protect public safety, restore procedural integrity, and reaffirm that City Council policies are binding and must be followed. Further, pending the completion of a formal investigation, I request that the TSC be suspended until the City Council is confident that both the TSC and Public Works are prepared to faithfully follow the NTCP and to act within the limited scope of their advisory roles as established by City Council Resolution 2008-77. While I am confident that the accompanying detailed letter provides the City Council with sufficient evidence to determine that Council-enacted policy has not been followed, I am prepared to address these matters before the City Council at a public meeting should any questions arise. I appreciate your service to the community and thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dane Mott Filing Instructions: This cover letter and the accompanying 58-page detailed letter are to be filed as correspondence to the upcoming City Council meeting where the traffic circles are scheduled to be discussed. Additionally, these documents are to be filed as late correspondence to the following City Council and Traffic Safety Committee meetings, as those meetings directly relate to the policies and matters addressed herein. This correspondence should also be added to any future City Council meeting where TSC and Public Works compliance with the NTCP is discussed. City Council meetings referenced: • 2008-10-27 (Joint Workshop) • 2008-12-02 (NTCP adoption) • 2014-08-19 (NTCP reaffirmation) Traffic Safety Committee meetings referenced: • 2023-07-24 • 2024-06-24 • 2024-09-23 • 2025-06-30 • 2025-09-29 • 2025-11-03 FORMAL REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CIRCLES ON AVENI DA CLASSICA AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS January 18, 2026 Submitted to: • Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council With Courtesy Notifications to: • City Attorney William W. Wynder • City Manager Ara Mihranian • Public Works Department • Traffic Safety Committee • RPV's Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline website at https://rpv.tnwreports.com Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: I am writing as a matter of courtesy and in good faith, and with respect for the City Council's role as the ultimate steward of public trust in Rancho Palos Verdes. Before escalating these matters to appropriate county and state oversight authorities, I am offering the Council a final opportunity to exercise its oversight responsibility and address a pattern of concerning actions by Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee that appear inconsistent with City Council-enacted policy and established due process. My purpose in raising these issues is not adversarial, but collaborative: I hope that, upon review of the evidence presented in this letter, the Council will take the necessary corrective steps to reaffirm its adopted policies, restore procedural integrity, and demonstrate to residents that accountability and transparency remain central to the City's governance . This correspondence is copied to relevant City staff and the Traffic Safety Committee for transparency and awareness. I have spent more than 25 years as a forensic accounting expert investigating corporate fraud. My career has been devoted to identifying patterns of procedural manipulation, conflicts of interest, document concealment, and the misappropriation of funds . It is with that professional background that I write to you today, because my interactions with Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee and my review of their work have raised grave concerns that fall squarely within my area of expertise. What began as a straightforward inquiry into why traffic circles were installed on a dangerously steep grade in my neighborhood has revealed a pattern of conduct that warrants serious scrutiny: City Council adopted guidelines ignored for years without authorization; installation criteria failed on nearly every objective measure; a Traffic Safety Committee member who received traffic circles directly in front of his home while on the committee; a speed limit sign that disappeared 1 around the time speed studies were conducted and was never replaced; and, when these issues were raised, the removal of the governing guidelines from the TSC's website by Public Works rather than addressing the violations. I am not alleging that crimes have been committed. I am documenting that the factual record raises questions that demand answers that Public Works has thus far refused to provide. The following letter presents that record in detail, organi zed by category of concern, and concludes with specific requests for City Council action and, where appropriate, independent investigation . Executive Summary This letter presents evidence that the traffic circles installed on Avenida Classica pose an immediate public safety hazard, were installed in violation of City Council-adopted guidelines, and resulted from a pattern of procedural failures that undermines public trust in city governance. The evidence demonstrates that Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee have exhibited a years -long pattern of acting outside their delegated authority, ignored binding City Council policy, and had City Council approve installation of traffic devices on a roadway grade that federal, state, and local authorities uniformly recognize as inappropriate for such installations . The request is straightforward: investigate Public Works and TSC behavior, remove these dangerous devices as well as any other unauthorized traffic devices that do not comply with the City-Council enacted Nei ghborhood Traffic Calming Program {NTCP), and investigate how this situation occurred. If wrongdoing is substantiated, appropriate accountability measures must follow . City Manager Accountability and Breakdown of Governance I. The Core Governance Failure • This matter centers on the City Manager's failure to ensure that City Council-adopted policy was followed by staff and advisory bodies, as required under the council-manager form of government. (Pages 12-16; 24-30) • The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) was adopted in 2008 and reaffirmed unanimously in 2014 by City Council and therefore remains binding City policy unless formally rescinded, which never occurred. The NTCP has explicit guidelines that must be followed for Level 2 devices like traffic circles and speed humps . (Pages 11-13) • Public Works has admitted in writing that it has ignored the City-Council -enacted NTCP for approximately five years , yet no City Council action authorized abandonment of that policy being twice passed by City Council. (Pages 5, 28, and 50) • Under the Council Rules of Procedure, the City Manager is required to supervise staff to ensure compliance with Council policy. This responsibility cannot be delegated or waived . (Page 28) 1 https ://rpv granicus.com/Docu mentViewer. php?file=rpv_d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d ·1 . pclf&view= 1 Pag e 246 . 2 • Accordingly, prolonged noncompliance with the City-Council-enacted NTCP is not merely a staff issue. It is a City Manager accountability failure. (Page 28) • City Council has a responsibility to instruct the City Manager to suspend the Traffic Safety Committee and its actions until City Council has ensured that City staff and the TSC members are fully brought back into compliance with City-Council-twice-enacted NTCP policy, and the Council has had an opportunity to ensure these parties have a clear understanding of enacted policy and are committed to faithfully staying within their limits of delegated authority extended to them by City Council. Further Public Works staff and TSC members should be required to sign an annual statement acknowledging that they have read and are committed to complying with the City Council-enacted NTCP. (Pages 38-40) • Public Works has acknowledged in email that the Avenida Celestial traffic circles are not the only Traffic Safety Committee recommendations forwarded to City Council for approval that were noncom pliant with City-Council-enacted NTCP policy. Accordingly, City Council should reopen and review all TSC recommendations approved within at least the past five years to determine whether they were authorized under the NTCP guidelines enacted by City Council. (Pages 13-16, and 48) II. Unauthorized Creation of a New Traffic Framework • City Council resolutions and motions explicitly define the Traffic Safety Committee as an advisory body only and explicitly do not grant it authority to create or replace the City-Council-twice enacted traffic calming guidelines encompassed in the NTCP (City Council Resolution 2008-77). (Pages 12 and 24-30) • Despite this, Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee created, passed, and began operating under a new unauthorized traffic framework without City Council approval and openly discussed in public meetings using the framework to replace the City-Council-enacted NTCP guidelines. (Pages 12 and 24-30) • TSC members and Public Works leadership stated on the record that the new framework would not be taken to City Council for approval, thereby exceeding their delegated authority and contradicting the Council's expressly retained policymaking role. They characterized traffic calming guidelines as an "in-house" TSC matter, despite City Council having retained exclusive authority to set NTCP policy and having exercised that authority on two separate occasions in 2008 and 2014. (Pages 27 and 28) • The creation and use of this unauthorized TSC created-and-adopted framework constitutes an ultra vires act in which staff and an advisory body assumed policymaking authority explicitly reserved exclusively to City Council. (Pages 12 and 24-30) • The NTCP was never rescinded, amended, or superseded by City Council and therefore remains the controlling policy regardless of staff preference. (Pages 11-12) 3 Ill. The Petition Requirement Was Residents' "Veto Power" according to Mayor and It Was Ignored • At the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting, the Mayor Jerry Duhovic explicitly characterized the NTCP's 60 percent petition requirement as residents having mandatory"veto power" over Level 2 traffic calming devices right before the City Council voted to reaffirm the NTCP as City policy. (Pages 29-30) • City leadership (Mayor Jerry Duhovic) confirmed on the record in 2014 that regardless of who initiates a project, 60 percent resident approval is mandatory before installation. (Pages 29-30) • No petition was ever collected for the Avenida Classica traffic circles. Residents' veto power was bypassed entirely in violation of City-Council enacted policy. (Pages 13, 17, 52, and 53) • This was not a procedural technicality. It was a direct violation of a City Council-mandated safeguard designed to prevent unwanted infrastructure that tile mayor at the time described as "cram down" projects forced on residents in the past. (Pages 29-30) • After installation, 94 percent of surveyed residents (50 people) opposed the Avenida Classica traffic circles, conclusively demonstrating that the veto power would have been exercised if the City-Council-enacted NTCP guidelines had been followed as required. This opposition was followed up with signatures from more than 30 homeowners opposed to tile traffic circles in their neighborhood. (Pages 31 and 32) IV. Why the Recommendation Should Never Have Reached City Council • The NTCP guidelines twice passed by City Council expressly prohibits staff and the Traffic Safety Committee from advancing a Level 2 recommendation when mandatory City-Council-enacted NTCP criteria are not met. (Pages 15-18, 29-30) • The Avenida Classica project failed at least five mandatory NTCP criteria, including traffic volume thresholds, quantitative scoring, petition requirements, and public input. (Pages 17-18) • Because these criteria were not met, staff and the TSC lacked authority to forward the recommendation to City Council at all. (Pages 15-18, 29-30) • Any City Council approval based on an unauthorized recommendation is procedurally defective and warrants corrective action. This need for corrective action applies to all TSC-advanced recommendations in the approximate 5 years of the Public-Works-acknowledged non-compliance with the NTCP, not just the Avenida Classica traffic circle project. (Pages 13-16, and 48) V. Safety Violations That Compound the Governance Failure • Traffic circles were installed on sustained 10 to 11 percent grades, directly conflicting with federal, state, and County guidance cautioning against circular intersections above approximately 3 to 4 percent grades. (Pages 7-11) • Public Works rejected speed humps on this street because the grade was too steep (traffic engineers do not recommend humps on grades above 8 percent), yet approved traffic circles that 4 require even flatter conditions (3 to 4 percent). This is an internal engineering contradiction and material safety hazard. (Pages 8-10) • The l<OA traffic study confirms that Avenida Classica had no reported crashes from 2017 to 2022. Since installation of the traffic circles, new and material safety hazards, including documented illegal driving behaviors, have been introduced and acknowledged by both supporters and opponents of the project. (Page 1 O and 17) VI. Data Integrity and Process Concerns • A required speed limit sign disappeared prior to speed studies and has never been replaced despite repeated resident requests. (Pages 33-35) • Speed studies conducted without proper regulatory signage do not measure baseline conditions and are scientifically invalid. (Pages 33-35) • Two speed studies were conducted until the plus-7-mph threshold was reached, raising concern that data collection continued until justification was achieved. (Pages 18, 33-35) VII. Preferential Treatment and Appearance of Self-Dealing • Traffic circles were installed directly in front of a sitting Traffic Safety Committee member's home shortly after he joined the committee. The entire Avenida Classica project began with its initial speed study 3 months after Avenida Classica resident David Tomblin joined the TSC. (Pages 22-23) • Objective safeguards designed to prevent favoritism were ignored while this project was prioritized over more than 50 other pending requests citywide. The 50-project number was estimated by then TSC-chairman Tye in a public TSC meeting. (Pages 16-24) • Even absent proof of intent, the appearance of preferential treatment is severe and damaging to public trust. (Pages 22-23) VIII. The "Residential Neighborhood/ No Thru Traffic" Signs • City-installed "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD/ NO THRU TRAFFIC PLEASE!" signs divert traffic away from single-family homes on Avenida Classica and onto Los Verdes Drive, which serves hundreds of apartment residents. Regardless of intent, the practical effect is preferential treatment of homeowners over apartment renters. (Pages 19-24) • The signs create inequitable treatment by implicitly designating one residential area as deserving protection while shifting traffic burdens onto another already-congested residential population. (Pages 19-20) • The signs do not appear to conform to standard California MUTCD traffic control devices, raising questions about their legal authorization. (Page 20) • The signs are consistent with a broader pattern of using traffic measures to discourage through traffic for a narrow group on Avenida Classica rather than applying City-wide policy uniformly. (Pages 19-24) 5 • Together with the traffic circles, the signage suggests traffic policy decisions were driven by localized preferences rather than Council-adopted standards. (Pages 19-24) IX. Concealment Rather Than Correction • When violations of the City-Council-twice-enacted NTCP guidelines were raised, Public Works removed the NTCP from the Traffic Safety Committee website rather than restore compliance. (Pages 13-15 and 37) • Removing governing policy from public view without Council authorization undermines transparency and public trust. (Pages 13-15 and 37) X. The Question City Council Must Answer • Did the City Manager know staff and the Traffic Safety Committee were ignoring City Council adopted policy, and if so, why was no corrective action taken? • If the City Manager did not know, how did five years of policy abandonment occur without detection? • Either explanation reflects a serious breakdown in governance requiring immediate Council intervention. (Pages 38-40) XI. Bottom Line • This is no longer about two traffic circles. It is about whether City Council policy has force, whether the City Manager enforces it, and whether residents' "veto power" means anything. (Pages 29-30) • Immediate removal of the traffic circles and investigation are necessary to restore lawful governance, public safety, and public trust. (Pages 38-40) 6 Supporting Evidence Part I: The Traffic Circles Are Unsafe and Violate Engineering Standards The Grade Problem: Physics Trumps Terminology Per the KOA traffic study, Avenida Classica has a maximum grade of 11 %2 and a consistent 10% grade before, through, and after one traffic circle and a 10% grade leading into the other traffic circle. This is not a marginal deviation from engineering standards, it is a fundamental violation of them. Exhibit 1. Avenida Classica Street Grade 3 Slope (Grade ) of Ave nida Class ica 25 0 feet befo re Ave ni da Celest ial (Tra ffic Circl e 1) to Ave ni da Espl endida (Traffi c Circle 2) (1J Circle 1 8 55 55 ft 800 557 .29 ft Max Slope . i 1.1%. -22.8 % - {1) "O 800 I.. 0 1/) (I) "O I.. (I) > SI rise 5 5 w. ope= -= --= 9 .9 .-o run 557.3 Note : The grade analysis referenced above indicating that the street has a maximum slope of 11 . 1 % is taken directly from the KOA traffic study. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), recognized by the Institute ofTransportation Engineers as the controlling federal authority for modern roundabout design, provides explicit guidance in Roundabouts : An Informational Guide. This guide was updated in a second addition by the NCHRP4 (Report 672) in cooperation with the FWHA and the U.S. Department of Transportation and is recognized 2 July 24, 2023 TSC agenda page 49 : https://rpv.gra nicus.com/DocumentViewer. php?file=rpv_c1683c024a0f7b25bc 1 0 13b0bcl 1 0bcf5a. pelf &view= 1 3 July 24, 2023 TSC agenda page 49 : https://rpv.granicus .com/Documentl/iewer.php?file=rpv_d683c024a0f7b2 5bc1 013b0bcl 1 0bcf5a .pclf&view= 1 4 The NCH RP is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), which is part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . 7 as authoritative guidance in California by Caltrans and others 5 . This authoritative guide specifically cautions against installing roundabouts on grades above 4%6 : • "Avoid locating roundabouts in areas where grades through the intersection are greater than 4%." -FHWA-RD-00-067, Chapter 67 • "It is generally not desirable to locate roundabouts in locations where grades through the intersection are greater than four percent." -FHWA-RD-00 -067, Chapter 68 • "On approach roadways with grades steeper than -4 percent, it is more difficult for entering drivers to slow or stop on the approach." -FHWA-RD-00-067, Chapter 69 The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the Public Works Roundabout Technical Advisory Committee echo this guidance in their publication "Roundabout Policy and Design Practices for County of Los Angeles": "Steep Grades. Placement of a roundabout on grades greater than 3 percent are generally not recommended."10 The Speed Hump Contradiction Exposes the Error At the November 3, 2025 TSC meeting, Director Awwad explained why Public Works did not consider speed humps on Avenida Classica: • Director Awwad : "Speed humps were considered in the very original study and found by the traffic engineer ... the traffic engineer found that they should not be installed on that street because of the grade . The grade exceeds the thresho l ds that are recommended for installation of speed humps ."11 Director Awwad is correct. The Institute of Transportation Engineers advises that speed humps should not be installed on roadways with grades exceeding approximately 8% due to safety, braking, and 5 https://dot.ca .gov/programs/traffic-operations/isoap https:/ /dot.ca .gov/-/media/clot-mecl ia/programs/design/documents/chp0400-a 11 y. pdf : "4 05 .10 Roundabouts Round abo ut int e rsect ion s on th e State hi ghway syste m mu st be developed and eva luat ed in acco rdan ce with Nation a l Cooperative Hi ghway Re search Pro gram (NCH RP) Re port 672 e ntitl ed "Round a bout s: An Information al Guide, Second Edition" dated Octob e r 2010 and Traffic Op erat ion s Pol icy Di rec tive (TOPD) Number 13-02." 6 h ttps :/ /www.vdot.vi rgi n ia. gov Im ed i a/vd otvI rgi nm gov/doing-business/tech n i ca l-gu id a nee-and-sup po rt/location-and- d esign/roadway-d esign/N C HRP _Report_672_Roundabout_l nformational_Guide_2ncl_Ed ition201 0_acc 1 0202023_PM. pelf 7 N at ion al Cooperative Hi ghw ay Research Pro gram (NCH RP) Report 672 entitled "Rou nd abo ut s : An Information al Guide, Second Edition" htt ps://www.vclot.vi rgi n i a. gov /med ia/vd otvi rgi n i a gov /cl oi ng-bu sin ess/tec h n i ca l-gu i cl a nc e-a n d support/l ocation-ancl-design/roaclway- design/NCH_RP _Rep_ort_672_Roundabout_lnforma t iona l_Guicle_2ncl_Edition2010_acc10202023_PM .pdf Page 242 . 8 Nation al Cooperative Hi ghw ay Research Pro gram (NCH RP) Report 672 e ntitl e d "Round abo ut s: An Information a l Guide, Second Edition" https: / /www.vdot.vi rgi n i a. gov Im eel ia/vd otvi rgi n iagov/d oi ng-b us in ess/tec h n i ca l-gu I clan ce-a n d support/location-and-clesign/roadway- ciesign/NCH RP _Report_672_Rounclabout_lnformational_Guicle_2ncl_Edition2010_acc10202023_PM .pdf Page 242 . 9 N atio n al Cooperative Hi ghw ay Research Program (NCH RP) Report 672 e ntitl ed "Roundabouts : An Info r m at ion al G uid e, Seco nd Edition" https :/ /www.vdot.vi rgi n ia .gov /mecl i a/vcl otvI rgi n iagov /doing-business/tech n i ca l-gu i clan c e-a n d- su p port/location-an cl-cl es ign/roaclway- d esIgn/N CH RP _Report_672_Rounda!Jout_lnformational_Gu1cle_2ncl_Edition2010_acc10202023_PM.pclf Page 242 . 10 https://d pw.lacou n ty.gov/lclcl/li b/fp/Roacl/ROU N DABOUT%20PO LICY%20%28complete-ver8%29. pelf Page 9 . 11 https· //rpv.gra ni cus .com/player /clip/ 4873?view_id=5&red irect=true 8 operational concerns . RPV's own Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP)12 echoes this on page 28, stating that speed humps are not appropriate for streets with grades exceeding 8%. This raises an obvious question: if roundabouts are generally considered suitable only for grades of 3% to 4%, a far lower threshold than the 8% maximum for speed humps, how could the traffic engineer, Public Works, and TSC possibly deem traffic circles appropriate for Avenida Classica's 10% (11 % maximum) grade? Anticipated Rebuttal from Public Works and TSC: "Traffic Circles" vs. "Roundabouts" I expect Public Works will argue that they installed "traffic circles" rather than "roundabouts." This distinction does not help their case. Traffic circles are more primitive with less engineering science than roundabouts. According to FHWA's Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, "modern roundabouts provide substantially better operational and safety characteristics than older traffic circles and rotaries." TSC member Kit Song acknowledged at the November 3, 2025 TSC meeting that he sees the traffic circles on Avenida Classica as potentially appropriately described as mini -roundabouts. • Mr. Kit Song: "I think conceptually, when we had our previous discussion around expansion of the circles and the effort to try to intervene in the entry into the circles, and the directionality of that, it sort of brings us into the arena of a roundabout or mini -roundabout as opposed to a traffic circle . And so from staff's perspective , I just want to be clear, because when we have a yield in all direction, conceptually, what I think we're doing here is we are moving into the arena of a mini roundabout as opposed to a classic traffic circle." 13 Part of this issue is related to Public Works recogni zing that they might need to convert these traffic circles from two -way stops to yield to the first drivers in the circle based on near accidents that have already occurred in these circles. But whether we call these devices "roundabouts," "traffic circles," or "traffic calming devices" is beside the point. The physics of downhill approaches don't change based on terminology. The underlying issue is gravity's effect on vehicle speed control entering a circular engineering design. While some municipalities refer to circular intersections as "traffic circles," state departments of transportation do not recognize traffic circles as a distinct design class . Instead, state engineering standards regulate circular intersections by function, including yield -controlled entry, approach deceleration, and circulating roadway geometry. Under these state -adopted standards, circular intersections are subject to the same grade limitations as roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. These standards consistently caution against downhill approach grades that exceed approximately 4 percent and require near-level circulating roadways.14 12 https :/ /www.rpvca .gov/DocumentCen ter/Vi ew/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guidelines-Decemb_er-2008 Pa ge 28 . 13 https ://rpv.gra ni cus.com/player /clip/ 4873?view_id =5&redi rect=true 14 National Cooperative Highway Re s earch Program (NCH RP) Report 6 72 entitled "Round a bouts : An Informational Guide, Second Edition" https ://www.vdot.vi rgi n ia .gov/med ia/'Ld o tvi rgI n iagov /doing-bu sin ess/te ch n i ca l-gu id a nee-and- 9 If the City wishes to disregard traffic science and focus on device names rather than geometric design physics, the State of Delaware explicitly states that 6% is the maximum recommended grade for "neighborhood traffic circles and mini-roundabouts.15 " Further, the City of San Diego states that "traffic circles" are "inappropriate for use where there is a grade that exceeds 5%."16 The Circles Have Created New Dangers Before installation, traffic studies showed no accident history on Avenida Classica 17 • Now, the traffic circles' own supporters are documenting new illegal and dangerous behavior at these installations that are a direct result of their installation. At the November 3, 2025 TSC meeting, supporter Dan Myers presented nearly 50 pages of photographs of many vehicles making illegal turns 18 . According to Myers, "I have documentation of several residents (NEIGHBORS) as well as nonresidents who continue to ignore Traffic Laws and put themselves, their families and the general public at risk and in danger by driving the wrong way (against traffic), because they feel like they are being inconvenienced by having to go around the Traffic Circles."19 This raises an obvious question: if the circles' own supporters are cata login g the dangerous conduct they have introduced to our community that place "the general public at risk and in danger", why do we still have them? No amount of modification can overcome the fundamental problem: these circles were installed on an inappropriate 10% grade. Federal guidance, state standards, the County of Los Angeles, and the traffic engineering profession uniformly advise against roundabouts on grades exceeding 3 to 4 percent . Speed reduction is not the sole measure of safety. These devices have intro duced new hazards. The principle shou ld be simple: first, do no harm. Broader Implications for Rancho Palos Verdes Listening to comments from TSC members like Kit Song, there appears to be an appetite among some members of the TSC to see a proliferation of traffic circles introduced into Rancho Palos Verdes after this "pilot project". The implications of Avenida Classica paving the way for s imil ar installations require serious consideration . According to the traffic science, on downhill grades exceeding 4-6%, grav ity continuously accelerates vehicles, forcing drivers who attempt to maintain posted speeds into sustained braking, an unnatural driving behavior that studies show most drivers avoid . This results in 85th percentile speeds 5-15 mph support/location-an d-d esign/roa dway- cl es i gn/N CH RP _Report_672_Roundabout_lnformat1onal_Gu 1de_2nd_Ed i t1on2010_acc10202023_PM.pdf Page 242 . 15 https:/ /deldot.gov/Pu blications/manuals/traffic_calm1ng/pdfs/Delaware_ TrafficCalm1 ngDes1gnMa nual. pelf (p. 37) 16 https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/defa u lt/f1les/street_design_manual_march_201 7-fi nal.pclf (p . 155) 17 RPV Traffic Safety Comm ittee Agenda 07242023.pdf Page 60. 18 h ttps://rpv.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv_cl09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&v1ew= 1 Pages 292 - 339. 19 https:/ /rpv.gra n1cus.com/DocumentViewer. php?file=rpv_c109d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pdf &view= 1 Pa ge 338. 10 above posted limits and creates dangerous speed differentials between compliant and non-compliant drivers. Traffic calming devices that rely on horizontal deflection assume drivers can modulate their speed effectively, but on steep grades this assumption fails: drivers are already working to control gravity induced acceleration, and adding a geometric obstacle creates competing demands that compound rather than solve the speed problem. This is precisely why NCH RP 672 and the County of Los Angeles Public Works guidance limit circular intersection grades to 4% or flatter. Rancho Palos Verdes is a city built on top of a hill. With traffic circles installed on Avenida Classica to reduce speeds by 7 mph on a 10% grade (though with a device deemed inappropriate by traffic authorities), the important question becomes: how many more streets exist in Rancho Palos Verdes with similar downhill intersection dynamics where cars are approximately 7+ mph over a 25 mph limit due to gravity -induced speeding? How many of these traffic circles is the city prepared to install against traffic professional industry guidance and at what construction cost? At what level of assumed liability? As Mr. Tye from the TSC himself stated at the June 30, 2025 meeting discussing the traffic circles: • "Every time we are doing traffic controls, devices, signs, there is an approved manner to do that. There are engineering designs that, as someone else pointed out, that if we deviate from the norm, for whatever reason, there is potential liability."20 The deviations from the norm of road grade and governance embarked on by Public Works and TSC are almost too numerous to count . The city could spend millions installing these flawed devices on steep grades all over the city, and millions more on warranted liability claims from parties injured by the City's installation of such devices in areas not recommended by federal, state, and local governments and the engineering profession . Part II: The Traffic Circles Were Installed in Violation of City Council Policy The NTCP: City Council's Twice-Adopted Guidelines In 2008, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2008 -77, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council reorganized the Traffic Safety Commission and established the current structure of the Traffic Safety Committee. On October 27, 2008, the City Council and the Traffic Safety Commission conducted a Joint Workshop 21 meeting, during which the City Council reviewed, provided substantive feedback on, and required material revisions to a draft document prepared by the Traffic Safety Commission before City Council ultimate approval. After the City-Council -directed revisions were made, that modified document ultimately became the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) when it was approved by City Council on December 2, 2008. On December 2, 2008, the City Council formally acted on the revised program. Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wolowicz, to adopt the staff recommendation approving the 20 h ttps:/ /rpv.granicus .com/player/cli p/481 2?view _icl=5&recl irect=true 21 https:/ /rpv.gra nIcus .com/player/cli p/372?view_id =5&recl irect=true 11 Citywide Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (December 2008 Update)22 • The motion passed unanimously among members present. The City Council revisited and reaffirmed its adoption of the NTCP on August 19, 2014. 23 At that meeting, Anthony Self, Chair of the Traffic Safety Committee, explained the process by which residents address traffic concerns through traffic calming measures and stated his support for the City's existing NTCP. Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to approve the staff recommendation to affirm the Council's prior 2008 approval of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, last updated on December 2, 2008. That motion also passed unanimously. The NTCP has been confirmed twice by unanimous City Council action and therefore represents the City Council's adopted policy and clear expectations for how the Traffic Safety Committee is to operate. A review of the City Council proceedings from 2008 and 2014 demonstrates that the City Council was not a passive recipient of the NTCP, but rather an active participant in its drafting, revision, and confirmation. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program was adopted and later reaffirmed by formal motion of the City Council at duly noticed public meetings on December 2, 2008 and August 19, 2014. Under California's council-manager form of government, staff and advisory bodies are required to implement City Council-adopted policy regardless of whether that policy was approved by motion or resolution. The Traffic Safety Committee's authority exists only within the bounds of the Council adopted NTCP. The TSC's Limited Authority The Traffic Safety Committee functions solely as an advisory body to the City Council, and the NTCP explicitly defines the authority, limitations, and responsibilities of both Public Works staff and the Traffic Safety Committee. As shown in the mission statement for the TSC passed in Resolution No . 2008-77 24 , the City Council granted the TSC the responsibility to review and advise on neighborhood traffic calming guidelines. The City Council did not grant the TSC the ability to create or pass neighborhood traffic calming guidelines . The City Council retained those rights and responsibilities, and it has exercised those rights and responsibilities on December 2, 2008 and August 19, 2014. It is the responsibility of the City Manager, Public Works and the TSC to faithfully follow the City Council motions, resolutions, and directives. • CITY-COUNCIL-ADOPTED TSC MISSION STATEMENT: The mission of the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) is to provide community input by advising the City Council on traffic issues, development proposals and special projects as assigned by the City Council (emphasis added). The TSC also reviews and advis 'l§. (emphasis added) on neighborhood traffic calming guidelines and proposed projects, and collaboratively work with Staff to address residents' 22 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calm1ng-Gu1clel1nes-Oecember-2008 23 https:/ /rpv.grani cus .com/player/cli p/145?view_icl=5&red Irect=true 24 https:/ /clocu ments. rpvca .gov/Webl1 n k/DocVievv. aspx?cl bid=0&id= I 3308&repo=Ra nchoPalosVerdes&cr= 1 12 requests for improving livability and drivability of neighborhood streets in Rancho Palos Verdes. (Resolution No. 2008-77)25 Public Works' Stunning Admission: Guidelines Ignored for "~5 Years" In August 2025 , I sent a detailed letter26 and petition to City Council, Public Works, and the TSC from residents opposed to the traffic circles. A large portion of the letter articulated the various ways in which Public Works and the TSC departed from the City -Council -twice-approved NTCP guidelines . In response, I received an email from Rancho Palos Verdes City Engineer Deanna Fraley containing the following statement: • Deanna Fraley, August 5, 2025 5:22PM: "I wanted to let you know that the City's Traffic Ca l ming Guidelines have not been used for the past few years (~5 years). Understand i ng it is still linked on our City website, we wi ll work to have it removed to hopefully relieve any further confusion." While Fraley did not state the catalyst for the departure from City-Council-twice-adopted NTCP guidelines, it is worth noting that this non-compliance with City-Council-passed guidelines coincides with Ramzi Awwad's naming as Deputy Director of Public Works on September 10, 2020, and his appointment as Director of Public Works on February 17, 2021 . It is also important to take a moment to recognize Fraley's response to our community raising the issue that they were not following the NTCP. Fraley's inclination was to delete the NTCP from the TSC website. It is worth noting that Dana Graham, Dr. Brad Spellberg, and I were invited to attend a meeting at City Hall with Director Awwad, Ms. Fraley, and TSC chairman Mark Crossman on October 13, 2025 to discuss our various concerns with these traffic circles. When I raised the issue with Direct Awwad that the traffic circles were not in compliance with the NTCP, he also indicated that Public Works would remove the NTCP from the TSC website. Between our meeting with Public Works and Mr. Crossman on October 13, 2025 and the November 3, 2025 TSC meeting, Public Works deleted the link to the NTCP from the TSC website as they said they would. As shown in the exhibit below, the NTCP was posted to the TSC website up until around October 13, 2025 . 25 h ttps ://documents. rpvca .gov/\i\/eblin k/DocView.aspx?d b i d=0&icl= 13308&repo=Ran choPalosVercles&cr= 1 26 https:/ /rpv.granicus.com/DocumentViewer. php?file=rpv_cl09cl495c8ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1.pclf&view=1 Pages 79 -1 2 0 . 13 Exhibit 2. Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee Website Before Removal of NTCP C RANCHO PALOS VERDES GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY t a I I rorn 1.1 • MEETING AGENDAS & VIDEO ARCHIVES , u11, r! ,1111 \,ht"•f ,;., 111! Traffic Calming o \lln 1 111.111l 11,111 \J II q•1 11 :, Udnl\' ml \H1:1 ! "llll I •mp I '"II \l..11! 'l'L1J .:, L'-LiuH' a!lld ~nn 1,!llllll l' 1l,1 I 111u11 lU'IIIL• l'Pl I Volu me & Spee d Graphs 0 ! J\.~J 1tl.'l.td "!l.u:1.:JJJ.I \l J• \llhuL ~ILu:tl!JLlt h,11 i.•rvt. I o l H.ill\llt ►d 1111.d \\ti lhJ\1.wJ J111,r l'.tJ,1.1..lwL1l.'.llt 1 o LJuu,!...i'i"ltu1.: ,11 1,,•uu...J. 'lt\.:dl'JJ,11 h,itUl'llJ 1 'l 111.t"~ \'iU!; \(I\Ut11Jlll'll1Jlll'llo:!l!t! 1 IJ._11Ul:(!_l o 1,n1i.:1A'lu:1.:Ll\lll,.i,\U1il'tnL'l',1l,l1 h11l l'J1l1 "1_,_(1LU •L"!!Jt:1,:lV'l.m 1,\. \'l'H'<\ 1•iL,1.1Ju1I l'l'l o \•11111wdJ11d'll\ tlC)\\,,11II \\\hW'l 1.&L.lllt11l•l''II' o Lth•lu:.JJu,r 11 1 UJ\\.'.ml P1L1 d.t.1.hLU1-11Ul1.'l' ,, IJJJ1h\ 1.'t1•1· \\t.1.JlJ'tlt!l l'l!\r J•:J!.11 l!,.111 t111 -(,-· ~ I -;_,,, TRAILS & NATURE SERVICE REQUES TS PRESERVE ll1 j•ll I f'ft.!• 111.11, ku, .. I d1, 1 .. 11 • D CITY SERVICES TRANSPARENCY CllY OF RANCHO PALOS VEIUW.S NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM Publk WOt'ka Department O.cember 2008 ~ HOW 00 I ... As shown in a screen capture of the TSC website (https://www.rpvca .gov/165/Traffic -Safety-Committee) on January 4, 2026, you can see where traffic calming guidance including the City -Council -twice -enacted NTCP was removed from the TSC website consistent with what Director Awwad and Ms . Fraley indicated Public Works would do. 14 Exhibit 3. Current Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee Websit e Without NTCP GOVERNMENT OEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY Oversized / Neig hbor hood Ve hicle Parking Programs a • ',1 I'• rnnL\1 l·h• 1l!"II ''\It ~ It\.. ltl!W 1:•_JIIIII \Pl•lt 1"11 1 1'!'1 Vo lume & Speed Graphs o I.ill.!•~•· i'l'.llliL:\.1..1.~·•l l,.!l_,11L•ll! • 11.11 lllll O 1.111 1"1 \'LHll.1: ':-1.l "!tllll\JlllJ!id "ll~II IJ_,, , ' h I.LI. l'!!\ 1 o \.•~Jll.l•l"IJ.\:•Jl\l.11"'1)!ll11l't/l1L1r. wJ. l'J>t1 o t·\JiUtl'>ll'.!,.l 1 1 1w,,, \';,1J>11·l' iJ,.1' l'l.!1 ") '>.1!1t1_11t•.1 1,1•1l.\i1•1J 1111,,lhH \:,1JJirl• '.1 ltu.l J'l.!J. o JJ.•\1.hrt!u.1c..LUl\11\wll 1rn1:I· 11 t ,l•l:t'J o Lrn1!1r Et.n_..:....IIJJ'' ,.111 111,1,, 11,, 1 !1· tl 'l'!!l1 • e MEET ING AGENDAS & VIDEO ARCH IVES TRA ILS & NATURE SERVICE REQUESTS PERMITS & INSPECTIONS PRESERVE ll11N•1· l"I• l,111 ::t•\ l',1:iu!hll I'• https ://www.rpvca.gov/165/Traffic -Sa fety-Com mittee The Critical Exchange: No Authority to Ignore Council Policy On August 8 , 2025, I responded to Ms . Fraley: ,, CITY SERVICES TRANSPARENCY Where the NTCP was posted on th e TSC website until its removal by Public Works between October 13, 2025 and November 3, 2025 . • PUBLIC SAFETY 111m /'i• ,·tth" ,tull'ut,L • NOTIFY ME '> HOW DO I... • Dane Mott, August 8, 2025 3:36PM: "The framework you sent me was instituted on September 23, 2024. The vote to install the traffic circles happened prior to that date on July 24, 2023. I am requesting a public record of when the traffic calming guidelines that were adopted in 2008 and continue to be posted to your website to this day (8/8/2025) were formally rescinded? Please provide me reference to a Traffic Safety Committee meeting and /or City Council meeting where these guidelines were formally rescinded. If no date can be provided then my presumption is that the committee was acting outside of its authority when it voted to advance the traffic circles on July 24, 2023. As a result , those dangerous circles should be removed immediately because the necessary due process was not followed to install them . If the 2008 guidelines were never formally rescinded, the issue is that the Traffic Safety Committee was acting in violation of its guidelines for operation when they voted to install the traffic circles on July 24, 2023. There were multiple violations of published guidelines: there was no public petition , the traffic count was too low to justify a Level 2 device , and the street scored 21 when it needed 51 - for a Level 2 device. Further, these particular Level 2 traffic circles were installed directly in front of a Traffic Safety Committee member's home with the second one within 310 feet of his home despite this road failing multiple provisions of the published guidelines that are necessary to 15 receive a Level 2 traffic device. These actions are made more egregious in the context of Chairman Tye's comments at the September 2024 meeting that the city had more than 50 projects competing for the City's limited resources. Further, a speed limit sign was removed on Avenida Classica sometime after 2018 27 (as documented in my letter), and its removal potentially was used to increase speeds for the speed studies to attempt to justify the installation of traffic devices on the street." Ms. Fraley's response was dismissive of the idea that Public Works or the TSC had a responsibility to follow guidelines that were passed twice by the City Council and never rescinded. After mentioning that city records were "diligently searched," Ms. Fraley acknowledged no evidence of the guidelines ever being rescinded. Mr. Awwad, Mr. Casil, the TSC, and City Attorney Wynder were all cc'ed on the email : • Deanna Fraley August 18, 2025 4:51 PM : "In response to your public record of when the traffic calming guidelines were formally rescinded : Having diligently searched the records of the City, there are no documents in the possession, custody, control of the City in response to your request .... The issue of when traffic calming guidelines were adopted, rescinded, and/or replaced is not relevant to this discussion because there is no legal or regulatory requirement for the TSC to take such steps in order to make a recommendation to the City Counc il. Furthermore, the approach to this location was not unique -there were many other areas in the City where the TSC used judgement in agendizing an item. The TSC is an advisory body to the City Council and what matters is that the TSC's intent was very clearly conveyed to the City Council for consideration in their decision-making." I will note that Ms. Fraley's email conveniently failed to mention that City Council had twice passed the NTCP guidelines establishing what the TSC could and could not do, and she avoided addressing the fact that the City Manager, Public Works , and the TSC have an explicit responsibility to follow City-Council enacted motions that set formal policy for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Fraley was wrong when she framed City-Council-enacted policy as "not relevant to this discussion" because it established that Public Works and the TSC were assuming inappropriate authority that the City Council never assigned to them. Whenever TSC sends a recommendation to the City Council, they have a responsibility to ensure their recommendations are in compliance with the guidelines that are formally adopted by City Council. To do otherwise, is willful insubordination and a viol ation of City-Council-twice enacted formal city policy. Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Resolution 2008-77 could not be more clear in this regard . Per the TSC mission statement adopted by City Council, "The mission of the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) is to provide commun ity input by advising the City Council on traffic issues, development proposals and special projects as assigned by the City Council (emphasis added)." The "as assigned by the City 27 https :/ /rpv.granicus.com/Docu mentV1ewer. php?file=rpv _d09d495c8ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d ·1 . pdf &view= 1 Page 246. 16 Council" clause of Resolution 2008-77 is explicitly clear that Public Works and TSC are not given latitude to act in a manner beyond the scope adopted by City Council and through its twice-enacted NTCP. Part Ill: The Traffic Circles Failed to Meet Installation Criteria and Reflect a Pattern of Preferential Treatment The procedural violations documented in Part II are not abstractions. They resulted in the installation of traffic circles on a street that failed to satisfy the City's own published criteria, under circumstances that raise serious questions about conflicts of interest and preferential treatment for a small group of homeowners. A. Traffic Circles Failed to Meet TSC Installation Criteria The traffic circles installed on Avenida Classica failed to satisfy five of the evaluation criteria for Level 2 traffic calming devices established in the City -Council -enacted 2008 NTCP Traffic Calming Guidelines. Further, a criterion the project appeared to meet is tainted by unexplained changes to roadway signage that potentially artificially inflated speed measurements . 1. No Crash History The KOA Traffic Study conducted for this project found no crash history warranting traffic calming intervention. The study explicitly states: "From 2017 to 2022, there were no accidents reported in the SWITRS/TMIS database. Therefore, this warrant criteria is not met.28 " Traffic calming devices are intended to address documented safety problems, not hypothetical concerns. 2. No Public Petition The 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines clearly state that "Level 2 traffic calming measures must be initiated through a petition process.29 " No petition was ever collected from Avenida Classica residents to initiate this project . The City Engineer has acknowledged in writing that "the petition process was not being practiced,30 " yet the Guidelines requiring petitions were never formally rescinded by the City Council and remained published on the City website as operative policy until Public Works removed them from the website when I brought their policy violations to their attention. 3. No Public Discussion Prior to TSC Vote On July 24, 2023, the Traffic Safety Committee voted to install traffic circles without any public input on whether residents wanted these devices . The meeting agenda that evening focused on a controversial proposal by residents Dan Myers and TSC -member David Tomblin to divert golf course traffic off of Avenida Classica and onto Los Verdes Drive. After more than two hours of public testimony expressing opposition to that traffic diversion proposal, the TSC instead unilaterally voted to install traffic circles 28 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023.pdf Page 60. 29 h ttps://www.rpvca.gov/Document_Cen ter/View/12760/Traffic-Calmi ng-Guidelines-December-2008 Pa ge 5. 30 See email from Deanna Fraley from Aug 5, 2025, at 8:22 PM in email correspondence in App e ndi x 2. 17 without soliciting or receiving a ny public comment specifically addressing whether traffic circles were desired by the affected neighborhood 3 1 • 4 . Traffic Volume Below Minimum Threshold The 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines require "streets with an average daily volume of at least 1,500 32 vehicles per day or peak hour traffic of at least 150 vehicles per hour." The KOA Traffic Study documented only 1,41833 vehicles per day on Avenida Classica, falling short of the minimum threshold by 82 vehicles per day. This criterion exists to ensure that traffic calming resources are deployed where traffic volumes justify intervention. 5. Fail e d Quantitative Scoring Assessment The 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines establish a quantitative scoring system 34 to objectively evaluate whether streets qualify for traffic calming measures . Level 2 devices, such as traffic circles , require a minimum score of 51 points . Avenida Classica scored only 21 points 35 , failing to meet even half of the required threshold . 6. Qu estionable Speed Study Methodology While the excess speed criterion appeared to have been met with the requirement for 85th percentile speeds exceeding the speed limit by at least 7 mph , the circumstances surrounding this finding raise serious concerns: • A speed limit sign that previously existed on the downhill stretch of Avenida Classica was removed prior to or during the speed study period 36 . • Two separate speed studies were required before speeds exceedin g the+ 7 mph threshold were recorded 37 . • The KOA Traffic Study itself contained an error, incorrectly stating that a speed limit si g n was present when it was not 38 . • The City has been unable to ex plain who removed the sign, when it was removed , or why. The removal of a speed limit sign on a downhill grade would predictably result in higher vehicle speeds. If the sign was removed before the speed study was conducted , the resulting speed data does not reflect normal operating conditions and should not have been used to justify installation of traffic calming devices. 313 1 http s :/ /rp v. gra n i c u s.co m /p l aye r/clip / 4 372?vi ew _id =5&r e d i rec t =tru e 32 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/\/iew/12760/Traffic-Calming-Gu1del i nes-December-2008 Page 11 . 33 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023.pdf Page 51. 34 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/\/iew/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guidelines-December-2008 Page 1 2 . 35 https://rpv.granicus.com/Document\/iewer.php?f1le=rpv_cl09cl495c8ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1.pdf&view= 1 Page 241 . 36 https://rpv.grc1ni cus.com/Documen t\/iewer.php?f1 le=rpv _el09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pelf &view= 1 Page 246 . 37 https:/ /rpv.granicus.com/Documen tViewer. php?f1 le=rpv_e109d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pelf &view= 1 Page 54. 38 https :/ /rpv.gran1cus.com/Documen tViewer. php?f1le=rpv_d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pdf &view= 1 Page 49 . 18 For more details on deviations from the NTCP by Public Works and the TSC, please see my July 31, 2025 letter. 39 Exhibit 4. Summary of City-Council-Twice-Passed NTCP Criteria Failures on Avenida Classica Cri te ri o n Req uir e m e n t Ave ni d a Cl as s ic a Re su lt Stat u s Crash His t o ry Documen t ed crash proble m No acc iden t s 20"17 -2022 FAIL Public Pet it ion Pet it ion re q u i red fo r Leve l 2 devices No pet it ion collect ed FAIL Pub li c Inpu t Pub li c commen t bef ore TSC vo t e No pub li c d i scuss i on of FAIL t ra ff ic c ir cles Tra ff i c Vo lume ;:: ·1, 500 veh i cles/d ay 1 ,4 18 veh icles/d ay FAIL Q u an t it at ive ;:: 5 1 po i nt s fo r Level 2 d evi ces 2 1 po i nt s FAIL Sco re Spee d Th resho ld 85 t h percen t ile;:: 7 mph over limi t Met on ly a ft er s ign rem ova l QUESTIONABLE and two s t ud ies Under any reasonable interpretation of the 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines, this project should never have been approved due to the multiple failed criteria above 40 . The question the City Council must answer is: why was it? B. Questionable "No Thru Traffic" Signage on Avenida Classica The disappearance of the speed limit sign is not the only signage irregularity on Avenida Classica. Since at least 2008, two signs have been posted at the Los Verdes Drive entrance to Avenida Classica reading: "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NO THRU TRAFFIC PLEASE!"41 These signs raise multiple concerns : 1. Inequitable Treatment of Residents The signs are positioned to divert traffic away from Avenida Classica and onto Los Verdes Drive . Los Verdes Drive is home to the PV Victoria Apartments, where approximately 500 residents live. The implicit message of these signs is that the "residential neighborhood" on Avenida Classica deserves protection from through traffic, while the residential neighborhood on Los Verdes Drive does not . This creates a troubling disparity. The City appears to be using signage to protect one group of residents (predominantly single -family homeowners on Avenida Classica) at the expense of another group (predominantly apartment renters on Los Verdes Drive). If the City's traffic management policies systematically favor homeowners over renters, this raises serious questions about equitable treatment of all Rancho Palos Verdes residents. 39 https://rpv.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rp•;_cl09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1.pclf&view= 1 Pa ges 79 -120. 40 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Ag_encla 07242_023.pdf Pages 240-242 . 4 1 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023 .pclf Pages 86 -88. 19 This disparity is further reinforced by the 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines themselves, which explicitly limit petition signatures to homeowners 4 2 • Renters and other non-owners in the community exposed to these streets are excluded from the traffic safety petition process entirely, meaning residents of the Victoria Apartments would have no formal voice in initiating traffic calming measures on their own street, while homeowners on adjacent streets can petition to divert traffic onto them. This structural exclusion of renters from the traffic calming process compounds the inequity evident in the "No Thru Traffic" signage. 2. Non-Standard Signage The "No Thru Traffic Please!" signs do not appear to conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)43 • California Vehicle Code§ 21401 requires that official traffic control devices conform to Caltrans standards. I am requesting documentation of the legal authority under which these non -s tandard signs were approved and installed . 3. Connection to Proposed Traffic Diverters At the July 24, 2023 TSC meeting, residents Dan Myers and then -TSC-member David Tomblin proposed installing traffic diverters at the end of Avenida Classica that would have prevented golf course traffic on Los Verdes Drive from using Avenida Classica entirely44 . This proposal was consistent with the "No Thru Traffic" signs: both measures would redirect traffic burden onto Los Verdes Drive and the Victoria Apartments residents. A resident letter45 from Chris Carbonel with first-hand knowledge of a meeting at Dan Myers' home in the agenda of the July 24, 2023 meeting suggested that Mr. Myers and Mr. Tomblin may have been involved in the original installation of the "No Thru Traffic" signs. Upon inspection and shown in the series of pictures directly below, I observed a Rancho Palos Verdes barcode on the back of one of these signs with the number 002893, indicating that at least one of those non -standard signs are property of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes . In Mr. Carbonel's letter from the July 24, 2023 agenda, he states the following: • "O ver a decade ago, Dave Tomblin and I had a conversation about him wanting to close the end of Avenida Classica at Los Verdes Drive because he felt there were too many cars driving by his home. It's not surprising to me that now that Dave is on the city's Traffic Safety committee, this matter is before us."46 • "I began to realize that the speed was not their real agenda. The group's agenda is that they want a private street at the cost of the taxpayers and safety of others . They do not want anyone travelling through. The attached picture is a sign that Dave and Dan were instrumental in erecting, located at the corner of Los Verdes drive and Avenida Classica speaks to their agenda, and falsely leads residents and visitors to believe it is a city erected sign. TH E SIGN DOES ENT SAY, SLOW DOWN, 42 h ttps:/ /www.rpvca.gov/Do cu mentCen ter/View/12 760/Traffic-Calm ing-Guidelines-December-2008 Page 5 . 43 h ttps:/ /muted. fhwa .dot.gov/l<no-shs_2024-release-status/i ndex. htm 44 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023.pdf Pages 86-88. 45 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023.pdf Pages 86-88. 46 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023.pdf Pages 86-88. 20 OR PLEASE WATCH YOUR SPEED, IT SAYS "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NO THUR TRAFFIC." I believe this sign is demeaning and discriminating to the owners of Victoria Apartments and the more than 575 residents who live in the apartments. Victoria Apts, built 1973 were the 1st to create our "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD" and pay taxes for all the neighborhood streets . I ask the city to order it be removed ASAP."47 While Mr. Carbonel appears to be incorrect in that the sign at the corner of Avenida Classica and Los Verdes Drive is city property, the objections he raises about the nature of these signs is reasonable. If his claims of David Tomblin and Dan Myers being involved in the installation of these signs are correct, then this fact pattern does appear problematic. Exhibit 5. Two "RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NO THRU TRAFFIC PLEASE!" Signs on Classica RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NO THRU IRAfflC PLEASE! 4 . Traffic Circles Installed Directly in Front of TSC Member's Home David Tomblin served on the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee from March 16, 2021 to June 30, 2024. The timeline of the Avenida Classica traffic circle project aligns remarkably with his tenure : 47 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023.pclf Pages 86 -88. 21 Exhibit 6. Timeline of David Tomblin's Time on TSC and the TSC Avenida Classica Project !Da t e Eve nt Ma rch 1 f3J 202 1 Dav i d To m b lin a p Jo in t ed to Tr aff i c Safety Co mmi tt ee Jun e 22J. 202 1 Ini t i a l speed st u dy co n d u ct ed o n Ave ni d a Cl ass i ca (a p Jrnx im ate ly 3 m o nt h s att erT o n1 Jlin ''s ap p o in t m e 1t ) July 24 2023 TSC vo t es t o reco mm en d t raff i c cir cl e in st all at i o n Oct o Jer 3 J 2023 City Co un c il a p proves t ra ff i c c i rc l e in sta llat i o n Late 2023 l Ea rly 2024 Tra ff i c cir cl es in st all ed Jun e 30 2024 To m Jlin's TSC t erm en ds The first official step toward installing traffic circles on Avenida Classica, the speed study, was initiated just three months after Mr. Tomblin joined the TSC. As illustrated in the figure below, one traffic circle was ultimately installed directly in front of Mr. Tomblin's residence, and the second was installed approximately 31 O feet from his home. Exhibit 7. TSC Member David Tomblin's Former House In Front of the TSC Traffic Circles This~ the home of Traffic Safety Co mmittee (TSC) member David Tomblin. He wa on the TSC when it voted to install the circ les on 7.24 .2023 . He did not \'0te but instead openly lo bbi ed the T C as a cit izen durin g the meeting. Thi entire project fro m initial traffic tudy to installa tion occ urred during To mb lin's tenure on the T C between March 2021 and June 2024 . He sold hi ho use on 1.31.2025 and left ur co mmuni ty with these unwanted traffic circles tha t ha ve already cost , 54,0 00 (for temporary circle ). If made permanent. the cost of pe rmanent circles will take the cost of these da ngerous and unwa nted circles to well 0\'er S 100.000 . Figure 7: Proximity of former TSC Member David Tomblin's former residence to the two traffic circles installed on Avenida Classica. One circle is located directly in front of his home ; the second is approximately 31 o feet away. 22 The 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines established qualitative and quantitative criteria specifically to ensure that traffic calming projects would be evaluated based on objective measures rather than the preferences of individual residents or committee members. These criteria exist to protect against exactly the situation that occurred here: the installation of expensive traffic calming infrastructure that primarily benefits a small number of residents, including a TSC member, rather than addressing documented, citywide traffic safety priorities. The timing is difficult to ignore. Within months of Mr. Tomblin's appointment to the body responsible for recommending traffic calming projects, a speed study was initiated on his own street. That study ultimately led to the installation of traffic circles directly in front of his home, despite the project failing at least five of the objective criteria established to prevent favoritism and ensure equitable allocation of City resources. When a project fails to meet the City's own published and City-Council-enacted standards and traffic circles are nevertheless installed directly in front of a TSC member's home shortly after he joins the committee, it creates an unavoidable appearance of self-dealing. Regardless of whether Mr. Tomblin formally recused himself from the final vote, the sequence of events demands scrutiny. At a minimum, this situation requires an explanation of how a project that failed to meet multiple objective criteria received priority over the more than 50 other traffic calming requests reportedly pending before the TSC, and whether Mr. Tomblin's position on the committee influenced the timing or prioritization of this project. C. Formal Records Request In light of the foregoing, I am formally requesting all records in the City's possession regarding the "No Thru Traffic" signs and the Avenida Classica traffic circle project, including: Regarding the "No Thru Traffic" Signs: • The date of installation • The residents who initially requested them • The approval process by which they were authorized • All City employees and officials involved in the decision to install them • Any communications between City staff and current or former TSC members regarding these signs • All records associated with the barcode 002893 (the barcode and number that appears on one of the signs) • Any connection between the sign installation and Mr. Tomblin or Mr. Myers 23 Regarding the Traffic Circle Project: • All communications between Mr. Tomblin, Mr. Myers, and City staff regarding traffic calming on Avenida Classica, including any communications prior to the June 22, 2021 speed study • Documentation of how the Avenida Classica project was prioritized relative to other pending traffic calming requests • Records indicating who initiated the request for the June 22, 2021 speed study • All records relating to the removal of the speed limit sign on Avenida Classica, including who authorized its removal and when Regarding the Decision to Abandon the NTCP: • Any documentation of the decision to stop following the 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines • Any communications between TSC, Public Works staff, and the City Manager regarding departure from the NTCP • Any communications between Public Works and the City Council regarding the decision to abandon the NTCP D. Conclusion to Part Ill The pattern of events on Avenida Classica, including the removal of the speed limit sign, the installation of non-standard "No Thru Traffic" signs, and the installation of traffic circles that failed to meet objective criteria directly in front of a TSC member's home within months of his appointment, suggests a possible pattern of preferential treatment for a small group of Avenida Classica homeowners. The 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines were not bureaucratic obstacles to be ignored. They were safeguards adopted by the City Council to ensure that limited public resources would be allocated based on objective need rather than political influence or personal connections. When those safeguards are abandoned, and when the primary beneficiary of that abandonment is a member of the very committee responsible for making recommendations, the integrity of the entire process is called into question. The City Council should investigate whether these actions violated NTCP policy, were properly authorized, whether they reflect equitable treatment of all residents, and whether conflicts of interest influenced the decision-making process. If the investigation reveals that the process was manipulated to benefit specific individuals, appropriate accountability measures must follow. Part IV: Why Ms. Fraley's Position Is Wrong Ms. Fraley and others advancing the view that the NTCP did not have to be followed are mistaken. Under Rancho Palos Verdes' council-manager form of government, the City Council acts through the City Manager, not through individual staff discretion, and the City Manager is charged with implementing City 24 Council decisions and adopted policies. California council-manager practice is clear : council directives adopted by formal action, including motions and resolutions, are binding on staff. Here, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP), adopted and reaffirmed by the City Council, establishes explicit qualitative and quantitative minimum criteria governing whether Public Works and the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) may recommend a Level 2 traffic calming measure . When those minimum criteria are not met, staff and the TSC lack authority to forward such a recommendation to the City Council at all. Because the subject traffic circles failed multiple City Council-adopted minimum criteria, the NTCP expressly precluded the advancement of their NTCP non -compliant recommendations, and no vote on their adoption should have occurred either within the TSC or at the City Council. By proceeding nonetheless, Public Works and the TSC acted outside the scope of their delegated authority and contrary to binding City Council policy. The Unauthorized TSC Framework On September 23, 2024, by Ms. Fraley's admission, after years of ignoring the NTCP under Director Awwad's leadership, TSC voted to adopt their own traffic safety framework that they sought to supersede the City-Council -twice-passed NTCP. Mr. Crossman, the primary architect of the unauthorized TSC framework even boldly discussed the new framework deleting sections of the City Council's NTCP: Crossman: "The other thing was just, so, when this is approved, can we add this to the traffic manual that we have online now, in terms of perhaps deleting any existing flow charts from that manual, so that we're not redundant, or potentially, you know, confusing, in terms of having conflicting flow charts?" Awwad: "Yeah, I think we need to update the manual. .. " Tye: "So, on line, for those of you, if you're ever curious about what we can or cannot do, there is a traffic calming manual. We do not have the ability, nor does the city, to just say, we think there should be a red light or a traffic light there, a stop sign there, and put it there . There is a prescribed engineering standard that we have to meet every time we want to change a roadway design, we want to add a traffic signal or change speeds, because there are legal ramifications . We have to make sure that we follow along with the engineering standards, because if we don't , we open up the city to liability. So anytime we want to do something, we have to make sure that we meet prevailing standards . And if we don't, then we step outside of that safety net, and we do so at our own peril. So, for those of you that are interested, on the c ity's website, there is something called a traffic calming manual that gives us, gives some of the techniques that we can use to slow cars down or to assist with traffic control." The manual Mr. Tye references is the NTCP, which, by Ms . Fraley's own admission, Public Works and TSC have ignored for "~5 years". As Mr. Tye correctly points out, when the TSC steps outside of engineering standards (i .e. installing traffic circles through and leading into 10% grades) and ignores the NTCP (i .e. meet prevailing standards adopted by the City Council that he describes as the "traffic calming 25 manual"), they "open up the city to liability" and they step outside of the "safety net" of prevailing standards at their "own peril." Public Works and TSC Unfamiliarity with Their Own Guidelines A review of the June 24, 2024 TSC meeting where the idea of the new illegitimate TSC -created framework to replace the NTCP was discussed makes it clear that many members of Public Works and TSC are not familiar with the contents of the NTCP which is the document that explicitly defines what the TSC can and cannot do: • Ramzi Awwad at the June 24, 2024 TSC Meeting: "I've looked at some other agencies and one other agency that I worked for previously. There are some agencies that do require a petition process at the onset. And that can come in two forms. Uh, I'm going off memory here, so don't ask me which agency it was, please. But , um, there was one agency that I recall that had a certain threshold, and I think it was 50% of the affected , um , residents had to be in favor of a request for traffic calming ."48 The agency that Director Awwad might be thinking of could be the TSC under the NTCP. Under the City Council-passed NTCP, a petition from 60% of affected residents is required for Level 2 traffic measures 49 . • Mark Crossman at the June 24, 2024 TSC Meeting: "I think the petition idea is a brilliant idea, and I think it really should be done , because you initially get at least an interest or a sense of the concern. How do we establish , because I didn't really see in a manual where that data would come from, How do you think how do we establish what is the affected area? And how many homes are in that area to determine, say, 50 %, okay, 50% what , right? So who would determine that?"50 Again , the NTCP which has been in effect since 2008 contains a sample petition that provides instructions as to what a petition is required to look like and the language that is to be used in the petition . While Director Awwad did not answer Mr. Crossman's question in the following manner, he should have responded that City Council has passed the NTCP, and the NTCP explicitly states that : • "The petition , which is shown on page 33 [of the NTCP], must have the support of 60% of the property owners on the section of street (or neighborhood) within the limits of the requested traffic calming measures as recommended in the Engineering Study. The limits generally consist of all properties between the first and last device in a series, as well as any property within 200 feet of any device . Under the NTCP, a petition from 60% of affected residents is required for Level 2 traffic measures;''5 1 Rather than respond to Mr. Crossman with the requirements that City Council has enacted in the NTCP and TSC must follow it as enacted , Director Awwad proceeded to discuss policies at other agencies he 48 h ttps: / /rpv.gra n i c us.com/player/clip/ 46QQ?vi ew _1 cl =5&red i rec t= true 49 h ttps:/ /www.rpvca.gov/Docu mentCen ter/View/1 2760/Traffic-Calmi ng-Guiclelines-December-2008 Page 5 . 50 h ttps:/ /rpv.gra n1cus.com/player /clip/ 4600?view_icl =5&red Irec t=true 5 1 https://www.rp 11ca .gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guiclel1nes-December-2008 Pages 5 a nd 33 . 2 6 worked at before becoming employed by Rancho Palos Verdes and becoming subject to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' policies passed by the City Council. • John Tye at the June 24, 2024 TSC Meeting: "Perhaps to simplify, when we're going to tell these people that are coming forward with a traffic complaint, and we're going to tell them, hey, you know, we would look for a petition. Perhaps we could have a generic one on the website where something prepared that we can email it to them saying, hey, this is this is what it should look like so that they can use maybe like a blank form with headings on it. Because in other words, we don't want them to think that we're brushing them off . We want to make this as easy and as practical as practical as possible. So maybe we could come up with some sort of a form or an outline saying, hey, this this is a petition and this is what we would suggest that you do."52 The NTCP contains sample petitions for proposing new traffic measures and removing existing traffic measures.53 • Ramzi Awwad at the June 24, 2024 TSC Meeting: "I worked at an agency, what they did is, you have to have a certain level of community buy -in to address the problem in general. So, you'd have that 30% of the block, or couple of blocks, or whatever it was, that said, we believe there's a problem here and we need a solution. Then you go to validating the problem . Crash results, um, and uh , speed surveys, et cetera . So what that does and I think it gets stepping back to the goal of making sure the resources are used , where they are most needed . So if the data says, no, this is not... we could set a threshold , this is not 5 miles an hour or more above the speed limit ."54 In this passage from the 2024 conversation (after the installation of the traffic circles in 2023 based on the TSC's NTCP-noncompliant recommendation to City Council) where TSC is attempting to create their own NTCP without City Council input , Director Awwad discusses the idea of neighborhood petitions and minimum speeds over the maximum limit as required parameters that must be met before TSC can take action like they are new and novel ideas for the TSC to consider rather than the City -Council enacted policy that the TSC has been required to follow since 2008 . Again, the NTCP which has been in effect since 2008 contains a 60% threshold for support requirement. Further, the NTCP also has a requirement that speeds be above 7 mph to be considered for a Level 2 traffic measure like traffic circles. Two speed studies were done on Avenida Classica in June 2021 and December 2022 with the first study results rounded to 7 mph over the limit and the second study showing speeds that were 7.5 mph over the limit. However, as mentioned on multiple occasions, the 25 -mph speed limit sign was removed from the downhill stretch of the road between October 2018 and December 2023 55 (invalidating the speed studies) and the street failed multiple other required criteria in the NTCP to be considered for traffic circles or other Level 2 traffic measures. See page 24 of my July 31, 2025 letter for time -lapsed photographic evidence of the speed limit sign removal. 56 52 https:/ /rpv. gra ni cus.com/player/cllp/ 46QQ?view_id=5&red 1 rect=true 53 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter /V i ew/12760/T raffic-Calming-Gu id ell nes-December-:2_Q_08 Pag e 3 3. 54 https://rpv.gran i cus.com/player/cl i p/ 46QQ?view_id=5&re d i rect=true 55 https:/ /rpv.gran1 cus.com/Documen tViewer. ph p?file=rpv_d09cl495c8 ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1,pdf &view= 1 Pa ge 246 . 56 https:/ /rpv.gran icus .com/DocumentViewer. php?file=rpv _c109cl495c8ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1 . pelf &view= 1 Page 246 . 27 A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Authority Public Works and TSC seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of their authority. At the September 23, 2024 57 meeting, newTSC member Jeanne Min mentioned the preparation on the newTSC authored framework that would be needed before taking the framework to City Council for approval: • Ms. Min: "I think before it goes to the City Council, we definitely need to have all of the, like, the sheet, in place, or, you know, the questions kind of lined up, and then all the various processes kind of detailed."58 Director Awwad: "Yeah, I was actually not planning to take it to the City Council. I think it's a TSC .. "59 Mr. Tye: "In -house . This is an in-house, yeah ."60 Director Awwad: "And, you know, and ultimately, the significant changes that are made go individually to the City Council."61 Mr. Tye: "Right. Yeah, that's the actual work that's done, but as far as our framework, that stays in here."62 Contrary to the belief of Public Works and TSC, the framework that they use to make their decisions is not "in-house." With their "in-house" framework, they are formally disregarding the NTCP where City Council has voted to adopt the framework and program that it expects the City Manager, Public Works, and TSC to faithfully follow. "The actual work" has to be done in conformity with the guidelines passed by the City Council. If Director Awwad and TSC members want to pass their own NTCP, they will first need to all be elected to City Council so they can acquire that authority to rescind the current program and adopt one of their own . The City Council, through Resolution 2008-77 and the adoption of the 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines, established the framework under which the Traffic Safety Committee was to operate. Under RPV's Council Rules of Procedure Section 2.6(c), the City Manager is required to "supervise staff to ensure that each staff member maintains the policies and direction of the Council."63 The City Engineer has admitted in writing that the 2008 Guidelines "have not been used for the past few years (~5 years)" and that "there are no documents" showing formal rescission. 64 This means 57 h ttps:/ /rpv.gra ni cus .com/player /clip/ 4640?view_icl =5&recli rect=true 58 h ttps ://rpv.gra n i c us .com /player /cl1 p/ 464Q?yi ev'Li cl =5&recl i rect= true 59 https :/ /rpv.gra ni cus.com/player/clip/4640?view_icl =5&recl i rect=true 6 0 https :/ /rpv.gra ni cus.com/player/clip/4640?view_icl=5&recl irect=true 61 h ttps :// rpv. gra n i cu s .corn/player/clip/ 4640?vi ew_i cl =5& reel i rec t= true 62 h ttps :/ /rpv. gra n i cu s .com/player/clip/ 4640?vi ew _i cl =5& reel i rec t= true 63 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/907/C1ty-Counc1l-Rules-of-Proceclure-PDF 64 See ema il from D eanna Fra l ey from Au g 5, 2025, at 8:22 PM in ema il correspo nd e n ce in Appendix 2 . 28 Council-adopted policies were ignored and abandoned without Council authorization, in apparent conflict with the City Manager's supervisory obligations under Section 2.G(c). Who authorized the abandonment of Council -adopted policies? Who ultimately bears responsibility for this apparent dereliction of duty? RPV MAYOR: "VETO POWER": The 60% Community Support Requirement: Not a Guideline, a Requirement The City-Council-enacted NTCP defines both speed humps and traffic circles as Level 2 traffic calming mitigations 65 . As documented throughout this letter, the NTCP establishes explicit requirements that must be met before a Level 2 traffic calming mitigation can be installed. One of those requirements is that a petition demonstrating 60% support from the community must be obtained before installation 66 . Public Works and TSC ignored this requirement entirely. If there is any doubt as to whether the 60% requirement is indeed mandatory, the Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes made it explicitly clear that it was a mandatory requirement. The following exchange at the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting 67 , moments before City Council voted unanimously to reaffirm the NTCP, shou ld remove all doubt: RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic : You said historically the, they, they have been paid for by the city, the speed humps, is that right?68 Acting City Manager Carolynn Petru: That's correct . RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic : 100% by the city? Acting City Manager Carolynn Petru : That's how it's listed in the program. RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic: And there's never been a situation where the city has thought it appropriate to put speed humps without the request of residents? Acting City Manager Carolynn Petru : That I don't know. No. RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic: So , it would only be at the behest or the request of the residents that a speed hump be considered? Okay. Public Works Director Michael Throne: If the city did see a need for a device such as this, we would contact the residents in the a re a and get their support for it because it does disrupt their quality of life. There's, you know, there's, um, issues related to it. There's noise issues, there's congestion issues that they may not necessarily endorse. So we would alway s check with them . RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic: Yeah, because I do recall there being an uproar on some of that. I grew up on the east side over there when some of those humps went in over there that there was, you know, it was almost like it was a cram down versus the residents requesting it. No, we're putting 65 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760Liraffic-Calming-Guidel1 nes-December-2008 Page 5 . 66 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter /View/12 760/Traffic-Calmi ng-Guideli nes-December-2008 Page 5 . 67 https :/ /rpv.gra ni cus.com/player /clip/145 ?view_id =5&redirect=true 68 https:/ /rpv.grani cus.com/player/clip/145?view_id =5&red irect=true 29 them in there because of all these issues. So I just, I'm not sure I understand. So you're saying there are times when the c ity would request of the re sidents an d they ... What exactly are you telling me now? Public Works Director Michael Throne: There ma y be an instance t h at in the future, the city m ight identify the need to put a traffic calming device in an area, but we would a lw ays confer with the residents. We would just not work with .. RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic: Understood. but do the residents have veto power over that? It there's, you know, is there a 60% have to ap rove it? Or what is the number? Is it 60? Public Works Director Michael Throne: It would be 60 %. RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic: Six zero . So it doesn't matter who initiates it. It has to be 60% a proval. Okay, that's the answer to my question. Thanks. The implications of this exchange are unambiguous . City Council's expectation, confirmed by the City Manager and Public Works Director in open session moments before the most recent unanimous reaffirmation vote, is that Level 2 traffic calming mitigations are never to be installed without 60% community support. Mayor Duhovic characterized this 60% threshold as residents having "Veto pOWer-"69 over whether a Level 2 device could be installed in their community. The City Manager, Public Works, and TSC violated this requirement and ignored it completely. Not only was a petition never collected to establish support for these traffic circles , the TSC did not seek feedback from a single resident at the July 24 , 2023 meeting when it voted to advance the proposal to install traffic circles to the City Council. The community was given no voice before the TSC voted to recommend installation, and they were denied what Mayor Jerry Duhovic described as their City-Council mandated "veto power"70 , a fatal violation of City-Council-established due process.7 1 The Community Has Now Spoken, and the Answer Is Clear After installation, we did what Public Works and TSC should have done before installation: we surveyed the community. To collect views on the traffic circles , a Google form was initiated and distributed to residents living on Avenida Classica, Avenida Celestial, Avenida Esplendida, and Avenida Selecta. The survey received 53 responses: 50 respondents (94%) seeking the traffic circles' removal and 3 respondents (6%) expressing a desire for the circles to remain.72 Based on households, 34 households want the traffic circles removed and 3 households want to keep them. The evidence is overwhelming : these traffic circles cannot meet the 60% community support threshold required by the NTCP. They were installed without community consent, and the community has now formally rejected them. If the City-Council-enacted NTCP had been followed as the City Manager, Public Works, and the TSC were required to do, the City could have avoided wasting more than $50,000 73 on a 69 https :/ /rpv.grani cus.com/player/clip/145?v1ew_1el=S&reel Irect=true 70 https :/ /rpv.granicus.com/player /cli p/145?view_iel=5&reel irect=true 7 1 https:/ /wwvv . rpvca .gov/DocumentCen ter/View/'I 2760/Traffic-Calmi ng-Guieleli nes-December-2008 Page 5 . 72 h ttps:/ /rpv.granicus .com/DocumentV1ewer. php?file=rpv_e109el495c8 ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4el 1. pelf &view= 1 Pa ge 79 . 73 https:/ /rpv.granicus .com/DocumentViewer. php?file=rpv _el09el495c8ffelc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pelf &vI ew= 1 Pa ge 64 . 30 project that is a dangerous deviation from established traffic engineering guidance (i.e. installation of a device on a 10% grade that is not recommended for grades above 3% to 4%) and unwanted by a resoundingly large portion of the community. TSC Member Song's Dismissive Response Rather than acknowledge the procedural failures and documented community opposition, TSC member Kit Song chose to antagonize the residents who came forward: TSC member Kit Song: "So I'm strongly in support of staff proceeding with this [keeping the traffic circles despite significant opposition from residents], and I was also noticing that although they're trying to be impressive with the sea of red, there are many more homes that are not red on that map than are red. We never ... So we're not hearing from hearing from all of the people in the community at this time because we're hearing from the people objecting."74 Mr. Song's comments suggest he did not fulfil his responsibility to review the agenda materials before the meeting . Had he done so, he would have seen that Public Works itself required us to submit a petition with "wet signatures", and the petition by its nature would have only included opposition to the circles . However, if he had read the meeting materials, we would have seen that prior to the wet petition, we completed a digital survey that provided opportunity for both supporters and opponents to express their views . He would have seen the following passage in the materials : July 31 , 2025 letter : "To collect views on the traffic circles , a google form was initiated and distributed to people living on Avenida Classica, Avenida Celestial, Avenida Esplendida, and Avenida Selecta. The survey received 53 responses with 50 respondents (94%) seeking the traffic circles' removal and 3 respondents (6%) expressing a desire for the traffic circles to remain . Based on households, 34 households want the traffic circles removed, and 3 households want to keep the traffic circles . The map on Page 2 shows the distribution of household views, and Page 3 lists the respondents ."75 It is unreasonable to expect any community survey to achieve a 100% response rate . The 53 residents who responded were those who chose to participate. When flyers were left at each house's doorsteps , we had no way of knowing whether they would support or oppose the traffic circles. The results are statistically decisive : 94% opposition.76 Mr. Song characterized the documented community opposition as residents "trying to be impressive."77 This dismissive and antagonizing framing misses the point entirely. The "sea of red" is not theater. It is hard data establishing that when the City Manager, Public Works, and TSC stop ignoring the City -Council twice -enacted NTCP guidelines and finally carry out the requirements of the NTCP such as the obligation to obtain 60% community support , they will fail to meet that threshold . The community has spoken. The answer is no. 74 http::,_:/ /rpv. gra n i cu s .com/player le lip/ 487 3?vi ew _1 cl =S&rn_d i rec t= true 75 https://rpv.gra ni cus.com/Docume ntViewer. php?file=rpv _cl09d495c8ffelc2945fc6bf952b2ea4el 1 . pelf &view= 1 Pa ge 79. 76 http1,:/ /rpv.gran icus.com/Docu mentViewer. php?file=rp_v_e109cl495_c8ffelc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1 .pelf &view= 1 Pa ge 7 9 . 77 h ttps://rpv.gran i cus.com/player/clip/ 48 73?view_id=5&recl irect=true 31 Exhibit 8. Avenida Classica Digital and "Wet Signature" Petition Results 50 Digital Petitioners and 32 "Wet Signature" Households Demand the Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles ~~~~~ 50 Di~ital Petitioners 32 Part V: The Missing Speed Limit Sign and Invalid Speed Studies The Fundamental Procedural Failure Sound traffic engineering practice requires that agencies exhaust recognized traffic control devices before resorting to expensive traffic calming measures . The California MUTCD explicitly states that "roundabouts and traffic circles are circular intersection designs and are not traffic control devices ."78 California Vehicle Code Section 21401 79 legally requires all traffic control devices on streets and highways to conform to MUTCD standards. Speed limit signs are recognized traffic control devices; traffic circles are not . Before spending $39,000 to $54,000 80 of taxpayer money on traffic circles that multiple authorities recognize as inappropriate for this grade, did Public Works first attempt the most basic and cost -effective intervention available under the California Vehicle Code: properly posting the speed limit? The answer is no . The speed limit sign on that street disappeared sometime after October 2018 81 . While Public Works has been prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars on modifying these unwanted traffic circles, they remain highly resistant to the idea of reinstalling the missing speed limit sign . The City has a responsibility to investigate how it came to disappear and why Public Works is so resistant to replace it. This is a pressing issue that demands immediate attention . A Speed Limit Sign That Disappeared at a Critical Moment The absence of a speed limit sign alone would be sufficient to invalidate the speed studies that purportedly justified these installations. But the situation is far more troubling. The speed limit sign was not merely absent, it disappeared around the time the speed studies were conducted and has remained missing for years despite repeated resident complaints. Adding to the irregularities, two separate speed studies were conducted on this street. Public Works has never explained why the first study was deemed insufficient or what deficiency necessitated a second study. When an agency conducts multiple studies on the same street, a reasonable person must ask: was the process repeated until it produced the desired result? Consider what the evidence suggests . A speed limit sign vanishes . Speed studies are conducted without it. The studies predictably show elevated speeds. Traffic circles are approved and installed in front of a TSC member's home without the required community petition, public discussion, or meeting all City Council -enacted NTCP required guidelines. The sign is never replaced. Exposed to these facts , a reasonable person could hypothesize that the sign was removed by the City or an interested party to artificially inflate measured speeds above the posted limit , manufacturing justification for traffic calming devices that would otherwise never qualify for installation. Any traffic engineer will confirm that a speed study conducted without proper regulatory signage does not measure baseline conditions. It measures the predictable result of removing traffic controls. This is not a 78 https://mutccl .fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11 th_Eclition/Chapter2b.pdf 79 https://law .Justia .com/codes/california/code-veh/clivision-11 /chapter-2/article-2/section-21401 / 80 https://rpv.granicus .com/Docu mentViewer. ph p?file=rpv_cI09cl495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1 .pdf &view= 1 Page 64 . 81 https:/ /rpv.grani cus.com/DocumentViewer. php?fi le=rpv_d09cl495c8ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pdf&view= 1 Page 246. 33 flawed methodology. This is a scientifically invalid study. And if the sign's removal was intentional , this is not mere incompetence. It is manipulation of the engineering process to reach a predetermined outcome . The removal of a speed limit sign could result in higher speeds that ultimately lead to injury or worse. The Fatal Contradiction in Public Works' Position Public Works' own conduct exposes the fatal contradiction in its position. If speeding on this street posed such an urgent and dangerous problem that it warranted spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on traffic circles with associated extensive circle signage installed on an inappropriate grade , a novel device rarely used in this community, why has Public Works steadfastly refused to reinstall the missing speed limit sign despite being notified of its absence multiple times over the years? Council members, a speed limit sign costs perhaps $200 to $300 installed. These traffic circles cost $39,000 to $54 ,000 and counting82 . If public safety were truly the driving concern of Public Works, the sign would have been replaced the week the initial complaint was received because they would have seen how reinstallation of the sign might assist in reducing speeds on a street where they have identified a pressing speeding issue . The refusal to take this basic , inexpensive , legally supported step while simultaneously defending an expensive and inappropriate installation reveals the actual priority : protecting the decision , not protecting the public . How did Public Works respond about the speed limit sign that has gone missing? Not in a way that would suggest that they are legitimately concerned about speed control on the st reet . Rather than respond that Public Works would promptly reinstall a speed limit sign on the downhill stretch of Avenida Classica , Ms . Fraley stated they were not required to post a speed limit sign. • Deanna Fraley, August 18, 2025 4:51 PM "In regards to your questions about the speed limit signs , there are no regulations requiring local streets to be signed as 25 miles per hour." There is at least one logical explanation for resisting deployment of the most fundamental speed control tool available under California law. One could reasonably argue that Public Works might have known that a properly posted speed limit sign could potentially demonstrate that the traffic circles were never necessary, that the speed studies were invalid , and that this entire project was built on a manufactured foundation . You cannot credibly claim that speeding constitutes an emergency requiring extraordinary intervention while refusing to deploy the single most basic traffic control device and countermeasure available . The City cannot claim a speeding problem justified traffic circles when the very device designed to regulate speed was potentially removed before measurement and has never been restored despite years of persistent request s from residents. This is the equivalent of a doctor withholding a patient's medication , documenting their predictable deterioration, prescribin g an expensive experimental treatment inappropriate for the patient's condition , 82 https:/ /rpv.gra ni cus.com/Documen tViewer. ph p?file=rpv _d09d495c8 ffclc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1 . pdf &view= 1 Page 64 . 34 and then refusing to resume the original prescription because doing so would prove the treatment was never needed. Part VI: Cost Transparency and HOA Burden Misleading Cost Representations At meetings this year, some residents have estimated that the cost of the traffic circles on Avenida Classica could be approximately $100,000 . At the November 3, 2025 meeting, Ms . Fraley attempted to downplay those estimates: • Ms . Fraley: "For the cost transparency, the concern was there's high cost and uncertainty, and there's going to be a maintenance burden to the HOA and for the response of the cost of the construction to date has been approximately $39,000. There is no cost or maintenance to the HOA like other traffic calming devices that are installed throughout the city."83 Ms. Fraley's comments are problematic in several respects. First, her $39 ,000 figure is hardly what can be described as "cost transparency." The agenda for the November 3 , 2025 meeting discloses additional anticipated costs. If the approved traffic circle "improvements" are contracted at quotes the City has obta i ned, the cost rises to approx i mately $54,000. Moreover, these are "pilot traffic circles," and Public Works has indicated at meetings that converting them to permanent installations with cement , shrubbery, or sculpture islands would entail material additional costs . The final price tag could easily exceed $100,000. This estimate is not outlandi s h: some engineering firms have indicated that the cost of traffic circles can cost as $400 ,000+ each 84 • I join my neighbors in finding such decadent, frivolous , and tone -deaf spending inappropriate, particularly given our city's ongoing landslide crisis . • November 3, 2025 TSC Agenda: "The cost to des ign and construct the init ial pilot traffic circles was approximately $39 ,000 . Staff are still obtaining quotes from vendors for the improvements , which are anticipated to cost in the range of approximately $15,000 ."85 The H OA Mainten a nce Burd e n Ms . Fraley also denies that HOAs are responsible for traffic circle upkeep. She makes this claim in direct contradiction of the City -Counc i l -enacted NTCP that states that traffic circle "landscaping must be maintained by the residents /HOA ."86 The NTCP was passed by the City Council, and the document claims HOAs are responsible. Ms. Fraley and Public Works are ignoring the NTCP (and the City Council), yet they do not have the authority to override decisions of the City Council. As shown in the comments from Acting City Manager Carolynn Petru 87 in 2 014 shown on page 24 of this letter, the City is expected to follow the guidance in the NTCP where it discusses how costs are distributed . 83 https;/ /rpv.gra n_i_cus.com/player/cUp/4873?view_id =S&redi rect=true 84 http_s:/ /www.ncJ_cog.org/getmed i a/57bdd772-1 d6b-4d 1 f-a344-94ab249ec392/2019PWR-MiniRAB-FI NAL.pdf Page 19 . 85 https :/ /rpv.grani cus.com/Documen tViewe1·. ph p?file=rpv _d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pdf &view= 1 Page 64 . 86 h ttps :/ /www.rpvca.gov/Docu mentCen ter/View/12760/Tra ffic-Calm i ng-Guideli nes-December-2008 Page 22 . 87 h ttps://rpv.gra nicus .com/player /clip/145 ?view_id =S&red irect=trJ,Je 35 Compounding the HOA issue, one side of Avenida Classica has an HOA while the other does not . The two primary supporters of the circles, along with former TSC member David Tomblin who advocated for an ambitious project on Avenida Classica, all live on the side without an HOA . Tomblin sold his house and moved out of the community after installation of the circles. If the NTCP's guidance holds and HOAs are responsible for traffic circle maintenance, the supporters will pay nothing while the large opposition group, subject to an HOA, will bear the cost of maintaining traffic circles they never wanted and believe impair the safety of our community. Part VII: Defamation and Procedural Violations at the November 3, 2025 TSC Meeting The False Accusation At the November 3, 2025 Transportation Safety Commission meeting, traffic circle supporter Dan Myers publicly accused me by name of illegal conduct. This accusation is demonstrably false. Mr. Myers submitted materials to the agenda packet showing a white Tesla making an illegal left turn, then showed a white Tesla in my driveway: • Dan Myers at November 3, 2025 TSC meeting: "Also, what is it, Dane Mott. He also, at 30145 , has made the left hand turn illegally, but he's complaining about how dangerous this is, but I have pictures of him coming down this street and making the illegal left in front of the traffic circle ."88 The car in his photograph is not mine. White Teslas are among the most common vehicle s in Rancho Palos Verdes . Further, I am not the only resident on my street with this particular make, model, and color of this vehicle . The photographic evidence makes the misidentification clear: Mr. Myers' photo shows tinted front windows and a dark or obscured interior ; my vehicle has untinted front windows and a white interior clearly visible .89 Procedural Failures That Compounded the Harm The City compounded this harm through its handling of the meeting : • Public Works published Mr. Myers' defamatory materials in the official agenda packet 90 • Staff scheduled Mr. Myers to speak after all opposition speakers had concluded • When I immediately requested via Zo om chat to respond to the false accusations of Mr. Myers , staff ignored my repeated requests • I was denied any opportunity to defend myself before the Commission vot ed and a libelous and slanderous accusation was left unchallen ged in the public record for the public to assume was 88 h ttps: / /rpv. gra n I cu s .co m/p layer /cl1 p/ 487 3?vi ew _1 d =5&recl i rect=tru e 89 See Ap pendix 1 for Dan Mye rs' photos of a w hit e Tes l a vs. photos of my ca r. 90 h ttps:/ /rpv.gran Icus .com/Documen tViewer. php?f1le=rpv_cl09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4cl 1 . pdf &view= 1 Pages 3 15 -32 0. 36 true. The TSC then voted 3-2 to retain the traffic circles, a decision reached after committee members heard me publicly accused of the very violations at issue, with no rebuttal permitted. Notice to the City The City is now on notice that documented evidence exists challenging Mr. Myers' accusations against me. Should Mr. Myers repeat these claims at any future city meeting, the City has a responsibility to acknowledge that evidence has been submitted disputing the credibility of his accusations. Allowing defamatory statements to be repeated in an official forum, when the City possesses evidence to the contrary, would constitute a failure of procedural fairness. I have always complied with traffic laws and will continue to do so. I will not, however, allow false accusations to stand unchallenged, particularly when city procedures prevented me from responding in the forum where those accusations were made. Part VIII: Concealment Rather Than Compliance When confronted with violations of the NTCP guidelines adopted by City Council, Public Works chose to remove those guidelines from the TSC website rather than address the violations. As someone who has investigated corporate fraud for over 25 years as a forensic accounting expert, I can tell you that coverups often reveal more than the original offense. Removing evidence from public view can be perceived by the public as suggesting an intent to deceive. City Council, Public Works, and the Traffic Safety Commission invested considerable effort in a joint workshop to draft and adopt the NTCP guidelines in 2008. These guidelines established specific qualitative and quantitative requirements that must be met before Level 2 devices like traffic circles can be installed. The facts demand answers: • Stop signs disappeared during speed studies and remained missing for years despite repeated resident complaints • Two unprecedented traffic circles were installed directly in front of a then-current TSC member's residence • The public was given no opportunity to participate in public discussions of the traffic circles specifically at a TSC meeting prior to installation • No NTCP-required petition demonstrating 60% community support for traffic circle installation was obtained • The grade violates standards established by government agencies and traffic engineering professional organizations • When the traffic circles are referenced to not be in compliance with City-Council-enacted NTCP guidelines, Public Works responds by having the City-Council-enacted NTCP removed from the TSC website. 37 These circles have already cost taxpayers $39,000 to $54,000, with tens of thousands more likely to follow. The pattern of procedural violations, missing sign age during critical studies, and direct benefit to a TSC member raises serious questions about conflict of interest and potential misappropriation of public funds. Council must investigate how these installations bypassed every safeguard you put in place. It must also address staff behavior regarding ignoring the NTCP and then claiming no responsibility to follow it. Part IX: Formal Requests to City Council Based on the evidence presented, we respectfully submit the following requests for City Council action: 1. Removal of the Traffic Circles We request that City Council vote to immediately remove both of the traffic circles on Avenida Classica based on: • Installation on a grade of 10% and installation on an approaching grade of 10%, in direct violation of traffic engineering standards established by federal, state, and local government authorities • Widespread community opposition documented through resident petitions • Multiple violations of the NTCP guidelines twice adopted by this Council • Departure from recognized professional guidelines published by traffic engineering organizations 2. Public Joint Inquiry We request that City Council convene a public joint meeting with the City Manager, Public Works leadership, and all current members of the Traffic Safety Commission to: • Determine how the organization came to disregard NTCP guidance twice passed by City Council • Receive formal explanation of the anomalies identified in this project, including the missing speed limit sign, the dual speed studies, the absent community petition, the "No Thru Traffic" signs, and the removal of NTCP guidelines from the TSC website • Request participation from former TSC member David Tomblin, who resided directly in front of the traffic circles and served on the Commission at the time it recommended their installation 3. Internal Investigation with Accountability Measures We request that City Council launch a full internal investigation into this matter. If wrongdoing is substantiated, we request that Council: • Suspend the Traffic Safety Committee until it can be brought back into NTCP compliance, with reconstitution of the committee and removal of non-compliant members if necessary • Require the City Manager, all Public Works staff with traffic safety responsibilities, and all current and future TSC members to sign an annual statement affirming that they have read and understand the NTCP and pledge to faithfully follow it. 38 • Draft and vote on a formal resolution reprimanding staff and TSC members responsible for their material deviations from the NTCP guidelines twice enacted by City Council • Consider appropriate personnel action, including termination, for any individual found to have violated professional standards or ethics requirements • Name in the resolution all staff members and current or former TSC members who participated in these departures from approved guidelines, covering at least the past five years as indicated by Ms. Fraley's own admission • Adopt the resolution as a standing precedent to remind all staff and committee members, now and in the future, that willful disobedience of City Council directives carries consequences 4. Comprehensive Review of TSC Recommendations Since 2020 Given Ms. Fraley's acknowledgment that NTCP guidelines have not been followed for at least five years, and given the significant departures from those guidelines documented in this project, we request that City Council: • Order a comprehensive review of all TSC recommendations issued since 2020 to determine whether they also failed to comply with Council-approved NTCP guidelines • Reopen for public review any recommendations found to be non-compliant • Rescind any such recommendations that cannot be brought into conformity with NTCP guidelines City Council and City Manager Accountability for NTCP Non-Compliance An important question that the City Council and City Manager must publicly answer is whether they knew that proposals coming from the TSC were not in compliance with the NTCP when the City Council voted to approve those proposals over at least the past five years, per Ms. Fraley's admission. If City Council and the City Manager knew that these proposals did not comply with the NTCP, yet never publicly voted to rescind the NTCP, then City Council would also bear responsibility for willfully violating a resolution twice enacted by prior City Councils. Resolutions represent formal policy commitments that Council is obligated to either follow or formally rescind through public action. City Council and the City Manager must answer the following questions to the public: 1. Were they aware that TSC proposals did not comply with the NTCP when voting to approve them? 2. If aware, why did they never vote to rescind the NTCP before approving non-compliant projects? 3. Do they accept responsibility for approving projects that violated policy enacted by prior City Councils? If they were aware, they too are culpable for actively and knowingly participating in practices that violate enacted city policy. While there are many violations of city policy associated with these traffic circles and perhaps other TSC recommendations, the failure to obtain a public petition from 60% of affected residents before installing 39 these Level 2 traffic calming measures is particularly egregious . As former Mayor Duhovic described it , this failure constitutes an inappropriate bypassing of residents' "veto power" and a "cram down" of a dangerous and noncompliant project on dozens and dozens of residents who never wanted it.91 Closing Statement Council members , these requests are not punitive. They are restorative . The NTCP guidelines exist because this Council recognized the need for objective standards to govern traffic safety decisions. When those standards are ignored, when evidence is potentially manipulated, and when accountability is absent, public trust erodes . The residents of this City deserve to know that guidelines passed by their elected representatives will be followed, that public funds will be spent responsibly, and that no individual or interest will receive preferential treatment. Throughout this process, I have kept my communications professional, respectful, and grounded in documented facts and established engineering standards . The response from Public Works staff, the TSC, and certain community supporters has too often consisted of personal attacks rather than substantive engagement with the issues raised. I am equally troubled by the inaccurate information Public Works has repeatedly provided, whether through misunderstanding of city guidelines or intentional misrepresentation. Public trust depends on accurate information flowing between city staff and residents . Rather than attacking the messenger, these parties should focus on the message : adhere to NTCP guidelines, honor City Council resolutions, and operate within the authority Council has granted. The City Manager bears responsibility for ensuring that City Council resolutions are faithfully executed by city staff and advisory committees. When staff or committees act outside their delegated authority or contrary to Council direction, accountability and repercussions must follow via the City Council 's oversight function. Council members, the question before you is not simply whether these traffic circles should remain . The question is whether this City will tolerate a process where evidence is potentially manipulated, City Council -passed guidelines are ignored and violated , wasteful and irresponsible costs are imposed on taxpayers installing devices on inappropriate grades , and accountability is avoided by removing the very documents that would prove the violations occurred. If this stands, it will stand as precedent . And every resident in this City should be concerned about what that precedent permits. We ask that you act to restore the public trust. Respectfully submitted , Dane Mott Resident , Rancho Palos Verdes 91 h ttps :/ /rpv.granicus.com/player /clip/145?view_1d=S&red1rect=true 40 Appendix 1: Dan Myers' pictures of a car making an illegal turn which he incorrectly identifies as my car. 41 42 Car in Dan Myers Photos: W hi te Te l sa w i t h TINTED Front W i ndows CONCLUSION: THIS CAR IS NOT MY CAR My Car: Wh i te Te l sa w i th UNTINTED Front W i ndows These pictures show my car from the same vantage point, making a legal turn. The differences are unmistakabl e . T h e white interior and driver of my car are both visible. 4 3 Photos of Another White Tesla Turning off of Avenida Celestial. This exhibit shows another white Tesla with tinted windows, photographed from my own white Tesla while turning off of Avenida Celestial. In the photo on the right, you can see the side of my white Tesla taking the photos via the car's cameras. I am not the only resident on my street with a white Tes la. Further, I am not prepared to accuse any of my neighbors. I have no way of know ing who was driving the car Mr. Myers accused of making the illegal turn, nor do I know if that is the car he photographed. I just know it was not my car, and I was not driving it. 44 APPENDIX 2. EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH DEANNA FRALEY 45 From: Dane Mott <dane_mott@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 3:47 PM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached Hello Deanna, Attached please find a copy of a petition physically signed by residents at 32 separate homes in proximity to the recently-installed traffic circles at the intersections of Avenida Celestial & Avenida Classica and Avenida Esplendida & Avenida Classica who are seeking that these dangerous traffic devices be removed from our community. The map below shows where these signers live relative to the two traffic circles. As a reminder, we initially submitted a digital petition where we had 50 respondents from 34 households seeking their removal. I would like to be added to the agenda for this coming Monday's Traffic Safety Committee meeting. The three documents attached are all part of the submission. The "wet signatures" have been scanned in. If you need them dropped off, please let me who must receive them and where their office is located. Thank you. Dane Mott 46 From : Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 18 , 2025 4:51 PM To: dane _mott@hotmail.com <dane _mott@hotmail.com> Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca .gov >; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov >; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov > Subject: Re : URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached Good afternoon Dane, In response to your public record of when the traffic calming guidelines were formally rescinded : 47 Having diligently searched the records of the City, there are no documents in the possession, custody, control of the City in response to your request. To provide more feedback on your other items, I have connected with our Public Works Director, Ramzi Awwad, and reviewed the City Council Meeting related to this topic . Around 2021, residents were contacting the Public Works Department to register complaints about traffic on Avenida Classica between Crest Road and Los Verdes Drive. As was commonly the practice at the time, a traffic study was commissioned, and the results were presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) on July 24, 2023. Prior to the TSC meeting, as was the practice at the time, a letter was sent notifying all residents within 500 feet of Avenida Classica a nd Avenida Esplendida that traffic calming measures for the surrounding area would be discussed at the TSC meeting. There was robust participation from the public, which the TSC considered in making their recommendation to the City Council. Please note that the TSC member who lived nearby recused himself from this TSC agenda item and only spoke as a member of the public. On October 3, 2023, the City Council approved a motion to install traffic circles with a point of evaluation between Public Works and the TSC . The City Council meeting also included robust public participation (Staff sent another letter in advance of this meeting notifying all resident within 500 feet of Avenida Classica and Avenida Esp lendida). I also want to correct my statement below where I said that the City Council did request an after action update from the TSC six months post installation of the traffic circles. This was incorrect. The City Council action was not to report back to City Council in six months, but for staff and the consultant to report back to the TSC in a reasonable time frame and then if needed back to the City Council for further action, if needed. The City Council also tasked staff and TSC to evaluate if there was a recommendation for a signal at Los Verdes and Hawthorne and if needed, to bring a recommendation back to the City Council for appropriation of funds . The (first) point of evaluation between Public Works and the TSC occurred on June 30, 2025. At that meeting, Staff received some feedback from the TSC and is now in the process of putting together additional inform at ion for the TSC with the intent of presenting that information at an upcoming meeting (which will also have advanced notification to area residents). That upcoming TSC meeting is the best forum for you to voice your opinion because the TSC will consider public input when formulating a recommendation to the City Council, if any. The issue of when traffic calming guidelines were adopted, rescinded, and/or replaced is not relevant to this discussion because there is no l ega l or regulatory requirement for the TSC to take such steps in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. Furthermore, the approach to this location was not unique-there were many other areas in the City where the TSC used judgement in agendizing an item . The TSC is an advisory body to the C ity Council and what matters is that the TSC's intent was very clearly conveyed to the City Council for consideration in their decision -making. In regards to your questions about the speed limit signs, there are no regulations requiring local streets to be signed as 25 miles per hour. I am not aware of why the sign may have been removed, however, the area of where a sign might be located was within the study area. The traffic engineer did not make a recommendation to install a new speed sign and therefore was not included as part of this pilot project. If you have further concerns regarding the speed limit sign you can state your opinion at the TSC meeting. 48 Thank you for your engagement with the community and please make sure to state your opinion and/or submit your petition at the TSC meeting where this item is agendized-we will be sure to notify you in advance. Thanks, Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer dfra ley@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov DOWNLOAD -'lllr - • Ap;s;~~: GETITO~ ~, • Google Play , This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Dane Mott <dane_mott@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 3 :36 PM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com <wwynder@awattorneys .com> Subject: Re: URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Thank you, Deanna. The framework you sent me was instituted on September 23, 2024. The vote to install the traffic circles happened prior to that date on July 24, 2023. I am requesting a public record of when the traffic calming guidelines that were adopted in 2008 and continue to be posted to your website to this day (8/8/2025) were formally rescinded? Please provide me reference to a Traffic Safety Committee meeting and /or City Council meeting where these guidelines were formally rescinded. If no date can be provided then my presumption is that the committee was acting outside of its authority when it voted to advance the traffic circles on July 24, 2023 . As a result, those dangerous circles should be removed immediately because the necessary due process was not followed to install them. 49 If the 2008 guidelines were never formally rescinded, the issue is that the Traffic Safety Committee was acting in violation of its guidelines for operation when they voted to install the traffic circles on July 24, 2023. There were multiple violations of published guidelines: there was no public petition, the traffic count was too low to justify a Level 2 device, and the street scored 21 when it needed 51 for a Level 2 device . Further, these particular Level 2 traffic circles were installed directly in front of a Traffic Safety Committee member's home with the second one within 31 O feet of his home despite this road failing mult i ple provisions of the published guidelines that are necessary to receive a Level 2 traffic device . These actions are made more egregious in the context of Chairman Tye's comments at the September 2024 meeting that the city had more than 50 projects competing for the City's limited resources . Further, a speed limit sign was removed on Avenida Classica sometime after 2018 (as documented in my letter), and its removal potentially was used to increase speeds for the speed studies to attempt to justify the installation of traffic devices on the street. Are you aware of whether the city removed this speed limit sign or if it was removed by another party? Do you know why the city never re installed the speed limit sign despite it being mentioned as not being there at the July 24, 2023 meeting? Why did Public Works not raise the issue with KOA about the error in their traffic study regarding the presence of the speed limit sign? When can we expect the speed limit sign to be reinstalled (preferably towards the beginning of the road at Crest and Avenida Classica rather than Avenida Classica and Avenida Celestial)? Your previous email indicated that "the City's Traffic Calming Guidelines have not been used for the past few years (~5 years)" which also coincides with when the committee member who had a conflict of interest in this matter and who received the personal benefit of two traffic circles worth tens of thousands of dollars was on the committee . If the committee were going to adopt a policy of not following the published guideline s that had existed for well over a decade (that again remain published to th e committee website to this day and are projected to the public as its rules of operation), that is a material decision regarding the operation of the committee and would have needed to be discussed and voted on in a public meeting . There was a vote to adopt a policy on September 23 , 2024, but there would also have needed to be a vote to stop following the published guidelines at some point if we are to consider them voided at the time of the decision on July 24, 2023 . If the City's position is that the 2008 guidelines stopped being followed on September 23, 2024, these circles were a July 24 , 2023 decision which would have made them subject to the 2008 guidelines. Can you appreciate the bad optics of this situation and how the public can see this as a violation of trust? I will gather a petition with "wet signatu res" from the people who were on the digital petition for the September 22, 2025 meeting. Note that I want my original letter and petition included as part of the September 22, 2025 agenda for public reference . I attended the June 30 , 2025 meeting . The meeting started 45 minutes late due to the committee's inability to achieve the necessary quorum of committee member present in the room. It would be great if Public Works could coordinate with committee members to ensure they maintain a level of professionalism and arrive to the meeting on time and prepared to deliberate. There was a meeting room full of citizens who were forced to wait for a committee member to drive to the meeting from San Pedro. Thank you , Dane Mott 50 From: Deanna Fraley <dfra ley@rpvca .gov> Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 12:32 PM To: Dane Mott <dane_mott@ hotmail.com > Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rp vca.gov > Subject: Re: URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached Good afternoon Dane, Please see attached meeting agenda and minutes from the September 23, 2024 TSC meeting where the new framework for processing traffic requests was approved. The Framework is not something that was required to go to City Council for review and/or approval. The Traffic Safety Committee was created to help with these requests, which is why they adopted a framework. I did want to let you know that the City Council did request an after action update from the TSC six months post installation of the traffic circ les . The TSC have asked City Staff to work with the traffic engineer to make the short term recommendation/updates to the traffic circles in order to address the concerns that were brought to them at the last meeting. That is the stage we are in now. The City is waiting for final plans from the Traffic Engineer so we can implement the recommendations. The City, and its Traffic Engineer, will monitor the affects of the recommended installation and will report back to TSC . At that time, the TSC will provide an update and/or recommendation to the City Council of what to do long term . With all of that said, there is still time to provide your petition and commentary to the TSC and City Council for consideration. Since your request is in the middle of a pilot study, I do not think you need to follow the same petition protocol , but instead, gather your neighbors and/or petition and be prepared to speak at the next TSC meeting or wait until this it em is on the agenda for a TSC meeting. Understanding you may want your concerns heard sooner rather than later, our next scheduled (not yet confirmed) TSC meeting is on September 22, 2025. Pl ease l et me know if you would sti ll like me to define the limits for the 60% threshold. Feel free to reach out with any further questions or if you would like to discuss anything further. Thanks, Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer dfra ley@rpvca .g_Qv Phone -(310) 544-5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd . Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov DOWNLOAD -. ntr t.. GET IT ON rl • Google Play 51 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Dane Mott <dane_mott@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 11 :36 AM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached Hello Deanna, I am following up on my previous email. I would appreciate a timely response. Also, please provide me with the formally defined limits necessary for the 60% support threshold. A list of addresses in the defined area would be helpful. I assume the city will follow the same 60% threshold of support to get supporter from the community to install permanent circles since no public input was sought before these dangerous devices were installed despite strong opposition from the community. Permanent traffic circles would be new traffic devices that are different from the temporary traffic devices the city has installed. Note that the petition process you mentioned in your response to me is not a new policy. The exact same requirements have been in place since 2008. Thus, the importance of identifying a formal period where the city council formally suspended those rules for the Traffic Safety Committee and then reinstated them. Thank you, Dane Mott From: Dane Mott <dane_mott@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 6:28 PM To: Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> Cc: Noel Casil <ncasil@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached Hi Deanna, Thank you for your response. 52 Can you please send me the city's new official guidelines and documentation for when city council voted to rescind those guidelines and adopt new ones? Thank you, Dane Mott Sent from my iPhone On Aug 5, 2025, at 8:22 PM, Deanna Fraley <dfraley@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good afternoon Dane, I want to apologize for the delayed responses as your email ended up in our Junk Folders. I also understand you emailed Ramzi separately so I will respond to that initial email as well. Initial Email Responses: First, I would like to thank you for reaching out and bringing your concerns to our attention. I wanted to let you know that the City's Traffic Calming Guidelines have not been used for the past few years (~5 years). Understanding it is still linked on our City website, we will work to have it removed to hopefully relieve any further confusion . During the time this concern was brought to the TSC's attention, the petition process was not being practiced so there is no petition to provide at this time. However, since that time, the TSC has been inundated with traffic calming requests by individual home owners that did not represent the whole neighborhood's concerns and therefore, the TSC reimplemented a petition process for home owners to obtain wet signatures from other property owner's in the area to present their concerns to TSC for review. The process requires a petition showing 60% support from affected properties . The City will typically help define the limits to help with the area outline . Responses to email below: As discussed above, the TSC recently implemented a new process for requests to be presented at at TSC meeting. The City can help define the area, however the signatures are required to be wet signatures and one property counts as one vote . Additionally, the vote/signature must come from the property owner or property manager. I have attached a sample petition for your review. The City will then verify the signatures. Once the signatures have been verified, the petition will be added to the agenda of the next TSC meeting . Understanding that this is TSC's process, if you would like to proceed, I would be more than happy to discuss the area needed to obtain the 60% signatures. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like to discuss anything further. Thanks, <Outlook iup20oyd> Deanna Fraley, PE Principal I City Engineer <Outlook-Text Desc.png> dfraley@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5250 Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. <Qutlook-5bljvvir.png> <Outlook-k2k40ef4. png> 53 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited . If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Dane Mott <dane _mott@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 6:42 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov> Subject: URGENT REQUEST for Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles -Petition and Community Letter Attached Some people who received this message don't often get email from dane_mott@hotmail.com. Learn whyJbiS_ Ls important EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear City Council Members, City Manager Mihranian, Traffic Safety Committee Members, and Director Awwad, Attached please find a petition signed by over 50 Rancho Palos Verdes residents and a detailed letter urgently requesting the removal of the traffic circles at the intersections of Avenida Classica & Avenida Celestial and Avenida Classica & Avenida Esplendida. These dangerous installations have made our streets less safe -for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists . Safety is our foremost concern, but the attached letter also outlines serious and immediate issues regarding: 1. Dangerous design and documented safety risks 2. Gross violations of established due process 3. Material ethics and conflicts of interest concerns 4. Unjustified cost burden and lack of transparency 5. Substantial legal liability exposure to the City To collect community views, we distributed a Google Form to residents of Avenida Classica, Avenida Celestial, Avenida Esplendida, and Avenida Selecta. Out of 53 responses, 94% (50 respondents) supported removal of the circles, representing 34 households. Only 3 households supported retaining them. The map below visualizes this feedback. 54 We request that this issue and letter be formally placed on the agendas of both the Traffic Safety Committee and the City Council for prompt discussion and resolution. These installations are not just unpopular-they are an immediate danger, and we fear that without swift action, someone will be seriously or fatally injured. Fellow petitioners are cc'ed on this email in case they would like to amplify any of their key concerns. We urge the City to act immediately. Respectfully, Dane Mott On behalf of concerned residents-petition and letter attached Note the letter includes residents' names but not their emails to respect their privacy. Should the city need email addresses to verify support, a separate excel sheet with email addresses is provided, but we do not want that information exposed in public agenda documents. <image.png> <RPV Petition Sample 1 Blank.jpg> 55 Summary of Traffic Calming Measures Traffic Category Calming Device Ul = 0 ·.a u Cl.I = Cl.I Q ~ 0 .!:::I ,.,. 0 ::c: Table D-1. Traffic Calming Measures Description -A channelization that causes a series of tight turns in opposite directions in an othetwise stra ight stretch of road A raised circul ar is land placed in the center of an intersection Applicability . . . • • Inappropriate for use on: • Stree ts classified as co ll ector or higher • Bus routes • Emergency respo n se ro u tes • -Where there is limited stopp ing s ight dis tance • Where the re is a grade that exceeds 5% May be used on two lane streets with alternative access points . Inappropriate for use on: • Streets classified as maj or or higher • Sus routes • Eme rgency response ro utes • Where there is limited sight distance • Whe re t here is a grade t hat exceeds 5% Advantages • Slows traffic • Creates opportunity for landscaping • Tends not to divert traffic to nea r by streets • Slows traffic on each approach • Creates la ndscaping opportunity • Reduces ROW conflict • Tends not to divert traffic to nearby streets Disadvantages May: • Cause some lo ss of on-street parking • Increase emergency response time • Impact driveways • Affect drainage and street sweeping May: • Impact large vehicles 1 turns • Increase emergency response t ime https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/defa u lt/files/street_design_man ua l_ma rch _201 7-fi nal. pdf (p . 155) 56 3D . NElGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLES & MINI -ROUNDABOUTS Neighborhood traffic circles and mini -roundabouts, while similar in appearance, have some unique design differences . Ne ighborhood traffic circles are designed to fit within existing intersections . Neighborhood traffic circles typical ly do not have a raised central island or include diverter islands on t he approaches to the intersection . Because of their size, most vehicles larger than a passenger car must travel over at least a po rt ion o f the central island to make a left turn; the central island in a neighborhood traffic circle is typically flush for this reason . By contrast, mini -roundabouts typical ly include diverter islands on the approaches , and a raised, traversable central Island that includes mountable aprons, as shown in Figure 3-11 . Depending on the width of the street approaches and intersection, mini -roundabouts may involve modi fi cation of the intersection . Full -size roundabouts have many of the same safety and operat ional benefits of neighborhood traffic circles and min i-roundabouts . However, due to their size, they generall y have more impacts on drainage, right -of-way, and utilities . Therefore, fu ll-size roundabouts are beyond the scope of the Traffic Calming Program but may be initiated as a separate project that follows DelDOT's typ ica l Project Development Process . More information about full -size roundabouts, as well as design guidance, is available on DelDOT's website . Figu re 3 -11. Exampl es of M i ni-Roun dabouts Aoollcatlon · Types of Streets • Neighborhood traffic circles are appropr iate for the junction of two subdivision streets • Mini -roundabouts are appropriate for the junction of two subdivis ion streets, local, or collector roadways Speed Limits • Neighborhood traffic circles are appropriate for roadways wi th posted speed limits of 25 MPH • Mini -roundabouts are appropriate for roadways w ith posted speed lim its of 30 MPH or less Design Vehicles • The design veh icle for both neighborhood traffic circles and m ini - roundabouts is a passenger car St reet Grades • Maximum recommendeclgrade is 6% _.J 37 April 2025 https://deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/traffic_calming/pdfs/Dela..ware_TrafficCalmingDesignManual.p df (p. 37) 57 Subject: FW: RPV Residents Demand Remova l of the Traffic Cir cles on Avenida Class ica From: Brad Spel l berg <bspellberg@dhs.lacounty.gov > Sent: Thursda y, February 26, 2026 2:21 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Cc: dane mott@hotmail.com ; Shu-chieng Hsieh <suehsieh70@yahoo.com >; cspellbe@students.pitzer.edu ; mspellbe@students.pitzer .edu Subject: RPV Residents Demand Removal of the Traffic Circles on Avenida Class ica Some people who rec e ived thi s message don't often get e mail from bspel l berg@dhs.lacounty.gov . Learn why this is important attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Dear RPV City Council, I am writing, with more emails to come from many of my neighbors , to demand the removal of both traffic circles from Avenida Classica, the first regular business item on the March 3 rd City Council meeting agenda. My family and I have felt unsafe driving on Classica since the moment the circles were installed-and our neighbors feel the same. We live at 30140 A venida Celestial. The design of these circles is embarrassing and frankly, one of the worst examples of government overreach I have experienced in my life. As you can see from the picture at the bottom of this email, there is virtually no space in between the edge of the traffic circle on Classica and the beginning of A venida Celestial. When we leave our house, we have to turn right onto Classica from Celestial. Classica curves up and to the right , so as we move towards the intersection, we have no visibility for what cars are coming up the hill on Classica. Prior to the traffic circles, cars would stay nearer the center of the street, giving plenty of room for cars on Celestial to creep forward until we had enough visibility to know that no car is coming and it is safe to go. The traffic circles make it incredibly dangerous to make that right turn. At the very first bit of creeping forward to see if anyone is coming , our cars are already in the direct path of oncoming traffic . We explicitly complained about this to the RPV city engineers , and to the Traffic Committee , and they completely blew us off. Never bothered to try driving it themselves. Simply said , we know it's safe. Well, my family is here to tell you, we know it's not. I've personally had 2 near misses where I barely avoided an accident with a car steaming up Classica as I was trying to turn right. My neighbors tell me the same. The only reason an accident hasn't happened yet is we are being extremely cautious, to the point of paranoia, when we approach that intersection. Unless these traffic circles are removed, an accident is going to occur. When it does, I can promise you, my neighbors and I will be filing a class action lawsuit against the city for ignoring multiple written and in person complaints from us to city representatives since the circles were installed. I What makes this entire mess more ga lling is the process that was used to ins~all these circles. No due process was follow ed. Standard city law/procedure was admitted not to have been followed. The City Engin eers have overtly stated that the city policy on these matters is "no longer being used". No alert was given to residents before they were installed. My neighbor, Dane Mott, has docume nted in detail the highly suspect process that was used to get these traffic circles installed (including conducting a bogus speed study/survey after the speed limit signs were removed on th e s treet!). Furthermore, and perhaps mo st d amning of all, the City Engineer indicated in public session at the last Traffic Safety Commi ttee meeting that speed bumps could not be installed because the grade of the hill was too steep fo r speed bumps (the recognized limit for speed bumps being 8 degrees). And yet , the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, issued report 672 on Traffic Circles in 2010 (2 nd edition), in which they clearly indicate that traffic circles should not be installed, because they are not safe, on an incline of 4 degrees or more. Which means, the RPV City Engineers refused to install speed bumps, and instead installed Traffic Circles, even though the incline limit for Traffic Circles is LOWER THAN THE INCLINE LIMIT FOR SPEED BUMPs. In fact, the incline of Classica ranges between 8 and 11 degrees, so it is far to steep for traffic circles according to recognized national guidelines that were commissioned by the National Transportation Safety Board. I encourage you to view the below video , which is damning . We demand the traffic circles be removed , and we will be present at the City Council meeting to ensure that our voices are heard by the Council. o https://youtu.be/fEih53Yz83E Thank you for your attention. Brad Spellberg 30140 A venida Celestial Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 2 Car on Celestial needs to reach about this point while turning right to have visibility to ensure no other car is coming up the hill on classica Car coming up the hill on Classica has no visibility to cars pulling forward from Celestial-direct collision course Subject: FW: Traffic Circles in Avenida Celestial From: Catherine Spellberf <cspellberg@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:54 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Brad Spellberg <bspellberg@dhs.lacounty.gov> Subject: Traffic Circles in Avenida Celestial Some people who received this message don't often get email from cspellberg@outlook.com. Learn why this is important Dear RPV City Council, I am writing to you to demand the removal of both recently installed traffic circles from Avenida Classica, the first regular business item on the March 3rd City Council meeting agenda. My family and I, who live at 30140 Avenida Celestial, have not felt safe on our and the surrounding streets ever since the traffic circles were installed. When we leave our house, we have to turn right onto Avenida Classica from Avenida Celestial. Due to the curving of Avenida Classica, we have no visibility for what cars are coming up the hill on Avenida Classica. Prior to the traffic circles, cars would stay nearer the center of the street, which would give cars on our street enough room to inch towards the intersection to see if a car was coming. Unfortunately, we can no longer do so. When we now try to keep forward to see if someone is coming, our cars are already in the direct path of oncoming traffic. Unless these traffic circles are removed, I am very concerned that a serious accident is going to occur, particularly among any young or inexperienced drivers, as there already have been several near misses. We also are particularly upset that we were not properly warned or consulted about installing these traffic circles. Even though we are the ones who are most directly impacted by these policies, we did not discover the traffic circles were going up until they were actually built, and it is unlikely that we will forget this disregard of our safety and our opinions by Election Day. Sincerely, Catherine Spellberg 30140 Avenida Celestial Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 /. Subject: FW: Avenida Classica Traffic Circles : Oppose them, please remove -----Original Message----- From: ALEXANDER Chin <ironmanalex@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:09 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Avenida Classica Traffic Circles : Oppose them, please remove Some people who received this message don't often get email from ironmanalex@outlook.com. 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 City Council and to whom it may concern: As a homeowner at the corner of one of these traffic circles, Ave Celestial and Classica, I strongly oppose these circles and encourage the city to remove them. I have witnessed many cases of cars coming downhill and turning into opposing lane of traffic when making a left turn from Classica to Celestial instead of using the round-about circle. As I walk my dog, I also see many cars driving along Ave Classica swerving into the walking area as pedestrians cross Ave Celestial. The roundabout/ traffic circle and the shrubs along Ave Classica also obstructs the view of cars coming up along Classica for drivers about to enter the circle from Celestial. I feel that instead of increasing safety, the chances for a motor vehicle accident or a vehicle hitting a pedestrian has increased significantly since these circles were installed. Sincerely yours, Alexander Chin Homeowner at 30104 Avenida Celestial 1 /. Subject: FW: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica From: Sandy Draffen <sandy@draffen.com> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:53 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classica Some people who received this message don't often get email from sandy@draffen.com. Learn why this is To the Council, I am writing to let you know that I strongly object to the traffic circles and feel they are unwarranted and an accident waiting to happen. You have already heard all the reasons why they are not necessary. I vote to remove them from our neighborhood. Sincerely, Sandy Draffen 30215 Avenida Selecta Rancho Palos Verdes /. Subject: FW: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classic From: Tommy Draffen <tommy@draffen.com> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 5:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Traffic Circles on Avenida Classic Some people who received this message don't often get email from tommy@draffen.com. Learn why this is Hello, I am writing in opposition to the current, and any modified traffic circles on Avenida Classica. I have lived at 30215 Avenida Selecta since April 1998. During that time I do not recall an accident of any kind on Avenida Classica. I also know there are many reasons, and/or actions by the council and/or the traffic safety committee reasons why the traffic circles don't seem to be legal. That is something I won't address here. However I do know the following facts if there is a real concern about safety. I reject the idea that there is a safety issue, but please note. 1. There is no posted speed limit sign on the southbound side of the street. That would be the most economical and visible way to reduce speed. It's almost free compared to the tens of thousands of dollars spent so far on the direct cost of the circles, not included the massive cost of time and energy and resources debating the issue as well as the various studies that certainly have been commissioned, whether illegally done or not. 2. On Crest the city just installed a solar sign showing traffic speeds with warnings to slow down. Why wasn't that considered here? 3. Previously when there was citizen concern about the turn from Crest on to southbound Avenida Classia, the sheriffs department was stationed there and wrote tickets. That generated income and reduced the problem. Why haven't any police EVER been utilized to write speeding tickets on Avenida Classica if it is truly an issue? 4. With no safety issues ever reported, either pedestrian or moving vehicles, it seems like the city and the council will be opening itself and city taxpayers to massive liability should an accident occur now that the circles are installed. 5. Should first responders be delayed by the circles that is another liability that unnecessarily is put on the taxpayers. What a shame it would be for a house fire to take a life due to delay in first responders. Or delay in medical attention? This idea of traffic circles was never discussed prior to the decision. A small vocal group of individuals, some not even residents at the time, wanted a private street. The studies and petitions circulated were for or against absurd changes to traffic patterns. When it became obvious that there was a large contingent of residents soundly against that the dec;sion was made to appease proponents with thes/. traffic circles instead of just voting NO. Now you have a chance to remedy all the questionable decisions and waste of taxpayer dollars, as well as remove what most residents consider the new safety HAZARD the circles create, and vote to REMOVE THE TRAFFIC CIRCLES completely. Than I< you. Tommy Draffen 30215 Avenida Selecta Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-283-1548 2 Subject: FW: Road circle From: Yoomin Kim <yoomin kim@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2026 1:39 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Road circle [Some people who received this message don't often get email from yoomin kim@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at htlp_s://aka.ms/LearnAboutS_enderldentification] EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!. Hello I've been living in this house and neighborhood for over 40 years. The traffic circle in my opinion is a lot more dangerous to have. I already had two incidents where a car almost hit me coming up the road. The reason for that is because I am a short person and I drive a sedan. The traffic circle creates such a small space for me to look for incoming cars where I have to drive more out to see. And due to the the minimal space for cars to pass through and me pulling out more, causes a near accident almost everytime. I also witnessed fire fighters coming with their trucks to practice to maneuver through the traffic circle. Just witnessing them having to practice and struggle made me wonder how dangerous it would be when an actual emergency occurs. The response time would be a lot slower due to the traffic circle. My suggestion is just to have a stop signs. Please remove them! Sent from my iPhone 1 (