20260505 Late Correspondence through Monday (Batch 1)TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 4, 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, May 5, 2026, City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
3
Description of Material
Email from Scott Sandell
Emails from: Harold Parker; Brad Spellberg; Dane Mott; Tommy
Draffen; Correspondence from Dan Myers
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
TereaTakaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202612026 Coversheets\20260505 additions revisions to agenda through Monday.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
scott sandell <scotts23@gmail.com>
Monday, May 4, 2026 12:37 PM
CC; CityClerk
Wireless telecommunication facilities
Some people who received this message don't often get email from scotts23@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Dear Members of the City Council,
I would like to express my concern about some of the proposed code changes related to wireless
telecommunications facilities, scheduled for a public hearing on May 5, 2026.
I understand the city is trying to find some common ground with telecommunications companies in an
effort to encourage the companies to provide better service. I am pleased to see the city appears to be
holding relatively firm on matters of placement, view, aesthetics, noise and RF emissions versus the
companies' far-reaching requests.
However, I also worry that some of the proposed code changes may go too far in limiting the input of
residents and weakening the idea of local control.
Specifically, here are four sections that raise concerns:
1. Minor WTFP appeals: "Any person who receives the notice of decision pursuant to subsection
12.18.060(E)(4) may appeal such decision within five days of the notice of decision date. The appeal will
be considered by the planning commission Public Works Director within ten days of filing. The planning
commission Public Works Director may decide the issues de nova and the written decision will be the
final decision of the city."
I would question why the planning commission and its public hearing(s) would be written out of this
process, and that the final city decision would be made by one staff member. A "minor" wireless
telecommunications facility can still have a major impact on a neighborhood and its residents, affecting
the view, aesthetics, noise levels and RF emissions. The public deserves to have a hearing on such a
matter.
2. Concealment requirements: "Concealment requirements may be waived where compliance would
significantly interfere with or disrupt the signal or operation of the wireless facility. In such cases, the
Public Works Director may grant an exception upon the applicant's submission of a technical report,
stamped by a licensed professional engineer, demonstrating that the required concealment measure
would cause such interference or disruption."
This would seem to be a large loophole. It's easy to imagine that a company would claim this exemption
on any facility it seeks to build, Once again, one city staff member would wield a lot of power in a
decision that would be better addressed via the planning commission.
1 /.
3. RF exposure: "Applicant may submit one RF exposure compliance report addressing multiple
proposed facilities of similar design."
This seems unclear to me. Does an RF exposure compliance report not address specific site concerns -
for example, the proposed facility's location near certain structures, terrain such as hillsides, proximity
to sensitive receptors such as schools? By allowing one report that would apply to multiple sites, what
controls, if any, are we losing as a city?
4. Noise: "If deemed acceptable by the public works director, in lieu of an acoustic analysis, the
applicant may submit evidence from the equipment manufacturer that the ambient noise emitted from
all the proposed equipment will not, both individually and cumulatively, exceed the applicable limits."
I am concerned that this loophole oversimplifies the matter of noise from these facilities in favor of a pro
forma measure, rather than one that considers the specific site. How noise travels and is perceived is a
complicated issue that should not be reduced to "evidence from the equipment manufacturer." As with
concealment, this seems to open the door to companies automatically seeking an exemption
from acoustic analysis, and a decision made by one city staff member on its acceptability.
Ultimately, the goal of adding any wireless telecommunications facility is to benefit the public, so I am
leery of any provisions that would appear to limit the public's ability to participate in the process.
Thank you for listening and for all the hard work the council, commission members and staff have put
into improving our city while at the same time preserving its unique charms.
Scott Sandell
RPV resident
2
From: HANK PARKER <hank parker@msn.com >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:54 AM
To: Paul Seo <paul.seo@rpvca.gov >; Stephen Perestam <stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov >; David Bradley
<david.bradley@rpvca .gov >; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca .gov >; George Lewis
<George.Lewis@rpvca.gov >; CC <CC@rpvca .gov >
Cc: Dane Mott <dane mott@hotmail.com >
Subject: Re: Remove the Avenida Classica Traffic Devices and Restore the Speed Limit Sign
Some people who received this message don't often get email from hank parker@msn.com . Learn
why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe!!!.
I'm Harold Parker, property owner and resident at 30071 Avenida Classica, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275 . I've owned and lived in this property since August 2010. My residence is at the intersection of
one of the traffic circles; the northeast corner of Avenida Classica and Avenida Celestial.
These traffic circles have been an unwelcome and dangerous addition to Avenida Classica. I'm certain
there are many alternatives to reduce traffic speed on Avenida Classica that don't disrupt the flow of
traffic and don't create a speed and "cornering" hazard.
In the past two weeks, when crossing Avenida Celestial on the South East side of the street, I've been
nearly struck three times by cars circumnavigating the circle. Cars do not appear to slow down
approaching the circles; in fact my perception is that vehicles may accelerate into and through the
circles.
The circles have put me, my family, and my gardeners at risk several times when performing yard work
on the intersection.
Furthermore, the extended red zone limiting parking has reduced available street parking spaces for all
residents of the two intersections creating further challenges and dangers.
I implore the council to remove the circles before the inevitable accident occurs and explore other, less
intrusive and dangerous methods, to reduce traffic speeds on Avenida Classica .
As mentioned in other correspondence, virtually all the residents of this area want the circles removed
and have similar opinions about the circles' having increased the danger on Avenida Classica, not
reducing the risks .
I'll be at the meeting May 5 to reiterate my concerns.
Regards,
Harold Parker
(310) 619-1644
Hank Parker@msn .com
3.
From: Dane Mott <dane mott@hotmail.com >
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 8:34 PM
To: paul.seo@rpvca .gov <paul.seo@rpvca .gov >; stephen .perestam@rpvca.gov
<stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov >; david.bradley@rpvca.gov <david.bradley@rpvca.gov >;
barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov >; george .lewis@rpvca .gov
<george.lewis@rpvca .gov >; CC <cc@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Remove the Avenida Classica Traffic Devices and Restore the Speed Limit Sign
City Council,
I am writing to formally voice my opposition to the traffic devices installed on Avenida Classica and to
express my support for recommendations la (remove the circles and discontinue the pilot) and 4
(reinstall the missing speed limit sign).
You may preview the remarks I will deliver Tuesday evening at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u QRxAgQkYM . The video is five minutes in total. All spoken
remarks are contained within the first three minutes, consistent with the published agenda's allotted
time . The final two minutes consist of silent video footage documenting dangerous traffic events directly
attributable to the existence of the installed devices.
I respectfully request that staff be directed to play that two-minute footage segment at the end of the
video during Tuesday's discussion. The safety issue at the heart of this matter is most effectively
demonstrated visually with video evidence .
The following documents are submitted for inclusion in the agenda packet:
• PowerPoint presentation (attached)
• Formal letter dated January 18, 2026 (attached)
There are countless reasons to object to these traffic devices, but I will try to keep it to a list of 10 and be
concise:
10 REASONS TO REMOVE THE AVENIDA CLASSICA TRAFFIC CIRCLES
1. Unsafe Grade --Circles installed on 11% grade; federal, state, and county standards prohibit this
above 3-4%.
2. Created New Dangers --Zero accidents before installation. Now supporters and opponents alike
document dangerous driving.
3. Speed Humps Rejected Here Too --Public Works rejected speed humps for this grade. Circles
have a stricter standard.
4. Invalid Speed Studies --Speed limit sign disappeared before studies were conducted. Results are
scientifically invalid.
5 . Failed Every Criterion --No crash history, below traffic volume threshold, scored 21 of 51
required points .
6. No Petition --Ever --In 2014, the Mayor called NTCP's 60% community approval mandatory
"veto power." It was never collected. The NTCP was never repealed.
7. Community Says Remove Them --Post-installation survey: 94% of neighbors demand removal.
Three households support keeping them.
8. TSC Member's Home Benefited --Circles installed directly in front of a sitting TSC member's
house. He then moved.
9 . Real Agenda: Traffic Diversion --Original proposal was to push golf course traffic onto Los
Verdes Drive apartments.
10. Rules Were Deleted, Not Followed --When residents cited the NTCP, Public Works removed it
from their website.
Respec tfully,
Dane Mott
Rancho Palo s Ve rdes Res id e nt
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Review the City's Traffic Engineering Consultant's Speed Hump Study for Aven ida
Classica which concluded that only one location on Avenida Classica meets the
engineering parameters for insta lling a speed hump and direct Staff to either:
a. Remove the Avenida Classica traffic circ les and discontinue the pilot ~
project; or "ii
b. Remove the Aven ida Classica traffic circles and install one speed hump on
Avenida Classica approximately 200 feet south of Crest Road; or
c. Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles in their current form; or
d. Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles in their current form and
install one speed hump on Avenida Classica approximately 200 feet south
of Crest Road; or
e. Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles with the improvements
recommended in the March 3, 2026 staff report; or
f. Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles with the improvements
recommended in this staff report and install one speed hump on Avenida
Classica approximately 200 feet south of Crest Road;
If directing Staff to implement the improvements recommended in the March 3 ,
2026 staff report (Staff Recommendation No. 1 e above):
a. Award a Public Works Agreement to Interstate Striping, Inc ., in the amount
of $38,110 with a 15% contingency in the amount of $5,717 for a total not
to-exceed amount of $43,827, and
b. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement
in a form approved by the City Attorney;
Approve extending red curb on the southeast side of the intersection of Avenida
Classica with Avenida Esp lendida by 50 feet; and
Approve the installation of a "Speed Limit 25" along southbound Avenida Classica ~
35 feet north of Avenida Celestial. V
If these devices are work i ng, why have so many of our residents called for the ir remova l?
50 Digital Petitioners and 32 "Wet Signature" Households
Demand the Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles
From: Brad Spellberg <bspellberg@dhs.lacounty.gov >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:03 AM
To: Paul Seo <pau l.seo@rpvca.gov >; Stephen Perestam <stephen.perestam@rpvca.gov >; David Bradley
<david.bradley@rpvca.gov >; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov >; George Lewis
<George.Lewis@rpvca.gov >; CC <CC@rpvca .gov >
Cc: Dane Mott <dane mott@hotmail.com >; Shu -chieng Hsieh <suehsieh70@yahoo.com >;
cspel lbe@students.pitzer.edu ; mspe ll be@students .pitzer.edu
Subject: RE: Remove the Avenida Classica Traffic Devices and Restore the Speed Limit Sign
Some people who received this message don't often get email from bspellberg@dhs.lacounty.gov.
Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe!!!.
Dear RPV City Council, I am again writing to reiterate my family's strong opposition to the traffic circles
on Avenida Classica, and express my entire family's support (Brad, Sue, Catherine, and Michael) for
recommendation la (remove the circles and discontinue the pilot).
We appreciate that some members of our community feel unsafe due to prior speeding . We fully
support use of other, rational means to control speeding, including putting back the speed limit signs
that were removed under suspicious circumstances, use of biofeedback speed signs which are
proliferating all over the Peninsula, including just up the street on Crest Road and down the street on
Hawthorne on the way to RPV City Hall, and use of speed bumps.
BUT THE TRAFFIC CIRCLES ARE DANGEROUS AND HAVE CREATED NUMEROUS NEAR-MISS SITUATIONS
FOR MY FAMILY.
I am going reiterate the message I sent prior to the last meeting. Please review the below photo carefully
to see the absurdity of the traffic circle situation for people who live on Avenida Celestial.
3.
l Car on Celestial needs to reach
i about this point while turning right
! l to have visibility to ensure no other
I l 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
Since I wrote prior to the last city council meeting on this topic, I have had yet another near miss
situation where I had to slam on the breaks while creeping into the circle to avoid a car coming up the
hill from slamming into me.
I refer you again to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCH RP), 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 BU MPs. 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 Avenida Celestial
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From: Dane Mott <dane mott@hotmail.com >
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 8:40 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov >
Subject: Fwd: Remove the Avenida Classica Traffic Devices and Restore the Speed Limit Sign
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe!!!.
Forwarding to only this email in case it is delivered to the junk folder.
Thank you,
Dane Mott
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From : Dane Mott <dane mott@hotmail.com >
Date: May 3, 2026 at 8:34:31 PM PDT
To: paul.seo@rpvca.gov, stephen.perestam@rpvca .gov, david.bradley@rpvca .gov,
ba rba ra .ferra ro@rpvca .gov, george . lewis@rpvca.gov, CC <cc@rpvca .gov >
Subject: Remove the Avenida Classica Traffic Devices and Restore the Speed Limit Sign
City Council,
I am writing to formally voice my opposition to the traffic devices installed on Avenida Classica and to
express my support for recommendations la (remove the circles and discontinue the pilot) and 4
(reinstall the missing speed limit sign).
You may preview the remarks I will deliver Tuesday evening at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u QRxAgQkYM . The video is five minutes in total. All spoken
remarks are contained within the first three minutes, consistent with the published agenda's allotted
time . The final two minutes consist of silent video footage documenting dangerous traffic events directly
attributable to the existence of the installed devices.
I respectfully request that staff be directed to play that two -minute footage segment at the end of the
video during Tuesday's discussion. The safety issue at the heart of this matter is most effectively
demonstrated visually with video evidence.
The following documents are submitted for inclusion in the agenda packet :
• PowerPoint presentation (attached)
• Formal letter dated January 18, 2026 (attached)
There are countless reasons to object to these traffic devices, but I will try to keep it to a list of 10 and be
concise :
10 REASONS TO REMOVE THE AVENI DA CLASSICA TRAFFIC CIRCLES
1. Unsafe Grade --Circles installed on 11% grade; federal, state, and county standards prohibit this
above 3-4%.
2. Created New Dangers --Zero accidents before installation. Now supporters and opponents alike
document dangerous driving.
3 . Speed Humps Rejected Here Too --Public Works rejected speed humps for this grade. Circles
have a stricter standard .
4. Invalid Speed Studies --Speed limit sign disappeared before studies were conducted. Results are
scientifically invalid.
5. Failed Every Criterion --No crash history, below traffic volume threshold, scored 21 of 51
required points.
6. No Petition --Ever --In 2014, the Mayor called NTCP's 60% community approval mandatory
"veto power." It was never collected. The NTCP was never repealed.
7. Community Says Remove Them --Post-installation survey: 94% of neighbors demand removal.
Three households support keeping them.
8. TSC Member's Home Benefited --Circles installed directly in front of a sitting TSC member's
house. He then moved.
9. Real Agenda: Traffic Diversion --Original proposal was to push golf course traffic onto Los
Verdes Drive apartments.
10. Rules Were Deleted, Not Followed --When residents cited the NTCP, Public Works removed it
from their website.
Respectfully,
Dane Mott
Rancho Palos Verde s Resident
If these devices are working, why have so many of our residents called for their removal?
50 Digital Petitioners and 32 "Wet Signature" Households
Demand the Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Review the City's Traffic Engineering Consultant's Speed Hump Study for Avenida
Classica which concluded that only one location on Avenida Classica meets the
engineering parameters for installing a speed hump and direct Staff to either :
a . Remove the Avenida Classica traffic circles and discontinue the pilot "'1A
project; or 'ii
b. Remove the Avenida Classica traffic circles and install one speed hump on
Avenida Classica approximately 200 feet south of Crest Road; or
c. Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles in their current form; or
d . Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles in their current form and
install one speed hump on Avenida Classica approximately 200 feet south
of Crest Road; or
e. Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles with the improvements
recommended in the March 3, .2026 staff report ; or
f . Continue with the Avenida Classica traffic circles with the improvements
recommended in this staff report and "install one speed hump on Avenida
Classica approximately 200 feet south of Crest Road ;
If directing Staff to implement the improvements recommended in the March 3,
2026 staff report (Staff Recommendation No. 1 e above):
a. Award a Public Works Agreement to Interstate Striping, Inc., in the amount
of $38,110 with a 15% contingency in the amount of $5,717 for a total not
to -exceed amount of $43,827 , and
b. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement
in a form approved by the City Attorney;
Approve extending red curb on the southeast side of the intersection of Avenida
Classica with Avenida Esplendida by 50 feet; and
Approve the installation of a "Speed Limit 25" along southbound Avenida Classica "'1A
35 feet north of Avenida Celestial. V
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
1
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, organized 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 Neighborhood 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 hllJ2S~.L.cml.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.QhR?file=rgv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .Qdf&view=1 Page 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 the 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 the 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 1 Oto 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 KOA 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 V iol ate Engineering Standards
The Gra de Pro bl e m : Phy sics Trump s Te rminol ogy
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 i s a fundamental violation of them .
Exhibi t 1 . Av e ni da C l ass ica Street Grad e 3
Sl ope (Grade) of Avenida Classica 250 feet before Avenida Celestial (Traffic Circle 1) to Avenida Esplendida (Traffic Circle 2)
Ma)( s Iope 11 1 ·,o. -22 8 ',o -
855
l'1l
1J
(])
> <(
I..
0
VI
(])
1J
I..
(])
>
55 ft Slope= rise = ~ = 9.9%
run 557.3
800 800
557.29 ft
N ot e: 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), recogni zed by the In stitute 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 recogni zed
2 July 24, 2023 TSC agenda page 4 9 :
https://rpv.granicus.com/D o cumentVjewer.p_hp?file =rpv d683c024a0f7b25bc 1013b0bd 1 0bcf5a .pdf&view= 1
3 July 24, 2023 TSC agenda pa ge 49 :
bttp_s://rp_v,graJl i cu s .cgm/Docu mentviewer. p_hp__'.?fi l e= rp_1,1_d 683cQ24a0f7b25bc 101 3bQbd 1 0bcf5..a. pdf &vi ew=cJ_
4 The NCH RP is the National Coop e rative Hi g hway Re search Pro gram , administered by the Transportation Rese a rch Bo a rd
(TRB), which is part of the National Academies of Sc ien ce s , Engineerin g, a nd 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
Th e Speed Hump C ontradiction Expo se s th e 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 i nstalled on that street because of the
grade. The grade exceeds the thresholds 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.gilll/P19grams/traffic-operations/isoap
b.llps://dot.ca .gov/-/media/dot-media/pmgrnrn.sldesign/documents/chp0400-a 11 y.pdf :
"405 .10 Roundabouts Roundabout intersections on the State highway system must be developed and evaluated in
accordance with National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCH RP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabout s: An
Informational Guide, Second Edition" dated October 2010 and Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) Number 13 -02 ."
6 https://www.vdot.virglnia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and-support/location-and
d esign/roadway-design/NCHRP Report 672 Roundabout Informational Guide 2nd Edition201 o acc10202Q2_3 PM.pdf
7 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCH RP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide,
Second Edition" https :/ /www.vdot.vi rgL□la._gov Im ed ia/vd otvi rgi n iagov/doi ng-busi ness/tec h n i ca l-gu id an ce-a n d
s__u_pport/locati on-a nd-d esign/roadwa~
design/NCHRP Report 672 Roundabout Informational Guide 2nd Edition2010 ace 10202023 PM.p__d.f Page 242 .
8 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCH RP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabouts : An Informational Guide,
Second Edition" https ://www.vdot.vi rg~gov/media/vd otvi rgi oiagov/d o in g-busi n ess/tech nica l-gu ida nee-and
suppo_i:_t/localli:>n__:-and-design/roadway__:-
design/NCHRP Report 672 Roundabout Informational Guide 2nd Edition2010 acc10202023 PM.pill Page 242 .
9 National Cooperative Highway Re search Program (NCH RP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide ,
Second Edition" http,S://www.vdot .vi rg_inj_a .gov/med ia/vd otvi rgi n iagov /doi ng:J;)usi ness/techn i ca l-gu id a nee-and
.s.u.pport/location-and-design/roadway__:-
de_signLN_CHRP _Report_672 Roundabout_l nformationaLGuide_2mJEdition2010_acc10202023_PM.pdf Page 242 .
10 b.llps;LLd_pw.lacounty.gov/ldd/lib/fp/Road/ROUNDABOUT%20POLICY%20%28complete-ver8%29 .pdf Page 9 .
11 .bil.J;ls://rp-Lgranicus.com/player/clip/4873?view id=S&redirect=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 o/o 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 recognizing 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/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Gu id eli nes-December-2008 Page 28 .
13 https://rp_v,gra n i cu s .com/p_laye r /c_UpL4873_7vLew_Ld =5&re_d i rect=true
14 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCH RP) Report 672 entitled "Roundabouts : An Informational Guide,
Second Edition" https ://www.vdat.v i rgini~Lgov/med i a/vd otvi rgi n iagov Id oi ng-bus i n ess/tech ni ca l-gu id an ce-and-
9
If the City wishes to disregard traffic science and focus on device names rather than geometr ic design
physics, the State of Delaware explicitly states that 6% is the maximum recommended grade for
"ne ighborhood traffic circles and mini-roundabouts.15 " Further, the City of San Diego states that "traff ic
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 severa l residents (N EIGHBOR S) 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 cataloging 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 introduced new hazards.
The principle should 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
"p ilot project". The implications of Avenida Classica paving the way for sim ilar installations require
serious consideration.
According to the traffic science, on downhill grades exceeding 4 -6%, gravity 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
supportl loc ation-and-designLroad_Way-
design/NCHRP Report 672 Roundabout Inform ational Guide 2nd Edition2010 acc10202023 PM .p_df Page 242.
15 http s ://deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/traffic calming/pdfs/De l aware TrafficCalm ingDesignManual.p_df (p . 37)
16 https ://www.sandiegQ.gov/sites/default/files/street design manual march 2017-f in a l.ud.f (p. 155)
17 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023 .pdf Page 60.
18 b.llps://rp_y,granLcus .co_m/Docum_e_otViewer.p_hp?f il e=rpv_d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952h2ea4d1 .pdt&v iew=1 Pages 292-
339.
19 https://r~m/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 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 2 1 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 https://rmi,_granicus.com/pla'.,,'er/clip/4812?view id=5&redirect=true
2 1 bllp~ranicus .com/player/clip/372?view id=5&redirect=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 CitvCouncil (emphasis added).
The TSC also reviews and advises (emphasis added) on neighborhood traffic calming
guidelines and proposed projects, and collaboratively work with Staff to address residents'
22 https://ljljlj'jw_,_r_p_vc_a .gg'LLDocu m_eotCe_ote r /V i_ew/ ]2__760/Traff i c-Ca lm i_ng-GJ.J i deli n es -,_D_ece m ber-2_008
23 http_s:/ /rmL,.grani cus.com/p_la~er/cliQ/145?view id=S&redirect=true
24 htti;is ://documents.ri;ivca .gov/Weblink/DocView.asi;ix ?dbid=0&id=13308&rei;io=RanchoPalosVerdes&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 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."
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 1 O, 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 https ://documents.rP.1LQ.a,Zov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=13308&repo=RanchoPalosVerdes&cr=1
26 https://rp1,L,granicus .c om/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&vie w=1 Pages 79-12 0 .
13
Exhibit 2. Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee Website Before Removal of NTCP
• MEETING AGENDAS
& VIDEO ARCH IVES
( ih ( num ii aml \,l,i\111" Ho.1111\
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Traffic Calming
o \On ( utml P Ila \JJ11Jtlli.l
0 lh'fm,•;11111 \On< 1w111 ( mmhJ.lli.1U.Ll.L11!Jl..1ll.l
0 lkfmr 1111I \Orr< mml Piilell uuuhll:hillLIJ!ll.U
0 Uclurr1 mml P.ilel \liHUWtl
l1i.1U1l ,J1uu,t1.twiliJmL~ . ..1r1!1
Volume & Speed Graphs
COMMUNITY
o ( n·,l\,ootl \ln·rt I() \I ir \1l l111rM1wl J>alil( h,ultWU
0 { ll"\h\fMN I Mrrrl \\() I.Lu.s.:.wJ...LI..ILW.L.L!..lAt.LLllClli.}
0 I llf\t:W \H'fllU" \Ot:t'II\TJ I ::il.ll:rl..111L.L1.111Jl!ill.l
0 I· tulN" \H·um· \0 !)UJ11rnrrl4111f Mn-,·L Pilla { hart 11.1!Ll
0 (:1·nrml "101·1 tc > H11~1msl llf nr 11,1111 < h,ul 1L1U1
o tit•m·ml Mll'd ltJ I nrnw \\rmw 1141 ( h,olfl'llll
o :,u01111t·11iiud Ml\'l'l It> \\\1 Iii( \\1·mu· lfat,1( 11,.uL ll'ill:l
o .Luu.lic..J..!J.ilJ.:..U!..UJ~rrnlll!hrl 1 1litl h;u11l1tl:1
0 I nu Hr 1>rb1: \\\) Ui1~rn1I J>rhl' J>,11,11 h,ul Jtill:t
• • TRAILS & NATURE SERVICE REQUESTS
PRESERVE lh·por-1 a ltn,hll-111
lhl..i11(.1',11i..11t~. ~ I r.1\11 11111tilin11,
CITY SERVICES TRANSPARENCY
CITY 01' RANCHO PALOS VERDES
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
CALMING PROGRAM
HOWDOL
,\ ~mmunhy ludcnhl t, au Ide
Public WOfkt DepllttMnl
0.UtnMr 2001
As shown in a screen capture of the TSC website (https://www.rpvca.gov/165/Traffic -S afety-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 Website Without NTCP
-MEETING AGENDAS
& VIDEO ARCHIVES
I ihf•"1r1,ilm11I \lhi'411"\ 11<,,ml,
tinp,i;//www.,p.-u.gov/1148./Ntur!'--Pf'U"""G t
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY
Oversized / Neighborhood Vehicle Parking Programs
o LllD1..fi11wLll!llfu.J.tiL!J!Jl.1!1:I
o lioi!.h:.u.!...&-nlliU11ulli.:Jliuu.Jtlll:l
Vo lume & Speed Graphs
O ! n·,I\\OU\I 'ln-rl j () 'l,1t\11l11lf\[ll]'j ll1I 1( h,11[ fl'illl
o l 1nl\,uotl "IBTl \\() B,1,ill!lJlcilLl!J.liLilw.tlJl.11.U
0 'Hll"t' hfltlU' \JJt,rm·, ,I 'lllTI lllh( 1ml 11.1!1:l
0 I.J~\(l::>UHUHnlmd'hvrtlhlil! lrnl!l.1!1:1
o l•rllrnl Mrrrt to I @hr \wum· lli.l.a.Llw..d..11.1!.l:J
o :-.wumrrhu,I "ln:d t(l\\HWC \\\'WW 1111 ll h,1rl I111.u
0 lnnlii'lhiH'IOBmrmlP1hrlh!IJ lnrl !l.1.!.U
o lnnll\' 11ri\l''\IJ H11n11I llriw 11·11·1 I h·u1 !Pill \
---TRAILS & NATURE SERVICE REQUESTS PERMITS & INSPECTIONS
PRESERVE U,•p,11·t;11'ruhlt·111 1111' l',·n11i!liu'(l'url,ll
lliLill( l'arlill"t.3°rrailiowliti"n-
https://www.rpvca.gov/165/Traffic-Safety-Committee
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 the TSC
website until its removal
by Public Works between
October 13, 2025 and
November 3, 2025.
-PUBLIC SAFETY
(1lm,•l'll"\t•11li•m .m,ll"11hlir\.!11•I)
c·,uu,•nis
-NOTIFY ME®
4,d(ihljkl:tln
HOWDO L
• 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 31 O 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 traffi o
calming gu i delines were formally rescinded: Having d i ligently 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 i s not
relevant to this discussion because there is no l egal or regulatory requirement for the TSC to take
such steps in order to make a recommendat ion 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 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 violation 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 community 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://r~.com/DocumentViewer.php?f il e=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&v iew=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 Criter ia 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 B.PV TrattLc Safety CQillDlittee Agenda 07242023.pdf Page 60.
29 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guide li nes-December-2008 Page 5.
30 See email from Deanna Fraley from Aug 5 , 2025, at 8:22 PM in email correspondence in Appendi 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. Traffi c 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 1,418 33 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 . Failed 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 . Questionable 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 exceeding the+ 7 mph threshold were
recorded 37 .
• The KOA Traffic Study itself contained an error, incorrectly stating that a speed limit sign was
present when it was not 38 •
• The City has been unable to explain 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 https ://rpv.gra ni cus .com/player/clip/ 4372?view _id =5&red i rect=true
32 b1tps ://www.rpvca .gov/DocumentCeJ1ter /View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guidelines-December-2008 Page 11 .
33 RPV Traffic Safety Committe e Agend a 07242023 .pdf Page 51.
34 lill.Qs ://www.rpvca .gov/DocumentC e nter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Gu idelines-December-2008 Page 12 .
35 https ://rpv.granicus .com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc 6bf952b2e a4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 241.
36 httM://rpv.granl.Qus .com/DocumsmtViewer,pbp?f il e=rpv d09d495tjffcfc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 246.
37 https ://rp_l.l_grnnicus .com/DocumentViewer.php?fi l e=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 54.
38 http s://rpv.granicus .com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc 2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 49 .
18
For more details on deviations from the NTC P by Public Works and the TSC, pl e ase see my July 31,
2025 letter. 39
Exhibit 4. Summary of City-Council-Twice -Passed NTCP Criteria Failures on Avenida Classica
Cri te rion Re quir e m e nt Av enida Cla ssica Res ult Stat us
Cras h Hist ory Docume nte d crash p roblem No ac ci de nt s 2017-2022 FAIL
Pub li c Pet it ion Pet it i o n re qu i re d fo r Level 2 devi ces No pet it ion co ll ect ed FAIL
Pu b l ic In pu t Pub li c commen t befo re TSC vote No publi c di scus si on of FAIL t raffi c ci rcles
Traff ic Volu me 2 1,50 0 vehi cles/clay 1,418 veh i cles /cl ay FAIL
Quan t it at ive 251 p oin ts fo r Level 2 dev i ces 2 1 po i nt s FAIL Score
Sp ee d Th resh ol d 85t h pe rce nt ile 2 7 mp h ove r lim it Met only aft er s ign rem ova l QUESTIONABLE an d two stu di es
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. Qu es tionable "No Thru Traffic" Signage on Avenida C l a ssi c a
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 ://rp_v..granLc u s.com/DocumentV iewfilcphp?f ile=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945J_c6b f 9_52b2ea4dJ .pdf&view=1 Pages 79 -120 .
40 RPV Traffic Safety: Committee A enda 07242023.p_df Pages 240-242 .
41 RPV Traffic Safety Committee Agenda 07242023 .pdf Pages 86 -88 .
19
This disparity is further reinforced by the 2008 Traffic Calming Guidelines themselves, which explicitly
limit petition signatures to homeowners 42 . 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-standard 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 dive rte rs 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:
• "Over 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 . THE SIGN DOESENT SAY, SLOW DOWN,
42 https://www.r~.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guidelines-December-2008 Page 5.
43 https://mutcd .fhwa.dot .gov/kno-shs 2024-release-status/ind ex .htm
44 RPV Traffic Safety Committee .A._@Ildi:i Ql242023.p__d1 Pages 86 -88.
45 RPV Traffic Safety Comm ittee 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. Carbon el 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 Comm ittee Agenda 07242 023.pdf Pages 86-88 .
21
Exhibit 6. Timeline of David Tomblin's Time on TSC and the TSC Avenida Classica Project
Date Eve nt
Ma rch 16, 2021 Dav id Tomblin appointed to Traffic Safety Comm itt ee
June 22 , 2021
July 24, 2023
Octobe r 3, 2023
Late 2023 / Ea rly 2024
June 30 , 2024
Initial speed study conducted on Ave ni da Class i ca
(approximately 3 month s afterTomblin 's appointment)
TSC vo t es to r ecommend traff i c cir cle ins tallat i on
City Counc il approves traff i c c ir cle installation
Traff i c circles ins tall ed
Tomblin 1s TSC term ends
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 wa s the home of Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) member David
Tomblin . He was on the TSC when it voted to install the circles on 7.24.202 3.
He did not vote but instead openly lobbied the TS C as a citizen during the
meeting. This entire project fro m initial traffic study to insta llati on occurred
during Tomblin's tenure on the TS C behveen March 2021 and June 2024.
He sold his house on 1.3 1.2 025 and left our community with these unwanted
traffic circles that have already cost ~$54 ,000 (for temporary circles). If made
pennanent, the cost of pennanent circles will take the cost of these dangerous
and unwanted circles to well over $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 on line 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 city'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."51
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 httRS~LLu21L,£ranicus .com/p l ayer/clip/4600?vi ew id=5&redir ect=true
49 h t!p_sJ /www_,1pvca .gQ_v /Doc u meot_C.s) n te r /V i ew/12}60Liraff i c-C.almlng-:Gu idB l i n es-Dece__m ber-20Q8 Page 5.
50 httR;;,://rpv.gra ni c u s .com/play..e.rLcilp/4600?v iew id=5&red ir ect=true
51 b.llp s ://www.rfJ.lffi.g .gov /DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traftic-Ca l ming-G uid eli nes-D ecember-2008 Pages 5 and 33 .
26
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.granicus.com/plaY.er/clip/4600 ?view id=5&redirect=true
53 https:/ /www.rpvca .gov/DocumentCenter/V iew/12760/Traff ic-Calmi ng-Guide l i nes-December-2008 Page 33 .
54 https ://rpv.grnn i cus .GQm/player /clip/ 4600?view _id =5&red i cec;t=true
55 https://rpy,_granicus .com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 246.
56 https:/ /rm,i,.gran icus.com/DocumentViewer.p_hp?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d 1. pdf&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, new TSC member Jeanne Min mentioned the preparation on the new TSC
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 https ://rpv.granicu s.com/player/clip/4640?v iew id=5&redirect=t rue
58 http s ://rpv.gra nicus.com/player/clip/4640?view id=5&redirect=true
59 httQ.S.JL.r.pv,_granicus.com/pl~p/4640 ?view id=5&redirect=true
60 https://rQ!!~granicus.com/player/clip/4640?view id=5&redirect=true
6 1 https://rpv.granicu s .com/fllilyer/clip/4640?view id=5&redirect=true
62 https__:/ /rpv.gr_fil1 i c us .comJplaYfil/cUp_L 4640?vi_e_w_i d =5&redLrect=tru_e_
63 https ://www.rpvca.gov/Docu me ntCente r /V i ew/907 /City-Co u nc i l-Rules -of-Proced u re -PDF
64 See email from Deanna Fraley from Aug 5, 2025, at 8:22 PM in email correspondence 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 2.6(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 meeting67 , moments before City Council voted unanimously to reaffirm
the NTCP, should 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 in
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 area 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 always 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/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guidelines-December-2008 Page 5 .
66 https://www.rwca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guictelines-December-2008 Page 5.
67 https://r~ranicus.com/player/clip/145?view id=5&redirect=true
68 hllps:/ /rp.'lcgranicus.com/Q..[ayer/cljp/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 city would request of the residents and they ... What exactly are you
telling me now?
Public Works Director Michael Throne: There may be an instance that in the future, the city
might identify the need to put a traffic calming device in an area, but we would always confer with
the residents. We would just not work with ..
RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic: Understood but do the residents have veto ower over that? If
there's, you know, is there a 60% have to approve 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%
approval. 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.71
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?view id =5&redire c t=true
70 https :/ /rp~ran icus .com/p l ayer/clip/145?v iew id=5&redirect=true
7 1 https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumBlltCenter/View/12760/Trafiic-Calming-Guideli ne.s.:]lecember-2008 Page 5.
72 https://rpv.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rm.,'_d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 79 .
73 ~ranicus .com/DocumentViewer.php?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 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 Memb e r Song's D ismi ss ive Res ponse
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 respondent s (9 4%) seeking the traffic
circles' remova l 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 https ://rl2'l£ranicu s .c om/player/clip/4873?view id=5&redirect=true
75 https ://rpv.granicu s.com/_Q_ocumentViewer.php]fiLe-=rpv_d09_d~95c_8ff_d_c2_9,:1.5Jc_6bf95 2 b2e_a4d1 .pdl&view=l Page 79 .
76 http_s_JL_ri:iv.granicu s.com/DocumentViewer.filip?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .J:)df&v iew=1 Page 79 .
77 https://rr:iv.granicus.com/player/clir:i/4873?view id=5&redirect=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
r;;,~ -. ,t'I
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 ://mutcd.fhwa .dot.gov/pdfs/11th Edition/Chapter2b.pdf
79 https :/ LLaw.j ustia .cQm/cod esLca liforn ia/.cod e-ve b/di\i'lfilon-11/c~haptet:2/arti cle-2/se.cti on-214011
80 https://rp_\l,_granicus .com/Documen tView er.p hQ?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 64 .
8 1 https://rpv.granicus .com/DocumentViewer.Qhp?file=rQv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .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 counting 82 • 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 street. 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 l ocal 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 requests from residents .
This is the equivalent of a doctor withholding a patient's medication, documenting their predictable
deterioration, prescribing an expensive experimental treatment inappropriate for the patient's condition ,
82 https://r~ran icus .com/DocumentViewer.php?file.=1:r:iv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Page 64.
34
and then refusing to resume the original prescription because doing so would prove the treatment wa s
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
obtained, the cost rises to approximately $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 outlandish: 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 design and construct the initial 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 HOA Maintenance Burden
Ms. Fraley also denies that HOAs are responsible for traffic circle upkeep . She makes this claim in direct
contradiction of the City-Council-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 2014 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.granicus .com/player /clip/4873?view id=5&redirect=t r ue
84 hllQs ://www.nctcog .Qigfgetmedia/57bdd772-1 d6b-4d 1 f -a 344-94ab249ec392/2019PWR -MiniRAB-FINAL.pdf Page 19.
85 https:/Lrpv.granicus .com/Doc_umentViewe_r,_p_b.p?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bJ952b2ea4dl.pdf&yiew=1 Page 64 .
86 https://www.rpvca .gov/DocumentCenter/View/12760/Traffic-Calming-Guideli nes-December-2008 Page 22.
87 https :/ /rp'L..granjcus.com/player/clip/145?view id=5&redirect=true
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 vehicles 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 Zoom 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 voted and a libelous and
slanderous accusation was left unchallenged in the public record for the public to assume was
88 https:/Lrpv.granicus.com/player/clip/4873?view id=S&refeeJ:;t=true
89 See Appendix 1 for Dan Myers' photos of a white Tesla vs . photos of my car.
90 https://rpY,granicus .com/DocumentVieweq,hp?file=rpv d09d495c8ffdc2945fc6bf952b2ea4d1 .pdf&view=1 Pages 315 -3 20 .
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
9 1 b..llps:/ /rpv.gra n i cu s .co m/pla~er /clipl1_45 ?view id=S&re di rect=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: Wh ite Te lsa w ith TINTED Front W i ndows
CONCLUSION: THIS CAR IS NOT MY CAR
My Car: White Te lsa w ith UNTINTED Front W i ndows
T h ese pi ct ures sh o w my car fro m th e same v a ntage p o int, m a king a l ega l turn . T h e diff e r e nces are unmist ak a bl e . T h e white int er io r a nd driv er o f my ca r a r e
both vi sibl e .
43
Photos of Another White Tesla Turning off of Avenida Celestial.
Thi s ex hibit shows another white Tesla with tinted win dows, photographed fro m my own white Tesla whil e 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 on ly res ide nt on my street with a white Tesla.
Further, I am not prepared to accuse any of my neighbors. I have no way of kn owin g who was driving the car Mr. Myers accused of making the ill ega l turn,
nor do I kn ow if that is the car he photographed. I ju st kn ow 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 pos session , 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 th _e time , a letter was sent
notifying all residents within 500 feet of Avenida Classica and 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 rec used 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 Esplendida). 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 information 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 legal or regulatory requirement for the TSC to take such steps in o rde r
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 adviso ry 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 .
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
dfraley@rpvca.gm[
Phone -(310) 544-5250
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD -nzr ~\.1
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 w as
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
multiple 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 guidelines that had existed for well over a decade (that again remain published to the
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 2 3, 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 signatures" 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 <dfraley@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@rpvca.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 circles. 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 item 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.
Please let me know if you would still 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
dfraley@r~
Phone -(310) 544-5250
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Website: www.rpyc_a.gov
-. . .
DOWNLOAD
'lilt \ I
\•
C.[TITON
• 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 le
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
.dtra ley@rpvccLgov
Phone -(310) 544-5250
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
<Outlook-Text Desc.png>
<Outlook -5b ljvvir.png >
<Out l ook -k2k4 0ef 4 . png >
53
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Website : www.rpvc_a.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 wh this isJ.m.Qortant
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
Table D-1. Traffic Ca lming Measures
A channelization
that causes a series
of tight turns in
opposite di r ections
in an otherwise
straight stretch of
road
A raised circular
island placed in
the center of an
intersection
Inappropriate for use
on:
• Streets classified
as collector or higher
• Bus routes
• Emergency
response routes
• -Where there is
limited stopping sight
distance
• Where there is a
grade that exceeds
5%
May be used on two
lane streets with
alternative access
points .
Inappropriate for use
on:
• Streets classified
as major or higher
• Bus routes
• Emergency
response routes
• Where there is
limited sight distance
• Where there is a
grade that exceeds
5%
• Creates
opportunity for
landscaping
• Tends not to
divert traffic to
nearby streets
• Slows traffic
on each
approach
• Creates
landscaping
opportunity
• Reduces
ROW conflict
• Tends not to
divert traffic to
nearby streets
May:
• Cause some
loss of on-street
parking
• Increase
emergen cy
response time
• Impact
driveways
• Affect drain age
and street
sweeping
May:
• Impact large
vehicles' turns
• Increase
emergency
response time
htti:ts://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/street design_manual march_2017-final.pdf (p . 155)
56
30. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLES & MINI-ROUNDABOUTS
Neighborhood traffic circ les and mini -ro undabouts, while similar In appearance, have some
unique design differences . Ne ighborhood traffic circles are designed to fit within existing
intersections . Neighborhood traffic circles typically do not have a raised central Island or Include
diverter islands on the approaches to the intersection . Because of their size, most vehicles larger
than a passenger car must t r avel over at least a portion of the central Island to make a left turn;
the central is land in a neighborhood traffic circle is typically flush for this reason . By contrast,
mini -roundabouts typically include diverter islands on the app r oaches, and a raised , traversable
central Island that includes mountable aprons, as shown in Figure 3-11 . Depending on the w idth
of the street approaches and intersection, mini -roundabouts may invo lve modification of the
intersection. Full -size roundabouts have many of the same safety and operational benefits of
neighborhood traffic circles and mini -roundabouts . However, due to their size, they generally
have more impacts on drainage, right -of-way, and utilities. Therefore, full -size roundabouts are
beyond the scope of the Traffic Calming Program but may be initiated as a separate project that
follows DelDOT's typical Project Deve lopment Process . More informat ion about full -size
roundabouts, as well as design guidance, is available on DelDOT's website .
Figure 3-11. Examples of Mini-Roundabouts
Aoollcat lon·
Types of Streets • Neighborhood traffic circles are appropriate for the Junction of two
subdivision streets
• Min i-roundabouts are appropriate for the junction of two subdivision
streets, local, or collector roadways
Speed Limits • Neighborhood traffic circles are appropriate for roadways with posted
speed lim its of 25 MPH
• M ini -roundabouts are appropriate for roadways with posted speed
limits of 30 MPH or less
Design Vehicles • The design vehicle for both neighborhood traffic circ les and m ini -
roundabouts is a passenger car
Street Grades • Maximum recommended gra d e is 6% I
37 Ap ril 2025
https://deldot.gov/Publications/ma nuals/traffic ca lmingLpdfs/Delaware TrafficCalm i ngDesign M anual.12
df (p . 37 )
57
Traffic Circle vs. Roundabout: A Critical Distinction
TRAFFIC CIRCLE ROUNDABOUT
• Unregulated, primitive device • Formally regulated device
• No federal design standard • FHWA provides authoritative design
• Every safety improvement moves it guidance
toward roundabout definition • FHWA explicitly prohibits on grades
• San Diego & Delaware: prohibited on exceeding 4%
grades above 5-6% • GTS's own June 27, 2025 memo calls
these "roundabouts"
--+ Either way, there is no classification under which these devices are safe or compliant.
11.1% Max Grade: 9.9% Grade Through Two Devices
Slope (Grade) of Avenida Cla.ssica 250 feet before Avenida f.elestia l (Traffic Circle t> to Avenida Esplenolda ,(T,raffic Cirde 2)
G•aoh t,1,n A•,q W1:<c E:e•.-a1.or 788. 829 879 H
R<1r'tge r 01a1s D1s1ar:ce 1599 •1 Ele·.· G,:w1-Loss 9 e..i 11. -95 6 rt r·.1a.\ s o~,e , 1 • -22 a·, A-,·,:, Slope 2 6 " .; 2'
855
i....
0
11',J a,
lJ
I,.
QJ >
55 ft ris e SS Slope: --= --= 9.9 %
run S57.3
800 557..29 ft
800
Source: KOA traffic study, July 2023
Maximum Grade Standards: Authoritative Sources
Every recognized authority caps roundabout/traffic-circle grades far below the as-built condition at Avenida Classica.
Authority Device Max grade Source
FHWA / NCH RP Report 672 Roundabouts 4% NCHRP 672 §6.8.7.5, p. 242
NCHRP Research Report 1043 (current) Roundabouts 4% NCHRP 1043 §11.3, p. 11 -8 (2023)
LA County Public Works Roundabouts 3% Roundabout Policy, p. 9
City of San Diego Traffic circles 5% Street Design Manual, p. 155
State of Delaware DOT Traffic circles/ mini-roundabouts 6% Traffic Calming Manual, p. 37
Caltrans (adopting NCHRP 672) Roundabouts (state highways) 4% HOM Chapter 400 §405.10
RPV NTCP (more permissive device) Speed humps 8% RPV NTCP, p. 28
Avenida Classica -actual grade Traffic circles installed 10-11% KOA traffic study, July 2023
NCHRP 1043 (2023) supersedes NCHRP 672 (2010). Both establish the same 4% maximum grade. NCH RP 1043 §11.3 explicitly characterizes a 10% approach
grade as a "steep grade" requiring special engineering intervention not employed at Avenida Classica.
---
Speed humps tolerate steeper grades than roundabouts or
traffic circles -
and every limit is exceeded at Avenida Classica.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
% grade
FHWA San Diego Delaware
Roundabout Traffic Circle Traffic Circle
Limit Limit Limit
11
NTCP Speed Avenida
Hump C lassica
Limit Actual Grade
11%
Avenida Classica
Actual Grade
2.7Sx
the roundabout
safety limit
GTS's Own Memo Calls Them Roundabouts
The City's own traffic engineer {GTS, June 2025} describes the device using roundabout terminology -splitter island, entry
deflection, directional arrows.
I +12 13 267 2332 i f +1 21 3 31 8 0744
info@gentecsol.com I www .gentecsol.com
11900 W Otymp1c Blvd .. Ste 450 I Los Angeles , CA 90064
GTS I Genera l Technologies and Solutions
MEMORANDUM
Date : June 27 , 2025 GTS : 210601.18
To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: GTS
Subject: Avenida Classica Before-and-After Speed Study -DRAFT MEMO Updated
Short-term:
1. Daylight the intersection of Avenida Classica and Ave Esplendida by red -curbing the northbound
approach for an additional 30 feet beyond the existing red curb. making a total of about 75 feet
from the intersection , as shown in Exh ibit 11.
2. Add a Pedestrian Ahead sign at the start of the red curb (W 11 -2 sign and AHEAD) to notify uph ill
vehicles of pedestrians crossing.
3. Roundabout directional arrow (R6--4 series) signs and/or ONE WAY (R6-1R or R6-2R) signs are
also recommended signs to indicate the travel direction within a roundabout.
4. To further discourage errant left turns . in addition to the larger traffic circle described in item 5 , the
City could mod ify the striping along Avenida Classica to enhance the entry to th~ roundabout In
terms of splitter is land , entry lane widths .AQQ_entry deflection ang~ough this is typically done
for a more permanent installation such as concrete or Vortex type roundabout, this can also be
done for the existing tactica l imp lementa tion .
5. The existing 20-foot diameter of the traffi c circle at the intersection of Avenida Ctassica and Ave
Esplendida could be increased to a 20-foot diameter curbed inner circle plus a 1-foot all around
mountable radius . resul ting in a 20 + 2 = 22-foot new widened diameter.
6. The City cou ld install a· traffic circle made of readily availab le materials per the specifications
described in item 5 above . An examp le of such an installation is shown in Exh ibit 10.
ITEM 3 -DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
"Roundabout directional arrow (R6-4 series) signs ... to indicate
the travel direct ion within a roundabout ."
ITEM 4 -GEOMETRIC DESIGN
" ... modify the st riping ... to enhance the entry to the
roundabout in terms of splitter island, entry lane widths, and
entry deflection angles ."
WHY IT MATTERS
The City's own engineer treats the device as a roundabout -
invoking the 4% NCH RP grade limit it cannot m ee t .
Source: GTS Memorandum , "Avenida Cla ssica Before -and-After Speed Study -DRAFT MEMO Updated," June 27, 2025
The NTCP: Binding RPV City Policy
Adopted by Council in 2008 and reaffirmed in 2014 -the NTCP remains in force and can only be modified by another Council vote.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDFS
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
CALMING PROGRAM
A community leadership guide
..... ~ ..::.,J -~
,.;;..:;_
..... -'5o:-.-.... -........
·-------
--~,
, ... ... ~.,.......__
.;.,. :·~--~--~---
,.' s • • .. ,.
• . i '
Public Works Department
December 2008
~
ADOPTION TIMELINE
December 2008 . Adopted by City Council
August 2014 . Reaffirmed by City Council
STILL IN FORCE TODAY
The NTCP remains official City policy. Because it was adopted by City
Council vote , it can only be modified or rescinded by another Council
vote -not by staff discretion or administrative action.
Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (Public Work s Department , December 2008; reaffirmed 2014).
The 60% Petition: Residents' Formal Veto Power
Traffic circles and speed humps cannot be installed without 60% petition support of affected property owners.
LEVEL2
Level 2 traffic calming mitigations are traffi c contro l devices and roadway desi.gn features
primarily des igned to slow traffic and discou rage bypass traffic within residential a reas .
They are emp loyed when the use of preliminary and Level 1 traffic calmi ng eleme nts
cannot effectively address traffic concerns and have the support of a substanti al number of
affected residents . Level 2 traffic calm ing measures avai lab le in Rancho Pa los Verdes
in cl ud e:
• Entran ce Treatments
• Curb Extension s/Choke rs
• Bu lb-Ou ts
• Medians/Center Islands
• Traffic Circles
• Radar Feedback Signs
• Visual Roadway Narrowing
• Speed Humps/Tables
Level 2 traffic calming measures mu st be initi ated through a petiti o n process. The petition
wh ich is shown on page 33 , must have the support of 60% of the property owners on th
section of street (or ne ighborhood ) within the limits of the requested traffic calming
measures as recommended in the Engineer in g Study. The lim its gene rally cons ist of all
properties between the first and last dev ice in a ser ies , as well as any property within 200
feet of any dev ice .
Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (Dec 2008), Level 2,
page 5.
THE RULE
60%
petition support of property owners
required to approve traffic circles
and speed humps (NTCP page 5).
WHAT WAS TAKEN
The 60% threshold is the residents'
formal veto over Level 2 devices on
their own street.
By installing the traffic circles
without that petition, the City
removed a binding check the NTCP
gives to property owners.
The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP)
Passed 2008 • Reaffirmed 2014 • Never Repealed· Remains City Policy
60% Community Petition Required
Level 2 devices (circular devices, speed humps) require a formal petition demonstrating 60% community support
BEFORE installation.
► NOT DONE for the circles. NOT DONE tonight for the speed hump.
Speed Humps Prohibited Above 8% Grade
The NTCP explicitly bans speed humps on slopes exceeding 8% -which is why they are not proposed near the circles.
► The City already recognizes grade as a disqualifying threshold.
Roundabout Threshold: 4% -Half That of Speed Humps
The City enforced its grade rule for speed humps. It ignored an even stricter standard for the circles.
► When confronted, Public Works removed the NTCP from the City website.
These are not judgment calls. These are your own policies.
The City Quietly Removed the NTCP from Its Website
Removed from the Traffic Safety Committee page between Oct 13 and Nov 3, 2025 -after residents cited their violations .
BEFORE • ON OR BEFORE OCT 13, 2025
0 C • D <t
l,JIII RANCH.0 PALOS VERDES GOVERNMENT DEPARlllO(JS COMMUt«TY cm S£IYIC.U n.t.MSPAR£HCY HOW oo '-
• ,(.,11
TnilficCllming
Cln' o•· llA.,CIIO t'AI..OS \'Eal>ES
NEIGHBORHOOD T RAFFIC
• 11, .... -.......u-\w.·'lt'J -CALMING PROGRAM .. _...,. __ .,...
Voturn.l$J!NdCrapfls
• • • 1 ~
15-21
WUTINC lCOClaS TUUINATUltt: SEU!Cf REOUESTt PUMIT'S
IWllOARCICVES ""'"" ................. ,_,._ ,,._,,..._ '""'~•
WHY THIS MATTERS
AFTER • BY NOV 3, 2025
C :; '*Oct.±.•-·-·------------·-... --.....
~ ~l~~,~~i~ALOS VERDES
• MEETING ACEHDAS
l VIDEO ARCHIVES
'~, , ..... ~ ....... i-. .... , ..... ,i-.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS COMMUNITY CITY SERVICES TRANSPARENCY HOW DO L
Onrsized / Neighborhood Vehicle Parking Programs
<>~\ildLIWU..Jt:llt Where the NTCP was
posted o n the TSC
,::.,::;,.,:;-~-=..,,ic:,,;:--'--.1 ;~~l~~i~:~:~ ':e=:~
•
<> ID1t1h IYt1'11'\IM)CltC'dm·1U t II 11!1'.L!t.l
• 111:S!II ISD11"1'1""~i•C1.!11
o /i;>r)I· \llW \II' Wllll:IC"'i~t1/1J
•l11a·\>0 ◄•·¥,,.nuot11ls..,·11w <bm·UU.t
•~~~CW.I
.. ~~11!1)
• ~ual~~'
• • JMlbS,N!Il!Rf SERVICE REQUESTS PUMrTS' INSPECTIONS = N,-, ... ,.n. .... '<.l'l!.-. ........ 1'\..ul
1,...-.~J·•-·--
October 13 , 2025 and
November 3, 2025 .
• PUBUCSAFITY
,,.,..,.1~ .............. i""'-'-""<•
. ,
NOTIFY MEIS
After residents pointed out that the City was violating its own Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, Public
Works removed the NTCP link from the Traffic Safety Committee page -instead of complying with it. The
po l icy is still in force; only its visibility was changed.
Source: rpvca .gov/165/Traffic-Safety-Committee
Community Petition: The Neighborhood Has Spoken
50 Digital Petitioners and 32 "Wet Signature" Households
Demand the Removal of Dangerous Traffic Circles
ic;;;,-~
We did what the City failed to do: we collected a formal petition.
0%
Petitions submitted
by City before installation
60%
Required by NTCP
before installation
WOULD FAIL
TODAY
If the NTCP's 60% petition requirement
were applied today, it would fail.
A Test of the "Corruption Prosecutor" Promise
Mayor Paul Seo campaigns on accountability. Avenida Classica is the test case.
THE CAMPAIGN PROMISE
Mayor Sea's campaign brands him as a "Corruption
Prosecutor" and "Mayor. Fighting for us."
FORMAL SUBMISSION • NO RESPONSE
57-page Formal Request for Removal of Traffic Circles and
Investigation into Procedural Violations submitted Jan. 18, 2026 to
RPV's Fraud, Waste & Abuse Hotline (rpv.tnwreports.com). No
response from the City.
THE TEST
Investigate the procedural violations. Remove the non
compliant traffic circles. Honor your current office.
Authoritative Guidance on
Roundabout & Traffic Circle
Grades
Verbatim excerpts from federal, state, and local engineering standards.
I
APPENDIX • FHWA TAXONOMY
FHW A: Modern Roundabouts Are Not the Same as
Traffic Circles
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration • Roundabouts: An Informational Guide· Publication No. FHWA-RO-00-067, Chapter 1:
Introduction
BODY TEXT, CHAPTER 1
"The modern roundabout represents a
substantial improvement, in terms of
operations and safety, when compared
with older rotaries and traffic circles."
FHWA-RD-00-067, Ch . 1
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
MARGIN NOTE, SAME PAGE
''Modern roundabouts provide
substantially better operational and safety
characteristics than older traffic circles and
rotaries."
FHWA-RD-00-067, Ch. 1, margin
FHWA itself draws the line: "modern roundabouts" and "old traffic circles" are different devices. Either way
Avenida Classica is classified, an authoritative grade limit applies and is exceeded.
I
APPENDIX • FEDERAL AUTHORITY
NCHRP Report 672 (2010) -Reaffirmed by Research Report
1043 (2023)
Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program · Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition {NCH RP 672,
§6.8.7.5 , o . 242) · NCHRP Research Reoort 1043 , §11.3, o. 11-8 (2023)
ON GRADE LIMITS
"Roundabouts should not be located in
areas where the approach grades exceed 4
percent. Steeper grades affect the ability of
drivers to maintain appropriate speeds
entering and exiting the roundabout, and
increase the difficulty of design."
NCHRP 672, §6 .8.7 .5, p. 242
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
ON STOPPING & VISIBILITY
"Steeper grades can also create challenges
with stopping sight distance, intersection
sight distance, and the visibility of the
central island."
NCHRP Research Report 1043, §11.3, p. 11-8
Avenida Classica measured grade between Traffic Circle 1 and Traffic Circle 2: 9.9% (KOA, July 2023). Exceeds the
4% NCHRP limit by 2.5-2.75x.
APPENDIX· STATE STANDARD
Caltrans Highway Design Manual -Chapter 400,
§405.10
California Department of Transportation • Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400 -Intersections at Grade· §405 .10 Roundabouts
ON DESIGN AUTHORITY
"Roundabouts on the State Highway System must be developed and
evaluated in accordance with the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational
G .d " Ul e.
Caltrans HOM, Chapter 400, §405.10
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
California's own design manual incorporates NCHRP 672 by reference. The 4% grade limit therefore applies as a
state-recognized engineering standard, not just a federal one.
I
APPENDIX· STATE STANDARD
Caltrans HDM §403.3 -Steep Downgrades + Sharp Turns Increase Overturn Risk
Ca/trans Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition • Chapter 400 -Intersections at Grade· Topic 403, Index 403.3 -Angle of Intersection · pp. 400-7 to 400-8
(May 20, 2022)
APPLIES TO ALL AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS -not just roundabouts. Topic 403 governs general geometric design, so the
roundabout/traffic-circle debate is moot.
ON GRADE + ANGLE COMBINED
"Severely skewed intersection angles, coupled
with steep downgrades (generally over 4
P._ercent) can increase the potential for high
centered vehicles to overturn where the vehicle
is on a downgrade and must make a turn
greater than 90 degrees onto a crossroad."
Caltrans HOM §403.3, p . 400-7
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
ON THE 90° IDEAL
''A right angle ( 90°) intersection provides the
mostfavorable conditions ... the interior angle
should be designed as close to 90 degrees as is
practical, but should not be less than 75
degrees."
Ca ltrans HOM §403 .3, p . 400-7
Whether the device is a roundabout or a traffic circle, it is still an at-grade intersection -and Caltrans flags every condition
Avenida Classica meets: a 9.9-11% downgrade (well over 4%) and turns far greater than 90° with circular device .
I
APPENDIX · STATE STANDARD APPLIED
Why a Traffic Circle Is the Worst Geometry on a 9.9%
Downgrade
Ca/trans flags >90° turns on >4% downgrades. A traffic circle forces every left-turning vehicle into a 270° turn -the most extreme
case.
MILD 90° ELEVATED 180° EXTREME
90° 0
=180° =270°
BASELINE: 90° INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CI RCLE: STRAIGHT-THROUGH TRAFFIC CIRCLE: LEFT TURN
2700
Caltrans target geometry . Single quarte r -turn. Dri ve r detours::: 180° around central isl and . Driv er m ust trave rse ::: 270° of the circle .
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
Caltrans §403.3 ("turn greater than 90 degrees"+ "downgrades over 4 percent"=:= overturn r isk) is met with margin to spare .
Avenida Classica forces 180°-270° turns on a 9 .9% to 11% downgrade .
----
APPENDIX • LOCAL STANDARD
Los Angeles County Public Works -Roundabout Policy
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Roundabout Policy, p. 9
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
ON GRADE LIMITS
"Roundabouts shall not be considered at
locations where any of the approach grades
exceed 3%."
LA County Public Works, Roundabout Policy, p. 9
LA County, the immediate regional authority, sets a stricter 3% li mit. Avenida Classica 's 9.9% measured grade
exceeds this benchmark by more than 3x.
APPENDIX • TRAFFIC-CIRCLE-SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
Even the Most Permissive Standards Cap Grades at 5-6%
Two jurisdictions that issue traffic-circle-specific (not roundabout) guidance.
5 0 0 CITY OF SAN DIEGO
TRAFFIC CIRCLES
"Traffic circles shall not be installed on
streets with grades exceeding 5%."
San Diego Street Design Manual , p. 155
WHAT IT MEANS HERE
6 % STATE OF DELAWARE DOT
0 TRAFFIC CIRCLES/ MINI -ROUNDABOUTS
"Traffic circles and mini-roundabouts
should not be installed on roadways with
approach grades greater than 6%."
Delaware DOT Traffic Calming Manual , p. 3 7
Even classifying the Avenida Classica devices as traffic circles (the more permissive interpretation), the 9.9%
measured grade exceeds San Diego's 5% limit by ~2x and Delaware's 6% by ~1.6Sx.
ENGINEERING CONTEXT
Why a Steep Downhill Approach Is Inherently Unsafe at
a Circular Device
The video that follows shows the failure modes the engineering literature predicts.
STOPPING SIGHT DIST ANGE
"Steeper grades can also create challenges
with stopping sight distance, intersection
sight distance, and the visibility of the
central island."
NCHRP Research Report 1043, §11 .3
WHAT THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS
OVERTURN RISK ON STEEP DOWNGRADES
"Severely skewed intersection angles,
coupled with steep downgrades (generally
over 4 percent) can increase the potential
for high centered vehicles to overturn
where the vehicle is on a downgrade and
must make a turn greater than 90 degrees
onto a crossroad."
Caltrans HOM §403.3, p. 400-7
A 270° left turn through the circle , on a 9 .9% downgrade , with an oncoming truck failing to yield: the exact t-bone-then
rollover scenario §403.3 anticipates. A roundabout retrofit cannot fix this -NCH RP 672 caps roundabout grades at 4%.
VIDEO ORIENTATION
The Same Event, Two Cameras
Front and rear dashcam footage from a single left-tum maneuver at Traffic Circle 1 (Avenida Classica at Avenida Celestial). Watch
for the hazards the device creates both ahead of and behind the vehicle.
••
11\ ..
---------
VIDEO ANAL YIS
Front Camera: Right-of-Way Confusion at the First
Circle
Southbound on Avenida Classica, making a 2 70° left turn onto Avenida Celestial.
0 ENTRY WITH RIGHT OF WAY
The dashcam vehicle enters the traffic circle. Under standard rules, vehicles already in the circle have right of
way over entering traffic.
e T-BONE RISK FROM ONCOMING TRUCK
An oncoming pickup truck -accelerating uphill having just cleared the second circle -does not yield. The
dashcam vehicle is fully committed to the 270° left turn and exposed to a perpendicular impact on the
passenger's side.
e ROLLOVER CASCADE DOWN THE 9.9% SLOPE
If struck mid-turn, the vehicle is on a 9.9% downgrade with steering committed >90°. Ca ltrans HOM §403.3
names this exact combination -steep downgrade plus turn greater than 90° -as an overturn-risk condition. A
struck vehicle can roll and continue down Avenida Classica.
I WHY A ROUNDABOUT RETROFIT IS NOT THE ANSWER
Modifying the devices toward a formal roundabout only deepens the disqualification -NCH RP 672 caps roundabout grades
at 4%, and Avenida Classica is at 9 .9-11%. Removal is the only standards-compliant outcome.
VIDEO ANAL VIS
Rear Camera: Tailgating Cascade on the 9.9%
Downgrade
Same maneuver, viewed from the rear: three trailing vehicles approach from uphill.
0 TRAILING TRAFFIC AT FULL SPEED
Three vehicles descend the curve at normal road speed. The horizontal curve and steep grade give them no ear ly
visual cue that the lead vehicle is slowing for the device.
e LEAD VEHICLE DECELERATES INTO THE CIRCLE
The dashcam vehicle slows to enter the traffic circle. The trailing vehicles do not begin to brake -the gap closes
rapidly.
0 PASSING INSIDE THE DEVICE
By the time the lead car is in the circle, the trailing vehicles are at its bumper. One swerves around the lead car
-inside the circle -while the lead car is still negotiating the truck conflict from the front camera.
I ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE
Thi s is the stoppin g-sight -distance failure NCHRP 1043 warns about -captured in real time. The grade and the curve
combine to eliminate th e reaction window.
WHAT THE VIDEO PROVES
Three Hazards That Did Not Exist Before the Devices
Were Installed
Each is independently documented in the video. None of them are speed-related.
HAZARD 1
T-Bone, Then
Rollover
A driver mid-270° turn is exposed
to a perpendicular impact from
oncoming uphill traffic. With
steering committed on a 9.9%
downgrade, Caltrans HDM §403.3
nam es this as an overturn-risk
condition .
HAZARD 2
Stopping-Sight
Distance Failure
Trailing traffic on the 9.9%
downgrade and curve cannot react
in time when the lead vehicle
slows for the device . The reaction
window is gone -exactly the
failure NCHRP 1043 §11.3 warns
about for grades over 4%.
HAZARD 3
Passing Inside the
Device
Compressed gaps push trailing
vehicles to swerve around slowe r
traffic -inside the circle, on the
downgrade . Th is maneuver did
not exist on the prior straight
roadway.
These hazards were created by the installation. Modifying the devices toward a
formal roundabout only deepens the disqualification -the only standards
compliant outcome is removal.
THE FUNDAMENTAL DILEMMA
A Device That Creates Risk in Both Directions
Two choices -both dangerous. Neither existed on this street before device installation .
.A
CHOICE 1: THE LEGAL MANEUVER
2700
counterclockwise left turn
Caltrans HDM §403 .3: steep downgrades exceeding 4%
combined with turns greater than 90° create overturn risk.
Avenida Class ica: 9.9% grade -2.Sx the threshold. The
intended use of the device is the maneuv e r Calt r ans flags as
dangerous.
-CHOICE 2: THE ILLEGAL SHORTCUT
900
clockwise left turn (illegal)
Residents facing the physics of Choice 1 are making ill egal
clockwise left turns to avoid it -documented on video.
This exposes them to T-bone collisions from non-yielding
through-traffic -and puts oncoming traffic on Avenida
Ce lestial and Avenida Esplendida at g r ave risk of a head -o n
collision .
Residents are not being irrational. They are rationally responding to a device that offers no safe option. Both
paths carry risk that was absent before installation.
Subject: FW: Avenida Classsica traffic circles
From: Tommy Draffen <tommy.draffen@audiocomponents.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 6:06 PM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Avenida Classsica traffic circles
Some people who received this message don't often get email from tommy.draffen@audiocomponents.com. Learn why this is important
From: Tommy Draffen <tommy.draffen@audiocomponents.com>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 2026 at 6:05 PM
To: p_ublicwirks@rpvca.gov <publicwirks~a.gov>, paul.B_eQ@_rJ1'iLCll,_gmL <paul.s_e_Q@rpvca.gov>,
rawwad@rpvc_a.gov <rawwad@rpvca.gm,>, aram@rpvca._gmL <aram@ul'Lca.gov>, ncasil@rpvca.gu'i
<ncasil@rP.',,'ca.gov>, Traffic@rpvca.gov <Traffic@rpvca,_gmL>
Cc: dane mott@hotmail.com <dao_e mott@hotmail.com>
Subject: Avenida Classsica traffic circles
Dear RPV Staff,
I am writing to again express my opposition to the traffic circles on Avenida Classica, in any form. I am
also opposed to a speed hump which would be ineffective in the proposed location.
As noted by Mayor Seo at the March 3 meeting, this issue originated from a small group of residents
seeking to redirect traffic on Avenida Classica to Los Verdes-not from any documented safety
problem. This was simply about reducing the AMOUNT of traffic on Avenida Classica. Concerns about
speeding only emerged later, and the traffic circles-never previously proposed-were introduced as a
trial.
My family has lived at 30215 Avenida Selecta since March 1998. To my knowledge, and as confirmed in
March testimony, there have been no accidents on Avenida Classica during that time. Introducing a
significant change after nearly 30 years without incident raises a legitimate concern -if an accident
occurs following installation, won't the City face questions of liability.
I ask the you also review the testimony form the March 3 meeting. Please note the inconsistencies.
1. Proponents claim speeding remains severe, but the City studies claim speeds have
decreased.
2. Proponents acknowledge the circles push vehicles toward the curb, yet advocate for
larger installations.
3. Proponents continue calling for sheriff enforcement-an implicit admission that the
circles are not effective.
The traffic circles are not a solution; they create a safety concern. They force drivers further into
oncoming traffic, and I do not feel safe navigating them. And if you want to see a video of me, one of the
major proponents of the circles chased me to royhQuse in his car this afternoon and harassed me,
filmlngrne. This has gone too far.
Most of our neighbors have lived here for decades. Even the most vocal proponent of the traffic circles,
the same chaser/harasser, was once a friend who stopped to chat 2-3 nights a week. But since 2023,
what was once a cooperative, long-standing community has become divided over these traffic
circles. Residents are now filming, confronting, and reporting one another. This is unacceptable, and the
City's decision to proceed with and defend this installation has contributed to that division. It feels like
now there is a "we must win" attitude within the city traffic committee, engineers, and perhaps others in
the city government instead of doing the right thing.
There are also the same unaddressed issues I initially raised/suggested in June 2023:
• No speed limit signage on the southbound side of Avenida Classica (still unresolved).
• The need for sheriff enforcement if speeding is a legitimate concern. ( Even the proponents admit
this is effective)
• The use of flashing speed feedback signs, which have been successfully implemented on
Abbottswood and Crest.
These measures are less costly, proven to be effective, and far less disruptive than traffic circles. These
are the same measures used to protect school children near Vista Grande school.
The appropriate course of action is clear: remove the traffic circles and implement solutions that directly
address speeding without compromising safety. These approaches are already used effectively by the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and should be applied here. I think all of the above three changes can be
implemented for less than the cost of any other option before the council. Let's not waste any more city
funds on this project.
I urge the City to correct this decision and take actions that improve safety while restoring trust within the
community. Remember, even the proponents of the circles argue the traffic circles are not effective in
reducing speed.
Sincerely,
Tommy Draffen
30215 Avenida Selecta
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-283-1548
From: Tommy Draffen <t.ommy.draffen@audiocomponents.co_rn>
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 at 7:52 AM
To: publicwirks@cpvca.gm., <publicwirks@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Avenida Classica
2
Hi Ramzi
Unfortunately I won't be able to attend tonight. I hope there is no further action and actually hope the pilot
program temporary roundabout will be removed. No low impact or low cost ideas have been tried.
1. No Speed limit signs posted for south/west traffic. From Crest all the way down to Los Verdes there are no
signs.
2. No Slow Down signs
3. No temporary Speed radar utilized all over the city and peninsula.
I also believe the current system makes it even less safe at the corner of Classico and Esplendida. Coming down
Clasica and making a left turn on Esplanade. You're forced to go deeper into oncoming traffic, which is where
there's a potential Blindspot. If speeding is really a concern drivers coming from Los Verdes have very little time to
react and those turning left around the roundabout also have very little time to react. This is a very unusually short
turn. Normal roundabouts are much larger.
As I previously mentioned in my earlier emails, I have never seen an accident on Avenida Clasica since I moved
here in 1998.
The changes made actually make me feel less safe than before. It would be my suggestion to remove them
completely and make no further adjustment other than proper sign age. I think it has been said there are speed
limit signs posted, but there is only one at the very bottom of the street going northbound behind foliage. There are
no signs for southbound traffic to know the speed limit or be warned of curves or warned to slow down
Tommy Draffen
310-283-1548
Sent from my iPhone
3