CC SR 20151215 01 - Western Ave Corridor Street Enhancement StrategyCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY
DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2015
SUBJECT: WESTERN AVENUE CORRIDOR STREET ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER (/.A./
Project Manager: Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner~
RECOMMENDATION ~·-
Approve the Western A venue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy (the Strategy) document
that was revised to reflect the Planning Commission's August 11, 2015 recommendation for
enhancing the Western Avenue corridor shared by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and City
of Los Angeles.
FISCAL IMPACT
The efforts to prepare the Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy (the
Strategy) have been funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
with a grant awarded in the amount of $165,000, supported by "in-kind" donations, in terms
of Staff time, from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ($20,000) and the City of Los Angeles
($10,400). If approved, the document can be used by City Staff to seek additional grant
monies to implement the measures/concepts described in the Strategy, which could result in
a cost savings to the City, or the City can chose to fund all, or portions thereof, of the
recommended street improvement projects through the City's annual Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP).
BACKGROUND
Approval of the Western Avenue Vision Plan (the Vision Plan)
In October 2010, the City Council authorized Staff to submit a grant application to SCAG for
a Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project, focusing on the revitalization of the Western
Avenue corridor that traverses the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles.
In October 2011, SCAG awarded a $120,000 grant to the City, allowing it to retain the services
1
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page 2
of AECOM, a renowned consulting firm, to develop a plan that would identify planning options
and sustainable economic development opportunities for the Western Avenue corridor.
After assembling a Western Avenue Vision Plan Working Group comprised of various
stakeholders, including residents, business owners, the Chambers of Commerce and Staff
from both the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and City of Los Angeles (San Pedro Council
District), as well as conducting public outreach, AECOM produced a Western Avenue Vision
Plan (the Vision Plan) document. The Vision Plan was presented to the Planning Commission
on May 28, 2013 at which time the Planning Commission provided feedback to the City
Council (Minutes attached). The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council approved the Western
Avenue Vision Plan, with certain amendments, on July 16, 2013 (Minutes attached).
Development of the Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy (the
Strategy)
In April 2013, Staff learned that the City was eligible for additional grant funding from SCAG
that would help implement the Western Avenue Vision Plan. As a result, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and City of Los Angeles partnered and submitted a joint grant application under
SCAG's Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project, and were awarded $165,000 to prepare
design guidelines to help implement the Vision Plan shared by both Cities. As a result, the
Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles extended AECOM's contract with SCAG to
develop a document that provides direction for street corridor improvements that are
consistent with the Vision Plan.
Public Open House
To help AECOM develop a strategy document, a Steering Committee was formed comprised
of representatives from CalTrans, the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes (including Planning
Commissioners Tomblin and Cruikshank), and Los Angeles and local business stakeholders.
Based on feedback to AECOM from the Steering Committee, AECOM developed a draft
document titled "Western Avenue Corridor Design Implementation Guidelines" ("Design
Guidelines") which included three alternative design guidelines (Options A, B and C) for the
corridor. The document and design concepts were presented to the public at an Open House
held on March 14, 2015, at Peck Park Community Center in San Pedro. The purpose of the
Open House was to obtain feedback on the document and the three street improvement
options from the general public. The Open House was successful with over 80 participants in
attendance over two sessions and several public comments submitted. In response to the
Open House, AECOM made adjustments to the Draft document to address some of the public
concerns raised.
Planning Commission Review #1
On April 28, 2015, the Draft Western Avenue Design Guidelines were presented to the
Planning Commission, whereby Staff requested that the Planning Commission identify a
"preferred street option." A courtesy notice informing Eastview residents of the Planning
Commission meeting was published in the Peninsula News and sent to over 3,000 residents
2
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page 3
and business owners within the project area. A handful of residents attended the public
meeting and provided comments. Ultimately, a majority of the Planning Commission (4-3, with
Commissioners James, Tomblin and Gerstner dissenting) agreed to recommend to the City
Council to reject Options A, B and C in the document, and that an alternative Option D be
prepared that would: 1) seize the current unique opportunity to work with the City of Los
Angeles and CalTrans to improve the Western Avenue corridor; 2) designate Western Avenue
as a thoroughfare first; 3) first focus on easing the traffic for vehicles; 4) embark on a short-
term plan to improve signage, landscaping in the medians, and find ways to fund that; and 5)
include a longer term vision for the future of the corridor.
While the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission rejected all three street designs
contained in the Draft document at its April 28, 2015 meeting, individual Commissioners
provided Staff with some feedback on the three options identified in the Draft Design
Guidelines document. Based on the Commissioner feedback that was unrelated to their
formal recommendation (see April 28, 2015 P.C. Minutes attached), the Consultant created a
fourth option, which was also referred to as Option "D." This new option removed the private
development aspect of the concepts and focused solely on the public right-of-way. It also
included a two-way bike lane on one side of the road. The purpose of this fourth option was
to provide the decision makers an alternative they could possibly support if they shared the
same concerns as the Planning Commission with the initial three options (Options A, B and
C). The fourth Option D was integrated into a powerpoint presentation that was subsequently
posted on the City's website.
On June 15, 2015, then-RPV Mayor Knight, City Manager Doug Willmore, AECOM
consultants, and City RPV and LA Staff met at LA Councilman Buscaino's office to discuss
the status of the multi-jurisdictional partnership for the Western Avenue street corridor
document. As a result of that meeting, and with the news of an extended deadline date of the
SCAG grant, it was agreed to present the Draft Design Guidelines document to the RPV
Traffic Safety Committee, the San Pedro Neighborhood Council boards, and the City of LA
Harbor Area Planning Commission. This would allow the City of RPV's Traffic Safety
Committee the opportunity to review and provide input on the traffic safety aspect of the plan,
and would allow the City of LA the opportunity to present its endorsement of the existing plan
and partnership with the RPV Planning Commission.
Traffic Safety Committee Review
On July 27, 2015, the Draft document was presented to the RPV Traffic Safety Committee
(TSC). The TSC was provided with the Draft document that was presented to the Planning
Commission on April 28th along with the power point presentation containing the Consultant's
Option "D." The TSC was asked to provide feedback on the Draft document and identify a
"Preferred Option." The TSC was asked to focus on the public right-of-way street
improvements and not on the private property aspect of the Draft document. After much
discussion, the TSC recommended Option "A" as a preferred option. This is due to the fact
that Option "A" did not include any bike lanes, although the Committee noted that the use of
sharrows would be a more appropriate application for the type of cyclists that would be
3
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page4
travelling on this thoroughfare. The TSC did note that if a Complete Streets option with a
designated bike lane was ultimately desired by the City Council, then Option "B" would be
their second preferred option.
Planning Commission Review #2
On August 11, 2015, the Draft Design Guidelines document was presented a second time to
the RPV Planning Commission. In light of the additional feedback from the RPV TSC and City
of LA neighborhood councils and HAPC, City of RPV Staff felt that the Planning Commission
should be given another opportunity to review the Draft document before a final version of the
document is presented to the RPV City Council. A courtesy notice was published in the
Peninsula News and sent to over 3,000 residents and business owners in the area. A number
of guests were in attendance at the meeting, including, but not limited to, City of LA
Councilman Buscaino, then-City of RPV Mayor Knight, City Manager Willmore, Deputy
Director of Public Works Jules, City of RPV Traffic Safety Committee Chair Anthony Self, LA
County Sheriff Deputy Johnson (Traffic Deputy), and City of LA Planning Staff. After much
deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended (4-2, with Commission Emenhiser and
Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting) that the City Council pursue a modified street
improvement Option "B" for Western Avenue that involves the following: 1) the application of
"Street Option B North Segment" as identified in the proposed guidelines on the entirety of
the corridor except in portions of the corridor that are wide enough to allow the application of
"Street Option B Middle Segment," thereby ensuring that traffic lane widths are maintained at
12 feet; 2) a limitation on the amount of curb cuts along the corridor; 3) the undergrounding
of existing utility lines; and 4) that appropriate traffic/bike studies are conducted that
demonstrate that said improvements will not decrease existing traffic flow or capacity (minutes
attached).
City of Los Angeles Public Reviews
The City of Los Angeles Planning Staff also presented the Draft document to various San
Pedro groups: Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council on May 18, 2015; Northwest San
Pedro Neighborhood Council on July 13, 2015; Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council on
July 14, 2015; and the Harbor Area Planning Commission on August 4, 2015. City of LA Staff
presented both the right-of-way improvements and suggested design concepts for future
private development. Overall, there was support for the improvements and many were open
to the addition of bicycle facilities with adequate studies. While comments focused on right-
of-way improvements and no street treatment was unanimously preferred, the outreach
provided insight to the community preferences and priorities, including: the recognition of
Western Avenue as a major transportation corridor, the importance of safety for pedestrians
and cyclists, and the need for continued coordination amongst agencies and private
developers. Comment letters from the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council are
attached to his report indicating support of the RPV Planning Commission's recommendation.
4
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page 5
Preparation of the Final Document to be presented to the RPV City Council
Over the past few months, RPV and LA City Staff have coordinated with AECOM to develop
a final document that reflects the Planning Commission's August 11, 2015 recommendation
and input given from the public throughout the public hearing process for the City Council's
consideration this evening. While the original document presented to the Planning
Commission was referred to as the Western Avenue Design Guidelines, given comments
received from Commissioners and the public at the August 11, 2015 Planning Commission
meeting, City of RPV and LA Staff agreed to rename the document the Western Avenue
Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy (the "Strategy'') better reflecting that the document
functions more as a strategic plan, as opposed to a set of specific guidelines. Furthermore,
the text of the document was modified to clarify that the purpose of the Strategy is to create
a consistent and cohesive implementation tool for design, appearance and functionality of
Western Avenue across both Cities moving into the future. The Strategy provides an agreed
upon framework that assists both jurisdictions, their decision makers, as well as developers
with a uniform approach to work with, as well as an adopted plan, that allows both Cities to
apply for future grant opportunities to bring the portions of the plan in the public right-of-way
to fruition. A courtesy notice noting consideration of the Strategy by the City Council at its
December 15, 2015 meeting was published in the Peninsula News and sent to over 3,000
residents and business owners in the immediate area. Additionally, the final document,
referred to as the Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy (the Strategy), was
posted on the City's website on November 9, 2015.
DISCUSSION
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
The revised document that is being presented to the City Council for approval illustrates the
Planning Commission's August 11th recommendation to pursue a shared strategy for
enhancing the Western Avenue street corridor that involves the following goals:
• Maintaining the existing number of traffic lanes at the existing widths of 12'-0";
Eliminating street parking along both sides of the street, except in places where the
existing 12'-0" lane width can be maintained with bike lanes;
Providing a minimum of 5'-0" wide bike lanes on both sides of the street with a 3'-0"
space separation from traffic lanes;
Limiting the amount of curb cuts along the corridor;
• Requiring the undergrounding of utility lines along Western Ave; and,
Requiring appropriate traffic/bike studies be conducted that demonstrate that said
improvements will not cause impacts to traffic flow or capacity.
The document or Strategy, outlines the framework and action plan for implementing the
complete street improvements within the public right-of-way, which are proposed to be
implemented within the next 3-5 years. The Strategy also outlines concepts to assist either
City in determining what, if any, changes to each City's private development regulations
5
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page 6
should be made to complement the public right-of-way improvements. Changes to any future
private development standards would require additional public input and research.
The Strategy attached to this report is broken up into five (5) main sections as summarized
below:
Section 1 (Introduction and Vision): This section provides a brief description and history of the
segment of Western Avenue that is being assessed as the revitalization corridor, and its
importance as a major N-S thoroughfare and commercial corridor. Additionally, this section
describes the public outreach process and how the public and private improvements derive
from the City Council-adopted Vision Plan to an action/implementation plan, the Strategy.
Section 2 (Implementation): This section provides an overview of how the Strategy will be
administered and implemented within each jurisdiction, specific to the role and applicability
within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles. This section describes
that further measures will likely be required to implement the Vision Plan and Strategy, such
as traffic/bike studies, creation of a streetscape plan, and potential amendments to existing
specific plans and/or zoning codes relative to each city.
Section 3 (Framework for Street Improvements): This section identifies proposed corridor
improvements specific to the north, middle, and south segments of the project corridor area.
Each segment lends itself to a different experience based on existing land uses and the
potential to alter the streetscape. The southern segment (between Summerland Ave. and
Caddington Dr.) is considered the "heart" of the commercial corridor and the location where
there is most potential for economic development and prosperity. The middle segment
(between Caddington Dr. and John Montgomery Dr.) is predominantly residential on one side
with commercial uses extended along the east side of Western Ave. The northern segment
(between the Defense Fuel Support Point and Green Hills Cemetery) is predominantly auto-
oriented with opportunities for street improvements, public art and branding potential. This
section reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation from August 11, 2015.
Section 4 (Streetscape Concept for the Public Right-of-Way): This section provides
conceptual design guidelines for infrastructure and furnishing improvements within the public
right-of-way, including, but not limited to, suggested sidewalk design, seating, trash
receptacles, outdoor lighting, pedestrian connectivity and crossings, bikeways and bike
parking, landscape designs for streets and medians, signage, wayfinding and public art.
Section 5 (Concepts for Harmonizing Private Development): This section provides design
suggestions for possible future consideration by both Cities for enhancing Western Ave by
potentially reconsidering the commercial development standards for private development.
These potential changes include street level designs that would encourage pedestrian-
oriented uses along the ground floors, outdoor dining adjacent to or near sidewalks and public
walkways, building fa9ade treatments, expansion of more open space corridors and gathering
areas, signage, and altered access and parking for redeveloped properties.
6
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page 7
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
City of Los Angeles Representation at the December 15, 2015 City Council Meeting
In an effort to explain the City of LA's support of the Strategy and partnership with the City of
RPV, Councilman Buscaino was expected to attend the City Council meeting. Unfortunately,
Councilman Buscaino will not be able to attend the December 151h meeting, however two
representatives of his Staff will be in attendance to speak on his behalf and deliver a letter of
support to supplement his on-the-record attendance and statement at the August 11, 2015
RPV Planning Commission meeting.
Partnering with the City of LA to Receive Outside Funding
The Strategy is intended to harmonize approaches to multi-modal mobility, streetscape
design, landscaping, and signage to foster the development of a common set of functional
requirements between the City of LA and City of RPV. The next step would be to prepare
more concise technical reports, studies and plans to implement an agreed-upon street design
that will need to be approved by CalTrans. With regard to traffic improvements along Western
Avenue, which is an on-going concern of residents in both of the Cities of LA and RPV, in
2007, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted the Western Avenue Traffic Improvement
Plan which identifies specific measures that are to be implemented by the City of RPV to
improve traffic flow and safety along Western Avenue. For quite some time, funding was a
major obstacle to implementing the plan approved in 2007. The City of RPV was recently
informed that the Traffic Improvement Plan is an eligible candidate for Measure R funding.
Measure R is a restricted local fund, managed by the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments (SBCCOG) that all Cities contribute to as a tax. As the City of LA and City of
RPV portion of Western Avenue are a subset of a larger plan to create operational
transportation improvements in the entire South Bay, from San Pedro to Gardena, the
SBCCOG is now able to help fund the improvements of the Western Avenue Traffic
Improvement Plan. It is important to note that Measure R funding can only be procured for
regionally significant corridors. Western Avenue is the only regionally significant corridor
within the City of RPV.
The project value of the traffic related improvements is approximately $3.2M to bring to
fruition. The SBCCOG recently approved an expenditure of $90K for the City to initiate a
Traffic Improvement Feasibility Study, which will focus on 1) operational improvements, 2)
signalizations, 3) synchronization, and 4) turn lanes. Having an approved plan in place was
essential in obtaining this grant. As part of the forthcoming feasibility study, the City will look
at the improvements outlined in 2007 to ensure that they are in-line with today's standards
and expectations, and encapsulate required mitigation measures from other large
development projects that have been approved along the way (Ponte Vista). At the conclusion
of the feasibility study, the City will move on to the construction phase with the expectation
that Measure R funding will fund the remainder of the traffic related project improvements.
Public participation is anticipated and welcomed throughout this process.
7
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
December 15, 2015
Page 8
The Western Avenue Strategy is intended to supplement the Western Avenue Traffic
Improvement Plan and will put a strategic plan in place that provides City Staff and future
decision makers across three jurisdictions (RPV, LA and CalTrans) a roadmap for improving
the functionality, aesthetics and experience of Western Avenue by bridging the gap between
a major thoroughfare and a commercial corridor. Furthermore, the Strategy positions the
Western Avenue Corridor to be eligible for future funding opportunities that require cities to
demonstrate eligible projects that exhibit coordinated planning and meet objectives for
complete streets that serve multiple users.
Public Comments
As a result of the March 14, 2015 Open House meeting, and all subsequent public outreach
meetings, including Planning Commission meetings, Staff has received a number of comment
letters from the public. These letters are attached to this report for the City Council's review.
It should be noted that many of the concerns raised by the public to date are addressed
through the revisions made to the final Strategy being presented to the City Council. The
revisions to the Strategy reflect that this effort is a multi-year and ongoing effort. The revisions
clarify the Strategy's objective to serve as a roadmap for the future for the multiple jurisdictions
with oversight of the corridor.
CONCLUSION
At this time, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final Strategy based on the
Planning Commission's August 11, 2015 recommendation and subsequent revisions, and
advance the objectives described in the Western A venue Vision Plan.
Attachments:
• City of LA Correspondence -Pages 9-13
• P.C. Minutes (August 11, 2015) -Pages 14-31
• City of RPV Traffic Safety Committee Staff Report & Draft Minutes (July 27, 2015) -
Pages 32-39
• P.C. Minutes (April 28, 2015) -Pages 40-53
All Public Correspondence on Revised Strategy (October 2015 -present) -Pages 54-
70
• All Public Correspondence Preceding Revised Document (prior to September 2015) -
Pages 71-152
March 14, 2015 Public Open House Meeting Summary -Pages 153-214
• May 28, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes -Pages 215-220
• July 16, 2013 City Council Minutes -Pages 221-222
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy (the Strategy) -Separate
Document
8
City of LA Correspondence
9
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
"Your Community Voice"
October 30, 2015
To: Mayor Pro Tern Susan M. Brooks
RPV City Council
RPV Planning Commission
Councilman Joe Buscaino
David Roberts, Council Disctrict 15
Esther Amaya and Conni Pallini-Tipton
LA City Planning Department
RECEIVED
NO V 0 3 2015
COMMUNITY OE\rELOPME~T
'OEPARTME~i'
Subject: MOTION ON PROPOSED WESTERN AVENUE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Dear Representatives:
Ray Regalado
President
Laurie Jacobs
Vice President
Sarah Valdez
Treasurer
Cynthia Gonyea
Secretary
The following "Comments on Proposed Western Avenue Implementation Guidelines" were approved
by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Board on September 14, 2015:
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED WESTERN A VENUE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council supports the recommendations of the RPV Planning
Commission that the utilities in the study area be placed underground and that a traffic study be
conducted. Subject to a positive outcome from the traffic study, we also support the inclusion of
bicycle lanes on Western from Trudie/Capitol Drive to Palos Verdes Drive North so long as there is
no reduction in lane width or the width of the landscaped medians. Further, due to safety concerns
the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council reiterates its position that ALL parking be removed
from Western where a bicycle lane or bicycle route is added.
We request that the traffic study include:
1) the impact o/700 new homes at Ponte Vista,
2) the impact on both Western and cross street traffic of closing various Western Avenue
entrances/exits to the shopping centers, and
3) the impact of eliminating parking. Furthermore, we are opposed at this time to any requirements
that would move buildings to front directly onto Western Avenue.
We request that the proposed changes be incorporated into the drawing for the plan and made
available to the community for review prior to being considered by Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council.
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 •San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522 www.nwsanpedro.org 10
Subject: MOTION ON PROPOSED WESTERN AVENUE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Page Two
Finally, we request that the two Cities move as quickly as possible with the work needed to finalize the
design elements such as lighting, street furniture, and landscaping.
(These comments were approved by the board with a vote of 9 yes (Cuevas, Jacobs. Nave,
Regalado, Thompson, Valdez, Valle, Williams and Zava lney), 4 no (Burmeister, Bryant, Gonyea,
Schach), 0 abstention(s).)
A copy of our previous comments from May 5, 2015 are attached.
We hope that you will support our position on this issue .
Sincerely,
Ray Regalado
NWSPNC President
on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 •San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522 www.nwsanpedro.org 11
Northwest Neighborhood Council
May 5, 2015
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Heather Anderson
Office of Councilmember Buscaino
Council District 15
Harbor District Office
638 S. Beacon Street, Suite 552
San Pedro, CA 90731
"Your Community Voice"
NOV 03
Re: Proposed Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines
Ray Regalado
President
Laurie Jacobs
Vice President
Sarah Valdez
Treasurer
Cynthia Gonyea
Secretary
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Western Avenue Design
Implementation Guidelines. The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council represents
the residents of the City of Los Angeles who live adjacent to the Western Avenue
Corridor and use it on a daily basis.
We have long been concerned about the congestion and the general appearance of this
area. The Guidelines contain many great ideas for improving the Western Avenue
Corridor. We do, however, have some concerns and additional recommendations.
It is important to note that Western is a major transportation corridor and not a local
neighborhood street. The movement of cars and buses must be a primary goal of any
plan.
Our suggestions/recommendations are as follows:
• Outside dining areas, while desirable, should be located away from Western
Avenue, not adjacent to it.
• A Dash-type bus route should be developed that runs from Peck Park to
Albertson's on a continuous loop. Stops should include the parking lots of major
shopping areas, as well as a connection to the existing LADOT Dash line at Park
Plaza. Such a bus route has the potential to reduce traffic on Western, reduce
Green House Gas emissions, and increase pedestrian activity.
• Develop pedestrian lanes through major parking lots-preferably landscaped-to
invite walking between destinations.
• To improve pedestrian safety, install crosswalks that connect the sidewalks that
currently intersect auto driveways facing Western.
638 S. Beacon Street • Box 688 • San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org 12
• Bicycle lanes should be adjacent to the sidewalk, separated by low plantings or
other barriers. Further, if there are bicycle lanes, parking should not be allowed
on Western Avenue.
• The long-range plan should include the widening of the exit from Park Plaza
Shopping Center at Crestwood Avenue, in order to add a dedicated right turn
lane.
• The City of Los Angeles should create a street behind the Park Plaza Shopping
Center, connecting Park Western to Peck Park. This would reduce some of the
traffic on Western, as well as assist with the problem of people turning left at the
Park Plaza-Crestwood exit.
• Consider developing an entrance into Peck Park from Western Avenue that
would connect directly into the existing parking lot.
• We oppose the proposal to reduce the curb cuts into the various shopping
centers on the east side of Western because the connecting streets, particularly
Park Western and Westmont, are challenged to accommodate the ingress and
egress that currently exists. Increasing the use of those "side entrances" will only
aggravate the situation. Additionally, the recently installed bicycle lanes on
Westmont and Capitol have added confusion at those entrances/exits. Consider
including in any long range plan, the acquisition of property along the front of the
shopping centers to install dedicated right turn lanes.
• Streetscapes should include hydration stations such as those along the Third
Street Promenade in Santa Monica. Hydration station infrastructure would
support and encourage increased pedestrian activity and especially increased
bicycle activity. As a public health benefit, hydrations stations ensure that all
community members and visitors have adequate access to clean water at all
times and in all types of weather conditions. Lastly, Hydration stations support
and encourage the use of reusable water bottles, thus reducing the amount of
carbon emissions created in the production of single-use plastic bottles.
• A single jurisdiction for the traffic signals along Western needs to be created to
improve traffic flow.
Thank you for considering these comments. We look forward to seeing the completed
guidelines and implementation plans.
Sincerely,
fl\i)tyoocfo
Ray Regalado, President
On behalf of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
cc: Joe Buscaino, Patrick O'Donnell, Kit Foxx
638 S. Beacon Street • Box 688 • San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org 13
P.C. Minutes
(August 11, 2015)
14
Approved September 8, 2015
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:06 p.m.at the red Hesse
Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Blake and Sean from Boy Scout Troop 191 led the assembly i
ATTENDANCE
Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, erstner, Leon, Vice Chairman
Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson.
Absent: Commissioner James was excused
Also present were Community Develop t Director Rojas, Senior Planner Mikhail,
Associate Planner Seeraty, Mayor Knig , Los Angeles City Councilman Buscaino, City
Manager Willmore, Deputy Public W s Director Jules, and Chairman Self from the
Traffic Safety Committee.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was unanimous! approved as presented.
COMMUNICATIONS
that at their August 4th meeting the City Council heard an appeal
of the Planning C mission's approval of a new residence on Knollview Drive and
approved a modi· d plan with direct access to Knowlview Drive.
Director Roj distributed eight items of late correspondence related to agenda item No.
1, three ite s on agenda item No. 2, and six items for agenda item No. 4.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Western Avenue Guideline Plan
15
Vice Chairman Tomblin disclosed that he sits on the Los Angeles Police Reserve
Foundation Board with Councilman Buscaino, however he did not feel that would have
any effect on his discussions or decisions.
Senior Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, noting that when this item was before
the Commission in April the Commission did not approve any of the presented options,
but rather formed an alternative option. She gave a brief overview of the Western Avenue
Guideline Plan, noting it is a partnership between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los
Angeles, Cal Trans, and SCAG. In addition, there are two plans that could concurrently
be implement, the Western Avenue Traffic Improvement Plan and the Western Avenue
Corridor Design Implementation Guidelines, and she briefly described the purpose of
each plan. She discussed the past timeline for the overall Western Avenue Vision Plan,
leading up to this present meeting for the Design Guidelines. She explained this item
was before the Commission to allow staff the opportunity to hear updates on the reviews
by the other various Commissions and Committees involved, and to see if the Planning
Commission would like to maintain their current position or provide a different
recommendation in light of the new information.
Commissioner Emenhiser noted that the Planning Commission's recommendation for
Western Avenue did not include bike lanes, and he could not recall any of the public
speakers at previous meetings asking for bike lanes. Yet the consultant's report includes
bike lanes in their recommendation. He questioned if bike lanes are mandatory in order
to get the Measure R funding.
Senior Planner Mikhail explained that Option D was created by the consultant as a
combination of the Planning Commission's recommendation as well as the general
feedback given by some Commissioners on all of the options. The consultant combined
the recommendation and the feedback to come up with this fourth alternative they also
called Option D. She stated that bike lanes are not required for Measure R funding.
However for complete streets, bike lanes make an application more competitive and much
easier to qualify for outside funding.
Vice Chairman Tomblin noted at the previous meeting he had recommended an overlay
district across both cities to help have consistent codes and guidance for property owners
in both Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles for both private and public development.
He asked where this current recommendation includes this overlay district.
Senior Planner Mikhail explained that if these guidelines were approved, the next step
would be for Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt a specific plan or modify private development
code language for Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Los Angeles would also address
their own code changes or neighborhood plans with the ultimate goal of consistency
between the two.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 2
16
Director Rojas explained that the current plan focuses on the right-of-way and traffic
issues first, and the specifics of land use issues will be discussed during the next step of
the process.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated the goal appears to be have uniform guidelines so that
both cities can have a uniform street, and asked staff if the goal is to have one guideline
document or two.
Senior Planner Mikhail answered that the goal is to have one document.
Commissioner Cruikshank referred to the minutes of the previous hearing and the
consultant's comments about a possible future study of bicycle ridership on Western
Avenue. He asked staff if such a study was being done.
Senior Planner Mikhail responded that there currently is not a study being done on the
ridership along Western Avenue.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated that he agreed with the consultant that a study should
be done to better understand the number of bicycle riders on Western Avenue, as this
could impact the discussions on bike lanes.
Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing.
Councilman Joe Buscaino felt it was important for the City of Los Angeles to work with its
neighboring cities to create a better community for both. He felt that Western Avenue
needs a face lift and was proud to lend his support to the Western Avenue Design
Guidelines, and supported the preferred alternative being recommended by staff from the
City of Los Angeles, Option B. He stated that the design guidelines incorporate complete
street elements that are meant to enable safe access on Western Avenue for all users,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. With that, he stated his
strong support for Option B, noting this option includes a bike lane on both the east and
west side of the street without any reduction in the number of traffic lanes. He noted that
Western Avenue is already designated as a bicycle route, so creating bike lanes will
increase safety for bicyclists and motorists alike. He felt this option was also the most
financially feasible, and because it accommodates all modes of transportation, will likely
be the most competitive when applying for grants for implementation. He stated that one
of the goals of the guidelines is to encourage a single consistent identity along Western
Avenue, and it is important that both cities are on the same page in supporting both a
public and private side in the Design Guidelines. He encouraged the cooperation
between the two cities to work together to make much needed improvements on Western
Avenue.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that when he reviews Option Bit appears the lanes are
being reduced by approximately one foot in width and he was concerned about bicyclist
safety with these narrower lanes and the larger trucks that use Western Avenue. He
asked the Councilman to clarify his position on Option B.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11 , 2015
Page 3
17
Councilman Buscaino explained that it is imperative that the cities be competitive with the
many grants that are offered, especially when looking at continued funding from Measure
R. He discussed bicycles and bicycle lanes, noting that bicycles in a bicycle lane should
be no different than a car in a vehicular lane. He felt that bicycle lanes may cause drivers
to be more alert and slow down a bit when they see someone in a bike lane. As far as
the width of the lanes, he stated that traffic involves engineering, education, and
enforcement, and he was sure engineers took this into account when recommending the
width of the lanes for both cyclists and motorists on Western Avenue.
Commissioner Cruikshank noted that in Option B there is still parking shown on both sides
of the street. He stated his concern was someone parks on the street, opens their car
door, and a cyclists pulls out into the traffic lane to avoid the door and gets hit. He asked
the Councilman his opinion on this.
Councilman Buscaino agreed that this is a concern. He felt it was imperative that both
cyclists and drivers have to be more aware, which is part of the three E's of traffic.
Commissioner Cruikshank asked Councilman Buscaino if he had heard from any of his
constituents about removing parking on Western Avenue. He noted that currently there
is some parking allowed on Western Avenue.
Councilman Buscaino stated that he has heard suggestions that during peak traffic hours
there be no parking zones along Western Avenue. However, he deferred to the
Community Outreach or the Neighborhood Council in terms of residents' concerns with
the parking issues on Western Avenue.
Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that much of the biking areas near the beach to Santa
Monica are shared paths with cyclists and walkers. He asked Councilman Buscaino what
he thought of a combination sidewalk/ bike lane on Western Avenue.
Councilman Buscaino stated he has been on the strand several times, and he personally
does not think that pedestrians and cyclists are a good mix, and sharing the same lane is
a recipe for disaster.
Councilman Buscaino introduced his Director of Planning, David Roberts, and the
Planning Deputy, Rebecca Liu, and stated that they were available for any questions or
comments.
Vice Chairman Tomblin asked the staff from the City of Los Angeles their thoughts on an
overlay for Western Avenue for consistency.
Conni Pallini-Tipton (Chief Planner for the City of Los Angeles -San Pedro area)
explained that when the City of Los Angeles talked about a consistent set of codes with
consistent and uniform design regulations, it was discussed as part of the private
regulations. She stated those private design regulations are part of options A, B, and C.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 4
18
Vice Chairman Tomblin asked if there were a restriction in the overlay that bicycles need
to stay in the bike lanes, if that would be something that would be enforceable through
the overlay district.
Ms. Pallini-Tipton explained that the City of Los Angeles could not regulate that through
the private design regulations. She stated the public realm has a different set of
regulations that are developed together with the Department of Transportation. She
clarified that the City of Los Angeles currently recognizes an existing bike route on
Western Avenue, and Option B is about improving the safety of the bicyclists and the
motorists. She thought that in the first phase proper paint and proper signalizing will show
that bicycles are encouraged in this corridor, and in later phases the use of barriers may
be encouraged.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Pallini-Tipton to clarify what types of barriers would
be considered.
Ms. Pallini-Tipton explained that widening the sidewalk and allowing bikes on the sidewalk
can be considered a type of protective bike lane, and the sidewalk or landscaping can be
considered a barrier separating traffic from the cyclist. She noted that the City does
discourage the mixing of bicyclists and pedestrians. She explained that the City of LA is
exploring different types of bike lanes, showing several examples on a photo slide.
Commissioner Gerstner noted Western Avenue is a major north-south thoroughfare and
asked Ms. Pallini-Tipton if the City of Los Angeles was considering improving the street
with a bike lane through other cities to the north of San Pedro.
Ms. Pallini-Tipton explained the newly approved mobility element does put forth a twenty
plus year vision plan and the area of Western that is shared with RPV is on the bike plan
improvements. She could not speak for areas north of this.
Mayor Jim Knight was very pleased that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of
Los Angles were working closely together on this project. Mayor Knight noted that he is
speaking tonight, not as a member of the City Council, but as a private resident of the
City and his comments do not reflect the opinions of the other City Council members. He
agreed that it is very important that the flow of traffic on Western Avenue is not negatively
impacted by this plan, but also did not want to lose sight of the overall design elements
of the entire plan. He felt there was a middle ground and meshing of the private sector
and the right-of-way. He suggested looking at this project in two phases, and addressing
and focusing on the public right-of-way at this point, as the public right-of-way and traffic
flow is a very important element that needs to be addressed. Mayor Knight noted that he
is also Vice President of South Bay COG, and he has been working on a plan to get
Western Avenue into the South Bay Highway Plan. He noted that he has found in
government that there are dozens of parallel plans happening at the same time, and he
felt it would be helpful if staff would consolidate these plans and give the Commission
some type of matrix showing the various types of plans and funding. He discussed the
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 5
19
two-way bike lane on one side of the street, noting he has spoken to consultants and
agrees that it is not the best solution. In regards to the private element of the plan, he
thought the idea of reducing the number of curb cuts along Western Avenue was
something that should be explored. He noted that bus stops, and encouraging public
transportation, is one way to attract funding. He noted that there are quite a few elements
that can be looked at that make a difference in terms of funding. He encouraged the
Commission to look at this as a two-step process, addressing the public right-of-way and
private design issues in two phases.
Vice Chairman Tomblin asked the Mayor which option he preferred in terms of bicycles
on Western Avenue.
Mayor Knight explained that he did not think it was a good idea to have bikes in the traffic
lanes, as that will slow down traffic on Western Avenue. He did not think that was the
goal of what the constituents wanted or the goal of the Planning Commission. He also
noted that parking on Western may not be necessary, as there appears to be plenty of
off-street parking. He noted that having bikes lanes on your plan is certainly not a
mandate, however having it on the plan gives the City a higher probability of getting
funding.
Doug Willmore (City Manager) explained he was previously the Chief Executive Officer
of Salt Lake County, and how the County and Salt Lake City worked together to create
bike lanes and corridors in the City and County. He explained that the end product
created safer conditions for cyclists and drivers alike, and felt this type of bike lane will
create a safer condition on Western Avenue as well. Secondly, he felt the focus should
also be on this opportunity to create a great boulevard. Aside from the private design
guidelines, he felt that this was a great opportunity to design and improve the roadway,
the median, the streetscaping, the planting, the benches, bike lanes, everything together
to create an outstanding boulevard. He felt bike lanes are an important part of that vision
for a beautiful boulevard. He felt that what goes with the bike lanes are the significant
traffic flow improvements. He felt the two go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive.
Lastly, he encouraged the Commission to look at the partnership with the City of Los
Angeles and the importance of that partnership to make this project work. He felt that,
based on his past experiences, that the chances of getting funding for this project without
bike lane improvements included was very, very slim. He stated that in today's world,
with the other competing projects, bike lanes are a necessity in order to gain funding.
Commissioner Cruikshank asked Mr. Willmore how much room he felt was needed as a
safe buffer between the traffic lane and the bike lane.
Mr. Willmore answered that was a question that should be answered by more technical
people. He noted that when looking at the options, he felt Option B was the best option
and one way to improve on that option might be to look at the parking. He questioned if
street parking was needed on Western Avenue.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 6
20
Commissioner Leon stated he likes to support bike lanes when he can, however he did
not think a green stripe on pavement constitutes a bike lane. He asked Mr. Willmore
about his experience with whether just painting green lines on the pavement is sufficient.
Mr. Willmore answered that there is a lot of good data available that paint is sufficient.
However, as an administrator the down side of that is they have to be repainted. As a
driver, one would see the green lane and know that is not a place for the car to be. He
stated that it is obvious that a barrier and no parking along the street would make it even
safer, however the painted lane alone is significant.
Nicole Jules (Deputy Director of Public Works) stated that she echoed the comments of
the Mayor and the City Manager. She reemphasized that Western Avenue is state
highway and is owned by Cal Trans, and therefore any design elements will have to
adhere to the standards of Cal Trans. She stated she has been working with the South
Bay COG as well as the Safety Highway Program to get funding for improvements on
Western Avenue, and the projects the City is looking to implement on our segment of
Western Avenue is only a small segment of the greater picture. There are plans to carry
the improvements that we're looking at further along the corridor into the South Bay. She
explained that the Public Works Department is responsible for implementing the
improvements that are being discussed in the Design Guidelines, noting it is a
collaborative effort with the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans. She noted the three
agencies have developed a Western Avenue Improvement Plan which focuses on
operational improvements on Western Avenue. As a result of these efforts, there will be
a significant improvement to all uses of the road. Another focus is on improving mobility
for all users on Western Avenue and that improvements at intersections and at the edge
of the roadway does not degrade the level of service. She stated that Public Works is in
favor of Option B, and supported the fact that the travel lanes should be a minimum of
twelve feet in width, and supported the idea of removing parking to accommodate a bike
lane and buffer zone. She stated that for any design guidelines that are contemplated,
the Public Works Department would highly recommend that further studies are
considered, which may include the impacts of parking, what the parking capacity is, what
the parking utilization is, and whether or not the off street parking facilities can
accommodate the parking that is displaced from Western Avenue.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Deputy Director Jules if she was in favor of Option B,
but with the revision of eliminating one or both of the parking lanes.
Deputy Director Jules answered that eliminating one or both of the parking lanes would
be an added improvement, and that she was in support of a modified Option B, as long
as there were studies that could substantiate removing the parking and it does not create
additional impacts to off-street parking facilities.
Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Deputy Director Jules how she would like to see the lanes
on Western Avenue configured under Option B.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 7
21
Deputy Director Jules noted that there would be in favor of a five foot wide bike lane on
each side, a three foot buffer on each side, and twelve foot wide traffic lanes, with a
possible eleven foot wide turn lane.
Conni Pallini-Tipton from the City of Los Angeles concurred with these suggested
potential lane widths.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if there were power and communication lines down
Western Avenue, and if so would the Public Works Department be placing these utilities
underground.
Deputy Director Jules stated there are power and communication lines on Western
Avenue, however the undergrounding of these utilities would not be a Public Works
responsibility, but rather a responsibility of Cal Trans since it is their right-of-way.
Commissioner Leon asked what steps would be involved to remove as much parking as
possible from Western Avenue and limiting curb cuts.
Deputy Director Jules explained that, in regards to the parking, there should be several
studies undertaken to understand the current demand, a parking utilization study should
be commissioned, as well as the accommodation of the displaced parking onto existing
private parking lots. She felt that at a minimum, a full-blown traffic study would be
required.
Commissioner Leon felt that the process seemed backwards to set up a set of guidelines
and then do an analysis to see if those guidelines will work.
Senior Planner Mikhail explained that the Vision Plan and the Guidelines are what the
City would use in applications for grants and funding, and those funds would create and
pay for the more detailed plans and studies.
Anthony Self (Chairman of the Traffic Safety Committee) prefaced his discussion by
explaining that a discussion on bicycle lanes is a bit dicey. He stated that in their
discussions, the Traffic Safety Committee felt that Option A was the best choice.
However, if a bike lane is necessary, the Traffic Safety Committee felt that Option B was
the best choice. He explained that the Committee was very concerned with on street
parking and the opening of car doors into the bicyclist's path. However, he was fairly
certain the Committee would have chosen Option B as their first choice if the on street
parking was removed.
Deputy Johnson (LA County Sheriff's Department) explained there are a lot of laws that
protect bicyclists, including laws that bicyclists have to follow themselves. The Sheriff's
Department wants to make the safest situation possible for both cyclists and motorists.
He briefly explained the Three Feet For Safety Act, and felt that if cyclists are riding in a
bicycle lane in most cases that will give them that three feet of safety. He also discussed
the legal times a cyclist can legally leave a bicycle lane. He did not recommend one
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 8
22
bicycle lane allowing cyclists to go in both directions, as the Vehicle Code requires
bicyclists ride on the right side of the roadway.
Vice Chairman Tomblin commented that many of his friends are cyclists, and they have
commented that they prefer not to use bike lanes many times because the gutters and
areas next to the curbs create an uneven surface and many times are unsafe and
unusable.
Deputy Johnson understood this comment, but felt that in Rancho Palos Verdes the
roadways are very well maintained and the cyclists should not feel they have to leave the
bike lanes.
Deputy Director Jules also understood the comment, which is why the Public Works
Department's design standards require a minimum five foot bike lane, which gives room
to accommodate the gutter.
Commissioner Cruikshank asked Deputy Johnson if he saw any issues with enforcement
of cyclists with a five foot wide bike lane and the buffer zone.
Deputy Johnson explained that with large groups of cyclists it typically only requires a
Deputy getting on the PA system and asking the cyclists to stay on the right side of the
roadway, and he has not run into a situation where the cyclists have refused the Deputy's
orders.
Commissioner Cruikshank asked how traffic control works on Western Avenue, given
there is both the LA County Sheriff's Department and the LAPD.
Deputy Johnson explained the Sheriff's Department is able to enforce traffic laws
anywhere in the County of Los Angeles, and is therefore able to work traffic safety issues
on both sides of Western Avenue.
Commissioner Cruikshank questioned the extreme buffer between the bike lane and
traffic lane, noting that it may be difficult for a smaller vehicle to cross that buffer if the car
needs to pull over because it has broken down or in the case of an emergency.
Deputy Director Jules responded that the Public Works Department's ideal buffer would
be paint or pavement markings only, and not a raised concrete device.
Glenn Cornell stated he lives in the Rolling Hills Riviera section of the City off of Western
Avenue. He did not think the current plan will work, and would like the City to remember
the priorities of what Western Avenue is all about. He also felt these discussions would
be more meaningful if a member of Cal Trans was in attendance. Additionally, he felt that
the City was making a rush to judgement in an effort to get some funding from the Federal
Government. He felt residents will have to live with decisions that were made that may
be a compromise in order to get this funding. Lastly, he felt the plans are extremely
complicated, and feared that all of the money being allocated may be spent on consultants
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 9
23
and hearings, and at the end of the day nothing will be done. He asked the Commission
to consider a fifty option that he called Option AX, which he felt was the affordable and
achievable option.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Cornell if he was in favor of Option A.
Mr. Cornell responded that Option A was the closest, adding that he is also a bicyclist.
Walt Yeager stated Western Avenue has always been an issue with traffic, and today the
traffic is nearly at a standstill. He felt it was more important to add additional traffic lanes
to the street to address the traffic issues. He questioned how many people actually ride
bikes along Western Avenue, if a study had been done, and if bike lanes were really
needed. He asked if any of the options include plans to improve traffic on Western
Avenue, and how the Ponte Vista Developer figures into all of this. He stated the utility
poles are all along the sidewalk and service to the surrounding residents is often disrupted
because of traffic accidents.
Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff if the Ponte Vista developers are going to do any
street improvements on Western Avenue.
Vice Chairman Tomblin added that he did not remember any discussions on adding traffic
lanes to Western Avenue.
Conni Pallini-Tipton stated that there are mitigation measures associated with the Ponte
Vista development, however she did not have those details with her at this meeting. She
recalled that this mitigation measures were not limited to the area of Western Avenue in
front of the development, and that there were several intersections that would have to be
improved. She recalled that signalization and synchronization were included in the
mitigation.
Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Pallini-Tipton to have a member of her staff send those
mitigations to Mr. Rojas.
Ms. Pallini-Tipton responded that she would make sure that happened.
Barbara Sattler stated she was happy to see the buildings that were on the original plan
have been removed from the sidewalk area, but questioned if they have been removed
from the plan. She stated she spent some time looking at the maps in the plan, and that
there were some very nice things included, noting that many of the driveways into the
shopping center have been removed making it safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and autos.
She was concerned that so much time has been spent on discussing bicycles, and public
transit seems to have fallen off of the radar. She felt something had to be done to improve
the public transit if the traffic situation on Western Avenue was going to be improved, and
saw nothing in the current plan that mentions public transit. She felt this had to be a big
component of any plan for Western Avenue, and felt that before any bike lane is planned
all bus stops have to be worked out and planned.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 10
24
Ken Dyda felt the City has to consider how bad the traffic currently is on Western Avenue
when they're discussing any future plans. He felt narrowing the lanes will slow the traffic
down, which will only increase the problem. He also noted that the residents of the eight
hundred or so homes being built at Ponte Vista will all exist onto Western Avenue.
Pete Lacombe stated at the last public hearing on this topic there were several speakers
in the audience giving their opinions on the proposed project, and the Planning
Commission heard these concerns. He stated that the audience was very happy with the
Planning Commission for listening to the public and their concerns. He felt that this project
was a solution to a non-existent problem and the residents were not asking for this to be
done. He stated that he does not want bike lanes on Western Avenue, explaining every
day he drives to work on Pacific Coast Highway and there are no bike lanes because it is
a major thoroughfare. He would hate to think what would happen if the various cities
were having similar discussions to put bike lanes on Pacific Coast Highway. He stated
that government exists for the public and it doesn't exist so that government officials can
get more funding. He stated he does not want to be impeded by extra bike lanes that are
going to slow down his progress while driving down Western Avenue.
Jeanne Lacombe stated she is the Director of the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA, which
consists of 721 homes along Western Avenue. She urged the Commissioners to vote no
on all of the options and the plan in its entirety, as she felt it fails to meet the initial goals
and directions from 2011 and it fails to meet the directions given by the Planning
Commission on April 281h, as Option D. She stated in 2011 the work began on a Western
Avenue Vision Plan to revitalize Western Avenue, including public and private properties
through aesthetic improvements, traffic improvements, and business incentives. She
stated the directions were not to transform Western Avenue into Pine Avenue in Long
Beach, however that is what happened. She stated that looking at the plans, the vision
of the buildings right up to the street are still there, there are no specifics on what the
signs or lighting should be, or even the landscaping. She noted the Traffic Safety
Committee chose Option A, but with bike lanes. She stated that this meeting was not
announced to the public on the Listserve. She questioned why so much time is being
spent on discussions of the bike lanes when the entire plan is so poorly done, noting there
are no specifics, no theme, no design, and no real information. She felt that in order to
move forward with a real plan, the current plans need to be rejected.
Commissioner Cruikshank asked staff what the next step would be after these Guidelines
are approved or approved in principle.
Director Rojas explained that the City Council would first have to approve these
Guidelines. Then, as the Guidelines state, different follow-up plans must be prepared to
implement the Guidelines.
Commissioner Cruikshank felt that one of the goals of this plan was to get Rancho Palos
Verdes, Los Angeles, and Cal Trans together to create something that is uniform and will
improve the look of the street and attract people to the area. He felt that was currently
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 11
25
seen in the document is vague at best, and asked how this will all come together to be
more specific.
Director Rojas answered that the next step would be to get approval and direction from
the City Council to expend money to work with these agencies to create a streetscape
plan. He explained the streetscape plan addresses the roadway, the street furniture, the
lighting, the landscaping, and the signage.
David Cohen stated he is surprised at the amount of time and the number of meetings
that have been spent discussing bike lanes. He stated that what he has heard is that
before the City can get any money from Measure R, they will have to implement bike
lanes. He questioned why the City needs money from Measure R and how much money
is needed to go some of these improvements. He also questioned where the City could
get money to make improvements on Western Avenue if bike lanes are not included. He
asked how the public will get input on what will happen next, and how the public will have
the opportunity to give input on what will happen next.
Chairman Nelson asked staff to explain what will happen after this meeting.
Director Rojas explained that this evening staff is hoping the Planning Commission makes
some type of recommendation, which will then be presented to the City Council,
tentatively on September 15, 2015. If approved by the City Council, we will then have to
wait for the City of Los Angeles to go through their similar approval process.
Vice Chairman Tomblin asked Ms. Pallini-Tipton to return to the podium. He asked her,
hypothetically, if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were to tell the City of Los Angeles that
they did not want bike lanes, but instead preferred a six lane highway for traffic, what the
City of Los Angeles would do.
Director Rojas reminded the Commission that neither City has any control over the
number of lanes on Western Avenue, as Western Avenue is under the jurisdiction of Cal
Trans.
Vice Chairman Tomblin understood, but asked Ms. Pallini-Tipton what the Councilman's
position might be with such a proposal.
Ms. Pallini-Tipton stated she could not speak for the Councilman, however from the
Planning perspective she felt there might really be a stalemate. She explained that
nothing could move forward with two separate recommendations for Western Avenue.
She noted a six lane highway with no bike lanes would not be consistent with any of the
City's planning documents, explaining all of the documents have plans indicating
bikeways in the improvements to Western Avenue. Therefore, taking forward a
recommendation that was contrary to all of those adopted plans would not be something
the Planning Department could do.
Commissioner Leon asked if the residents of San Pedro have asked for bike lanes.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 12
26
Ms. Pallini-Tipton responded that there was an array of opinions on the subject. Again,
she noted that when looking at all of the City of Los Angeles' documents, the vision does
include bikeways. Here we are talking about how to implement the bikeways in a way
that is safe and does not hinder traffic and it's not an easy task.
David Roberts added that in the Commission's packet there is a letter from the Northwest
San Pedro Neighborhood Council, which represents a large portion of this stretch of
Western Avenue. He explained that this neighborhood took an official position supporting
the bike lanes and removing the on street parking. He also added that the City of Los
Angeles has budget concerns and constraints, and the opportunity for the City to spend
General Fund money to do significant improvements to Western Avenue was, in his
opinion, less than nil. The City of Los Angeles typically funds streetscape improvements,
signage, street furniture, and bike lanes from various grant opportunities. He added that
for Western Avenue improvements we are talking about millions of dollars needed in
funding.
Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Leon felt the Commission was being steamrolled by people who want to
impose bike lanes in places where they probably don't belong. He stated the only way
he would support a bike lane on Western Avenue was if it was in-lieu of parking and curb
cuts. He could see a motion making bike lanes contingent on this, but could agree to just
support Option B.
Commissioner Gerstner stated he was proud of the City of Los Angeles for taking the
steps they have taken relative to complete streets. He noted that this is a huge step that
is very hard to do, and with that in place they have set a path to become a better place.
He stated that those complete streets are sometimes the most appropriate thing in a given
neighborhood and sometimes not the most appropriate thing in that neighborhood, but
the consistency and continuity of those streets is very important to make them work. He
felt the funding was incredibly important in this case, and if bike lanes are a component
that adds to the success to gaining the monies necessary to do this improvement, then
he felt it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to find a way to work with that
component. He referred to the earlier discussion regarding the reduction of lane width,
and was probably something that Cal Trans would resist, as he felt they would want to
keep their lanes wider. Therefore, that may make Option B problematic. However, if
eliminating on street parking, including a bike lane, and maintaining the twelve foot wide
traffic lanes would help to maintain the existing status of the street as a bike thoroughfare
and afford a better opportunity for the funding, then he would suggest the Commission
seriously consider that option. He was also in favor of reducing the number of curb cuts.
He realized that some people were not in favor of a bike lane, however if adding a bike
lane does not slow down the traffic, doesn't make the traffic worse, and gives an
opportunity to improve Western Avenue, then he would take it. He stated it is a fact that
things change, and Western Avenue will change, but this is an opportunity for the City to
have some say in how that change will take place. He also felt it was very important to
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 13
27
have those power lines undergrounded and the poles removed before going too far in
designing plans for the aesthetic look of Western Avenue. He felt this was a priority to
push on Cal Trans, and now is the time to do it since nobody will want it done after all of
the other improvements are made.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was still having difficultly trying to make a final
determination without having all of the information in front of him. He felt that eliminating
on street parking or adding a bike lane should be contingent upon a traffic study being
done first to prove that it will not affect the level of service. He stated he was leaning
towards Option A or a modified Option B with the elimination of on street parking and bike
lanes, but reiterated this should be contingent upon a traffic study. He was in favor of
reducing or eliminating curb cuts along Western Avenue and having more access on the
side streets. He felt this would be a huge improvement, especially for pedestrian safety.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that Option A is the option recommended by the Traffic
S9fety Committee and what he felt the public has repeatedly said they want. Option B is
what the experts have told the Commission the City needs, what the political leadership
of both cities have told the Commission the City needs, and what the consultants have
kept throwing at the Commission, even when the Commission says not to. Given this
deep conflict, he felt the Planning Commission should move forward both Options A and
B to the City Council, knowing that on one hand it makes no one happy and knowing on
the other hand that it gives the opportunity to live another day and fight the battle. He felt
that Option A would allow Western Avenue to remain status quo as a thoroughfare. He
would recommend a modified Option B by removing the on street parking, keeping the
traffic lanes at a twelve foot width, and installing a physical separation between the bike
lanes and the traffic lanes. He felt this would give the City the opportunity to change
Western Avenue for the better.
Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that on a personal note, he agrees with everything said by
the other Commissioners, and if he were to vote personally on this he would vote for a
modified Option B. He also supported Commissioner Gerstner's comments about
undergrounding the utilities. However, he noted there are 721 homes along Western
Avenue in Rancho Palos Verdes, and the leadership of this HOA is not in supportive of
this, he felt it was his duty as a Planning Commissioner to vote no so that there is
something in the record.
Chairman Nelson felt the Commission has the benefit to some great information and
input. However, he felt the elephant in the room is Ponte Vista, noting there is no traffic
study involving Ponte Vista, and no idea how it will impact Western Avenue. However,
he was fully aware of the current traffic situation on Western Avenue. He agreed with
Commissioner Gerstner that placing the utilities underground should be a priority. He
also agreed with removing the on street parking, and stated he was neutral on the
inclusion of bike lanes. He stated that one of the first things that should be on the table
is a traffic study that includes Ponte Vista and its 1,400 cars, and what that will do to
Western Avenue.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 14
28
Senior Planner Mikhail noted that in the Guidelines there is discussion regarding
undergrounding the utilities.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved that the Planning Commission forward to the City
Council a recommendation of both Options A as well as a modified Option B. The
modification would be to eliminate one or both parking lanes, the traffic lanes
remain at 12 % feet in width, and the bicycle lane be separated by a physical barrier.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that the power lines be
relocated underground with the approval of either option, seconded by Vice
Chairman Tomblin.
Commissioner Leon stated he was reasonably convinced that a physical barrier is not of
utmost importance. He noted the absence of a physical barrier will allow buses access
to the curb, and would recommend removal of the physical barrier. He felt that the
Planning Commission should make a decision in its recommendation, as opposed to just
handing the decision over to the City Council. He would be in support of the motion if the
recommendation were a modified Option B without Option A.
Commissioner Gerstner referred to the rendering of the northern segment of Option B,
which showed 12 foot wide traffic lanes, a protected bike lane, and no on street parking,
which is basically the Commission's modified Option B. For simplicity, he felt the
Commission could say what they are in support of is northern segment of Option B for the
entirety of Western Avenue. He then noted the rendering for the middle segment and felt
wording could be added that the Commission was in support of modified Option B as
shown in the northern segment, except for where it works to have the middle segment.
He noted that the middle segment shows limited street parking. He added that in the
Guidelines for the development of the adjacent private properties, that parking then could
be addressed to make up for the loss of street parking.
Commissioner Emenhiser agreed.
Commissioner Cruikshank supported Commissioner Gerstner's comments but would like
a traffic study component added. He suggested language that would say remove street
parking and remove driveways and add bike lanes contingent upon a traffic study
supporting that traffic flow and capacity is not reduced.
Commissioner Emenhiser agreed to this as an amendment to his motion.
Chairman Nelson asked staff to read back the current motion on the table.
Senior Planner Mikhail stated the current motion is for the Planning Commission to
recommend to the City Council Option A and a modified Option B, with Option B modified
to eliminate one or both of the parking lanes, the traffic lanes are to remain at twelve feet
in width, bike lanes are to include a physical barrier, include the necessity for underground
utilities, and bike lanes are to be added with the support of a traffic study supporting that
negative traffic impacts would not occur.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 15
29
Commissioner Emenhiser clarified his motion in that when he says physical separation
for the bike lanes he meant something other than paint, and felt that should be part of the
motion.
Commissioner Leon moved to amend the motion to include the language
suggested by Commissioner Gerstner regarding the north and middle segments of
Western Avenue as descriptors.
Commissioner Emenhiser did not accept the amendment.
The motion failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Vice Chairman
Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson dissenting.
Commissioner Gerstner moved to recommend Option B, northern segment, for the
entirety of the Western Avenue Plan, to be modified only in the places where the
lane widths can be maintained with a single parking lane added similar to Option B
middle segment. Additionally, there be language that helps limit curb cuts, that
power communication lines and poles be undergrounded, and that traffic and bike
studies be done to support these improvements in terms of traffic flow and volume
capacity, seconded by Commissioner Leon.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Commissioner Gerstner if his motion included a physical
barrier for the bike lanes.
Commissioner Gerstner responded that it did not, explaining that he felt a painted line is
not only adequate, but preferable. He felt that adding a physical barrier, such as bumps,
makes it difficult for the bike riders in addition to vehicles that, for whatever reason, need
to get out of the traffic lane. He stated that he would rather see a vehicle have the
opportunity to reasonably get out of traffic as opposed to blocking traffic. He felt that
physical barriers, although convenient in some places, would inhibit activity in a way that
would be worse than that which they protect.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Commissioner Gerstner if his motion contains any nod
to the people that don't want any bike lanes.
Commissioner Gerstner recognized there are those who don't want bike lanes, and
understood their concern. However, if bike lanes are removed there is not the room to
put in a drive lane, and nothing has really been accomplished except reducing the
probability of receiving funding. In addition, this would force anyone riding a bike to ride
in the traffic lane, and he didn't see any upside to that option from anyone's point of view.
Commissioner Emenhiser referred to page 22 of the Western Avenue Plan, noting there
is a big con at the top of the page, which says it does not safely protect bicycles from
vehicular traffic.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 16
30
Commissioner Gerstner felt that it came down to one's definition of "safely" and to what
level. He would disagree in the level of what is safe. He felt bike lanes were safer than
having bikes in the vehicle lanes, and given there is almost 8 to 1 O feet in width in these
proposed bike lanes, there is a nice buffer. He stated that if a two or three foot wide
painted stripe does not safely protect bikes from vehicles, then there are an awful lot of
places in the Country where bicycles are not protected safely from vehicular traffic. He
felt there are very few places where there are raised bumpers separating the bike lanes.
He stated he was happy being silent on this issue in the motion.
Commissioner Leon added that those bumps will tend to catch the front wheel of a bicycle,
and then there will be a prone bicyclist in the lane.
The motion was approved, (4-2), with Commissioner Emenhiser and Vice Chairman
Tomblin dissenting.
2. e Plan Review Case No. ZON2015-00249 : 28500 Western Avenue
Associat Planner Seeraty presented a brief staff report, explaining the scope of the
project an he two findings that the Commission must make. She noted that staff made
site visits to urrounding properties to assess the view impacts and determined the
proposed equip ent will not cause significant view impairment to the adjacent properties.
She noted that th determination was made because the adjacent properties are either
too low in elevation have a view over the building, they have no protected view over
the roof of the build in , r the proposed equipment will be blocked by existing equipment
on the roof. She state taff received several letters of concern, and these issues are
addressed in the staff rep As such, staff believes both findings can be made and the
resident's concerns have be addressed and recommends the Planning Commission
approve the proposed project.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated th
the proposed fan is not per the City's
concern.
the public correspondence there is mention that
nicipal Code. He asked staff to address this
Associate Planner Seeraty explained that thi
unless the proposed equipment is reviewed by t
Review, and the Commission is able to make the tw
pe of equipment is against the code
lanning Commission at a Site Plan
quired findings.
Commissioner Leon asked if the screening will help with b k some of the noise that the
equipment will emit.
Associate Planner Seeraty answered that she has not receive ny studies from the
applicant, but felt that blocking the equipment with a wall will assist in ny noise issues.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 11, 2015
Page 17
31
Traffic Safety Committee Staff Report
& Minutes
(July 27, 2015)
32
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
NICOLE JULES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
JULY 27, 2015
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDATION
Review and provide feedback on the Draft Western Avenue Design Guideline and identify a
"Preferred Option" for the Street Improvement section as a recommendation that will be
forwarded to the City Council for final review and approval.
BACKGROUND:
The Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles have partnered to develop
consistent and comprehensive guidelines that will serve as an implementation tool for
aesthetic and operational improvements along Western Avenue. The goal is to create an
environment that invites mobility for various users and creates more inviting, business
friendly destination.
The City is in receipt of a grant from SCAG which focuses on the revitalization of Western
Avenue. This grant pays for the services of a consultant (AECOM) to prepare a Vision
Plan and Design Implementation Guidelines. In preparation of the plan, the Western
Avenue Vision Plan Working group was formed which consists of RPV, City of LA (San
Pedro Council District) and a host of residents, business owners, staff and members of
the Chamber of Commerce.
In July 2013, the Western Avenue Vision Plan was approved which identified planning options
and sustainable economic development opportunities for Western Avenue. The Western
Avenue Corridor Implementation Design Guidelines, a tool that establishes the minimum level
of ROW improvements to enhance access, mobility and street amenities. The design
guidelines, particularly Section 3 (Framework for Street Improvements) and Section 4
(Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way) are the topic of discussion for this meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for your review is a copy of the Western Avenue Corridor Design Implementation
Guidelines. Please direct your attention to Section 3 (Framework for Street
Improvements) where proposed corridor improvements are identified. There are three
Options:
Option A -potential street improvements with no bikeway
33
Western Avenue Design Guidelines
July 27, 2015
Page 2
Option B -Street improvements with a bikeway;
Option C -Hybrid option with street improvements with curb extensions and bikeways.
Option D (Second Document attached) -Streetscape Improvements only
The TSC is tasked with rendering an opinion about all four options and identifying a
"Preferred Option" to be forwarded to City Council for consideration.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In 2007, the City of RPV adopted the Western Avenue Traffic Improvement Plan which
identifies very specific measures that are to be implemented by the City, Caltrans and
City of LA to improve traffic flow and safety along Western Avenue. The document was
prepared and approved in collaboration with Caltrans and City of LA and the City of RPV
has taken the lead on securing funding for implementation. The improvements should be
coordinated with improvements identified in the Design guidelines.
CONCLUSION
At this time, staff is recommending that the TSC review the and provide feedback on the
Draft Design Implementation Guidelines for Western Avenue and identify a "preferred
option" for the street improvements (Section 3) as a recommendation that will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
End of report
Attachment:
Western Avenue Design Guidelines, April 2015
Western Avenue Design Guidelines
34
Committee Member Ott: Aye
Vice Chair Vlaco: Aye
Chair Self: Aye
Committee Member Kramer moved to accept Staff' ecommendation to
implement a Stop sign on Sparta Drive at Enrose Av e and red curb 20 feet
north and south of Sparta Drive on Enrose Ave , seconded by Vice Chair
Via co.
Motion approved:
Committee Member Guerin: Aye
Committee Member Kramer: Aye
Committee Member Ott: Aye
Vice Chair Vlaco: Aye
Chair Self: Aye
Committee Member ramer moved to accept Staff's recommendation to
implement a Yield · n on Chartres Drive at Sattes Drive, seconded by Committee
Member Ott.
Motion ap
Commit Member Guerin: Nay
Com ·tee Member Kramer: Aye
Co ittee Member Ott: Aye
e Chair Vlaco: Aye
Chair Self: Aye
1. WESTERN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Recommendation:
Review and provide feedback on the Draft Western Avenue Design Guidelines
and identify a "Preferred Option" for the Street Improvement section as a
recommendation that will be forwarded to the City Council for final review and
approval.
Deputy Director Jules gave a brief explanation of the process the Western Avenue
Design Guidelines have gone through and will continue to go through. She mentioned
that these guidelines have been presented to the Planning Commission. She also
stated that the creation of such guidelines have been the collective effort of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, the City of Los Angeles, CalTrans, and stakeholders, including
business owners, residents and other interested parties. Deputy Director Jules
explained that within these guidelines the corridor was divided into three separate
segments (northern, middle and southern). She also stated that, although the entire
guidelines package had been distributed to the Committee, the only portion that was
going to be covered tonight was the portion that proposes improvements within the
Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes
July 27, 2015
Page 7of14
74 35
public right-of-way. She indicated that the public right-of-way, which includes the
sidewalk, parkway, and roadway, is from the edge of the east side of the private
property on one side of the road to the edge of the west side of the private property.
Deputy Director Jules reiterated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to evaluate the
options recommended, from a traffic safety point of view, and to come up with a
preferred option to be forwarded to the City Council. She proceeded to present all of
the options recommended.
Deputy Director Jules explained that Option A does not include bike lanes, reduces the
existing travel lane widths by a foot or two in order to improve the medians by adding
trees and landscaping, retains the existing on-street parking, adds parkway planting,
takes the existing utilities underground, adds lighting to the street and pedestrian areas,
and maintains fifteen-foot-wide sidewalks.
Deputy Director Jules then provided the details for Option B, which included a slight
reduction in travel lane widths, improved medians, maintaining the existing on-street
parking, the addition of Class A bike lanes on each side of the road adjacent to the
travel lanes, landscaped parkway, the addition of street and pedestrian lighting,
underground utilities, and fifteen-foot-wide sidewalks.
Option C -Hybrid, as described by Deputy Director Jules, consists of the reduction of
travel lane widths, improved medians with landscaping and trees, accommodating a
cycle track (outside of the roadway and adjacent to the parkway) on each side of the
road, on-street parking, and adding curb extensions (bulb-outs) to accommodate
landscape. She reiterated that the main difference between Option B and Option C is
the placement of the bike lanes: Option B places the cyclist between the travel lanes
and the on-street parking, and Option C takes the cyclist off the roadway and places
them in a protected area within the parkway.
Deputy Director Jules explained that Option D is essentially the same as Option C, with
the difference that Option D has a protected, two-way cycle track on one side of the
roadway, no on-street parking on the roadside where the cycle track would be placed,
and no curb extension on either side of the road.
Deputy Director Jules concluded by stating that multi-use corridors are being pushed for
and that accommodating for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles within the public right-
of-way is the new design standard.
Committee Discussion and Staff Questions
Committee Member Kramer commented that Option D, in his opinion, is the worst
option, for he believes that this option brings a lot of unintended consequences. He
explained that this option currently exists in the City of Redondo Beach, where he
observed that vehicles are getting confused when coming out of the driveway and have
driven into the bike track. He stated that the City of Redondo Beach later put some tall
poles in the middle of the bi-directional bike track to discourage vehicles from driving on
Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes
July 27, 2015
Page 8 of 14
75 36
it, which then caused a hazardous situation for the cyclists. Committee Member Kramer
explained that in that same area, the road configuration has the bike lanes placed
adjacent to a median, followed by on-street parking, and then the travel lanes. He
stated that he noticed that vehicles wishing to enter a driveway have limited visibility,
since the vehicles parked on the street block the view of the bike track, which forces
vehicles to stop before the bike lanes and end up blocking the traffic on both sides of
the road. Committee Member Kramer also commented that, in his experience, he has
noticed that the bicycle lanes get narrow when they are placed next to each other,
which causes a lot of head-on bicycle collisions. He reiterated that this option is his
least favorite. He also added that in some places, the bike lanes are placed where the
gutter joins the road, which creates a hazardous situation for the bicycles when their
tires could end up in that joint. He also mentioned that it is very difficult for the cyclists
to cross an intersection with this type of configuration.
Committee Member Kramer commented that Option C has the same conflicts as Option
D, especially at every driveway where there is limited visibility due to the vehicles
parked on the street and the vegetation.
Committee Member Kramer stated that he agrees with Deputy Director Jules when she
stated that Option B presents a conflict when the vehicles' doors are opened and block
the bike lanes, which forces the cyclists to move closer to the vehicle travel lanes. He
also mentioned that his biggest concern is that, in general, Western Avenue is not a flat
street and that bikes will go fast downhill, which will create a dangerous situation if
parked vehicles open their doors in front of them. He added that the bike lane users will
not be children nor people in beach cruisers, but rather recreational and avid cyclists.
Committee Member Kramer stated that he is not in favor of any of the bike solutions for
the reasons above mentioned, and therefore, his preferred option is Option A, and
Option B is his second preferred option.
Chair Self stated that his first option is Option A and that Option B is his second
selection, for he believes it is the safest choice for the bicyclists.
Committee Member Ott commented that initially his first option was Option D, but after
listening to Committee Member Kramer's comments, he believes that Option A is the
best choice, followed by Option B as his second choice.
Committee Member Guerin commented that he prefers Option D, since he likes the
dedicated right-of-way and believes that it is safer for the cyclists on Western Ave.
Vice Chair Vlaco stated that her preferred option is Option A She also commented that
she is making a second choice only because it has been asked from the Committee to
select two options, and therefore her second choice is Option D.
ACTION TAKEN:
Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes
July 27, 2015
Page 9of14
76 37
Deputy Director Jules proceeded to summarize the Committee's selection for the
Western Avenue Corridor Options, stating that the general consensus of the
Committee is Option A as their preferred option and the Committee agreed.
Deputy Director Jules stated that due to the Committee's understanding of the
process and political will, the majority of the Committee has opted to choose
Option B as their second preferred option, and the Committee agreed.
Chair Self added that the reason for choosing Option A is due to the type of cyclists that
would be engaged with the Western Avenue traffic, which will likely be the avid cyclists.
Chair Self Opened the Public Hearing.
Bob Nelson
Mr. Nelson stated that he is speaking as a member of the Planning Commission and on
behalf of the Planning Commission, and that the Commission did not approve Option D,
despite the comment shown on Option D of the guidelines presented. He stated that he
will take his comments to the Commission tomorrow night regarding the Los Angeles
and CalTrans participation, since he has not seen anything in writing proving that. He
also mentioned that what they had discussed at the Commission meeting is that the City
is to remove graffiti, trim trees, and clean the streets in this area. Mr. Nelson also stated
that one of the problems they will face is the land use along Western Avenue, since
there are no height restrictions on the Los Angeles side, compared to the forty-foot
height limitation for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes side. Mr. Nelson reiterated that
the Commission did not like any of the options presented, and that they did not approve
Option D, despite what the Consultant says and the written statement in the document
presented tonight. He stated that this item will be seen again on August 11th and that
the audience will include Los Angeles City Councilmember Buscaino and Rancho Palos
Verdes City Manager, Doug Willmore, and welcomed the Traffic Safety Committee
members to attend. He also mentioned that he has thirteen pages of comments on
Western Avenue from the Commission for the first review. Mr. Nelson explained that
after that, it will appear before the City Council on September 15th. He also asked Chair
Self about a traffic study that was mentioned at the Mayor's breakfast that needs to be
done for this project.
Chair Self asked Staff about a traffic study for this project and Deputy Director Jules
responded that at this "high level," a traffic study is not needed, since the design
guidelines are at a conceptual, or visionary, stage. She also added that there was a
traffic study performed for the Ponte Vista project, and for the corridor operational
improvements in 2007. She also mentioned that she has not been informed if a traffic
study will be performed for this project and who would pay for it. Deputy Director Jules
added that she believes that a traffic study will be needed and warranted at some point,
but not necessarily at this level. She stated that once the interested parties agree on
how the vision plan is going to look, then a traffic study will be needed to look at the
numbers, such as traffic volumes and speeds, and to see how it will work, operationally.
Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes
July 27, 2015
Page 10of14
77 38
Vice Chair Vlaco commented that looking at this, and seeing how the Council
responded to the Parks Master Plan Improvements, it seems to her that these are grand
visions beyond what anyone thought they were going to be getting. Deputy Director
Jules responded that the City Council has expressed their desire to maintain the
existing infrastructure along the corridor.
Chair Self Closed the Public Hearing.
MMITTEE MEMBER ORAL REPORTS
tial Streets Rehabilitation Project -Areas 1, 58, and 9
Senior Engineer ountryman stated that this project is coming to an end and that the
contractor is goi ', , through the punch-list items, which includes re-doing slurry
application at a few I , tions, signage installation, and street-sweeping in some areas.
Committee Member Kra r asked if this program is in an eight-year cycle. Senior
Engineer Countryman res nded that it is intended to be a seven-year cycle.
Committee Member Kramer ked what cycle the program is on. Senior Engineer
Countryman replied that it varie y area, since some areas needed to be divided into
two areas due to budget constrai , but that the goal is to get back to the seven-year
cycle.
2. Del Cerro Area Parking Issues Up te
Senior Engineer Countryman mentioned tha e City is currently working on ordering
the materials needed to implement the p it parking programs in the three
neighborhoods, such as the signs and parking als. She also stated that the main
goal is to have everything ready before making a changes on Crenshaw Blvd., in
order to avoid any parking "spillover" into the neighbor· ods.
Committee Member Guerin asked if the installation of th igns and decals will come
before re-striping the road. Senior Engineer Countryman r lied that yes, for the area
that includes the Del Cerro HOA, Valley View Rd. or Countrysi HOA, and Island View
neighborhoods, those are the first steps to start the process.
Committee Member Guerin asked if this would be completed by ' cember. Senior
Engineer Countryman responded that it would be before that, and pe · ;:ips as soon as
in three weeks or so. Deputy Director Jules added that at the most it wo' .d be a month,
since the design plans and stripers are ready, and the City is wor ·ng with the
community to put the program in place. Deputy Director Jules also mentio· ed that the
only thing that might delay the program would be if the permit signs were n t in-stock,
Traffic Safety Committee Draft Minutes
July 27, 2015
Page 11 of 14
78 39
P.C. Minutes
(April 28, 2015)
40
Lara Shea (in rebuttal) explained she and SCE are trying to get an easement, and she
was fairly convinced she will be able to secure easements from everyone involved.
Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked how the Commission can, in this type of situ
encourage undergrounding the utilities without making it a request that coul
construction.
Director Rojas answered that to achieve that goal it was best not to r uire
undergrounding as a condition of approval, otherwise the Commiss· n will have to craft
a very complicated condition that exempts the requirement if cert n circumstances
arise.
Commissioner James moved to adopt staff's recomme ation to approve the
project.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated he would secon
amendment to add a condition of approval stati
place the utilities underground.
he motion with a friendly
the applicant is encouraged to
Commissioner James stated he would not ccept the friendly amendment.
Commissioner Emenhiser withdrew hi riendly amendment and seconded
Commissioner James' motion.
Commissioner Leon asked Commi ioner James if he felt there should be an
amendment to require the applic t to include elevations on the plans.
Commissioner James aske
Director Rojas stated th Commission could add a condition that requires plans
submitted to Building d Safety plan check have the appropriate correct elevation call-
outs included on th plans.
Commissione James accepted the Director's statement as an amendment to his
motion, sec ded by Commissioner Emenhiser.
The mo n to approve the project with the added condition of approval was
appr ed by the Commission, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2015-07 (5-0) with
Co issioner Gerstner recused.
ommissioner Gerstner returned to the dais.
3. Western Avenue Guideline Plan (Tentative)
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 4
41
Director Rojas explained this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to
participate in some advanced planning for a project that looks out to the future. He
explained that the City has heard from residents for quite awhile that not much focus is
paid to the City's Western Avenue area. As a result, the City was able to take
advantage of some grants to look at improving Western Avenue which resulted in the
City developing the Western Avenue Vision Plan in 2013. He explained the City was
able to secure an additional grant to move on to step two, which is developing uniform
guidelines for the commercial corridor. He stated these guidelines will help shape the
look of both the public and private portions of Western Avenue. He explained that the
City of Los Angeles is working with Rancho Palos Verdes as a partner in this grant and
the idea is to develop a uniform set of guidelines to help guide future improvements in
this area. With that, he explained the City is working with a nationally known consulting
firm that has done this type of work for many cities. He introduced the consultant,
Gaurav Srivastava.
Gaurav Srivastava stated that for the past six months he has been working with staff
from Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles on developing draft guidelines
for Western Avenue. He stated he would like to share with the Commission and get
their feedback on what has been done to date, the overview and outline of the design
implementation guidelines, and a summary of the public feedback. He stated his goal is
to have a final set of guidelines by the end of June. He explained that this project is
funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability
Program, and gave a brief presentation on this program. Mr. Srivastava stated that the
two key recommendations from the Vision Plan were to evolve the corridor into a
complete street which is usable by everyone and provides safe access and experience
for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders and to update the nature of the
development along the corridor. He explained that while developing the Vision Plan it
emerged that desirable streets are streets that have development sitting on the street
edge and having a direct relationship with pedestrians and the public realm. Mr.
Srivastava explained that a steering committee is in place and is comprised of agency
representatives from Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles, Caltrans, SCAG, and
residential and business property owner stakeholders. He also noted that there was a
public workshop held in March.
Mr. Srivastava described the role and purpose of the guidelines, what the guidelines will
do, and what these guidelines will not do. He also noted that the guidelines are
organized in two main sections, that being guidelines for private development and
guidelines for public right-of-way, and he briefly described the differences. He then
discussed the three alternatives that have been included in the document, explaining
these alternatives look at ways to address some of the goals and objectives of this
exercise. He reviewed Option A, which is potential street improvements with no
bikeway; Option B, an option providing street improvements with a bikeway; and Option
C, a hybrid approach. Mr. Srivastava presented a summary of public feedback from the
workshop that was held in March. These comments were organized into the categories
of bikes lanes, traffic, and the urban design of the street. He noted that pedestrian
safety was an overwhelming concern of the public. Mr. Srivastava then discussed the
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 5
42
next steps, giving a timeline of when this package will be presented to the City of Los
Angeles, as well as the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
Commissioner Emenhiser was happy to see there was no discussion on the elimination
of a lane of traffic, that there was no discussion on the light rail, and that there was more
involvement from the City of Los Angeles. In discussing proposed bike lanes, he noted
that Western Avenue is actually quite hilly, and questioned if anyone would really use
the bike lanes.
Mr. Srivastava explained that there is an existing bike loop around the peninsula, and
on the eastern end of that loop there is a disconnect. One of the reasons in proposing
this bike lane was to complete that loop and provide bicyclists commercial amenities
along the route they currently do not have. However, he agreed that until someone
does a more detailed analysis on the amount of potential riders on the street, he did not
think a decision should be made.
Commissioner Leon felt it was important to remember that Western Avenue is a
thoroughfare and if lane sizes are reduced, the cars will travel more slowly. He also
noted that the current plan shows parking along Western Avenue which does not exist
today. He suggested that parking not be included and to make an attempt wherever
possible to reduce the entrances onto Western Avenue. With respect to bike lanes, he
felt it was absolutely necessary to separate the bike lane from the traffic lanes in order
to maintain Western Avenue as a thoroughfare. He suggested the possibility of having
a two-way bike path on one side of the street, which would save eight feet for the street.
Lastly, he stated he was ambivalent on the idea of moving the setbacks to the street, as
he felt it was the current popular streetscape design that may change in fifteen years.
Commissioner Gerstner questioned the process and what would happen if there are
inconsistencies between Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles on what is
desired for the area.
Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the City is trying to maintain the three options
that are shown to try to avoid any potential problem of inconsistencies. She also stated
that the two cities are working very closely together throughout this process.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if there was any analysis of a hybrid scheme in that there
may only be parking on one side of the street or bicycle lanes on only one side of the
street.
Mr. Srivastava explained that this was not studied, noting the reason was because they
are constrained by the presence of the median, which they did not want to move. If the
median stays there is only so much space to do anything on either side. He
acknowledged this was an interesting point, and they could consider eliminating or
relocating the median. He noted that street parking is a service provided to the retail
businesses and the input received from business owners was that they valued the street
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 6
43
parking. However, as one goes further north on Western Avenue the value of that
street parking diminishes dramatically.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated views are a very important consideration, and did not
see any graphics regarding how the sixty-foot maximum building height, or how the
building being pushed up closer to the street would affect views from Western Avenue.
Mr. Srivastava answered there are three specific plans on the Rancho Palos Verdes
side of the street that currently determine development on Western Avenue, and each
of those specific plans have a unique way of addressing building envelopes and
heights, and nothing that this guideline will change the way building heights are
currently calculated.
Associate Planner Mikhail added that any new proposed commercial building would still
have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, and views would be looked at
during that process. She explained that the Guidelines are proposing to reduce the
current setbacks on Western Avenue to give more abilities to the developer to building
their property within the Guidelines.
Commissioner James explained that when he looks at a project like this he tries to look
at the big picture and put the minutia somewhere down the line. He noted that Mr.
Srivastava had stated in his report that traffic analysis is outside of the scope of the
assignment and that the idea is to be volume neutral in regards to traffic. However,
when he looks at this, these are the most important questions to him. He explained that
it makes a huge difference to him, looking twenty-five years down the road, whether
there will be the same traffic patterns seen today, whether there will be a lot more cars,
or whether there is some way to make the traffic move quicker or lessen the volume of
traffic on Western Avenue. He asked if there is someone who is looking at these
issues, since they are not in Mr. Srivastava's scope.
Mr. Srivastava responded that Cal Trans will be looking at these issues, but is not doing
so at this time. He recognized how important these issues are to everyone involved.
He stated that Cal Trans has offered to do a follow-up traffic study to determine the long
term impacts for the Guidelines as well as new development along the corridor to see
what improvements would need to be made from a traffic standpoint.
Commissioner James stated he would trade all of this, including the money spent on
grants, to improve the traffic flow on Western Avenue.
Director Rojas acknowledged that there is a traffic problem on Western Avenue, and in
2007 there was a study done and a report came out on what can be done to relieve
some of the problems. Currently, the Public Works Department is working on obtaining
funding to implement those measures.
Commissioner Emenhiser felt that parking along the street makes a lot of sense if there
is direct access to a business. However, as currently configured, parking on the street
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 7
44
doesn't help if one is trying to get into Sprouts or The Terraces. He felt that allowing
parking on one side of the street or a bike lane on one side of the street is a way to save
some room and make it easier to move with a hybrid plan.
Chairman Nelson asked if the Ponte Vista development was part of, or taken into
consideration, when these Guidelines were developed.
Mr. Sirvastava answered that Ponte Vista or any other new development was not part of
this study.
Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing.
Glenn Cornell stated he lives in Rolling Hills Riviera, which runs adjacent to Western
Avenue. He stated he attended the public workshop in March, and appreciated Mr.
Sirvastava's comment that the public comments were diverse and there was no real
consensus on any of the three options. He felt this was because nobody supported any
of the three options and people are looking for something other than these three
options. He felt that people objected to the buildings being so close to the sidewalk. He
noted that Western Avenue is a state highway and very few people are interested in
walking along it because of the noise and the traffic. He did not feel that the comments
submitted by the public at the public presentation were reflected in tonight's
presentation, and felt that the consultant was determined to take this concept that might
fit into a small village street and make it work along Western Avenue. In addition, he
was concerned that a number of the options involved the median strip, and the City
would be giving up some median strip for a very questionable benefit. He also
discussed the addition of trees and landscaping, and had stated at the earlier meeting
that he would like to see some type of funding set aside for the maintenance of the
vegetation.
Barbara Sattler felt the draft plan and the graphics were very confusing, as the phrasing
of a strong street wall lead her to believe there will be a tunnel effect of 42-foot tall
buildings which she felt would exasperate noise along Western Avenue. She felt that if
this were to be considered a full CEQA evaluation would be needed in regards to the
impacts to the community. If the setbacks are to be reduced, she would prefer to see
the heights limited to single story. She stated that if there were a situation like that then
she liked what was being presented. She felt the parking configurations were very
good, and the improvements in pedestrians accents is very, very good. She stated she
had concerns in the area of strip malls between The Terraces and Summerland where
they were talking about the reversal of the orientation of the parking lot with the
buildings. She felt this was a big mistake as that would create a back alley which will be
dangerous at night and will be used as a shortcut to avoid traffic. She did not think
street parking along Western Avenue was necessary except for the area in front of Peck
Park and in front of the housing area in Lomita. She felt street parking was dangerous
for bicyclists, it impedes the flow of traffic, and it obstructs the vision entering and
leaving parking lots. She suggested using the area for bus turnouts so that busses
would not impede traffic, and suggested the traffic lanes all be the minimum width of 11
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 8
45
feet to accommodate the large vehicles that use Western Avenue. She would therefore
like to see a new alternative bike path plan that reflects that type of configuration and
she would like to see the illustration reflect something of a single story structure.
Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Sattler if she was still of the opinion, as stated in her letter,
that Western Avenue is a highway in the middle of suburbia.
Ms. Sattler stated that was still her opinion.
Jeanne Lacombe stated she was speaking for John Mccowan who was not able to
attend the meeting. She read a letter from Mr. Mccowan which stated he was a
member of the Western Avenue Vision Committee and he urged the Planning
Commission to vote no on all three options. He felt it would be cost prohibitive to
require businesses to relocate their storefronts to the sidewalk, and that these
guidelines might guarantee that these businesses don't remodel at all or move out of
the area. He felt a better design guideline was needed to improve Western Avenue
working with the current location of the businesses.
Jeanne Lacombe stated she was personally against all three options and the Rolling
Hills Riviera HOA is also against all three options. She stated she was also on the
Western Avenue Vision Committee and she quit because she felt she had a lone voice
of reason that was being unheard. She explained that while on the Committee she
asked what type of budget parameters were involved, and was told there was no
budget. She felt it was irresponsible to develop a plan without a scope of budget or
thought of financial impact it has on the government budget or that of private
businesses and property owners. She questioned why there was no option to leave all
of the current businesses and parking lots where they are currently located and just
improve what exists. She felt it was because the consultant, who has never been to
Rancho Palos Verdes or San Pedro, tried to transform Western Avenue into a
destination. She stated Western Avenue is not a destination, but rather a local place for
people to shop, dine, and use local services. She asked that the Commission look at
options that keep the open aesthetics that Western Avenue currently has because that
is what best represents Rancho Palos Verdes. Finally, she commented that in speaking
to the Rancho Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce, she discovered that the Chamber
of Commerce promotes only four businesses on Western Avenue, yet they promote 71
businesses in Torrance. She felt that we need to get the residents of Rancho Palos
Verdes to patronize the shops on Western Avenue, and we need to improve what is
there in order to make that happen.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Ms. Lacombe if she were to present an Option 4, what
would it look like.
Ms. Lacombe felt it was important to have guidelines for things that can be done now,
such as improve the medians and improve the facades of the current businesses in their
current locations. She felt that if guidelines could be developed then the city could go
out and get grant money and help these business owners improve the aesthetics of
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 9
46
their businesses. She did not think it was necessary to build a tunnel along Western
Avenue to attract people to the City.
Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Lacombe her comments on bicycles along Western
Avenue.
Ms. Lacombe stated bike lanes have recently been added to Westmont Avenue and she
never sees anyone using them and did not think the bike lanes would be utilized.
Chairman Nelson asked staff about some type of budget.
Associate Planner Mikhail stated that staff did ask the consultant to give a very
preliminary outlook of the costs associated with these types of improvements. She
stated there is a very baseline estimate included in the report and is in no way set in
stone. She also noted that it does not include the preparation of plans, traffic studies,
and construction costs.
Pete Lacombe felt that when you start discussing the details of something then you
have already accepted the premise. He stated he does not accept the premise of this.
He stated that when you envision Rancho Palos Verdes you see open spaces, vistas,
ocean views, Mediterranean architecture, split rail fences, and a lot of greenery. When
he envisions San Pedro he envisions a seaport, fishing boats, and a nautical theme and
Western Avenue is the glue that binds these two cities. He questioned what the vision
committee saw when looking at Western Avenue, possibly Santa Monica or Main Street
Disney. He stated Western Avenue is a thoroughfare and not a destination. He
encouraged the Planning Commission to conclude, just because time and money was
spent and a plan was made, that they must choose from one of the above. He stated it
was acceptable to say no to a bad idea.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Lacombe what he would like to see along Western
Avenue.
Mr. Lacombe felt there was a lot you can do with what is existing on Western Avenue.
He stated that when things are set back from the street you get a feeling of openness,
and from many points on Western Avenue you can see the hillside and the port. He
stated that this question never really came up during the public meetings, and it should
have.
Peggy DiLeva stated she lives on Pontevedra Drive and her back bank goes down and
abuts Western Avenue. She referred back to the last Commission meeting and the item
that had to do with cleaning up some zoning issues in her neighborhood and how it had
nothing to do with the vision plan. However, she noted in the guidelines that there is
mention of revisions to existing zoning codes. She questioned how the City was going
to handle these properties where there are weeds on the hillside and maybe the elderly
residents can't afford to improve that area of their property. She was very concerned
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 10
47
about the existing traffic on Western Avenue, and knew it would be worse once Ponte
Vista is developed.
Cacey Jennings stated she lives on Galerita Drive and does not currently support any
phase of the revitalization plan as presented and does not support years of currently
unsupported construction costs and activity that would interfere with daily lives and
could drive out small business. She felt that relying on future grants to support the plan
could cause delays in realizing the vision. She did not want increased traffic in the
neighborhoods, nor would she appreciate increased non-resident parking in the
neighborhoods, which she felt would occur to support the anticipated increased usage
of the business district. She also felt that crime in the neighborhoods may increase in
response to the increased foot traffic on Western Avenue. She felt the Western Avenue
corridor could be improved with smaller and more fiscally responsible changes that will
benefit the direct community and RPV as a whole. She felt that some elements of the
plan, such as cohesive facades and cohesive landscaping and walkways along the
corridor would definitely improve the area, and she would support something like that.
Richard Wagoner stated he agrees with all of the public comments made before him.
He also strongly disagreed with the idea that moving the businesses closer to the street
is the only viable way to have a nice street, and if that were true then Pacific Avenue
would be the commercial mecca of the entire area. He stated that the appeal of Rancho
Palos Verdes as well as upper San Pedro and South Shores is the feeling of open
space and views, not just of the ocean, Catalina Island, and city lights, but of open sky,
trees, and mountains. He felt that the current plans throws everything Rancho Palos
Verdes and upper San Pedro stands for out the window. He stated the plan creates a
tunnel vision for Western Avenue and will look like no other area in Rancho Palos
Verdes. He urged a no vote on all three proposals.
Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Wagoner what his Option 4 would look like.
Mr. Wagoner answered that he would take update what is currently there, redo the
medians, and make longer turn lanes.
Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he has heard almost universal praise for unified
signage, improvements to the medians, and better landscaping along Western Avenue.
He did not think anyone could envision having the current businesses moved up onto
the street, and questioned if it was even financially viable. He did not think that people
were opposed to moving the business to the street because they were not visionary
enough, but rather because they like what they have now. He felt the consultant should
realize that this current plan needs a fundamental revision. He stated that he heard that
the bike lanes were not necessarily a bad idea, but not at the price of the drivers. He
also noted that parking on the street did not seem to be a high priority, yet it was shown
in all three options.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 11
48
Chairman Nelson noted that Vice Chairman Tomblin had arrived and taken his seat at
the dais.
Commissioner Gerstner explained that he has spent many years in planning, knows
what planners are taught, and knows what is generally considered good planning
practices and what is considered better planning practices. He referred to the
comments that Western Avenue is a thoroughfare and it's not meant to be a destination.
Given that, he stated that to the extent it's not a place people are going to go to, then
people aren't going to go there. Western Avenue will support the local area and it will
be a place where one will pass through, but it will not be a place that will generate
increased revenue for the City. He felt that to the extent that you don't make Western
Avenue a destination that's worthy of going to on its own merits, it will never be much
more than what it is now. He felt that with the addition of the homes across from the
cemetery, that population will have to go somewhere, and to the extent that something
isn't done on Western Avenue, that population will go through the area and go spend
their money down in San Pedro. He would rather it not be that way, and would rather
this be something more than all of the other shopping centers in Torrance and Lomita.
He would prefer it be someplace where he can park his car and go to several
businesses and enjoy. He acknowledged that he doesn't live in this area, and would not
want to impose this on those that do. However, if the City wants this area to be more
than a place where people merely pass through, then something more will have to be
done than just sprucing the area up. He felt the consultant was attempting to do just
that.
With regards to the specifics in the consultant's plans, Commissioner Gerstner
discussed the proposed bike lanes and felt that because this area is on a slope the bike
lanes most likely would not get a massive amount of use. He felt that if the bike lanes
are to be added at the expense of anything else, then it might be a mistake. In regards
to the proposed parking on the street, he explained that in other areas where this type
of development has taken place, the areas without the street parking generally have not
succeeded. He felt that if there is not some sort of street parking you will lose that quick
foot traffic and the businesses will suffer. He stated that the alternative is that this area
become more of a destination and try to keep everyone from heading to San Pedro and
Torrance, and become more of a center for Rancho Palos Verdes. He stated that he
enjoys the times he goes over there, but did not think it felt any different or better than a
lot of the places he can go in Torrance.
Commissioner James did not feel the thoroughfare works well as a thoroughfare as it
currently exists, and that is one of the problems. However, he wasn't sure this vision
plan is targeting what the problem is. He felt that what is needed is to focus more on
the traffic problems before talking about what to build around that traffic. He questioned
if one doesn't know what the traffic will be like tomorrow or ten years from now, how one
can decide the right way to construct the lanes or parking in the future. He would rather
force Cal Trans to get serious about looking at the traffic issues on Western Avenue. In
regards to the proposed bike lanes, he felt that should be kept as an option. He felt the
focus should be on where we are going to start, and he favored starting with a traffic
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 12
49
analysis and improving the traffic flow rather than just keeping it the same and
accepting it.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated he was on the steering committee and noted he drives
Western Avenue very frequently. He acknowledged that the traffic on Western Avenue
is terrible, there does not appear to be any traffic signal timing, and there does not
appear to be any coordination between the two cities and Cal Trans. However, he
stated that this is not what is being addressed tonight but rather what is being discussed
is putting together guidelines for all of the inconsistencies between both sides of the
street. He felt that the public comments were fairly consistent in that they were not
happy with the proposed building design. He stated that if that element can be
removed, there are so many other elements in the guidelines that can be looked at and
commented on that haven't even been discussed, which he felt was unfortunate. He
explained that at the two meetings he attended there were several local residents and
business owners who were very engaged in the project and the consultant was very
interested in what the public had to say. In regards to the guidelines, he felt that the
Commission might start by suggesting the recommendation to put the buildings at the
sidewalk be removed and then look at all of the other guidelines, which could be simple
things that may not be too difficult to accomplish. He felt that there was a lot the City
could do with these guidelines to help future business owners make their businesses
look nice and attract more customers.
Commissioner Leon felt there was plenty of room for consistent street furniture and the
choices that are within this plan seem like they would work, and he would definitely be
in favor of some of these. In regards to bike lanes, he felt that going to an asymmetric
design and minimizing that, and having wider lanes and eliminating parking from the
street would benefit Western Avenue as a thoroughfare. He felt that Western Avenue
should be a thoroughfare first. He was not in favor of street side buildings which he felt
would give Western Avenue a tunnel effect. He stated that he was not in favor of any of
the three presented options.
Vice Chairman Tomblin stated he too was on the steering committee, and explained this
plan would put on this area an overlay which both cities would have to conform to an
agreed upon set of building or development criteria that would dictate what goes on
along the Western Avenue corridor. He explained that right now the city of Los Angeles
can do just about whatever they want in terms of buildings and designs. An overlay
would require that any new development that comes forward would have to comply with
the overlay laws. Therefore, he felt this process was very important, and the City
should take this opportunity to control their destiny along Western Avenue.
Commissioner Emenhiser moved to not recommend Options A, B, or C, but rather
request Option D, which would include the following components: 1) Seize the
current unique opportunity to work with the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans to
improve the Western Avenue corridor; 2) Designate Western Avenue as a
thoroughfare first; 3) The first duty should be to ease the traffic for vehicles; 4)
Embark on a short-term plan to improve the signage, landscaping in the medians,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 13
50
and find ways to fund that; and 5) Include a longer term vision for the future of
the corridor. Seconded by Commissioner Leon.
Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what voting for an Option D, which currently does
not exist, would do to the timeline and schedule.
Director Rojas answered that this plan is scheduled to go to the City Council on June
2nd, and that staff would present the Planning Commission's recommendations on that
plan.
Associate Planner Mikhail added that staff will have to check with the consultant to see
if adding an Option D is feasible within their current contract.
Chairman Nelson stated that six out of the eight speakers asked that the Commission
not vote for any of the three options, and as a result this is what the Commission is
trying to reflect in their proposed Option D.
Commissioner Cruikshank stated what he heard was the objection to the building
envelope and the tunnel effect, however he did not think that everyone was adamantly
opposed to all three choices in terms of the traffic lane options. Having worked on
various planning documents, he felt Option D was going to be fairly difficult for the
consultant to craft the right document for the City. He noted the statement "ease traffic"
in the motion is a great statement, but felt it would be beneficial to give more direction
on the lane configuration and the bike lane configuration. He noted that the
Commission has given no direction to the consultant. His concern was that this will
become an issue that just goes back and forth, and felt there should be something more
definitive from the Commission giving more direction. He agreed that Western Avenue
should be a thoroughfare and traffic can be a nightmare, but he felt that some direction
should be given. He felt this would be difficult to do without a traffic study, and a traffic
study could change everything. He stated that if he were to choose one of the three
options presented, he would choose Option B, as Option C would be very expensive.
Commissioner Leon felt that Western Avenue should have a bike lane, and Option B is
a non-starter in terms of configuration. He understood Option C is expensive, but felt it
can be modified to lower the costs. More importantly, if Option C were modified to put a
bike lane on one side and have no street parking for most of the area, that would be an
option he could accept.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Cruikshank that moving the street
curb back is not only expensive but it can be an extreme nightmare in executing when
it's done in pieces. He stated that one does not want to have something that is really
horrible for fifty years until it comes to fruition, as one would want something that has
some beneficial impact now. He felt Option C reaches too far from a practical point of
view, and would never get implemented in a way that it could be used. He stated that
Option A is not much different than what is there now, as it does not solve the traffic
problems, it does not include a bike lane, and does not really beautify the area. He
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 14
51
stated he would lean towards Option B as a better solution to encourage things to
happen. However, he understood what Commissioner Emenhiser was suggesting that
Western Avenue be weighted more heavily as a thoroughfare, and that Option B could
be modified to incorporate that suggestion.
Commissioner James was not sure a motion was needed that the Commissioners agree
on, as the public and the Commissioners have all given their opinions. He stated these
suggestions have been recorded by staff and will be included in the meeting minutes,
and these will be forwarded to the City Council for their review. He therefore suggested
that there not be adoption of a motion, but rather all of these thoughts and suggestions
be forwarded on to the City Council. He noted that he has heard very little from the
businesses along Western Avenue, and was interested in what the business owners
have to say.
Commissioner Emenhiser stated that the problem for him was that each of the options
are fatally flawed and he would defer to the people that live in the neighborhood as to
what should be done along Western Avenue. He stated that what the Commission has
heard from the public is that neither Option A, B, or C is going to work. He felt the
motion was the Commission's attempt to give guidance to the City Council that the
Commission did not think any of the three options are going to work.
Vice Chairman Tomblin understood Commissioner Emenhiser's comments, but
suggested that instead of voting on one option that the Commission take a straw vote
on how many of the Commissioners would support A, B, or C which will give the City
Council an idea of what the Commission might suggest without a definitive vote and
give some direction to the City Council and the consultant.
The motion was approved, (4-3) with Commissioners Gerstner, James, and Vice
Chairman Tomblin dissenting.
Commissioner James explained that he was not terribly against any of the specifics in
the motion, he just felt that there were a lot of other things that should be addressed.
He stated that he does not favor the idea of trying to bring buildings up close to the
street. He also felt very strongly that before picking any of the options, more traffic
information, particularly future traffic information, was needed. He would very strongly
like to suggest to the City Council that a traffic study is where we should start.
Commissioner Cruikshank agreed that the traffic study was very important, not just for
Western Avenue, but for surrounding connecting streets. He stated that in the end, the
street can be beautified, but if the traffic doesn't move anywhere, what is the point. He
stated that regardless of what the Commission does in terms of design guidelines that
will not affect the real problem, which is traffic and getting cars through the area. He
hoped the City Council hears this message and pushes to get something done.
Vice Chairman Tomblin felt it was very important the Commission specifies what they
want. He stated that if he had made a motion it would have included the preference for
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 15
52
Option B without the building envelopes being to the street and that the motion would
include an overlay plan for both the city of Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes. He
explained the overlay would set the limits and the City would have more control.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS
2015
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 16
53
Public Correspondence on Revised Strategy
(between October 2015 and present)
54
Leza Mikhail
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 07, 2015 5:58 PM
'Lacombe'; Doug Willmore
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject:
Attachments:
RE: Western Avenue Enhancement Strategy
Final Public Notice Mailer.pdf
Hello Ms. Lacombe,
Thank you for your comments . We will be sure to address them i n the Staff Report the night of the meeting . I am happy
to hear that the new "Strategy" plan is more palatable and I'm sure we can still make some tweaks to it. Please keep in
mind that this is more of a strategic plan and conceptual in nature and needs more technical studies . Baring this in mind,
the illustrations are also conceptual in nature and could change given the information relayed in the more technical
studies.
Please see my responses to your comments be low in red ...
Thank you again!
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
~City of <Rgncfi.o Pafos 1Jeraes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Pa los Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca .gov
(310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpvc a.gov
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is "@rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect lezam@rpvca.gov as my new email.
From: Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 4:35 PM
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement Strategy
Dear Manager Wilmore and Planner Leza Mikhail,
Thank you for the revised Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy . We can tell from a close reading of
that document that the City Staff attempted to incorporate changes based on objections to aspects of the previous Design
Implementation Guidelines.
1 55
This update is close to the request residents made at the April 2015 RPV Planning Commission Meeting -for an "Option
D". What ultimately came out of that PC meeting's request to the staff should have looked like this updated Strategy and
not the mess that was previously presented as "Option D".
Please accept our comments -we hope they are helpful.
1) Street Parking
All drawings show bike lanes on streets with no parking. But the wording on page 14 implies that on-street parking will be
selectively reclaimed. Which is it?
The plan would keep parking where it can and should be accommodated, but would remove it where it is underutilized
or unnecessary . Future technical studies and public participation would mold the final outcome. I think your comments
below are relevant and important to keep in mind if/when we the move toward the technical studies. I agree with you
that accommodations for additional parking should definitely be considered.
Some comments about removing on -street parking:
• On the West side of the street there are 2 locations that typically have on-street parking -in front of Think Prime
on Friday/Saturday nights and in front of Denny's on weekend mornings. Removing parking entirely would
eliminate about 20 places during these time periods. Perhaps some accommodation can be made for the
business owners in these locations.
• Other street parking on the west side is in Lomita in front of the government housing project -an area not
included in the Strategy.
• On the east side of the street, there are 2 locations with regular street parking -about 8 spaces in front of the Sea
Port Condominiums (all day long) and along Peck Park on weekends during daylight hours. The condo complex
has parking -the tenants park on the street only for convenience to their front doors. Peck Park has ample
parking in the rear of the Park.
All other on-street parking are mostly just cars being sold by private parties or cars being used as advertising. We do not
believe that removal of on-street parking in all sections would be a unacceptable if accommodations can be made in very
specific locations during very specific times.
You may get objections to removal of street parking but we have not personally met anyone in our HOA (or in discussions
with folks in NWSP) who objects.
This is good news . So far we have received positive notes on the revised and new Strategy
Removal of street parking may diminish objections to bike lanes.
2) Bike lanes versus Traffic Mitigation
Wording was added that recommends addition/improvement of traffic signals. Please note that traffic mitigation was the
primary intent of the 2012 application for the grant money to perform the study (if you don't agree, we'll be happy to
forward the application). Traffic during certain times on Western is not only slow, but would be very dangerous to
bicyclists . Our primary objection to bike lanes was this -Don't just plop down bike lanes onto an already impacted section
of Western without improving traffic flow first. Western is first and foremost a thoroughfare for automobiles.
There are 3 intersections in the southern section that can be easily improved with turn signals and longer turn lanes and
must be done before the addition of bike lanes . If the wording on traffic mitigation efforts is made much stronger and is
stated clearly to be implemented before the addition of bike lanes, the objection to bike lanes might be greatly diminished.
Below is an excerpt from an Executive Summary for Western Ave on a notice that I just mailed out (you should get
it in the mail shortly, and I attached it for your convenience as well... feel free to email it forward) ... the portion
below relates to Traffic Mitigation ...
With regard to traffic-related improvements along Western Avenue, which is an on-going and real concern of
residents in both the Cities of RPV and LA, in 2007, the Cities of RPV, LA and CalTrans authored and approved the
Western Avenue Traffic Improvement Plan which identifies specific measures that are to be implemented by the
three jurisdictions to improve traffic operation and safety along Western Avenue. For quite some time, funding was
2 56
a major road block to implementing the plan approved in 2007. The City of RPV was recently informed that the
Traffic Improvement Plan is an eligible candidate for Measure R funding, which will be administered by the South
Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), namely because Western Avenue is a regionally significant corridor.
The project value of the traffic related improvements is approximately $3 .2M to bring to fruition. The SBCCOG
recently approved an expenditure of $90K to initiate a Traffic Improvement Feasibility Study, which will focus on 1)
operational improvements, 2) signalizations, 3) synchronization, and 4) turn lanes . Having an approved plan in
place was essential. As part of the forthcoming process for traffic improvements, the City will embark on a
feasibility study and will look at the improvements outlined in 2007 and ensure that they are in -line with today's
standards and expectations, and encapsulate required mitigation measures from other large development projects
that have been approved along the way (Ponte Vista). At the conclusion of the feasibility study, the City will move
on to the construction phase with the expectation that Measure R funding will fund the remainder of the traffic
related project improvements. Public participation is anticipated and welcomed throughout this process.
3) Sidewalk and Parking in Middle Section
In both wording and drawings the document shows additional width in the sidewalk (15 feet on east side of street and 10
feet on west side of street). Was City Staff aware that the majority (maybe 2/3) of the "middle section" has the City of RPV
on both sides of the street? Also, no cars park on the east side in that section. So why the inconsistency in design in that
section?
Let me check with our Consultants on that technical aspect of the document.
4) Tunnel of Buildings -still alive?
The primary objection from our residents in the Guidelines was the placement of building fronts on the street edge . We felt
the City Staff and AECOM did not understand the "Vision" of RPV. Here is the wording from 5.1 Building Design and
Programming: "These concepts underscore basic design principles that are intended to produce high-quality buildings,
memorable places, and a vibrant urban realm ." RPV envisions a "semi-rural" realm. If we wanted an urban realm we
would move to one of the thousands of urban realms in the area.
We noted that the over-reaching "tunnel -of-buildings" wording in the Guidelines has been scaled back but the concept still
exists in the Strategy . While it was toned down it appears now to be offered as a "suggestion". We are still suspect and
realize that should the Strategy as written move forward we will be forced to fight again in the future to prevent this
concept from coming to fruition. So why make us fight again in the future? Can we not promote Civic harmony and just do
away with the wording?
I completely agree with you that a "tunnel -of-buildings " is not appropriate and not in the current climate of the City 's
character. Please be aware that I inherited this project and have since scaled the document back quite a bit to be more
fitting. I envision , not a fight in the future, but an open and engaging dialogue with the public if/when we move forward with
a private development design aspect. Please let me make it clear again ... I do not agree with a "tunnel " affect for RPV
along Western ... I do , however believe that much more discussion of what will work along Western Ave . need to occur,
and I hope to work with you and others to build a better footprint for private development.
Also -in Section 4.2. B it says "Public walkway connections between streets and buildings are required. Front doors and
entrances should be directly accessed from dedicated walkways." If the word required is not removed, we will strenuously
object to the Guidelines in its entirety.
I think it is acceptable to remove the work "required ." This is more or less a tool used to force developers to provide
adequate access from public ways to private properties, but the work is not necessary for this document.
5) The Ugly Rolling Hills Riviera Wall
Section 4.3 regarding the privately owned walls along Western is a sticky topic in our HOA. For 25 years our directors
have tried many approaches to resolve this issue. At one time we suggested the City adopt policy that requires a uniform
wall design along all major arterials throughout the City. That way, any time a wall is replaced, it needs to adhere to a
specific design and appearance. Right now, every homeowner does their own thing and we get a hodge-podge of
walls/fences. While we are happy this topic is addressed, we recommend working closely with the homeowners and the
HOA.
3 57
We actually have an item regarding arterial walls that is going before the City Council. I believe this exact item/issue is
slated to go before the City Council on February 2, 2016 (that date is tentative and could change) ... I'm not su re if Western
Ave . was included in that plan , but perhaps it should be. I copied Ara Mihranian (Deputy Community Development
Director) as he is helping out with that project.
6) More on Civic Harmony
Might we suggest that City Staff recommend to their counter-parts in Los Angeles that the need to flood the CC meeting
with pro -bike -lane speakers is a really bad idea. The CC hearing should be an opportunity for RPV residents to interact
with their elected officials and city staff. It is not right or proper to drown out our voices -we are few compared to their
many.
Thank you,
Pete and Jeanne Lacombe
2052 Galerita Drive
(Rolling Hills Riviera HOA)
4 58
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Leza,
MARK VAN PATTEN <MVPRPV@COX.NET>
Saturday, December 05, 2015 3:09 PM
Leza Mikhail
Western Ave. Design comment
I vote for no bike lanes on western but rather put them on gaffey.
This is due to proposed ~soo new housing units at ponte vista which will greatly increase current excessive traffic
congestion.
Thus, I recommend no street parking as proposed but rather include a third lane for north/south car traffic.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Merry Christmas,
Michelle Van Patten
1 59
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ralph Appy <r.appy@cox.net>
Monday, November 30, 2015 4:34 PM
Leza Mikhail
Western Avenue Vision Plan
I am providing the following comment on the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
I am an RPV resident and live adjacent to Western Avenue. I use the corridor in my vehicle and I am also a bicycle rider.
You are aware of the traffic problems visited on Western Avenue, especially when school is letting out in the afternoon
and in afternoons in general. Any improvements to traffic flow would be welcome, including removal of parking and
expansion of middle lanes for left and right turners.
As a bicycle rider, I presently avoid riding on western at all costs. There is no lane for bicycles even though a number of
cross streets do have lanes (e.g. Capitol & Western) installed by the City of Los Angeles. I presently will go miles and
lots of elevation out of the way to avoid Western Avenue. Unfortunately, Western is really the main/only thoroughfare
running from PV Drive North to the coast and is used pretty heavily by bike riders ... especially on the weekends. As you
are aware, the problem along this corridor is a combination of the speed of traffic, no bike lane and most importantly,
parking along the street.
Therefore, I strongly support your planned improvements that include a removal of parking and addition of a bike lane.
I have heard a lot of negative comments from this side of town ... just like LA got on their addition of bike lanes to
Westmont, and I am certain you have read the editorials. I hope you realize that most of these comments are from folks
that are misinformed or just cranky and don't like change. By the way, contrary to comments made in the paper, I do
have a car, pay taxes and would like some of those taxes used on a bike lane. Also, while I don't have insurance
specifically for my bike, I do have my funeral expense covered by my retirement benefits!
So please implement the improvements sooner rather then later.
Of course the big problem will be for LA/Caltrans to do the same between Summerland and 25th Street/PV Drive (West).
By the way, Hesse Park is just too far away to be having meetings on a project on this side of town. But maybe it will
avoid having the negative folks show up.
Thank you
Ralph Appy, Ph.D.
28615 Mt. Whitney Way
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1 60
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Phillip Taylor <philliprtaylor@me.com>
Monday, November 23, 2015 3:08 PM
Leza Mikhail
Phillip Taylor
Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy
Dear Leza Mikhail, Project Planner,
As a resident of RPV, and one who live on the east side in the Western Avenue vicinity, I applaud the
enhancements proposed on Western from PV Drive North to Summerland.
Maintaining existing car lanes and their current width AND creating bicycle lanes is a great prospect. I believe
that there is ample off-street parking such that this will not hamper parkers, and will likely be without impact to
traffic flow. Great plan. I wish that Western from Summerland to its southern terminus would also have
continuous bike lane.
Sincerely,
Phillip Taylor
philliprtaylor@me.com
6424 Via Colinta, RPV 90275
1 61
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Bonnie Christensen <bonbon90731@gmail.com>
Saturday, November 21, 2015 8:20 PM
Leza Mikhail
Subject: Fwd: Western Avenue Enhancement
I most certainly agree Ann Christensen with regard to postponing the December 15 th meeting. The Dr. Gerald
F elando and wife!! To not do it would show how much the Western A venue Enhancement committee want to
keep everything secret from the community!
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ann Christensen <spdolphinlady@me.com>
Date: November 20, 2015 at 9:21:14 AM PST
To: Christensen Bonnie <bonbon90731@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Western Avenue Enhancement
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Date: November 20, 2015 at 9:08:08 AM PST
To: Ann Christensen <spdolphinlady@me.com>
Subject: Re: Western Avenue Enhancement
Hello Ann,
I am so sorry that you drove down to the meeting on Tuesday evening. We were
not able to send paper notices out again in time to inform the public that the item
was pushed to December 15th. Given that the Strategy was just recently posted
for the public's review, combined with the fact that a lengthy item (Green Hills)
was expected to take many hours, Staff felt it was best to push the item back. This
allows the public to have more time to digest the new Strategy and give more
input (written or verbal). It also relieved the public from having to sit through a
City Council meeting until 10/11 PM before the new Strategy could be heard.
I did send a listserve out to those who signed up for it (email notification) letting
them know it was postponed. I also put notice on the City's website that the
meeting will be December 15th. I do apologize for the inconvenience. It was out
of my hands. But I do encourage you to write in your thoughts about the new
Strategy if you cannot make it on December 15th. I would also like to discuss the
new Strategy with you. I have found that there seems to be some
misunderstandings about the reality of the document, and many people feel better
once they talk to me and open up a dialogue on how the document works, but I
1 62
leave that up to you and your comfort level.
Please let me know if I can help in any way. I will be back in the office on
Monday. My phone number is (310) 544-5228
Thank you,
Leza
Sent using OW A for iPhone
From: Ann Christensen <spdolphinlady@me.com>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 7:23:12 AM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement
I was very dismayed Tuesday, November 17 when I drove all the way up for the
meeting only to find out that the Western Avenue Enhancement was postponed
until the December meeting. I am triply dismayed to find out that the meeting is
December 15, 2015. This is the same date as a Republican debate and in the
middle of the Christmas season. Does this change in date means that you really
don't want public input and comment? I would suggest and I'm asking that this
meeting be postponed yet again to the January meeting and that the public be
alerted so that everyone knows of the meeting date. Thanking you in advance
Ann Christensen
28612 Friarstone Ct
Rancho Palos Verdes California
Sent from my iPad
2 63
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom it May Concern:
ralph.n<ralph.n@cox.net>
Monday, November 16, 2015 11:03 AM
Leza Mikhail
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN GUIDELINES
I think the proposal is completely unnecessary.
You are taking an existing road and turning it into something that is not needed. And make it worse then it is
today.
The bicycle lane is crazy.
If you propose to take away the parking, it should be turned into a 3rd lane to accommodate the existing traffic.
With the additional of Point Vincent'e off western, it will turn this road into a traffic congested area especially
in the morning and evening hours.
If the intent is to spend money, do it on something that will benefit the area, not on bicycle lanes which serve
no useful purpose except for those riding
bicycles of which there are few. One should examine the roads that have been converted and the mess they are
in today.
My vote will be to do something constructive or leave a working condition alone, not make it worse.
Input from a concerned citizen.
FREE Animations for your email
1 64
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Saturday, November 14, 2015 6:18 AM
Leza Mikhail
Gabriella Yap
Fwd: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western
Avenue Enhancement update plan.
Hi Leza ..... I now see the enhancement revisions. At first glance, it seemed to me it was all the same
stuff. But now I see the steps in the process have changed or enhanced nothing much else.
Just to be clear, there is no need to respond to my earlier Nov. 13th message below. Thanks-April
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green
Hills appeal and Western Avenue Enhancement update plan.
Date: November 13, 2015 5:37:10 PM PST
To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
Hi Leza,
Thank you for the follow-up. I received the email update as well as a "courtesy" notice via mail
. I did a quick reviewed the update Enhancement strategy on line but could find the "revisions"
in the document. So, my only question at this time is what page or pages in the document list
the revisions?
April
On Nov 13, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello April,
I hope you are well. I wanted to make sure that I let you know that Western Avenue
Enhancement Strategy was moved to the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting.
There will not be any discussion of the Strategy on Tuesday, November 17, 2015. We
moved the item to December 15th due to a larger item that is on next Tuesday's Agenda
and is anticipated to be 2-3 hours in length. We also felt it would be beneficial for the
public to have more time to review the revised document that is now available on the
City's website.
1 65
Let me know if you have any questions between now and December 15th that you would
like to discuss.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
<image002.png>City oj!J(anclio <PaCos 'Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm
(310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpvca.gov
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:37 AM
To: Gabriella Yap
Cc: CC
Subject: Fwd: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and
Western Avenue Enhancement update plan.
Ms. Yap,
Below are my responding comments to the Nov. 17, 2015 public hearing . Please
include my comments with all other public correspondence for the official record
as well as public review.
Thank you and please respond with a quick confirmation you received this
email. (note': I should have sent below message to you and cc'd the council
members in the first place.) Thanks again.-April L. Sandell
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Subject: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting
Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western
Avenue Enhancement update plan.
Date: November 12, 2015 8:26:25 AM PST
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
2 66
The staff report regarding Western Ave.
agenda is not available at this time. I have
previously scheduled plans for tomorrow
and the weekend so I submit to you my most
likely incomplete comments today.
1) The Western Ave Enhancement plan
could impose a significant negative impact
on my property interests. As you may
recall, I wrote to you earlier regarding
property title issues (seemingly
unmarketable title to date) as well as a
separate matter regarding lack of pubic
notice to me having to do with the same
Western A venue (Fences, walls ordinance )
and my backyard, so to speak.
That said, I urge the council to oppose this
latest "enhancement " plan for Wes tern
Avenue.
(Note: I could share endless supporting
documents but I don't care to waste my time
or yours explaining to you something you
already know or should know. )
2) Green Hills appeal agenda item. It
appears the Vista Verde property owners
due process rights were denied from the get
go.
Two or threes days ago I visited with Vista
Verde property owners. It's unbelievable
what the city has permitted or allowed to
have happened. So, you might imagine the
3 67
distrust I feel regarding Western Ave. so
called enhancements.
Moreover, the Green Hills appeal appears to
include Master plan updates that could
impact other Rolling Hills Riviera property
owners as well, so I hope these residents
have received notice of the Nov. 17th
meeting. If I am wrong about that please
don't hesitate to set me straight on what
seems Master Plans issues mixed within the
appeals process regarding but not limited to
after the fact variance, moratoriums,
property rights of both Green Hills and Vista
Verde residents etc.
I can't help but point out the laughable big
picture here. For crying out loud,
a MAUSOLEUM was built and no one
noticed any code violations? Unbelievable.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Regards,
April L. Sandell
4 68
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI RE: Western Avenue
Kit Fox, AICP
Citl) of Rancho P cilos V crdes
(310) 544 ... 5226
kitf@rpvca . .gov
Kit Fox
Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:32 AM
Leza Mikhail; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
FW: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western
Avenue Enhancement update plan.
WE ARE !N PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM KITF@RPV.COM TO KITF@RPVCA.GOV.
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:26 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western Avenue Enhancement update
plan.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The staff report regarding Western Ave. agenda is not available at this
time. I have previously scheduled plans for tomorrow and the weekend so
I submit to you my most likely incomplete comments today.
1) The Western Ave Enhancement plan could impose a significant
negative impact on my property interests. As you may recall, I wrote to
you earlier regarding property title issues (seemingly unmarketable title to
date) as well as a separate matter regarding lack of pubic notice to me
having to do with the same Western A venue (Fences, walls ordinance )
and my backyard, so to speak.
That said, I urge the council to oppose this latest "enhancement" plan
for Western Avenue.
1 69
(Note: I could share endless supporting documents but I don't care to
waste my time or yours explaining to you something you already know or
should know. )
2) Green Hills appeal agenda item. It appears the Vista Verde property
owners due process rights were denied from the get go.
Two or threes days ago I visited with Vista Verde property owners. It's
unbelievable what the city has permitted or allowed to have happened. So,
you might imagine the distrust I feel regarding Western Ave. so called
enhancements.
Moreover, the Green Hills appeal appears to include Master plan updates
that could impact other Rolling Hills Riviera property owners as well, so I
hope these residents have received notice of the Nov. 17th meeting. If I
am wrong about that please don't hesitate to set me straight on what seems
Master Plans issues mixed within the appeals process regarding but not
limited to after the fact variance, moratoriums, property rights of both
Green Hills and Vista Verde residents etc.
I can't help but point out the laughable big picture here. For crying out
loud, a MAUSOLEUM was built and no one noticed any code
violations? Unbelievable.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Regards,
April L. Sandell
2 70
Public Correspondence
Preceding Revised Document
(prior to September 2015)
71
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI
Kit Fox, AICP
Cih] dRanchoPalos Verdes
(310)544-5226
kit£@rpvca.e,ov
Kit Fox
Monday, September 14, 2015 7:29 AM
Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Leza Mikhail
FW: November 17th Council meeting - a fiasco in the making
WE ARE !N PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM KITF@RPV.COM TO KITF@RPVCA.GOV.
From: Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 5:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: November 17th Council meeting - a fiasco in the making
Hello City Council Members,
We suggest that the full council discuss at an upcoming council meeting procedures that will be
followed for the Nov 17th council meeting in which a vote on the Western Avenue Design
Implementation Guidelines shall be discussed.
We are concerned that Mayor Knight and City Manager Doug Wilmore have taken it upon themselves
to advocate for the residents of Los Angeles at the expense of RPV residents in this very important
matter.
We witnessed that first hand at the August 11th RPV Planning Commission meeting where Mayor
Knight, et al, got over two hours to advocate for the desires of Councilman Buscaino then left without
listening to 18 minutes of objections from the 6 residents of RPV who received the allotted 3 minutes
to speak.
A week ago, the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission sent out an all-points-bulletin to the
residents of Los Angeles encouraging them to show up at the Nov 17th meeting to bully the RPV
Council into voting in favor of these really bad planning guidelines. We expect the meeting will be
packed with Mayor Knight's Los Angeles supporters and the RPV residents will be (once again)
unheard.
We are very concerned that Mayor Knight and Manager Wilmore will organize the meeting (much like
the Planning Commission Meeting in August) to allow advocates from Los Angeles to get the bully
pulpit and the RPV voters will be once again be ignored.
1 72
We'll be watching the agenda over the next few weeks. We are certain that most on the RPV City
Council remember who elected them and will make sure that the Nov 17th meeting doesn't turn into a
another disrespectful circus.
Thank you,
Pete and Jeanne Lacombe
Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association
2 73
Leza Mikhail
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent:
To:
Monday, August 31, 2015 5:48 PM
momofyago
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
Hello Sharon,
Below is a link to the August 11, 2015 PC Staff Report. The public correspondence is attached to the Staff Report. It is a
large document, so it may take some time to download.
httr;i;LLrgv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.QhQ ?view id:::5&cliQ ido:::2196&meta id=15566
Below is a link to the Western Ave. Vision Plan Webpage. You can also find additional information here, including the
March 14, 2015 Open House.
http://www.rpvca.gov/403/Western-Avenue-Vision-Plan
Let me know if you have any further questions. I would be happy to help you locate the information you are seeking.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
L. City of <R..,ancno <Pa Cos o/erd'es
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpvca.gov
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is "(q)rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect lezam@rpvca.gov as my new email.
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 11:56 AM
To: momofyago
Cc: Leza Mikhail
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
Sharon
All public comments we have received are probably already on the website. I'll ask Senior Planner Leza Mikhail to
provide you with the links to the information. A predominance of the public comments from RPV residents are in
opposition to the Draft Guidelines.
1 74
Joel
From: momofyago [mallto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:27 AM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
Joel,
Please forward to me all communications the city has received from RPV residents in support of this project.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smmiphone
--------Original message --------
From: Joel Rojas <JoclR<@111y9_n,gqy>
Date: 08/31/2015 9:18 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: momofyago <momofvago({i),gmaiLcom>
Cc: Leza Mikhail <lc:~?:£t.M@.mys;~,gQy>, Doug Willmore <JJ\YiUP.:!9I9.@Jm~'.9J),gQ~~>
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
Sharon
No one is pushing the project. Staff is simply doing what the Council authorized us to do on May 21, 2013 when it
authorized us to file a joint application with the City of LA to obtain consultant services for the development of design
guidelines for the Western Avenue Corridor. The Draft Guidelines have been developed and are now being presented to
the public for input before they are presented to the City Council for approval.
Public input from RPV and LA residents on the Draft Guidelines is being received as the Draft Guidelines have been
presented to the RPV Traffic Safety Committee and Planning Commission (twice) as well as the City Of LA Neighborhood
Councils and Harbor Area Planning Commission. To make sure RPV residents are aware of the Draft Guidelines, al! RPV
Eastview residents (about 3,000 households) have received courtesy notices in advance of both PC hearings and will
received additional notice in advance of the City Council meeting.
As part of the ongoing public input process, we are all seeing that there are RPV residents that are not in support of
various components of the Draft Guidelines. We will certainly let the City Council be aware of this when the Draft
Guidelines are presented to them in November.
Joel
From: momofyago [mallto:rnomofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
So it's Knight, Willmore, staff and LA pushing it, not the Council or residents.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
2 75
--------Original message --------
From: Joel Rojas <JoelR(q~rpvca.gov>
Date: 08/28/2015 3:32 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: momofyago <p:\QnJQJYJ:t.gQ{q)gi.:m1U,s.:.9J.n>
Cc: Leza Mikhail<
3 76
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sharon,
Doug Willmore
Monday, August 31, 2015 9:45 AM
Joel Rojas; momofyago
Leza Mikhail
RE: Western Avenue
Frankly, I don't really have any significant care about the project, other than giving professional advice. My job is to give
professional advice and recommendations to the City Council. And then to implement their policy directives efficiently
and effectively.
My professional advice is that the traffic improvements that residents want on Western are not going to happen unless
bike lanes are included as part of the improvements. We own a relatively small piece of Western and whatever traffic
flow improvements we implement have to be coordinated and aligned with the City of LA and CalTrans. We can't just do
what we want. It has to be done in partnership.
Residents tell me, "we don't want bike lanes, we want traffic flow improvements." I get it. However, my response is,
"There won't be any traffic flow improvements without bike lanes. The City of LA will not invest money in that project
without bike lanes." If the City Council told me no bike lanes no matter what, I'm totally fine with it. We have plenty to
do, and we will move on to other projects and pretty much leave the traffic flow on Western as it is. I just want to make
sure that the Council knows how very unlikely it is that there will be any traffic flow improvements on Western in that
case.
Doug
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 9:18 AM
To: momofyago
Cc: Leza Mikhail; Doug Willmore
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
Sharon
No one is pushing the project. Staff is simply doing what the Council authorized us to do on May 21, 2013 when it
authorized us to file a joint application with the City of LA to obtain consultant services for the development of design
guidelines for the Western Avenue Corridor. The Draft Guidelines have been developed and are now being presented to
the public for input before they are presented to the City Council for approval.
Public input from RPV and LA residents on the Draft Guidelines is being received as the Draft Guidelines have been
presented to the RPV Traffic Safety Committee and Planning Commission (twice) as well as the City Of LA Neighborhood
Councils and Harbor Area Planning Commission. To make sure RPV residents are aware of the Draft Guidelines, all RPV
Eastview residents (about 3,000 households) have received courtesy notices in advance of both PC hearings and will
received additional notice in advance of the City Council meeting.
As part of the ongoing public input process, we are all seeing that there are RPV residents that are not in support of
various components of the Draft Guidelines. We will certainly let the City Council be aware of this when the Draft
Guidelines are presented to them in November.
1 77
Joel
From: momofyago [mailto:momofyago@grnail.con1J
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
So it's Knight, Willmore, staff and LA pushing it, not the Council or residents.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphonc
--------Original message --------
From: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rlTI:'..ca.gov>
Date: 08/28/2015 3:32 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: momofyago <n:J91IlQIY.iJ.KQ(f{Jgn:rniJ.&QIJl>
Cc: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>, Doug Willmore <DWiUmorc(cvrpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Western Avenue
Sharon
There is no one entity pushing this project. City staff is simply working in conjunction with the City of LA Staff to deliver a
Proposed Western Avenue Guidelines Document to our City Council as intended when the City Council approved of us
going forward with the grant application for this project on May 21, 2013.
With regards to your question as to why the item was brought back to the PC on August 11 after they had already
chimed in on it in April, the answer is in the August 11 PC Staff Report. It states as follows:
On June 15, 2015, RPV Mayor Jim Knight, the City Manager and City Staff met at LA
Councilman Buscaino's office to discuss the status of the multi-jurisdictional partnership for the Guidelines. As
a result of that meeting, and with the news of extension of the SCAG grant, a new coordinated review process
was created to move forward. Given the time extension, the Mayor and Staff agreed to take the Guidelines to
the RPV Traffic Safety Commission for input, to obtain input on the Guidelines from the San Pedro
Neighborhood Council Boards and City of L.A.'s Harbor Area Planning Commission and to present this
additional input to the Planning Commission before presenting the Guidelines to the City Council. This would
allow the City's Traffic Safety Committee the opportunity to opine on the traffic safety aspect of the plan, and
would allow the City of LA the opportunity to present its endorsement of the existing plan and partnership to the
City's Planning Commission.
Joel
2 78
From: momofyago [ m.?lJ!Q; m.QmQ.fY..<;i.gQ.@KD.J .. ~llJ.,.fgmJ
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:08 AM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: Western Avenue
Hi Joel,
So please tell me who is pushing this project forward and who put it on the PC agenda for this past Tuesday's
meeting?
Sharon
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
3 79
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leza Mikhail
Monday, August 17, 2015 9:13 AM
Jeannine/Jae Etcheverry Uaeseal@sbcglobal.net)
RE: Western Avenue input
Hello Jeannine,
Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include in the public record and correspondence that goes before the
City Council.
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
L City of <J\,ancfio <Pafos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpvca.gov
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is "@rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect lezam@rpvca.gov as my new email.
From: Jeannine/Jae Etcheverry <jaeseal@sbcglobal.net>
Date: August 13, 2015 at 3:15:45 PM PDT
To: "aram@RPVCA.gov" <aram@RPVCA.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue input
Reply-To: Jeannine/Jae Etcheverry <jaeseal@sbcglobal.net>
Dar Ara,
I watched the lengthy Planning Comm. meeting on TV last evening
and I have a couple of comments I would like to pass
along. Hopefully these will be entered in with the rest of the
materials.
I live at the Eastview Townhouse on the corner of Summerland
Ave., and Western Ave. at 29641 So. Western Ave.,Unit #313 ... RPV
90275
At the meeting last night several of the commissioners mentioned
that they don't drive Western too often so that the parking
along both sides of the street could be eliminated. I agree but
the one thing right now is that the RPV (western side) has
barely any cars parked on the street. And what are parked there
1 80
are patrolled very well by the Sheriff Dept. While the eastern
side of Western is like a used car lot. From Crestwood Street
north along to signal at the bottom of hill. There are any
where from 5 to 6 cars daily that are brought into that area
from a used car dealer over in Wilmington. Most of the For Sale
signs have the same phone number on them. They change cars
every 4-5 days but still are a big problem if you are trying to
get north on Western at that point. I have even asked several
LAPD officers why they are allowed to park there with For Sale
signs on them and my answers has been many. None that they are
being ticketed.
Other than the condo building at the bottom of the hill any
other cars can easily be parked in the business lots and the
condos should have assigned parking in their complexes.
Also, the Speed Limit from lstt street to just at the cemetery
signal is 35 MPH and then changes to 45 MPH. I feel that some
of the commissioners need to spend some time down in this area
observing the traffic.
As far as bike lanes, on Westmont from the time they were placed
until today when I again drove it, I have only seen one biker
and he was obviously a tourist as he had a back pack on the a
bed roll on the back carrier of his bike. I agree that there are
too many cut outs along the curbs especially from Toscanni to
Delasonde. Into the old Albertson's it self there are 3. Better
1 large one and take out 2.
I used to live in the Rolling Hills Rivera and even then we
didn't want more traffic on Western, especially when school at
Dodson is in session. And if the gate for Mary Star of the Sea
is opened again across from the cemetery gate when school starts
next week. What a mess.
Thank you for your time to read this and I hope that the Council
will take into consideration all the points that the speakers
brought forward last night.
As for being able to work with a large city like LA, I hope that
RPV continues to hold on and not be pressured to do some of the
ways of a big city.
Sincerely,
Jeannine Etchevrry, 310-832-3755
2 81
Leza Mikhail
,:rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leza Mikhail
Project Planner
Marlene and John Cuomo <mandjcuomo@cox.net>
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 2:19 PM
Leza Mikhail
Western Avenue Project
RE: Western Avenue Project "Option D"
I have lived in Mira Costa Terrace since 1968 (off Caddington Drive and Western Avenue). Since
Caddington is the access to Western to get from point A to point B I am very concerned about the
plans being considered for improvement. In my opinion there needs to be a traffic analysis done
(the one that was done many years ago does not reflect the traffic congestion today. Traffic will
only get worse if the old Ponte Vista sight is developed (proposed 500 homes has come to a halt)
no one seems to know why.
I agree that they must maintain existing curb to curb dimensions and travel widths, but strongly am
against a cycle tract on one side of the street. The lights still have to be timed so traffic flows
etter. On Caddingtion (waiting to make a left turn) traffic can back up 12 or more cars and you
won't make the light.
More than once I have seen emergency vehicles stuck in traffic because cars cannot pull over to the
right due to the congestion, and that should concern everyone in the city.
Marlene Cuomo
rnand jcuomo(ii),cox.net
1
82
Leza Mikhail
rrom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Sevenfrkas <sevenfrkas@aol.com>
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:18 AM
Leza Mikhail; PC; CC
No bike lanes for Western Avenuw
(
Please do not even consider putting a bike lane on Western Avenue! Western is already too crowded and very difficult to
navigate. Taking away lanes for cars will only add to commute time, stress, pollution, and road rage. It will increase
accidents and incidents. Please remember the greater good. Our community is not one for biking to work, school,
shopping, extra activities. We are a commuter community; do not force a square peg in a round hole. PLEASE do NOT
inconvenience the lives of many for a few joy riders on a bike. Every time I drive on Westmont or Capitol, I do not see a
bike rider, yet the traffic and inconvenience those bike lanes have caused are great.
NO BIKE LANES FOR WESTERN AVENUE!
Thank you,
Lisa and Mike Frka and family
2029 Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
83
Mr. & Mrs. R.D. Sandell
28026 Pontevedra Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
August 10, 2015
Re: RPV City Planning Commission/PC Meeting August 11, 2015
Attention: Planning Commissioners
f
This correspondence will serve as my response to the RPV City "Official Public Notice"/"
Courtesy Notice" dated August 5, 2015.
In 1976 we purchased our property lot #70, more commonly known as 28026 Pontevedra
Drive. About 20 years later, in or around 1993 property matters eventually gave rise to
our present day awareness of outstanding questions of ownership interests, legal
description, easements, right of ways and other stuff.
Until such time the above mentioned title issues are legally determined the property is
unmarketable.
At this point, I can only hope you are committed to protecting RPV residential property
owners rights within the scope of economic redevelopment/revitalization involving
Western Avenue as well as the City of Los Angeles.
Thank you for your time and attention.
cc RPV City Council
84
Leza Mikhail
.·rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi L,
Vholmesll@aol.com
Monday, August 10, 2015 10:44 PM
Leza Mikhail
no more bike lanes
No more bike lanes. traffic is slow enough. I never see anyone use them.
Vivian Holmes
26902 circle Verde drive
rpv 90275
1
~'
85
Leza Mikhail
.-rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms Mikhail,
Pat Akins <pfakins@yahoo.com>
Monday, August 10, 2015 11:06 PM
Leza Mikhail
Western Ave. Corridor Design
I am not able to attend the meeting regarding the Western Ave Corridor Design, but I
would like to express my opinion on the proposal.
As an RPV resident who has to exit onto Western Ave at an intersection where there is no
traffic light to get out of my tract, it is far more important to me that the flow of traffic be
considered the priority in any change to Western Ave rather than beautification of the
corridor, moving buildings for aesthetic purposes or especially, losing traffic lanes to bike
lanes.
Sincerely,
Patricia Akins
26911 Lunada Circle
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
86
Leza Mikhail
.. rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Richard Wagoner
Sent: 8/9/2015 10:40 PM
To: PC
Subject: Western Avenue Plan
Joel Rojas
Monday, August 10, 2015 7:43 AM
Leza Mikhail
FW: Western Avenue Plan
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am unable to attend the meeting this Tuesday, August l l, 2015.
The comment I wish to make is in regard to traffic. Whatever plan you decide to support, please remember the promise you made at
the previous public meeting in which you stated that you would not support any plan that impedes traffic.
Any plan that includes taking any of the traffic lanes and turning them into shared bike lanes or in any way reduces the number of
'1nes in either direction must be rejected.
I also hope that you continue to make Western fit into the culture ofRPV and not make it a trendy area; trends have a way of running
their course and you are left with a declining area. Long Beach is going through that right now as they made multiple "destinations" in
and around Pine Avenue; now Pine itself is in trouble. Do not make Western an experiment. Do not let those who don't live here and
never visit determine our destiny.
Thank you,
Richard Wagoner
2026 Delasonde Drive
RPV, CA 90275
310-874-1995
1
87
Leza Mikhail
.-rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Mikhil;
IAN TOBER <jitian@verizon.net>
Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:09 PM
Leza Mikhail
Western Avenue
Jean and Ian Tober of 2062 Redondela Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, strongly object to any change to Western Ave
that would (a) reduce traffic lanes, or (b) add to the congestion. Western Ave is not a destination, it's a vital artery
through San Pedro.
As for considering the addition of a bike corridor, WHY?. Has the City and the Planning Commission totally lost sight
of reality? Have any members of the City Council or the Planning Commission traveled along Western Ave south
from PV Drive between 2PM and 6 PM on any week day?
If you really want to improve traffic flow, how about synchronizing the traffic lights!
Is this is what the City wastes on Property tax on?
Regards,
Ian P. Tober
1
88
Leza Mikhail
rrom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
Laurie Nelson <rpvnelson@yahoo.com>
Monday, August 10, 2015 9:04 PM
Leza Mikhail; CC; PC
Western Avenue Corridor
lam writing to all of you in regatds to these plans of Western Avenue. Our family has lived on Entosc Avenue (off
of Caddington) since 1995. Over the years the population has gtown and obviously the amount of traffic.
As you know, there arc three main artetics with N /S stJ'eets into and out of San Pedro. There is one main street
IV\'\! 25th St/P .V. Drive South that goes in and out of San Pedro. We are very limited. Reviewing information on
the internet, 94. 1 'Yo commuters travel alone in their car in out area going to work. There is a population of 86,000
people in San Pedro and 12,276 in the East side of Rancho Palos Verdes. These arc older figures than cunent
reality. 'Then of course \Ve have vendors, UPS, Fed Ex, and all of the other cars entering into our area every day.
Once Ponte Vista is complete, there will be 600+ more residents traveling on \'V'est:em Avenue. Mind you, when
there is a funeral, there can be hundreds of cars entering and exiting Green Hills Cemetaty -directly across the
street from Ponte Vista.
It is all ready frustrating dealing with the traffic that exists on Western .Avenue. Ii:specially when schools let out and
people going and coming back from work traffic is bumper to bumper. Los Angeles installing the bike lanes on
\Vestmont and Capitol have reduced lanes and has backed up school traffic.
There has been a traffic study done several years ago for Ponte Vista but I do not: believe that one has been
completed for this project. \X!e all know that just since the traffic study has been done for Ponte Vista, the traffic
has increased. Residents arc all ready dreading the Ponte Vista project being built, and now this "Vision" has been
continuing to exist. Why would we want bike lanes to reduce lanes or room for lanes when our road is all ready
congested?
'fhe photos used in the "Vision" packet appear to be from many, many years ago on Western Avenue. There is no
traffic showing in the pictures. \'{!here and when were these from???
Now Haggens, who took over Albertson's, has scared away many old costumers and they are moving South to
other Rtores. Therefore, there are even more people driving South to save money.
While I appreciate that the city finally seems to care what we look like over here, spending money on such items
seems ill conceived. In addition, the construction that we all would have to endure would also be a nightmare. Over
the ycats there have been drainage ptoblems, replacement of cables, sinkholes, and I could go on and on. All
89
causing traffic issues and those at:e just maintenance issues to make the .toad useablc. 'l'he residents will also have to
live with years of effects of construction for Ponte Vista.
It would be possible to continue with mote concerns, but I do hope that you see that there is no support from out
family for this project to continue.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call ot email me. Thank you for taking the time to i:eview my
lcttei:.
Sincerely,
Lautie Nelson
t:pvnelson@yahoo.com
(310) 833-4710 home
2
90
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:46 PM
Nicole Jules; Leza Mikhail
Cc: Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: Western Ave. guidelines
thanks
From: Nicole Jules
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:30 PM
To: Leza Mikhail
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject: FW: Western Ave. guidelines
FYI
Nicole
Department of Public Works
310-544-5275
From: Lacombe Lmi!.iJJg:s:J19t~.stU41,J5_@_<!!.tc.r1~:U
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 1:55 PM
To: Nicole Jules <I~Hf9!.~)@.rP.Yf£J.,gQy>
Subject: Re: Western Ave. guidelines
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for the information.
The direction from the Planning Commission was for the consultant to go back and re-do the plans for an option D that
leaves all the buildings and parking lots where they are and provide options for increasing traffic flow because Western
Ave is not a "destination" but a thoroughfare. There was a large audience at that meeting with a number of speakers that
all rejected the plan from the consultant for the PC to consider.
I thought the purpose of these guidelines were to provide for a plan with set designs that can begin to be incorporated
now and later on to provide for a cohesive and much improved aesthetic appearance to Western Ave and the businesses
along the street. What a great opportunity this could have been! These guidelines however, provide no direction, no plan,
no theme, no direction for appearance, or details for anything. If anyone can look at these guidelines and tell me what
signs along Western are supposed to look like and if they should have up lighting, what font they should be in and have
min and max size requirements etc. then let me know where that info is, because I can't find anything like that. So
basically a fancy looking document that says we should have better lighting and signage. Wow, no kidding. After the PC
meeting, the consultant got so personally offended that he is now refusing to include anything beyond the sidewalk in the
guidelines. However, he still likes to keep his photos in the guidelines of all the business fronts right on the sidewalk like
he wants! Such a shame that so much money was wasted and so much time is being wasted to thwart a disaster.
I don't think the TSC bothered to view the video of the PC meeting or take the PC recommendations into
consideration. What the TSC voted on was to impede traffic flow. I don't believe there can be any logical practical
discussion points that would have lead to this decision so I won't bother you with a phone call. I wonder how many
members of the TSC live or work along Western. My guess is zero.
1 91
Again, Thanks so much for getting back to me so quickly.
Jeanne
From: Nicole Jules
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:38 PM
To: 1S!G_QmQ~
Subject: RE: Western Ave. guidelines
Hi Jeanne,
The public notice for the TSC meeting was posted at City Hall and distributed to the TSC Listserve and the Western
Avenue Listserve recipients. Attached is a copy of the listserve announcement.
However, according to Leza in the Community Development Department, courtesy notices will be sent in the mail when
the Western Avenue Guidelines will be considered by the Planning Corn mission on August 111h and subsequently by the
City Council.
In regards to the TSC, the committee focused on the right-of-way improvements and the safety associated with cyclists
and vehicular traffic Ultimately, they voted to support Option A (so long as sharrows are used) as the preferred Option
and Option Bas their second preferred option. If you are interested in the discussion behind the decision, feel free to
call me. The meeting minutes will not be available until later in the month.
! hope this helps.
Nicole
Department of Public Works
310-544-5275
From: Lacombe [mai!to:chateau4us@att.n~et]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 1:39 PM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@.JJ2yca.gg"y:>
Subject: Western Ave. guidelines
Recently there was a vote by the Traffic and Safety committee that approved one of the options of the guidelines for
Western Avenue.
Can you please send me the public notice of this meeting that was sent out to Western Ave. stakeholders for notification
of this meeting and potential vote of approval? Also please let me know what date it was mailed.
Thanks
Jeanne Lacombe
(310) 833-0444
2 92
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:46 PM
Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: From Nelson: Old Western Ave Emails
Fyi
From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:50:15 PM
To: Nicole Jules
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: From Nelson: Old Western Ave Emails
Nicole, copy Joel
Not for distribution outside those addressed.
Sorry to bother you again. Am sending you this exchange since you were copied by Joel in his June 5th email and,
therefore, already know all of this and I see no problem in repeating emails you have. I am not sending it outside you and
Joel, rather I think all of us got caught off guard by an overeager consultant. Should put the nail in the coffin of any PC
approval of two-way bike lanes (or any bike lanes). Would appreciate all of us trying to be sure whatever becomes the
Western Ave Staff Report for Aug 11th's PC meeting is right on!
Also, fyi, pg 2 of last night's staff report says Option 'D' is 'streetscapes' only, no bike lanes -as I read it. Sorry I didn't
catch that.
No need for either you or Joel to respond. I'm in favor of staying under public radar, just getting it right.
Bob Nelson
-----Original Message-----
From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com>
To: joelr <joelr@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sun, Jun 7, 2015 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Our Western Ave Email Exchanges
Joel,
Got your comments. I am going to relax and not make a mountain out of a molehill on this. But ...
1. There are roughly 10 pages of Commissioner comments on Western in our 4/28/15 Minutes.
2. I specifically asked Julie Peterson pay particular attention to the accuracy of these Minutes as we did not approve any
suggested alternative, rather approved one by a Commissioner. Julie did that.
3. I am certain that if pushed, some Commissioners would say we approved nothing, but I would disagree. There was a
motion made and passed. The statement of work for our Commission was to 'comment' on the 2nd revision to the
Western Ave Vision I Design Plan and 3 options. We did that.
4. Gaurav (our Consultant) I'll give the benefit of doubt in that he probably didn't have access to the motion when they
drew in that two-way bike lane and called the pamphlet 'approved by the Planning Commission.' As you acknowledge, it
was never approved by our PC and I assure you any bike enthusiast would say 'no,' Two-way bike collisions at even 10
mph equal an ambulance call.
I think the key is we were asked to comment on 3 options and, hopefully, we did that. We followed public testimony
against all 3 and, instead, voted for a 4th option. But I am prepared to go before both TSC and CC and say that 2nd
handout stating it is PC approved, is not close to what we approved and to read our approval into their Minutes.
I definitely agree with you to bring the revised Western Ave back before us on the 23rd, even if, in addition, we have the
draft revised General Plan and Land Use update to bless that evening. Relax ...
1 93
Bob Nelson
Chair, PC
310-544-4632
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov>
To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>
Cc: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Fri, Jun 5, 2015 10:20 am
Subject: RE: From Nelson re: Option D: Continued City Council Meeting for Western Ave. Design Guidelines to July 7,
2015
Bob
Yes, the PC motion that was approved is what you describe below. However, there were also discussions by
commissioners of their preferences with regards to the presented options A through C. (i.e., not 'D'). Given this feedback,
the consultant prepared an option D Streetscape scenario. You are correct that we need to be careful not to label this new
scenario as PC approved as it more PC inspired (don't agree). I will talk to Leza so we can clarify all of this, including
feedback on the two lane bike lane. Also, since it's looking like we are going to receive an extension on the grant
completion deadline, we are going to present the plan to the TSC on June 22 and possibly return the plan to the PC on
June 23 to get PC input on option D. This means the council will likely not see the plan until July. Stay tuned.
Lastly, you are correct that you cannot communicate any of this to the rest of the PC, the TSC or the CC. We'll take care
of all that.
Joel
From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:18:16 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: From Nelson re: Option D: Continued City Council Meeting for Western Ave. Design Guidelines to July 7, 2015
Joel,
Rec'd this today. Look in the new pamphlet, pigs 25 -26 for Option D -it has a two-way bike lane. Don't remember
us approving that. Rather -Option D from our 4/28 Minutes:
Planning Commission
Minutes April 28, 2015
Pg. 13-14
Western Avenue Motion:
"Commissioner Emenhiser moved not to recommend Options A, B, or C, but rather request Option D, which would include
the following components:
1 1. Seize the current unique opportunity to work with the City of Los Angeles and Cal Trans to improve the Western Avenue
corridor;
2
2. Designate Western Avenue as a thoroughfare first;
3 3. The first duty should be to ease the traffic for vehicles;
4 4. Embark on a short-term plan to improve the signage, landscaping the medians, and find ways to fund that; and
5
5. Include a longer term vision for the future of the corridor. Seconded by Commissioner Leon."
Motion passed 4-3 (for: Nelson, Cruikshank, Leon and Emenhiser; against: Gerstner, James and Tomblin)
I cannot get the video to play but I remember PC objection to two-way bike lanes because of biker safety,
danger issues. So how did two-way bike lanes become part of what is being called PC approval Option D?
It appears I cannot communicate this to either Traffic Safety, PC or CC but maybe you can check it out and, if we did not
specifically approve a two-way bike lane, get it corrected on behalf of our PC.
Bob Nelson
Chair, PC
2 94
-----Original Message-----
From: City of Rancho Palos Verdes < listserv@civicplus.com>
To: nelsongang < nelsongang@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2015 5:21 pm
Subject: Continued City Council Meeting for Western Ave. Design Guidelines to July 7, 2015
View this in your browser
Western Avenue Design Guidelines -June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting -CONTINUED TO JULY 7, 2015
The June 16, 2015 City Council meeting to consider the Western Avenue Design Guidelines wm be continued from
June 16, 2015 to July 7, 2015. The City's Consultant (AECOM) has modified the presentation to take into account
the feedback given from the Planning Commission and public at the April 28, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. In
summary, the City Council will be presented with a copy of the original design guidelines presented to the Planning
Commission on April 28, 2015, as well as a modified presentation that eliminates alterations to private properties and
focuses solely on streetscape improvements. Given a request to review the documents, the City's Traffic Safety
Committee will be reviewing the Western Ave. Design Guidelines at 7:00 pm on June 22, 2015 meeting in the City's
Community Room at City Hall.
Click here to view the modified Western Avenue Design Guidelines Option "D" (as recommended by the
Planning Commission)
Click here to view the original DRAFT Western Avenue Design Guidelines (presented to the Planning Commission
on April 28, 2015, prior to modifications made as a result of the PC's recommendations)
Click here to view the PUBLIC NOTICE for the June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting (continued to July 7, 2015).
*************************************************
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are
signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email
address. You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Western Avenue Vision Plan on www.rpvca.gov. To
unsubscribe, click the following link:
3 95
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Richard,
April Sandell <Hvybags@cox.net>
Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:40 PM
Richard Wagoner
CC; Leza Mikhail; chateau4us@att.net Lacombe; lisascotto@pacbell.net;
thedokes@sbcglobal.net doke; Rleva@sbcglobal.net; Joel Rojas;
rickgiuliano@sbcglobal.net; Wilma Hoover; luciethorsen@gmail.com; Lowell Sandell;
Pam Brungardt; Ken Delong
Re: Changes to Upcoming Meeting Dates for the Western Ave. Design Guidelines
You have wrongly assumed that my letter mentioning "most residents speaking in opposition" was meant to
be you and your "WE" at one a particular meeting. WHAT?
You know I do speak to people outside the RHRHOA boundary. Right?
Please keep in mind my correspondence was not and never would be about you and your "WE". The subject
topic is a broad public issue involving a broad number of citizens as well as related public hearings. Allow
me to reiterate, this is not all about you.
FYI-I did attend the public 'meeting' where you and others spoke. I sat right behind you and although I did not
provide public testimony at that time I heard all other's testimonies. All of which were very good and agreed
with.
I cc'd you and other interest people only to encourage a shared process. Certainly not to encourage or support a
particular Vision design of any kind. I'm interested in people's best understanding the purpose as well as the
"PROCESS"!
More complete information would then allow residents to adequately prepare in order to protect their own
individual rights, interests and property. If that is not something your personally interested in let me know
and I won't cc' you in the future.
This is not the first occasion that you have misinterpreted my words. Earlier times, I encouraged you to please
call me on the phone if you wanted to speak rather than correspond via emails. I did not hear back from you at
that time. Nonetheless, you have my number should you care to follow up.
April
On Jun 18, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Richard Wagoner <rwagoner@cox.net> wrote:
April-
1 96
With all due respect, you are wrong. We understood fine. Please don't assume we were ignorant
or stupid; we knew exactly what we were speaking of. Had you been at the meeting and heard
the testimony you would know how wrong your assessment of our understanding truly is.
You can't change a major --the only one --thoroughfare linking Western side North San Pedro
with South San Pedro and Palos Verdes into a pedestrian friendly area without majorly affecting
--crippling --the traffic pattern.
This was but one concern; we have many many more including that we refuse to accept a
buildup of buildings along the streets and sidewalks ... The very type of streetscape we moved to
this area to avoid!!! It would be unlike any other part or RPV and is nothing but the latest
rehashed building trend from an outside consultant who never visited the area before.
The big picture is : the plan is bad. It cannot continue in anything close to its current form.
Your assumption and statement that we failed to understand is frankly insulting. I do not need to
be better informed. It appears you and perhaps the city council need to understand our concerns
better before you mistakenly assume we just need more information.
And for your information, I also ride my bike often on Western.
Sincerely,
Richard Wagoner
On Jun 17, 2015, at 10:12 PM, April Sandell <Hvybags@,cox.net> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The "extension" of the SCAG grant funding will also allow further opportunity
for your staff to better inform citizens about all aspects of the issue.
Thus far, it seems to me that most residents speaking out in opposition to the
design options simply failed to understand that vehicle gas emissions will indeed
be reduced by
increasing the foot and bicycle traffic along Western Ave.
Those unfamiliar with 'smart cities' , "smart growth" , stack and pack, multi
purpose land use and re-use etc. cannot be reasonable expected to put the pieces
together in order to see
the big picture. That said, I respectfully urge the staff to now provide nothing
less than a fair and fully transparent understanding of SCAG 's interest to
fund, the cities' goals as well
2 97
as the potential impact on existing commercial and residential property owners.
Thank you for the promise to provide timely public notice via regular mail.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
Begin forwarded message:
From: "City of Rancho Palos Verdes"
<listserv@civicplus.com>
Subject: Changes to Upcoming Meeting Dates for
the Western Ave. Design Guidelines
Date: June 17, 2015 4:32:27 PM PDT
To: Hvybags@cox.net
Reply-To: listserv@civicplus.com
View this in your browser
Western Avenue Design Guidelines -June 16, 2015 City Council
Meeting -QQl'.{DJ::l.Ul;J,l_IQ .. L:\.ELll..VJ~f;JJJ:JKNOWN DA1_f; -please
see below for additional information on upcoming public meetings.
Consideration of the Western Avenue Design Guidelines by the
RPV City Council was continued from the June 16, 2015 City
Council meeting to a future, unknown date. The City will provide
public notice of the date of the City Council meeting once
determined. As background to the recent history of this visionary
tool, the City's Consultant (AECOM) modified the presentation to
take into account the feedback given from the Planning
Commission and public at the April 28, 2015 Planning Commission
meeting and created a fourth option (Option D) for street design.
The City's Traffic Safety Commission, Planning Commission and
City Council will be presented with a copy of the original design
guidelines (Options A, B and C), as well as the modified
presentation that eliminates alterations to private properties and
focuses solely on streetscape improvements (Option D). Given a
recent potential extension of the SCAG grant that is funding this
rare opportunity, Mayor and City Staff from RPV and LA met at LA
Councilman Buscaino's office on June 15, 2015 to discuss the
current status of the multi-jurisdictional partnership for the Western
Ave. Design Guidelines, and a coordinated review process moving
forward. As a result of this meeting, the City's Commission's and
Council will review the Guidelines on the following dates:
*Traffic Safety Commission: June 22, 2015 at the City Hall
Community Room at 7:00 pm.
* Planning Commission: Future I Unknown date.
* City Council: Future I Unknown date.
3 98
The City invites all interested stakeholders to participate in the
upcoming public meetings and may submit comments to the Project
Planner, Leza Mikhail, at lezam@rpvca.gov.
Click here to view the Western Avenue Design
Guidelines Option "D" (as modified by the City's Consultant -
AECOM).
Click here to view the original DRAFT Western Avenue Design
Guidelines (presented to the Planning Commission on April 28,
2015, prior to modifications made as a result of the April 28, 2015
Planning Commission meeting).
Click here to view the NOTICE for the June 22, 2015 Traffic
Safety Commission, June 23, 2015 Planning Commission and July
7, 2015 City Council Meetings (NOTE CHANGES TO THE DATES
LISTED ABOVE).
Click here to view the PUBLIC NOTICE for the June 16, 2015
City Council Meeting (continued to July 7, 2015).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ·k * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as
part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed up
for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message,
it is an unmonitored email address. You can make changes to your
subscription by visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Western Avenue Vision Plan on www.
unsubscribe, click the following link:
4 99
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Monday, June 22, 2015 3:47 PM
Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Revitalization
From: Carolynn Petru
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 3:41 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Revitalization
Hi Joel -
FYI-
CP
From: John [mailto:ghi@ghisys.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 3:38 PM
To: CC
Subject: Western Avenue Revitalization
Dear Councilpersons,
I write to ask that you reject the three current versions of the Western Vision Plan. The designers obviously gave little to
no consideration to the desired look and feel that residents and business owners of this area desire. I myself being both
of those and having lived here for 53 years know when something is not a good fit. When I first saw it at the Peck Park
meeting, it amazed my wife and I as to how extensive it was and how wrong it was. The walled in city feel is not what
we want and it will have negative effects on quality of life and property values. The time frame was also way too long
and most of us will be gone before it comes close to fruition. We've put up with the crumbling planters and unsightly
medians for far too long already. A more simplistic plan that keeps the open rural feel while including logical upgrades
and revisions could be accomplished in a much more reasonable time while streamlining the overall process to keep it
within acceptable budget constraints.
Thanks for your time,
John Henderson
o avastf
... fr@4
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active .
1 100
Thank you for making the time to participate in today's Open
House. Your input will be invaluable in our efforts to improve
Western Avenue.
Western Avenue is the primary north-south corridor of
the South Bay, Peninsula, and San Pedro communities. In
2013, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, together with SCAG,
developed the Western Avenue Vision Plan, a community-
led effort to improve the corridor for residents, businesses,
and visitors alike. In 2014, the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes
and Los Angeles, together with SCAG, began developing the
Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines, to move
forward with the next step of implementing the Vision Plan.
Today's event marks the first public event for the Design
Guidelines. Short background presentations are scheduled
at 10:30am and 1:00pm today. Public viewing of materials is
available throughout Open House hours (lOam to 2pm}.
We are excited to share our work and the Draft Design
Guidelines with you and look forward to receiving your
feedback. Please use the back of this form to provide your
feedback.
101
Please provide your comments below. We also have post-it notes available, which you are
welcome to annotate and stick directly on the exhibits. Some questions to think about when
providing comments:
1. Do you have any comments on the presented Draft Design Guidelines materials?
2. Which streetscape option do you prefer?
A. With bike lanes
B. Without bike lanes
C. Hybrid approach
3. What do you think would make the Draft Design Guidelines better?
1. Good work. Layout and flow well thought out. The pictures and sketches depicting the various
options are most helpful.
Overall, I like the concept. I read the comments that have been presented and while some are for or
against bike paths for example, I did not see anything opposing the overall theme which I am
in favor of. While a little more expensive upfront, use of drought tolerant landscape will pay for itself
overtime much the same way vinyl trumps wood. I like the curb push outs for safety. I do get some
folks will argue there is too much traffic to make this a walking destination but I would think other cities have
have a similar theme with a like amount of traffic so perhaps bringing more of those examples forward.
2. I would prefer C as long as traffic capacity is not impacted. I think other commenters might have
been concerned that bike lines= less capacity (Reference Capitol Street changes to add a bike path)
3. Find more examples of cities with similar amounts of traffic volume that have incorporated
green scape and bike paths. Given new development and aging population traffic volume will likely grow so showing
how this plan at least maintains flow is key.
For further information, please contact:
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Director
310.544.5228
joelr@rpvca.gov
Rebecca Liu
City of Los Angeles
Council District 15
(213) 473-7015
rebecca.liu@lacity.org
102
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leza
Joel Rojas
Monday, June 01, 2015 9:47 AM
Leza Mikhail
FW: Frm Nelson: ? Attendance at 6/2 & 6/16 Council Mtngs: FYI
Please attach to 6/16 CC staff report on western avenue plan. Thanks
joel
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:27 PM
To: Joel Rojas; PC
Cc: CC
Subject: Frm Nelson: ? Attendance at 6/2 & 6/16 Council Mtngs: FYI
Members of RPV's Planning Commission and Director Joel Rojas
copy: City Council
Our PC will not have a meeting until Tuesday 6/23. In the meantime our City Council will vote on two major items that we
have discussed I voted. We will not have had Minutes on one of them and therefore, I would urge each of my fellow
commissioners, should you choose, to try and appear before our Council to voice your thoughts. Items are:
Council June 2nd: Regular Business: Item 4: "Draft 2015 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan" (CIP).
The request staff has for Council is what changes would they like to see in these over the next 5 years?
We discussed various CIP items for 2 hours at our May 26 meeting. We went around the table with each Commissioner
stating those items they had questions on (to see if more than one Commissioner had questions on any single item) and
then took answers, by Commissioner, by question. I have our list by Commissioner and some fast notes on answers.
There were additional questions about items not formally in the CIP and I have that list. We never got to the concept of
CIP 'needs' vs 'wants' due to time.
In the end, our first motion, simply moving staff's recommendation for 100% consistency with the General Plan, failed 3-3.
Commissioner Emenhiser, I believe seconded by Commissioner Leon, moved a second motion finding consistency but
urging the Council to explore alternatives to the item entitled "Fiber Optic Cabling -Abalone Cove Sewer Lift Stations,
Shoreline Park and Ladera Linda." ($1.6 million in FY 17-18) This passed 6-0, I believe.
Across our Commission, comments questioned this optic fiber expense vs alternatives such as leasing the existing Cox
line. (And humorously, at the Mayor's Breakfast, another Chair suggested as an alternative 'carrier pigeon!') One question
to staff of what is the current procedure for stopping an Abalone Cove sewage spill at 1 AM Sunday morning and, we
found, is overly complex and somewhat questionable in actually happening so obviously needs changing. Also
widely questioned was the rationale for extending optic communication to Ladera Linda vs using phone.
And, a Commissioner pointed out, as an answer to expense on this item, nowhere in the General Plan does
it call for city 'fiscal responsibility.'
Hopefully, you all have your notes from our meeting and I urge you to attend June 2, although CIP is the last agenda item.
Council June 16th: Western Avenue Vision Plan Design Guidelines. Our April 28th amended (and therefore not
approved) Minutes have 10 pages of each Commissioner and member of the public's comments. In the end we could
not endorse any of the proposed plans (A, B or C) and Commissioner Emenhiser, seconded by Commissioner Leon,
proposed a new 4 part alternative, "D", which was approved 4-3 with Commissioners Gerstner, James and Vice Chair
Tomblin dissenting. I am prepared to answer Council questions but I suspect they are getting tired of Nelson and hearing
1 103
face to face individually from you on your thoughts on Western Avenue would be a much better impression than myself or
our Minutes!
This is being sent out since our Commission will not have a meeting until these are dust on the trail of Council business
and I believe each Commissioner's thoughts on each would be of great value to our Council in its deliberations.
Thanks for taking time to read this, have a great week!
Bob Nelson
PC Member and 2015 Chair
310-544-4632
2 104
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fyi
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Nelsongang
Sent: 5/29/2015 1:05 PM
Joel Rojas
Friday, May 29, 2015 3:41 PM
Kathryn Downs; Leza Mikhail; So Kim; Ara Mihranian
FW: Mayor's Breakfast: PC Handout/ Comments
To: Joel Rojas; mthrone@rpvca.gov
Subject: Mayor's Breakfast: PC Handout I Comments
Joel, Michael
Written as a private citizen and not as a member of RPV's PC.
Know its Joel's day off but, Joel, FYI Lisa G has 3 copies for you of what I handed out this AM re PC over the past month
and, Michael, stop by our house (6612 Channelview -flag over garage) on way home if you'd like a copy. Unfortunately,
though PC is shown scheduled at 1 OPM, ch 33 never broadcast Tuesday's meeting so I had to run 5/26 comments on my
notes. You are welcome to take exception to any of my comments, esp those on the CIP and 'consistency.' I did have
Dave Emenhiser read my comments last night so his memory could correct initial errors.
FYI:
Western Ave: Traffic Safety quite surprised they did not review the presentation given us. I gave Anthony Self, Chair, an
extra copy of the consultant's 89 page colorful document but next time maybe a joint meeting would be good. And
Councilwoman Brooks asked about Council approval for this 2nd study and Cty Mgr confirmed CC 2013 approval as in
Staff Rpt.
CIP: Apparently FAC did see this CIP (remember Finance guest Tuesday said no when it came Ladera Linda and I
believe the entire CIP) as lnfraMgmtCom Chair Lloyd W incorporated it into his IMC presentation to FAC. Mayor Knight
questioned our first, tie, vote on 'Consistency' and I explained the 2nd vote was specific re urging CC explore alternatives
for Ladera Linda fiber optic cable (lease Cox, satellite phone, etc.) and that passed 6-0. (Humorous: FAC Chair
suggested 'carrier pigeon!') I said we had questions on 5 GIP projects and 3 outside CIP and that Director Thorne and you
provided great detail to PC. Also, that we had to approve consistency to Gen Plan, surprised Mayor.
I also appraised group of Gen Plan revision status (9/15/15 to CC per schedule given PC), that we'll be receiving both 'old'
and 'new' versions next week for discussion I approval 6/23 mtng -which I said would also include outdoor lighting (much
to delight of Mayor!).
Have a great weekend and, any other questions, give me a call Monday.
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
1 105
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Paul
Joel Rojas
Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:54 PM
es ca pedtu rkey
So Kim; Nicole Jules; Leza Mikhail
RE: Litter, Noise and Street Repair
Thank you for bringing these issues to the City's attention. Please see my explanations below of what we can do to
address your concerns.
Litter-We are in contact with the current ownership of the Terraces Shopping Center since they are in the midst of
securing the necessary City permits to modernize the look of the center. Given how much they are spending to improve
the look of their center, I would think that they would be concerned with the litter situation that you describe. Thus, I
have copied Senior Planner So Kim, the project planner for the Terraces Shopping Center, on this email so she can alert
the owner and the management company of this issue.
Noise-Unfortunately, there's not much the City can do about this issue since the Center's Conditional Use Permit does
not have any noise level standards and neither does the City's codes. However, that does not preclude you or any other
resident from contacting the LA County Sheriff to report any excessive noise issues occurring late at night at the center.
I'll ask So Kim to also alert the ownership and management of this issue.
Caltrans---1 have copied our Deputy Public Works Director Nicole Jules on this response as she deals with traffic issues in
the City. Perhaps, Nicole may have a way of getting Caltrans attention to this matter regarding the damaged curb.
I appreciate that you took the time to contact us with these concerns. We'll do what we can to get the responsible
parties to address them.
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
From: escapedturkey [mailto:escapedturkey@escapedturkey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: Litter, Noise and Street Repair
Hello Joel,
We met at the Western Avenue Vision Plan open house at Peck Park I was the one talking with you about
bicycle lanes.
I live across the street from the Terraces Shopping Center on Caddington. I have unique point of you since I live
near the area. There are two issues with the Terraces area that one can only be aware of if one lives near it.
The biggest issue is litter. I have contacted the Terraces management about three or four times about litter on
Carrington. It appears they try to clean it up, only to have it return the next day. Either they need trash cans in
the area and/or the shopping center needs to clean it more often. I've been around RPV and Torrance and I've
never seen more litter than at the Terraces. I suppose a large part of that has to do with the increase in
1 106
visitors that attend the movie theater on Tuesday and Thursday night. Those two nights are discount movie
ticket nights. Needless to say I did not know about this before we moved here, however after attending your
vision plan proposal I have renewed faith in East View RPV. If something can be done to keep the area free
from litter, it will boost the appearance, overall attitudes of people attending, and most importantly the property
values.
The other issue is noise. I'm not referring to traffic noise as this is normal for a shopping center. I'm referring to
the the fact that there are very loud car stereos being played by most likely non locals and most likely going to
the movie theater. I'm not sure what to be done about that but such a thing will dissuade the wholesome family
types from attending the shopping center.
My third issue has more to do with Caltrans. I submitted multiple requests to get the corner curb repaired. At
first it was just damaged now it has holes and cracks. It is visually unappealing and possibly a safety issue. You
can see the damaged curb on the corner of Western and Caddington near the bus stop when taking a right turn
up the hill.
Lately, I feel like I'm the only person complaining to various parties responsible for cleanup and repair. I am
sure the simple thing to do is move somewhere else but after seeing your vision plan I believe the community
can make Eastview just as beautiful and important as the rest of RPV.
Do you believe there is anything that you can do to assist with these issues?
Sincerely,
Paul Gamlowski
2 107
June 14, 2015
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
JUN l 8 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'
Thank you for encouraging our input for the Western Avenue Design. My family and I live in a neighborhood that its
only exit is onto Western Ave, therefore our family of 4 drivers utilizes Western Ave on a daily basis. When the large
housing development across from Green Hills Cemetery is completed, we anticipate an additional 1000 vehicles
will be added to the roadway. Any changes to this artery will greatly affect us and our neighbors. A few points my
family agrees upon:
1) Most importantly, Western Avenue is a way of moving vehicles from one place to another, not a destination
for picnics. No matter how many trees, bushes, flowers, and benches are installed, local residents will not
consider it a destination for picnics or morning coffee; there is simply too much smog and noise. I know this
because I have often walked Western Ave for short distances to shops very close to my home. Long range
walking for shopping is unpleasant. Residents do prefer and will continue to prefer Peck Park and Eastview
Park which are in our immediate vicinity when gathering for social activities.
2} I have lived off of Western Ave/Caddington Avenue for 15 years, carpooling students to school, driving kids
to soccer practices, as well as driving to work. We have very little bicycle traffic with exception of a few
cyclists on the weekends. A traffic study will show this, but per the vision plan any possible traffic study will
only happen at the next phase of this plan. I suggest a traffic study including cyclists be conducted before
any recommendations are voted on by the planning commission. Please do not decide to include bicycle
lanes when there may not be a need for them. Taxpayer money should not be spent just because it is
available.
3) The main goal should be to keep Western Avenue traffic flowing safely. At the neighborhood workshop on
March 14, nearly all participants expressed the need to keep the width of the driving lanes. Eliminating or
narrowing any traffic lanes will cause a hazard to all drivers as we contend with delivery trucks, transit
buses, and emergency vehicles daily on Western Ave. Having viewed the proposed options, Options Band
Option C should be eliminated as they require the narrowing of driving lanes, by 12 to 18 inches. That
leaves Option A and Option D. Whether or not bicycle lanes are necessary is questionable since the bicycle
traffic is only 2 out of 7 days of the week, and bicycle use is very light on weekends. Unless a
comprehensive traffic study indicates otherwise, the option that makes most sense in Option A.
4) Before considering beautification projects, please remember that in last 10 years, we have had 2 sink holes
on Western Ave. Sewer and storm drain studies should be a priority before any work is planned for this
street.
While a small upgrade to unify the look of signage and plants would be pleasant, the main focus should be to
increase efficiency of moving traffic up and down Western Ave, particularly since when the new housing project is
completed, the number of vehicles will increase by the hundreds. I appreciate the opportunity to let us voice our
concerns.
Thank you,
x~~, ,
Liz Bacalja ~~
28645 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275
310-833-5853. LizBacalja@gmail.com ~ q , ~1A
an Bacalja . /
"'?--.!l._..; ( ,
2:::_3
Th~o/
Anthony~
108
April 28, 2015
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Western Avenue Vision Plan Guidelines
I was on the Western Avenue Vision Committee and I urge all the planning commissioners to vote no on
all three options.
It would be cost prohibitive to require businesses to relocate their storefronts to the sidewalk. If any of
these guidelines are accepted it would guarantee that businesses don't remodel at all or if they need a
major remodel to move out of the area. We need to support out local businesses.
We need better design guidelines that improve Western Avenue working with the current location of
the businesses.
In any future reference to this vision committee, please correct the spelling of my name.
Thank you,
109
April 9, 2015
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Director
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
1\Pr< 13
Rebecca Liu
City of Los Angeles
Council District 15
Los Angeles, CA
Thank you for presenting the information at the Open House Meeting on March 14, 2015, for the
Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines.
Firstly and most importantly, Western Avenue is a mode of moving vehicles from one place to another,
not a destination for picnics. No matter how many trees, bushes, flowers, and benches are installed,
local residents will not consider it a destination for picnics; there is simply too much smog and noise. I
know this because I have often walked Western Ave for short distances to shops very close to my home.
Long range walking for shopping is unpleasant. Residents do prefer and will continue to prefer Peck
Park and Eastview Park which are in our immediate vicinity for social gathering activities.
I have lived off of Caddington Avenue for 15 years, carpooling students to school, driving kids to soccer
practices, as well as driving to work. We have very little bicycle traffic with exception of the weekends.
The main goal should be to keep Western Avenue traffic flowing. Having viewed some of the proposed
ideas, any possibility of increasing bus bays should be a focus so that buses can turn out of traffic and
allow cars and trucks to continue. Bicycle lanes are not necessary since the bicycle traffic is only 2 out of
7 days of the week and bicycle use is light on weekends. Eliminating or narrowing any traffic lanes would
cause a hazard to all drivers as we contend with delivery trucks, transit buses, and emergency vehicles
on Western Ave.
Before considering beautification projects, please remember that in last few years, we have had 2 sink
holes on Western Ave. Sewer and storm drain studies should be a priority before any work is planned for
this street.
While a small upgrade to unify the look of signage and plants would be pleasant, the main focus should
be to increase efficiency of moving traffic up and down Western Ave.
I appreciate the opportunity to let me voice my concerns. I will be at the next open forum as this project
progresses.
Thank you,
c:/0 fo t:/~Pv'
Liz Bacalja \J
28645 Gunter Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275
310-833-5853
LizBacalja@gmail.com
110
Please provide your comments below. We also have post-it notes available, which you are
welcome to annotate and stick directly on the exhibits. Some questions to think about when
providing comments:
1. Do you have any comments on the presented Draft Design Guidelines materials?
2. Which streetscape option do you prefer?
A. With bike lanes
B. Without bike lanes
C. Hybrid approach
3.1, hat do you think wo;ld make the Draft Design Guidelines better?
Thank you once again!
For further information, please contact:
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Director
310.544.5228
joelr@rpvca.gov
Rebecca Liu
City of Los Angeles
Council District 15
(213) 473-7015
rebecca.liu@lacity.org
111
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Friday, March 27, 2015 11:19 AM
Babla, Christine
Cc: Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines
From: Valeriegary@aol.com [mailto:Valeriegary@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:40 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines
Hello Mr. Rojas,
We spoke at the March 14th meeting at Peck Park. I did not have time to jot down my thoughts at that time, so I am
submitting them now.
Regarding palm trees in the median, I think they are hazardous. Besides not being very attractive plants, when the large
palm frowns fall they can damage vehicles and potentially cause traffic accidents. It seems this might also cause the City
some financial liability.
Regarding acceptable plants in the median, I very much like what the City has done with the median on PV Drive
South. The bougainvilleas and succulents are beautiful, low maintenance, and drought tolerant. This would also go along
with the continuity you are trying to achieve.
Regarding bike lanes, I favor the "Sharrow class Ill". I think this is the only option that does not negatively effect vehicle
traffic.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment,
Gary Smith
Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 833-0819
1 112
March 15, 2015
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Director
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
Rebecca Liu
City of Los Angeles
Council District 15
Los Angeles, CA
I attended the Open House Meeting on March 14, 2015, for the Western
Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines.
My feedback is as follows:
At the next meeting, if there is one, it would be helpful for the speakers
to use a P.A. System. Saturday, it was difficult to hear or understand
what the presenters were telling us. Also, most of the attendees did not
get to have a good look at the proposal on the table or to actually talk
I
with one of the young ladies who were there to help us. Yes, a few folks
got to say what had to be said, however, these folks used up the half
hour available for attendees personal review.
I was disappointed that the attendees were not allowed to ask questions
or make comments during the short presentation at 10:30 a.m. A
gentleman pointed out there would be some 700 family dwellings in the
near future at Ponte Vista and the additional traffic this development
would create for Western and he was reminded "We are not talking
about that!"
Getting past that disappointment, I do agree Western Avenue on both
sides could use upgrading. However, before our hard earned tax dollars
are spent for the grandiose vision of what Western might be ... I suggest
there be a real traffic study, that there be a serious study of the sewer
and storm drain systems .. these are as old as Western!
113
If I understood correctly, Caltrans, who owns Western, will in the future
synchronize the signals on Western which will improve the flow of traffic.
My thought here, is WHY do this in the future! ? Western needs the
signals synchronized Now, which would be a big help in moving traffic for
those of us who have to use Western every day of the week.
I realize to accomplish any upgrade to Western Avenue would no doubt
require eminent domain proceedings to acquire the strip mall properties.
Eminent domain can and is cruel and usual punishment for the small
shop owner who will be put out of business by court order and at the
very lowest price possible! I hope I don't live to see that happen!
My choice for the streetscope option would be Without Bike Lanes
because of the tremendous amount of traffic on Western, i.e. regular
vehicles, SUVs, trucks (big & with trailers), huge delivery trucks, school
buses, Metro buses, plus all of the emergency vehicles. To narrow the
traffic lanes would be hazardous for the ordinary driver.
Protection of views for property owners above Western in the totally cul
de sac neighborhoods. It is my understanding that Commercial Property
is not included in RPV's View Ordinance. I mentioned the view ordinance
to one of the young ladies assisting the public with the Vision Plan on the
table, and I was advised "the views would be protected!"
Western Avenue itself is not an abuser of the view ordinance, the abuse
would be the proposed grandiose landscaping on Western and the
commercial redevelopment buildings on Western. Therefore, before
starting the redevelopment, there needs to be definite assurances in
writing that our views would continue to be uninterrupted ... not one
of these "oops" it is already built and so it gets to stay and obstruct our
view.
I cannot imagine anyone strolling down Western on the proposed
widened sidewalks. The amount of traffic alone would discourage
anyone from taking an enjoyable walk on any part of Western. I've lived
114
on South Gunter Road since 1972 and those who would or do walk on
Western do so to (1) catch the bus (2) go to the post office (3) go to the
bank or shop for small items or go to a nearby eatery (4) no one in their
right mind would just take a walk on Western for the sake of a pleasant
outing or exercise! They would be gasping for breath from all of the
exhaust fumes from the heavy traffic on Western
Proposed parking lots at the back of the commercial buildings is without
a doubt one of the most disturbing visions. Perhaps you know something
that I don't, but wouldn't that require one to turn right or left onto a
residential street (all of these are narrow one lane each way) then
abruptly turn right or left again to go into or to come out of the parking
lot back of the commercial building. This vision is not a vision, it is a total
hallucination!
There was emphasis on lots and lots of Landscaping. I can't help but
wonder WHO is going to manage this proposed immense amount of
greenery??? Neither RPV or LA pay much, if any, attention to the
landscaping on Western now! Please NO MORE palm trees or
evergreens! Trees are great and we need them, however, trees do
require a lot of maintenance which is costly and that costly item seems
to never get included in the annual budget.
What I think would make the Draft Design Guidelines better:
-More public input before adopting or implementing any Vision
Design Plans i.e. allow the public paying taxpayers to voice their
concerns
-Definitely do a complete and accurate traffic study of the traffic you
now have on Western before NOT AFTER adopting or implementing
any Vision Design Plans. Have the signals synchronized before
doing the traffic study.
115
-Definitely do a complete study of the original sewers and original
storm drains before NOT AFTER adopting or implementing any
Vision Design Plans
~ Adopt an ordinance to cast in concrete that the tax paying property
owners who now have a view shall continue to have a view that will
not be blocked either by landscaping or commercial
redevelopment of Western Avenue.
-Before including the widening of sidewalks, take a good look at how
the current sidewalks are used; also consider who is going to
include in their budget the funds to keep the sidewalks usable.
-Do not add bike lanes to any part of Western, the street has more
than its share of vehicle traffic.
-The proposed Vision of out-door cafes appears to be a dream;
Western has far too much vehicular traffic to make a cold or hot
drink enjoyable and to eat anything would be unpleasant! And to
sit at an umbrella table sipping your drink and watch a large funeral
procession go by to Green Hills. Now that would be appetizing!
-And last but not least, PLEASE do not brick or use any other
materials for the crosswalks. The white painted lines work very
well; no raising up or big cracks to cause the pedestrian to fall.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my opinions on this very
important issue for the taxpayer resident on Gunter Road. Grants are
Great, however, Grants do not include the future cost of maintenance to
keep the redeveloped area bright and shining!
I am all for upgrading Western; it is definitely needed; however, let us be
good to each other and work together with a plan that will truly work
and work well for all of us. I believe before even considering a Vision
Plan prior to doing your homework i.e. traffic, sewer, storm drain studies,
is like building your house before you have a foundation. (as the saying
goes "putting the cart before the horse!)
116
That said, I am now going to share with you something that I think needs
to be seriously thought about by those of you who are working on this
or any other public project.
Your taxpaying property owners are just generally discouraged by
governments' going ahead on projects the taxpayer doesn't want. There
is apathy among all of those who could and should vote and attend open
house meetings. For example, the bike lanes on Capitol and elsewhere.
Folks were told "You just don't want to accept change" which is not true.
One needs to remember the tax payer/property owner has spent 30+
years paying off a mortgage so they would have a roof over their head
and a place to raise their children, now their grandchildren. Plus, they
have struggled to have their homes remodeled and updated. It is called
"Pride of Ownership" and it does not feel good or sit well when those
feelings are invaded.
We, the taxpayer/property owner, will accept change, so long as
government remembers "we live here; we have lived here for a long
period of time; we know what will or will not work well for our
neighborhood. Yes, the taxpayer/property owner will accept all changes,
updates, or anything that will give us a better life. I think I am safe in
saying the folks living in the cul de sac communities along Western are
content and comfortable in their 1950's one story homes and all of these
homes are well-kept.
Thank you again for allowing me to have my input; please know, I am all
in favor of redoing, upgrading Western Avenue and do let us work
together and not against each other!
!} /f1 ~ 7'i~/ ~-/(J/~J-c./ ~----Ni~ ~~s~ida / (310) 547 2635 yoshida1832@yahoo.com
28808 Gunter R d
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-2018
117
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:53 AM
Babla, Christine
Cc: Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Design -Caddington Observations
From: Paul Gamlowski Lr.:r.!S:JJlt.9.;Q?..f?.QQ_rjJv_r.J5gy_@.gm9JL,<:;p_mJ
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:22 AM
To: .rntl_S0.S:.££,.Ll..ht@.l?.f . .tty:,g_rg
Cc: Eduardo Schonborn
Subject: Western Avenue Design -Caddington Observations
Dear Ms. Lui and Mr. Schonbom,
I have looked at your \Vestern Avenue Design online documents at the CHy of RPV website. It's very exciting!
If your recommendations becorne reality,thcy will literally transform this area into one of the prernicrc locations
of the L.A. Harbor and South Bay.
I live on Caddington across the street from the Terraces. I have lived here for about a year so far. I often walk
to Trader Joe's, Smart & Final, US Bank and to the Post Office.
I have a few small pedestrian level observations:
1) A severely broken curb I sidewalk. You can observe this at the corner of Caddington and Western A venue
near the bus stop. I submitted repair requests to RPV and CalTrans with no result.
2) Constant litter. Perhaps trashcans placed in strategic places (like what is seen at parks) would help, otherwise
as soon as they clean it up, it returns.
3) Sidewalks, streets, etc are just somewhat ugly. There is old spray paint from utility projects, the sidewalks
look broken, and the asphalt looks cracked and discolored (ex: strange white striping).
4) The Terraces Shopping Center and Palos Verdes Plaza (where the post office resides) both need a face-lift. A
lot of broken sidewalks, chipped cement, etc.
Just sharing my observations. I hope I don't sound too negative. I truly love RPV!
I wish you both (and your teams) the best of success in your Western Avenue Vision Plan project. The residence and
visitors will be very grateful.
Sincerely,
Paul Gamlowski
1 118
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Joel,
April Sandell < hvybags@cox.net>
Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:18 PM
Joel Rojas; CC
Leza Mikhail
Re: Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
As much as I appreciate your time, your explanation makes no sense. So, I re-read my earlier email and
it appears I was unclear in making my point. Please accept my apology.
So, please allow me to try again.
Actually, the map shows both Dodson and Crestwood. However, Crestwood was hand circled but Dodson
was not. The circling around Crestwood gave folks a clearer sense of location as it relates to cross streets along
Western Ave. All I'm saying, is a circle around Dodson would have also helped the viewing public get their
bearings on the various sections in the plan.
Regarding the TAXCO corner and other businesses' with in the Harbor Cove strip mall. It appears they have all
chosen to use RPV 90275 and as far as I can tell, the City of Los Angeles issues business licenses' regardless of
split jurisdictions. Please, don't feel any further explain is necessary. I have others things to do and I am
certain you do as well.
April
On Mar 17, 2015, at 11 :33 AM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov> wrote:
April
Thank you for attending Saturday's public workshop and providing us with your feedback on the
proposed Design Implementation Guidelines for Western Avenue. With regards to the map on display at
the workshop, since the focus is on Western Avenue the maps were limited to showing Western Avenue
and narrow portions of the residential area along Western Avenue. That is why you could see Crestwood
Elementary school and not Dodson Middle School as Crestwood is closer to Western Avenue than
Dodson. Also, I don't recall the map having any residential street names on it but I will let the consultant
know to double check the street names to make sure they are correct.
With regards to the Taxco restaurant, it is in shopping center that is partly within the City of RPV and
partly within the City of LA as the City boundary line splits the shopping center. The Taxco restaurant is
actually on the City of LA side of the boundary line. However, since the center is within two jurisdictions,
apparently they have chosen to use an RPV address.
As I noted on Saturday, based on the public comments that we receive, the proposed Guidelines will be
finalized in the coming months and ultimately presented to the City's Planning Commission and City
Council for review and approval sometime this summer.
Joel
1 119
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@rs10Jlf'Jl
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 7:42 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; caroledhoward@hotmail.com
Subject: Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
Dear Mayor and Council members,
The "subject" map indicated several errors mislabeling those street names within the
Rolling Hills Riveria homes area. Also, the map failed to show
Dodson Middle School but otherwise indicated Crestwood St. Elementary in
the "southern section". I hope you agree, that a clearer picture
would be appreciated by all stakeholders. More importantly, the
council (i.e. elected representatives) should not be caused confusion regarding the
exact
locations of single family homes or businesses' at issue, as
they are commonly known and identified by street name.
No doubt more significant issues will surface throughout this process. However, at
this point, the above mentioned boundary lines as well as cities'
boundary lines should be clearly seen and well understood by all stakeholders.
Admittedly, it's confusing to me that the planning map described
TAXCO restaurant and other businesses within the same strip mall are not within
RPV
jurisdiction yet hold the address "RPV, 90275" . Why is that?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
Pontevedra Dr. RPV 90275 (I think. Ha.)
2 120
3 121
March 16, 2015
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rebecca Liu
City of Los Angeles
Council District 15
Re: Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines
Dear Mr. Rojas and Ms. Liu,
We are pleased to see that the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles are working together
along with Cal Trans to address improvements for Western Avenue.
The March 14 presentation of "Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines" provided only a
brief glimpse at a plan document. The plan seemed to include some nice urban design features such as
landscaping with drought tolerant natives, re-vitalizing public streets as places for people to interact,
dine, and walk, permeable paving, etc. Those elements should indeed all be goals for Western Avenue.
But otherwise the proposed guidelines seemed to be so generic, so unrelated to anything that now
exists on Western and so dependent on total demolition and reconstruction of most of the existing
structures in a vague distant future that overall it was very disappointing.
It was quite dis-orienting to see plans illustrating few cars but with solid walls of multi-storied buildings
fronting the street. Dense multi-story buildings pushed up to the sidewalk edge is NOT what the
residents of this area desire, and to include such a "vision" in the plan, even only as an illustration, can
only be viewed as a threat of denser development to come. Where did all the existing cars, buses and
trucks supposedly go? How did all the driveways disappear? How are we supposed to transition from
the current situation to this fantasized generic plan without introducing even more design inconsistency
to the hodge podge of what already exists?
We can't just transplant charming urban streets with sidewalk dining and public gathering spaces onto
Western Avenue even by wholesale demolition and rebuilding from scratch. Those charming settings
succeed in neighborhoods where there is an existing parallel grid of streets to distribute the burden of
traffic more widely and where sidewalks are not dissected by multiple driveways. Western Avenue has
very different, challenging characteristics and thus requires a more customized design plan.
Western Avenue has some very real problems now, for drivers, for cyclists, for pedestrians, and for
businesses. We need to see some short term options to address those problems and provide some
immediate improvements.
122
Current Conditions
Existing Character of Western Avenue
• It is a HIGHWAY, with all the intensity of traffic that implies.
• It is the sole ingress/egress route for several neighborhoods.
• It overlays infrastructure lines (sewers, electric, phone, etc.) that occasionally require disruptive
maintenance and repair.
• It is often gridlocked.
• It must accommodate a vast range of traffic including: pedestrians; bicyclists; motorcyclists and
scooters; passenger vehicles in sizes ranging from subcompact to oversized; buses; and trucks
ranging up to 18 wheel semi's.
• It must accommodate daily commutes; local errands; the beginnings and endings of all longer
distance travel; funeral processions; business deliveries; etc. It is the sole access route for
emergency vehicles to many locations.
• It is pedestrian hostile.
o The noise level from Western Avenue traffic makes it difficult to have a conversation on
the sidewalk
o Sidewalks are frequently interrupted by driveways to parking lots, putting pedestrians at
risk when drivers fail to observe pedestrians and/or rush to beat the pedestrian to the
driveway in order to squeeze through vehicular traffic situations. There sometimes
seems to be no such thing as a pedestrian right of way on the sidewalks.
o Pedestrian access to businesses is primarily via parking lots, but there is nothing along
the driveway or within many parking lots to acknowledge or protect the presence and
rights of pedestrians -who are made to feel like they are not really supposed to be
there, that they are just scofflaws and jaywalkers impeding traffic. Walking through
some parking lots is like a high stakes game of dodge ball.
o Many of the private residential property walls on Western are in disrepair -some
retaining walls are tilting towards the sidewalk as if ready to collapse, a potential threat
to the safety of nearby pedestrians. Many chain link fences have been bashed out of
shape, whether by traffic accidents or by vandalism. These fences and walls are not
only unpleasant aesthetically, but the solid walls reflect a great deal of heat and noise.
What can be done to improve Western Avenue -now, rather than decades in the future?
A key strategy to improving the quality of Western Avenue has to be to reduce the volume of vehicular
traffic -the challenge is how to achieve that on a corridor which must serve essentially all the transit
needs of the community. Until that issue is addressed, Western is going to continue to be problematic,
and is going to get worse. No amount of window dressing will improve that condition. Improving the
pedestrian experience on Western is also essential -it must be made safer and less noisy or few people
will want to be there.
1. Reduce the volume of vehicular traffic and improve traffic flow.
• Prohibit future developments that would increase traffic on Western
• Support multiple transit options on Western so that they do not conflict with one another
• Improve public transit with small shuttle buses
Currently Western has very limited bus service, including the #205 that runs approximately
every half hour on weekdays, and less often on weekends. This is not frequent enough to make
it feasible for practical use -it essentially adds at least an hour of "wasted" time to any errand
or trip using that bus, and multiplies that waste of time for every additional destination.
123
A frequent, reliable shuttle service using smaller vehicles would be a way to improve access for
local residents to businesses and other venues on Western Avenue. If wait times were no longer
than 10 or 15 minutes it would be possible for people to combine multiple small errands on
Western without needing to drive a car to do so. A route extending to Home Depot and Target
or to the medical offices on 61h Street in San Pedro would also be very useful. Shuttles could
potentially drop off and pick up passengers within existing parking lots, mitigating the disruption
of bus stops to general traffic flow on Western.
If the number of people using mass transit increases, there would be fewer cars on Western.
• Investigate the possibility of restricting the use of large delivery trucks to certain hours of the
day (or night).
2. Make sidewalks safe for pedestrians.
• Reduce the number of driveways intersecting Western Ave. Each driveway creates a hazard for
both pedestrians and cyclists. The driveways also add to traffic congestion when a line of cars
needs to slow down as a single car enters or exits a driveway. When possible, driveways should
be located on the side streets, or reduced to a single major driveway serving multiple parking
areas. Such major driveways should be treated as intersections -with stop signs or lights if
needed -for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
• Require parking lot driveways to include sidewalk extensions to the primary business
walkways, with clearly marked crossing areas.
• Consider re-routing sidewalks further from the street and also away from the parking traffic
areas if possible. Existing shopping area walkways might be useful to consider as parts of
connecting walkways along Western -with connections created between adjacent properties
where feasible. Add buffering landscaping. Amenities such as outdoor dining could be created
in such settings, which would be less noisy than any location closer to the traffic.
• Consider a city "Star" award for shopping centers and businesses that have made themselves
more pedestrian-cyclist-public transit friendly. Promote those efforts with occasional events to
introduce people to transit alternatives as well as to small businesses on Western.
3. Investigate the possibility of buying out or obtaining an easement for a small strip of the lower
private properties that abut Western. Even a few feet would allow the construction of a consistent
retaining wall and some buffering landscaping to reduce noise and heat coming off those walls and
perhaps also provide more setback from traffic. Improving this section of Western might make walking
to the shopping areas more appealing to local residents.
4. Please forget the cliche of palm trees -they provide no beneficial shade or sound buffering and drop
dangerous heavy fronds creating a hazard for people and traffic in storm or Santa Ana wind conditions.
A drought tolerant, preferably locally native plant palette would be far more suitable.
5. What about bike lanes? The recent reduction of traffic lanes for cars in order to create bike lanes on
Westmont and on Capitol Drive has created a great deal of animosity in the community and has
worsened, rather than improved, traffic flow. Those bike lanes seem to be rarely used, the lane
markings are very arcane and confusing and many drivers are very angry about it. A fiasco like that
should not be repeated.
124
Ultimately bike lanes should be incorporated into a revitalized plan for Western Avenue -but the
implementation of bike lanes should not be the first and only thing that is done even if it might be the
easiest thing for the cities to implement. The first thing that should be done is improving public transit
by the addition of a small shuttle service. Next, plans should be developed to improve public walkways
and sidewalks as discussed above. It may well turn out that by considering re-routing of sidewalks and
walkways other options for bike pathways will become evident. Certainly if the number of driveways
occurring along Western is reduced, that would also benefit cyclists.
Conclusions
Generic designs aren't going to work for Western Avenue. It is a highway in the middle of suburbia, not
11 Main Street" in the middle of a grid of alternate routes. While pedestrian-friendly street frontage, with
dining areas, etc. is very appealing, Western is burdened with too many functions to expect it to ever be
a quiet avenue with light traffic. Who wants to dine right next to a highway? We can't even have a
conversation on Western.
In order to improve the experience of Western Avenue we need to start from existing conditions, not a
fantasy of starting from scratch in some abstract future scenario. We need to think creatively and
resourcefully in terms of what actually exists. Change does not necessarily require a complete start over
and re-do, but it does require some real thought and coordinated planning.
It would be worth trying to improve public transit with a reliable small shuttle service. If successful, that
approach could reduce vehicular traffic and increase pedestrian traffic. In addition, if sidewalks were
rerouted to meander behind parking lots and directly in front of businesses, there would then be two
zones -one for cars and one for people. The addition of consistent landscaping could divide those
zones, buffer noise and make them aesthetically attractive. At that point, there could easily be pleasant
spaces for people to dine or mingle outside.
This would not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but it might be the best option to improve Western in the
near future.
Sincerely,
Barbara Sattler
Resident
Rancho Palos Verdes
Cc: Linda J. Taira, California Department of Transportation
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
125
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:34 AM
Babla, Christine
Cc: Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 7:42 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; caroledhoward@hotmail.com
Subject: Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
Dear Mayor and Council members,
The "subject" map indicated several errors mislabeling those street names within the Rolling Hills
Riveria homes area. Also, the map failed to show
Dodson Middle School but otherwise indicated Crestwood St. Elementary in the
"southern section". I hope you agree, that a clearer picture
would be appreciated by all stakeholders. More importantly, the council (i.e. elected
representatives) should not be caused confusion regarding the exact
locations of single family homes or businesses' at issue, as they are
commonly known and identified by street name.
No doubt more significant issues will surface throughout this process. However, at this
point, the above mentioned boundary lines as well as cities'
boundary lines should be clearly seen and well understood by all stakeholders.
Admittedly, it's confusing to me that the planning map described TAXCO restaurant and other
businesses within the same strip mall are not within RPV
jurisdiction yet hold the address "RPV, 90275" . Why is that?
1 126
Thank you in advance for your response.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
Pontevedra Dr. RPV 90275 (I think. Ha.)
2 127
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
April
Joel Rojas
Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:34 AM
April Sandell; CC
caroledhoward@hotmail.com; Leza Mikhail
RE: Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
Thank you for attending Saturday's public workshop and providing us with your feedback on the proposed Design
Implementation Guidelines for Western Avenue. With regards to the map on display at the workshop, since the focus is
on Western Avenue the maps were limited to showing Western Avenue and narrow portions of the residential area
along Western Avenue. That is why you could see Crestwood Elementary school and not Dodson Middle School as
Crestwood is closer to Western Avenue than Dodson. Also, I don't recall the map having any residential street names on
it but I will let the consultant know to double check the street names to make sure they are correct.
With regards to the Taxco restaurant, it is in shopping center that is partly within the City of RPV and partly within the
City of LA as the City boundary line splits the shopping center. The Taxco restaurant is actually on the City of LA side of
the boundary line. However, since the center is within two jurisdictions, apparently they have chosen to use an RPV
address.
As I noted on Saturday, based on the public comments that we receive, the proposed Guidelines will be finalized in the
coming months and ultimately presented to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval
sometime this summer.
Joel
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 7:42 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; caroledhoward@hotmail.com
Subject: Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
Dear Mayor and Council members,
The "subject" map indicated several errors mislabeling those street names within the Rolling Hills
Riveria homes area. Also, the map failed to show
Dodson Middle School but otherwise indicated Crestwood St. Elementary in the
"southern section". I hope you agree, that a clearer picture
would be appreciated by all stakeholders. More importantly, the council (i.e. elected
representatives) should not be caused confusion regarding the exact
1 128
locations of single family homes or businesses' at issue, as they are
commonly known and identified by street name.
No doubt more significant issues will surface throughout this process. However, at this
point, the above mentioned boundary lines as well as cities'
boundary lines should be clearly seen and well understood by all stakeholders.
Admittedly, it's confusing to me that the planning map described TAXCO restaurant and other
businesses within the same strip mall are not within RPV
jurisdiction yet hold the address "RPV, 90275" . Why is that?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
Pontevedra Dr. RPV 90275 (I think. Ha.)
2 129
Leza Mikhail
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 16, 2015 12:38 PM
Sabia, Christine
Cc: Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW: COMMENTS, Western Ave Vision Plan(3/14/15)
FYI
From: Mario Marchisio [mailto:mariojakel@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 2:04 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Mario Marchisio
Subject: COMMENTS, Western Ave Vision Plan(3/14/15)
Hello Mr Rojas,
It was difficult for me to comment during my brief time (even with yellow stick notes)at Peck Park, so
here are a few thoughts:
1. Regardless of what streetscape is agreed on I didn't grasp any Improvement to the present vehicle
flow. The presenters emphasis was on not impeding 'today's' traffic flow.
2. Hopefully any vegetation (trees, bushes,etc) planted in a revised median and 'curb'side will not
obstruct views of N-S vehicle (and bikers, hopefully not) movement. And importantly vehicles entering
from and exiting into Western (presently there are interrupted views).
3. I didn't notice any change from parallel parking to angle parking along Western. I thing that would
be a very negative proposal. Even today views are inhibited by some parking on Western.
5. Pedestrian traffic in and around major commercial sites will be well served with and of the planned
upgrades; but walking from PV drive N to Westmont??
6. Although this presentation dealt with 'Beautification ' issues they will not succeed unless Vehicle
movement is fully integrated into the plan, such as:
a) Lengthening specific left turn lanes
b) Installing more left turn signals.
c) Bus stop shelters and street lighting.
d) Although not extensively covered, the new complex across from Green Hills will have a major
input to any streetscape plans; in my opinion.
e) A traffic light for Peninsula Verde Drive folks!
And if I was to pick a streetscape it would in most case be "B"
Enough!
Regards,
Mario Marchisio, RPV
(310)831-6115
1 130
April 20, 2015
Serious Concerns about the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
Dear Leza Mikhail,
RPV's Western Avenue Vision Plan that requests that small business owners on Western Avenue make 'costly improvements' is
problematic, and in the case of our property at 29627-1 through 29619-3 Western Avenue (Voyager West LLC) a building which is already
making a lower than average yearly CAP rate, these requests do not make good business or monetary sense.
It would not be feasible to penalize property owners and their businesses that provide services and outside employment by creating
mandates (costly negative improvements) and even change buildino structures/locations on the property.
The WAVP is not small business friendly, and would not be supported by the RPV City of Commerce which makes sure that public
agendas benefit the many small businesses in the area.
As a result the proposal it would be difficult to enforce and small business owners would not be able to pay for such extensive costs
and would seek protracted legal advice and action against RPV to maintain and protect their property rights.
One of the primary goals of small business owners in RPV is to protect their struggling small businesses from unrealistic and financially
damaging mandates which include their tenants who are also struggling to rnake a living in the current challenging economy.
On the WAVP website there were many past concerns and complaints by business owners and the community in regard to this unrealistic
proposal. We do not believe that these valuable proposal concerns were taken seriously in the WAVP. The proposal ignored tt1e many
written complaints including more traffic pollution. safety, and dangers of Western Avenue traffic which is a major highway.
The proposal is an unrealistic evaluation and was not written with a small business owner in mind. It does not touch upon current parking
conditions many of which are grandfathered/non-conforming. thus parking in front of buildings along Western is irreplaceable. It blatantly
ignores small property owners' monetary concerns and threatens to make doing business in HPV 'not business friendly'.
In the past we have unfortunately encountered rnany issues of policy makers and F<.PV staff making serious errors because of their lack of
proper training, knowledge, and education in regard to assisting local businesses witt1 their issues. Our building has been affected by these
serious mistakes and incompetence and we have had to rectify these problems and mistakes with costly legal fees to defend our properties
from improper legislation that would not only ruin our business, but cause detrimental loss of revenue on building sales and/or leasing.
Several times we loss a rental tenant and even the sale of a building due to improper information given to the new potential renter/owner in
regard lo parking or basic business information.
We are managers of Voyager West LL.Cat 2%27-1 through 28618-3 Western Avenue. We are grateful for the success of this small real
estate investment business and good long term tenants however our reality is that the business would not be able to afford the high costs
that would incur with the very faulty Western Avenue Vision Plan.
Many small businesses including ours are already burdened with yearly increases in maintenance, taxes, insurance and property
management costs and the regular marketing challenges to find and keep good tenants. Even though it is a small shopping center there is
often a yearly vacancy. With the current economy that challenges the survival of small businesses the vacancy is often a challenge to re-rent.
It is difficult to attract new small business owners/tenants that have enough capital to pay market rent for the rental space on a long term
lease. Our spaces do not turn over quickly, but it can take a year or more to get the space rented to a good tenant by offering a lower that
average rent.
It isn't reasonable to penalize small businesses with limited capital, which provide local services and local jobs in RPV. by expecting them to
pay for costly improvements. extensive building re-models and especially building re-positioning. It doesn't make sense and we are not in
agreement with a proposal that advocates; re·building, bike lanes. and wider sidewalks which would exacerbate and further decrease our
current limited parking for tenants as well as customers.
Also we do not have bikers visiting our shopping center and we do not see any bikers on a very busy Western Avenue. It is not only
dangerous for bikers it is impractical since this is a busy and often congested CA r1ighway that gets backed up for rniles during busy
commuting hours daily. The photos in the power point of South Western Ave and the amount of traffic are deceptive and not realistic. There
would be excessive pollution and much longer commuting tirnes.
If street parking was taken away from the very limited parking next to the building, and across the street by Pecks Park we would have
limited customers, severe parking problems, and constant vacancies in our building and a decreasing rent value that would lower the value of
our property. Tl1ese problems are not acceptable and are extremely detrimental. We cannot afford these extra costs and the reduction of
any parking spaces would likely put us out of business.
We as professional real estate managers would not be able to recommend or tolerate the extensive costs and 'unreasonable negative
improvements/mandates' by WAVP. The WAVP demands would be hard to enforce and struggling businesses would initiate protracted
legal action to defend property owners' rights, to the financial and political detriment of everyone involved.
The proposal is not fair for struggling small business owners and their tenants who are also struggling to make a living in the current
challenging economy. It is not prudent for public administrators to task staff with a study of potential legislation witt1out taking stock of the
exorbitant costs that would be incurred by the many struggling small businesses/landlords along Western. Just because Terranea provides a
considerable amount of TOT revenue to the City, does not give Cart Blancl1e to City officials to find ways to spend it all. In business we call
this study 'blue skying' which means anything goes with no concerns for the reality on the street or business owner costs.
131
WESTERN AVENUE VISION PLAN
3.1 Summary of
Recommendations
The 2-mile stretch of Western Avenue under consideration is well-positioned to compete with other destinations in the region. Rethinking
existing architecture by updating buildings to meet current expectation of visitors, potentially rezoning parcels to optimize space and add
interest, and improving signage, lighting and landscaping would all contribute to improved appearance and function for Western Avenue.
Specifically, the core recommendation of this vision is to update the nature of development along the corridor and reverse the relationship
that buildings and surface parking have with the street. It must be generally emphasized that:
This would be difficult to enforce and would carry protracted lawsuits by small and large businesses and would not be considered favorable
by the RPV chamber of commerce who are advocates for small businesses. These are simply not small business friendly extra costs such as
updating buildings with current standards (costs that have not been analyzed for increased rent, rezoning parcels. improving signage, lighting
and landscaping). A strong street wall with parking behind buildings is not cost effective, endangers buildings from traffic from a major
highway, is not practical or beneficial to small businesses that are already struggling to find and keep tenants and keep improvement costs
down even though costs of maintenance, laxes, insurance and property management increase yearly.
Business improvement districts don't always work and cost property owners lots of money.
New developments should be built along the property line creating a strong street wall where surface parking should not be located
adjacent to the sidewalk and should not serve as the arrival experience of the corridor. With buildings located at the property
edge on the sidewalk, active, visitor-serving uses should be located at ground level.
This is unreasonable especially for our property where the zoning is being considered to be changed from entirely commercial to commercial
and residential mixed use. Any loss of potential building footprint could eliminate the parcel for re-development consideration. RPV has a
zoning mandate by the state of CA to zone in low cost housing that includes a change of zoning from only commercial to mixed use. The
WAVP mandates would not be desirable or cost effective for re-developing our existing commercial building or building a mixed use
building (with zoning ct1anged to commercial and mixed use). It would not be financially feasible to tear down the existing commercial
buildings and change current parking to behind the building instead of in front and then build a new building next to property line to create a
"wall" of merchants, with parking in the back.
Individual parcels could not be re-developed due to the parking in the rear mandate ... automobile ingress and egress would minimize tt1e
building's footprint due to driveways all the way to the rear. The entire block would have to be re-developed at the sarne tirne ... a difficult
proposition.
This proposal does not take into consideration current properties siz.e and depth of most buildings on current lots. There is not enough
square footage on lots to change parking/building location and new parking would have be subterranean. Subterranean parking would be too
expensive for a small business owner. Small business owners do not have an unlimited budget to tear down an existing building and they
would not want to be forced to sell tbeir properties if HPV made these impractical measures mandatory. This would be considered an illegal
taking of the property by the City and would result in legal action.
There would be substantial loss of HPV tax revenue from small businesses if owners tear down their current buildings and have years of
construction. The city would have to supply low interest loans and loss of revenue for years to property owners to assist with lost rental
money from tearing down the first building while they build a new second one next to the hig!1way.
There also could be a new threat of car pile-ups/accidents to the new building and the potential for severe building damage because of its
change of proximity next to the busy highway.
Underutilized street parking can be converted into dedicated bike lanes or wider sidewalks.
This is not correct. Street parking is not underutilized and should not be converted to bike lands or wider sidewalks. This would be
detrimental to business.
The street parking is not underutilized In front of our building. As a matter of fact the hotel/restaurant patrons often illegally park in our lot (we
have signs posted that it is illegal) but continue to park there during busy hours and often use the street parking in front of our building as
well. When our parking lot is used by other businesses our tenants and their customers need to park on the street (if they can find available
space).
To remove this parking area by converting it to dedicated bike lanes or wider sidewalks would be detrimental to our and other business
parking needs in the area, is against landlords rigt1ts and would exacerbate an existing problem with parking and traffic.
Also the bus system has taken away parking across the street next to Peck Park which has further limited our parking for customers and
tenants during bus hours and adding a bike lane/wider sidewalk would further limit parking causing severe parking problems.
The state owns the Western Avenue highway and would not allow bike lanes and larger sidewalks especially if tt1ere would be increased
complaints in regard to traffic, traffic accidents and congestion of cars, and added pollution. Coordinating with the city of LA can be a
protracted nightmare in regard to coordination and agreement with these issu<"s.
In addition, the bike lanes in San Pedro were an utter failure and many of them are being removed due to significant complaints.
The WAVP website pictures do not reveal that Western Avenue is a major CA highway witl1 daily rush hour trafAc backed up for miles on
each side. Any construction of lanes or space taken away from business owners would be detrimental to parking, traffic flow and would
exacerbate high congestion, back up traffic and would cause longer commute times for commuters, more air pollution and noise with cars
stuck for miles in traffic. Local homeowners and businesses do not want these additional problems.
Please also consider the additional congestion that will be caused by the new housing development at Western and F'VDN .. over 800 new
homeowners, each with two cars, that will need lo shop along Western Avenue.
132
More street trees, bio-swales, and other green infrastructure can help to assist storm water management and provide a soft vegetation
buffer between auto traffic and the sidewalk.
The pages that follow offer a more detailed list of recommendations specific to each of the three segments, from streetscape to mobility and
redevelopment. The imagery associated with each of the segments is a compilation of ideas and studies that were completed with guidance
from the Vision Committee and stakeholder input. While the project team understands that not every idea shown represents the full support
of the public, the project team finds still finds it important to showcase them as a process of thought in idea and provocation.
Looking north on Western Ave at Summerland Ave
Looking south on Western Ave at Caddington Dr commercial heart of the study area new developments built along the property line create a
strong street wall parking located at rear of parcel and/or consolidated in structures active, visitor-serving uses located at ground level
sidewalks widths at 15-feet minimum with streetscape that promote vibrant street life
Terraces parcel is redeveloped serving as catalyst for positive transformation
MATCHLINE
W SUMMERLAND AVE
CADDINGTON DR
EASTVIEW PARK
PECK PARK
CRESTWOOD STREET
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Small businesses should not be compared with or expected to meet The Terraces standards since the Terraces is a large development with
significant financial resources. Small businesses do not have unlimited funds for the undesirable WAVP mandates. RPV should not cater to
large businesses as compared to small ones. The RPV Chamber of Commerce would not agree to these unfair conditions.
SOUTHERN SEGMENT
3.1 Southern Segment
Existing characteristics of this segment include:
It stretches 0.75 miles from Summerland Avenue on the south
to Caddington Drive on the north.
If a pedestrian were to walk this segment, ii would take him/
her approximately 15 minutes.
Active, visitor-serving edges (typically commercial) exist on both the east and west sides of the segment.
In particular, the Southern Segment is well-positioned to compete with other high-end retail and entertainment destinations in the
region. Rethinking existing architecture by updating buildings to meet current standards, potentially rezoning parcels to optimize space and
add interest, and improving signage, lighting and landscaping would all contribute to an improved appearance and function for Western
Avenue, especially along the southern segment.
Key recommendations for the Southern Segment include:
This is the commercial heart of the study area and its experience and image needs updating to sustain its success.
Reverse the relationship that buildings and surface parking
have with the street.
New developments should be built along the property line creating a strong street wall.
Parking should be located at the rear of the parcel and/or consolidated in strategically located parking garage structures.
Active, visitor-serving uses (typically commercial) should be
located at the ground level with direct access to the sidewalk.
Sidewalks widths should be 15-feet at a minimum with a streetscape (landscape, furniture, lighting, and pedestrian
amenities) that promotes a vibrant street life.
Opportunities to create outdoors spaces and special places should be a priority on all new (re)developments.
The Terraces parcel is a key redevelopment opportunity and, if programmed and designed sensitively, can serve as the
catalyst for positive transformation up and down the corridor Section cut of Western Ave along the southern segment showing streetscape
opportunities.
Streetscape improvements could include the addition of dedicated bike lanes, continuously landscaped sidewalks and medians, addition of
street trees, improved bus stops, new street furniture (benches, lights, signage), and wider sidewalks at the east and west
133
We are grateful for our tenants however our reality is that most tenants are reliable long term tenants who are paying lower than average
costs and would not be able to remain if rental costs were raised to market level. In addition we pay maintenance, taxes. insurance and
property management costs and struggle to keep good tenants and have a frequent turnover on one of the units. Currently we also struggle
witt1 making enough to pay for these high costs and yet you are requesting that we make "costly improvements' to a rental building which is
already making a lower than average yearly CAP rate? It would not be feasible to penalize property owners and the businesses that provide
services and employment by expecting them to pay for costly improvements, building structures.
This unrealistic and deleterious WAVP proposal and potential legislation is a great concern to property owners and a large threat to small
businesses, and could derail tax revenue these valuable business owners provide. It would cause harm to all commuters that use Western
Avenue on a daily basis. and exacerbate an already congested highway.
WAVP is a costly and ill advised proposal, with a total lack of business knowledge and insight in regard to the many costs involved. Even
though the "study" was paid for with a "Grant", we the tax payers supplied the funds for the "Grant" ... and we the tax payers would also have
to pay for any faulty legislation that proceeds from this patently faulty study.
We are a small business and like most small businesses along Western Avenue we are struggling to find tenants to keep our businesses
going and we do not have unlimited funds for improvements that we do not feel would be beneficial to our business.
My family has lived and worked in RPV for three generations, ancl we know what complications can arise from inadequately thought-out
legislation. Please do not do anything that would cause negative unintended consequences.
Sincerely,
Lori Pierson-Herrera
President
ProSavant Inc.
134
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: tarkads@cox.net
Sent: 4/19/2015 10:14 PM
To: Planning
Joel Rojas
Monday, April 20, 2015 8:02 AM
Leza Mikhail
FW: Traffic light at our intersection (Peninsul Verde Drive) and Western Ave
Subject: Traffic light at our intersection (Peninsul Verde Drive) and Western Ave
Planning Commission:
I request that the planning commission consider a traffic light at our
intersection (Peninsula Verde Drive) as part of the Western Avenue
Vision Plan.
Our sixty homes have only Western as an exit, and it is getting almost
impossible to cross Western at rush hour. Thank you
R. Booth Tarkington
1 135
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Vholmesll@aol.com
Sent: 4/19/2015 10:15 PM
To: Planning
Joel Rojas
Monday, April 20, 2015 8:01 AM
Leza Mikhail
FW: BEAUTIFICATION WESTERN
Subject: BEAUTIFICATION WESTERN
TO: Leza Mikhail
I live off of Peninsula Verde Drive at Western and would like to request a traffic signal leading
onto Western. The traffic worsens each year and we have had one fatality of a person trying
to cross. We have been promised one and nothing comes of it. Would you be able to help us?
Vivian Holmes
26902 Circle Verde Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1 136
March 16, 2015
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rebecca Liu
City of Los Angeles
Council District 15
Re: Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines
Dear Mr. Rojas and Ms. Liu,
We are pleased to see that the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles are working together
along with Cal Trans to address improvements for Western Avenue.
The March 14 presentation of "Western Avenue Design Implementation Guidelines" provided only a
brief glimpse at a plan document. The plan seemed to include some nice urban design features such as
landscaping with drought tolerant natives, re-vitalizing public streets as places for people to interact,
dine, and wa,lk, permeable paving, etc. Those elements should indeed all be goals for Western Avenue.
But otherwise the proposed guidelines seemed to be so generic, so unrelated to anything that now
exists on Western and so dependent on total demolition and reconstruction of most of the existing
structures in a vague distant future that overall it was very disappointing.
It was quite dis-orienting to see plans illustrating few cars but with solid walls of multi-storied buildings
fronting the street. Dense multi-story buildings pushed up to the sidewalk edge is NOT what the
residents of this area desire, and to include such a "vision" in the plan, even only as an illustration, can
only be viewed as a threat of denser development to come. Where did all the existing cars, buses and
trucks supposedly go? How did all the driveways disappear? How are we supposed to transition from
the current situation to this fantasized generic plan without introducing even more design inconsistency
to the hodge podge of what already exists?
We can't just transplant charming urban streets with sidewalk dining and public gathering spaces onto
Western Avenue even by wholesale demolition and rebuilding from scratch. Those charming settings
succeed in neighborhoods where there is an existing parallel grid of streets to distribute the burden of
traffic more widely and where sidewalks are not dissected by multiple driveways. Western Avenue has
very different, challenging characteristics and thus requires a more customized design plan.
Western Avenue has some very real problems now, for drivers, for cyclists, for pedestrians, and for
businesses. We need to see some short term options to address those problems and provide some
immediate improvements.
137
Current Conditions
Existing Character of Western Avenue
• It is a HIGHWAY, with all the intensity of traffic that implies.
• It is the sole ingress/egress route for several neighborhoods.
• It overlays infrastructure lines (sewers, electric, phone, etc.) that occasionally require disruptive
maintenance and repair.
• It is often gridlocked.
• It must accommodate a vast range of traffic including: pedestrians; bicyclists; motorcyclists and
scooters; passenger vehicles in sizes ranging from subcompact to oversized; buses; and trucks
ranging up to 18 wheel semi's.
• It must accommodate daily commutes; local errands; the beginnings and endings of all longer
distance travel; funeral processions; business deliveries; etc. It is the sole access route for
emergency vehicles to many locations.
• It is pedestrian hostile.
o The noise level from Western Avenue traffic makes it difficult to have a conversation on
the sidewalk
o Sidewalks are frequently interrupted by driveways to parking lots, putting pedestrians at
risk when drivers fail to observe pedestrians and/or rush to beat the pedestrian to the
driveway in order to squeeze through vehicular traffic situations. There sometimes
seems to be no such thing as a pedestrian right of way on the sidewalks.
o Pedestrian access to businesses is primarily via parking lots, but there is nothing along
the driveway or within many parking lots to acknowledge or protect the presence and
rights of pedestrians -who are made to feel like they are not really supposed to be
there, that they are just scofflaws and jaywalkers impeding traffic. Walking through
some parking lots is like a high stakes game of dodge ball.
o Many of the private residential property walls on Western are in disrepair -some
retaining walls are tilting towards the sidewalk as if ready to collapse, a potential threat
to the safety of nearby pedestrians. Many chain link fences have been bashed out of
shape, whether by traffic accidents or by vandalism. These fences and walls are not
only unpleasant aesthetically, but the solid walls reflect a great deal of heat and noise.
What can be done to improve Western Avenue -now, rather than decades in the future?
A key strategy to improving the quality of Western Avenue has to be to reduce the volume of vehicular
traffic -the challenge is how to achieve that on a corridor which must serve essentially all the transit
needs of the community. Until that issue is addressed, Western is going to continue to be problematic,
and is going to get worse. No amount of window dressing will improve that condition. Improving the
pedestrian experience on Western is also essential -it must be made safer and less noisy or few people
will want to be there.
1. Reduce the volume of vehicular traffic and improve traffic flow.
• Prohibit future developments that would increase traffic on Western
• Support multiple transit options on Western so that they do not conflict with one another
• Improve public transit with small shuttle buses
Currently Western has very limited bus service, including the #205 that runs approximately
every half hour on weekdays, and less often on weekends. This is not frequent enough to make
it feasible for practical use -it essentially adds at least an hour of "wasted" time to any errand
or trip using that bus, and multiplies that waste of time for every additional destination.
138
A frequent, reliable shuttle service using smaller vehicles would be a way to improve access for
local residents to businesses and other venues on Western Avenue. If wait times were no longer
than 10 or 15 minutes it would be possible for people to combine multiple small errands on
Western without needing to drive a car to do so. A route extending to Home Depot and Target
or to the medical offices on 61h Street in San Pedro would also be very useful. Shuttles could
potentially drop off and pick up passengers within existing parking lots, mitigating the disruption
of bus stops to general traffic flow on Western.
If the number of people using mass transit increases, there would be fewer cars on Western.
• Investigate the possibility of restricting the use of large delivery trucks to certain hours of the
day (or night).
2. Make sidewalks safe for pedestrians.
• Reduce the number of driveways intersecting Western Ave. Each driveway creates a hazard for
both pedestrians and cyclists. The driveways also add to traffic congestion when a line of cars
needs to slow down as a single car enters or exits a driveway. When possible, driveways should
be located on the side streets, or reduced to a single major driveway serving multiple parking
areas. Such major driveways should be treated as intersections -with stop signs or lights if
needed -for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
• Require parking lot driveways to include sidewalk extensions to the primary business
walkways, with clearly marked crossing areas.
• Consider re-routing sidewalks further from the street and also away from the parking traffic
areas if possible. Existing shopping area walkways might be useful to consider as parts of
connecting walkways along Western -with connections created between adjacent properties
where feasible. Add buffering landscaping. Amenities such as outdoor dining could be created
in such settings, which would be less noisy than any location closer to the traffic.
• Consider a city "Star" award for shopping centers and businesses that have made themselves
more pedestrian-cyclist-public transit friendly. Promote those efforts with occasional events to
introduce people to transit alternatives as well as to small businesses on Western.
3. Investigate the possibility of buying out or obtaining an easement for a small strip of the lower
private properties that abut Western. Even a few feet would allow the construction of a consistent
retaining wall and some buffering landscaping to reduce noise and heat coming off those walls and
perhaps also provide more setback from traffic. Improving this section of Western might make walking
to the shopping areas more appealing to local residents.
4. Please forget the cliche of palm trees -they provide no beneficial shade or sound buffering and drop
dangerous heavy fronds creating a hazard for people and traffic in storm or Santa Ana wind conditions.
A drought tolerant, preferably locally native plant palette would be far more suitable.
5. What about bike lanes? The recent reduction of traffic lanes for cars in order to create bike lanes on
Westmont and on Capitol Drive has created a great deal of animosity in the community and has
worsened, rather than improved, traffic flow. Those bike lanes seem to be rarely used, the lane
markings are very arcane and confusing and many drivers are very angry about it. A fiasco like that
should not be repeated.
139
Ultimately bike lanes should be incorporated into a revitalized plan for Western Avenue -but the
implementation of bike lanes should not be the first and only thing that is done even if it might be the
easiest thing for the cities to implement. The first thing that should be done is improving public transit
by the addition of a small shuttle service. Next, plans should be developed to improve public walkways
and sidewalks as discussed above. It may well turn out that by considering re-routing of sidewalks and
walkways other options for bike pathways will become evident. Certainly if the number of driveways
occurring along Western is reduced, that would also benefit cyclists.
Conclusions
Generic designs aren't going to work for Western Avenue. It is a highway in the middle of suburbia, not
"Main Street" in the middle of a grid of alternate routes. While pedestrian-friendly street frontage, with
dining areas, etc. is very appealing, Western is burdened with too many functions to expect it to ever be
a quiet avenue with light traffic. Who wants to dine right next to a highway? We can't even have a
conversation on Western.
In order to improve the experience of Western Avenue we need to start from existing conditions, not a
fantasy of starting from scratch in some abstract future scenario. We need to think creatively and
resourcefully in terms of what actually exists. Change does not necessarily require a complete start over
and re-do, but it does require some real thought and coordinated planning.
It would be worth trying to improve public transit with a reliable small shuttle service. If successful, that
approach could reduce vehicular traffic and increase pedestrian traffic. In addition, if sidewalks were
rerouted to meander behind parking lots and directly in front of businesses, there would then be two
zones -one for cars and one for people. The addition of consistent landscaping could divide those
zones, buffer noise and make them aesthetically attractive. At that point, there could easily be pleasant
spaces for people to dine or mingle outside.
This would not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but it might be the best option to improve Western in the
near future.
Sincerely,
Barbara Sattler
Resident
Rancho Palos Verdes
Cc: Linda J. Taira, California Department of Transportation
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
140
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thomas Wall <lawyerwall@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 5:17 PM
Leza Mikhail
Public comment on Western Avenue Vision Plan
I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes living in the East View
section of the city. I will be directly impacted by the
proposed vision plan regarding Western Avenue.
I applaud the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for looking at the issues
regarding Western Avenue. Traffic on Western Avenue already is
dramatically increasing and when the new apartment complex is
open, there is no doubt traffic will reach almost stand still levels.
Traffic will also increase in the area as there is no doubt that the
student population at the middle and elementary schools in the
Eastview will also increase.
However, the proposed plan completely overlooks that Western
Avenue runs through a residential area. There are single family
residences on one side of Western Avenue. The proposed vision
plan as written overlooks the substantial increase in traffic that
Western Avenue will experience. The plan in fact sounds like it is
trying to increase traffic on Western Avenue rather than try to
decrease it.
The other issue I have with the plan is the idea that commercial
buildings should face the curb lane of the street and have parking in
the back. This design approach is not compatible with the
residential nature of the area. Further, this design approach is not
consistent with the present buildings on Western Avenue.
The proposed vision plan leads one to believe that the true goal of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is to increase the business value
1 141
of Western Avenue to the City at the expenses of the residents of
Eastview. Is this assumption is correct,
then seeking public comment regarding the Western Avenue Vision
Plan is a waste of everyone's time.
Thomas Wall
2 142
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bob Burchett < bob.burchett@eeontheweb.com >
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 2:21 PM
Leza Mikhail
RE: Vision For Western Ave is linked to Ponte Vista too
Hi Leza; do you also know a contact at Ponte Vista engineering/ design? I have been submitting this document for years;
emailed, mailed, sent to Donna Littlejohn at the Daily Breeze who also forwarded it and never received even a notice
they got it. This is about to become a critical issue when they get their grading permits and proceed to mess up your
excellent Vision project!
The Ponte Vista project is a major intrusion on the aging infrastructure of Western Ave and the entire ecosystem
surrounding it; we have no water, no capacity for 2000 new residents, no electricity to spare, no natural gas pipes to
deliver it, the sewage lines are 50+ years old and on the verge of collapse. Ponte Vista will become a disaster waiting to
happen when the pipes burst UNDER Western Avenue 6 months after the Vision is complete and the first residents
move in.
We have already put up with one pipe failure after another and they only put on band-aids; never a real replacement as
there is no funding for NEW only patches on the OLD.
Ponte Vista must be a completely self-contained city; with no drain on the dying plumbing UNDER your new Vision for
Western Avenue unless you want to see lots of construction crews filling cave-ins for months on end impacting the
terrible traffic that exists today ... that is a vision you don't want to think about.
MANY of the answers to this are designed-in to the Letter! sent to them that they consistently seem to be missing; they
need CITY pressure to make this happen.
FURTHER any new construction in the area that RPV has purview over should have many of the same features; water
reclamation, graywater capture, runoff capture, urine from waterless traps captured and mixed with the proper
chemical to become fertilizer for the plants, toilets that compost and provide dehydrated fertilizer sludge components,
refrigerators & HVAC that utilize the latest special sensing mechanisms so they consume practically zero electricity
during parts of the day & months of the year and so much more.
WE have the solutions to ALL of these outlined above. This is not a drill nor a pie-in-the-sky concept... this is real
technology solving the problems that must be addressed with each and every nail driven into new or rehab/ update/
modernize/ construction permits.
Don't miss this opportunity to help us make Ponte Vista and new PV I RPV construction burden-free of the
ecosystem ... we can do this NOW ... please push this along to the right folks and make me prove it.
Best regards;
Robert L. (Bob) Burchett
Certified Communications Engineer
Enterprise Electronics
Contractors License 522372
22826 Mariposa Ave.
Torrance CA 90502
310.534.4456
1 143
Bob.Burchett@EEonTheWeb.com
From: Leza Mikhail [mailto:LezaM@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Bob.Burchett@EEonTheWeb.com
Subject: RE: Vision For Western Ave is linked to Ponte Vista too
Hello Bob,
Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to include them in the Staff Report.
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is ''@}rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect lezam@rpvca.gov as my new email.
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
L City of <.R..,ancfio <Pafos Verdes
Planning Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5228 -(310) 544-5293 f
lezam@rpvca.gov
From: Bob Burchett [mailto:bob.burchett@eeontheweb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:57 AM
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: Vision For Western Ave is linked to Ponte Vista too
Importance: High
Kindly take into account the fact that Ponte Vista will seriously impact anything you do with regards to Western Avenue
and this is the letter I have been sending to them for years now .... dating back to the days of Bob Bisno, Donna Littlejohn
with the Daily Breeze is well aware of it too ... don't let this major component go unnoticed; Ponte Vista is the proverbial
gorilla in the room and cannot be ignored.
Kindly look this over and consider posting it & taking the effects into account ASAP as they are stalled awaiting
permits .... NOW is the time to help them make major engineering decisions that will affect the entire area; especially
with regard to the overburdened infrastructure they are about to collapse.
Robert L. "Bob" Burchett
Certified Communications Engineer
Enterprise Electronics
22826 Mariposa Ave.
Torrance CA 90502
Direct line: 310.534.4456
FAX: 310.534.1233
Website: www.EEonTheWeb.com
2 144
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Bob Burchett < bob.burchett@eeontheweb.com>
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:57 AM
Leza Mikhail
Vision For Western Ave is linked to Ponte Vista too
Pontevista and Vision For Western Ave 4-2015.doc
High
Kindly take into account the fact that Ponte Vista will seriously impact anything you do with regards to Western Avenue
and this is the letter I have been sending to them for years now .... dating back to the days of Bob Bisno, Donna Littlejohn
with the Daily Breeze is well aware of it too ... don't let this major component go unnoticed; Ponte Vista is the proverbial
gorilla in the room and cannot be ignored.
Kindly look this over and consider posting it & taking the effects into account ASAP as they are stalled awaiting
permits .... NOW is the time to help them make major engineering decisions that will affect the entire area; especially
with regard to the overburdened infrastructure they are about to collapse.
Robert L. "Bob" Burchett
Certified Communications Engineer
Enterprise Electronics
22826 Mariposa Ave.
Torrance CA 90502
Direct line: 310.534.4456
FAX: 310.534.1233
Website: www.EEonTheWeb.com
1 145
Date: April 14, 2015
ROBERT LEE BURCHETT
1633 Caddington Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-534-4456
To: Both the Ponte Vista and Vision For Western Avenue Design Teams
Attn: Engineers and design teams: you must factor everything in
Re: Congratulations; Ponte Vista will finally become reality .... but ...
Now that the Ponte Vista project is set to some 700 homes you both have to ACT to make this work and
work RIGHT by solving all the problems Ponte Vista will create before they happen; and that includes the
Vision for Western Avenue so here is exactly how as I addressed the Ponte Vista Team for years:
To get right to the point; you have to make every part of it eco-friendly by design from the get-go and
we have the technology to do just that today. Further; I will bet you dinner that if you follow 100% of this
proposal that you will get both the Presidential Medal of Honor and the key to the city for doing it and
more development requests than your company can handle. Here is how to address the issues.
1. Convert from a "community" to a "CITY" concept by taking everything into account in one plan
2. Make it 100% "green acres" and make it pay its own way; we already know how to do it:
• Utilize solar heating and electric power generation for total electric independence
• Double insulate each unit and wrap them in Tyvek for heat capture and cooling efficiency
• Circulate pump hot water from the solar heat system so as not to waste any hot water
• Insulate all pipes everywhere to keep cool water cool and hot water hot
• Install waterless urinals in every home (www.waterless.com) and pressure flush toilets too
• Install light-sensing/ heat-sensing windows that react to the temperature outside & inside
• Wire all homes for FIBER OPTIC high speed connectivity for Internet, telephone & TV
• Connect with Cox Communications to build you a top class data delivery system for it
• Make tele-commuting a reality for residents to reduce the traffic problems where it can
• Make all appliances Internet connected for management, maintenance & support
• Build a landfill and use STI technology for rapid-depletion to generate lots of methane gas
• Use the gas to generate even more electricity so your CITY sells power to Edison
• Use the exhaust stack heat from the turbines to run chillers to cool water and buildings
• Use electric power for all or nearly all heat, cool and cooking to cut greenhouse gasses
• Install Water Furnace geothermal units found here: http://www.waterfurnace.com/
• Capture all water, runoff, rain, sewage & recycle it (use George Bush's house as a model)
• Run a pipe the short distance from the ocean to an on-premises desalination plant
• Run the power-hungry desalination plant on solar/ methane gas turbine power
\t~\\.\~\1:1\~;q('..~7/ft1 .. t-~ -,,~"'f liff . ~IJ .• ~)' &I.! ·\'~
146
ROBERT LEE BURCHETT
1633 Caddington Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-534-4456
• Design all water decor, fountains, etc. to use 100% on-premises recycled water
• Manage all of the greenspace with modern watering systems to minimize evaporation
• Make a deal with an American auto maker to supply hybrid or electric vehicles for the City
• Sell the same vehicles to residents at special rates and mandate 100% conversion to them
• Decree that only hybrid or cars with 35+ MPG be allowed inside the gates
• Provide electric power hookups to recharge the plug-and-drive cars
• Electric tram from outside parking to inside units to halt gas consumption even by visitors
• Sell natural gas to vehicles that run on it at your own filling station and make money on it
• Sell hydrogen at cost to Fuel Cell car owners; (Mercedes, Honda & Toyota make them)
• Operate an on-premises oil change facility that recycles automotive engine oil to make $$
• Partially recycle engine & vegetable oils for bio-fueled clean diesel cars & sell the overage
• Provide busses and maybe an overhead monorail to move people around the premises
• Create car and vanpool transportation systems to get people to park & ride or rail stations
That was the EASY stuff since the technology is already in place to do everything I just wrote. Now
comes the harder part since you MUST have a total plan for the exodus at 7 AM weekdays with the dump
onto overcrowded Western A venue to make us all WANT you here:
• I know the folks at Metro; get with them to partner up & make every transport solution your ideas:
• Light rail, monorail, tunnel or bus people to lower parking lots @ Marymount for exit to 5 Points
• Build a route down to Gaffey Street for traffic that can go that way (deal with DFSP for this)
• Monorail to a station at the top of Westmont where a protected lot keeps residents cars safe
• Make a deal with Conoco Phillips to traverse their facility and provide THEIR people with service
• The Westmont lot is adjacent to the 110 Freeway so build new on & off ramps for this lot there
• Provide free shuttle services for LAX and LGB airports so that they never have to drive there
• Connect with the NEW condos just south of Ponte Vista and offer them transport service too
• Build tunnels & protected "peoplemovers" to the West side of Western for school access
You need all of the public opinion going your way that you can get. So what if the Chamber of Commerce
loves you? They don't live next to you; WE do. You need ALL of the people to WANT to sell their
condos and move into YOURS and you won't be able to build enough of them when you add in:
• Make a deal with the Albertsons/ RiteAid shopping plaza to connect with them to build support
• Build a Mini-Albertsons inside for the 1000 most needed items and free delivery of the rest
• Cox Internet will connect directly with these vendors for instant-ordering and delivery
• Do the same for Rite Aid with their pharmacy services and the other vendors when they sign on
• Do a lot of 1031 exchanges with your own real estate brokerage people so you get trade-in buyers
• Operate your own mortgage lender system like the retirement communities do so you get them IN
• Operate your own alarm company and guard service so that everyone feels safe in their homes
147
• Wire the senior living with protective devices for fall, no-motion detection and panic buttons
• Provide them with our new personal safety GPS trackers for peace of mind while out and about
• Provide an extensive video surveillance system to insure that no trouble happens in your CITY
• Put in street corner call boxes around the City for people to call for help or to report trouble
• I can help wire the City for Wi Fi access everywhere in the shops, parks and recreation areas
• Put a dome over ONE field to permit a year-around outdoor recreational facility to really work
• Get Pete Dye to build you a top class golf course with clubhouse and callbox food/ drink ordering
• Put in robot delivery systems for mail and other light goods (yes, these really DO exist now)
OK, you get the idea; if you have read this far then you see the concept and you CAN do this the right way
the first and only time you will ever get to do it and why not make money along the way?
Call on Los Angeles Community College District for budding talent as well as SCROC, Long Beach
State, Dominguez College and El Camino to guest-design and provide instructional/ on-the-job work. Not
only will it save you money but it will put your partnering talents on the big city map. Get some time on
the Cox local channels to call for talent; they will love you for it. Look up George Bush's house to see it.
You NEED to have them clamoring for MORE units and this is absolutely positively the ONLY way you
can design it quietly, reveal it in an explosive public appearance and then get out of the way while they
beat the door down to come IN. Note that NONE of this stuff is outlandish, far-fetched, unthinkable or
unattainable. All of it is sound business practices that will change you from the most-hated-and-feared to
the most-loved in one step. Nothing else can or will do this. Nothing is stronger than public opinion.
A little about me: I am a local businessman and inventor by trade, I am an answer-man who finds ways in
when everyone else is looking for a way out. It only took me two hours to write up this proposal but you
will have 5 years to build it and 30 years of success to show for it.
Sure, my company provides some of the product that I have outlined in the proposal and that is how I
know that they work and will do exactly what I say that they will do. I also know the top eco-architect in
the business and the man that invented and patented the landfill-reduction technology too. They would
both love the opportunity to hook up with you to do this. My circle of friends include the best in each
industry they work in .. .let us make that work for you.
Just buy a book at Amazon.com and call in the green experts; we get a new eco-City and you get all the
credit. Most of the rest is in a book that I bought my eco-crazy niece this past Christmas; she got a lot of
things but this $30 book called "The Real Goods Solar Living Sourcebook -Special 30th Anniversary
Edition: The Complete Guide To Renewable Resources" had more between its covers in terms of value to
her than all of the rest combined. You can buy this book too, but the trick is to get the eco-geniuses to sign
on with you for the thrill and press they will get to build an entire CITY. I bet most of them will work for
nearly free just to get their name on the bronze plaque out front and the TV coverage that will come.
Please don't ignore my letter this time! This is the one and only chance you have to alleviate the issues we
get to live with every day like less water (CA is in a drought you know!) and traffic is at an all-time high,
148
local streets are being re-striped to serve bicyclists who never use them but impede traffic NO end and
more. You must be a part of the solution otherwise you are adding to the problems. Do it RIGHT!
So call in your markers, favors and all of your friends. Call on the technology community to make this
happen. Bring in the top class horsepower, close the door with this proposal on the table and watch their
eyes light up. Make us ALL proud (and a bit envious) to be neighbors of Ponte Vista Eco-CITY.
Robert L. (Bob) Burchett
Certified Communications Engineer
State Contractors License 8223 72
Enterprise Electronics
www.EEonTheWeb.com
Email; Bob.Burchett@EEonTheWeb.com
310.534.4456
f..f':;.. National Society of lfjJJ Professional Engineers
149
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Leza Mikhail
Patrick Castro < patrick_h_castro@yahoo.com >
Monday, April 13, 2015 4:33 PM
Leza Mikhail
Western Avenue Vision Plan
Western.pptx
I am a resident of RPV and live in the eastview area that borders the Western Avenue vision plan.
have looked over the plan and I am very pleased with it. I have only two areas of concern. One is
the left turn on W Crestwood Street and the other is the section on Summerland St from Western Ave
up past the Community Christian Church. I have attached a powerpoint to help show what I am
talking about.
Summerland St may be on the edge of your plan, but improvements along this section of the street
will greatly improve the traffic flow for the residents of RPV and San Pedro.
Thank for your help and I look forward to seeing positive improvements sometime in the near future
along Western Ave.
Patrick H Castro
2116 Noble View Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
(310) 831-3835
1 150
The access road
connecting W
Summerland has
been in need of
street repair of
years please
repair and
improve the this
section.
ff{\_}l'
~r
H
C ,., .. , .. ,rb'<;q,;rkr:.,;mChn; ~ r {~~~--''' .,.· c,,f"." 'j••v.'>' '"-''·~-y
Please widen left
turn lane and
install a left
arrow turn signal
151
Leza Mikhail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Joel Rojas
Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:53 PM
Babla, Christine
Leza Mikhail
FW: New Idea for Western Ave!
From: mark 490 [mailto:mark490@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 9:45 PM
To: Rebecca.liu@lacity.org
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: New Idea for Western Ave!
I missed the meeting a couple of weeks ago, but I have an idea that will relieve traffic on Western Ave., !st
St. AND Gaffey St.
Simply make Summerland St. a 4 lane road, 2 lanes going east and 2 lanes going west. The west lane would
connect directly with the 110 fwy N. thereby bypassing and alleviating the traffic backup on Western Ave.
caused by commuters turning left and right onto the narrow, 2 lane 1st St. Traffic then backs up on 1st St.
turning left onto Gaffey St. where traffic also gridlocks when trying to reach the 110 N.
The area between Summerland and the 110 N. is an empty field (and of course the 110 S.) which could be
overpassed (or tunneled under).
-Let me know what you think.
Mark Foster (310) 982-5619
1 152
Open House Summary
(March 14, 2015)
153
March 14, :2015
Public Open House
Meeting Summary
WESIERN AVENUE
CORRIDOR
154
:SO UTH £R N CA ll rDRN IA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
A:COM
This is a project for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles with
funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG)
Compass Blueprint Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern California cities
and other organizations in evaluating planning options and stimulating development
consistent with the region's goals. Compass Blueprint tools support visioning efforts,
infill analyses, economic and policy analyses, and marketing and communication
programs. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s)
from the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) and the Federal Transit Administration
(FT A) through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the
provisions under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of
Title 23 of the U.S. Code.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policies of SCAG , DOT, or the State of California. SCAG shall not be
responsible for the City's future use or adaptation of the report.
155
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION AND VISION.............................................. 1
2 MEETING OVERVIEW, NOTICING, AND FORMAT............... 1
3 SUMMARY OF INPUT RECEIVED........................................ 2
4 INPUT RECEIVED, ORGANIZED BY TOPIC....................... 2
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Meeting Invitation ............................................... 6
Appendix B: Meeting Photos.................................................... 8
Appendix C: Comment card, comments submitted by
participants, and photographs of post-it note comments on
graphics and maps................................................................... 11
Appendix D: Copies of email comments received in the 1
week after the meeting........................................................... 23
Appendix E: Meeting Presentation........................................... 32
Appendix G: Meeting Boards................................................... 49
Appendix G: Sign-in sheets....................................................... 54
156
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
1. Meeting Overview, Noticing, and Format
The Public Open House Meeting was the first public meeting to present the Western Avenue Corridor
Design Implementation Guidelines (project). Western Avenue is the primary north -south corridor of
the South Bay, Peninsula, and San Pedro communities. In 2013, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV),
together with SCAG, developed the Western Avenue Vision Plan, a community-led effort to improve
the corridor for residents, businesses, and visitors alike. In 2014, the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and
Los Angeles (LA), together with SCAG, began developing the Western Avenue Design Implementation
Guidelines, to move forward with the next step of implementing the Vision Plan .
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes posted notice of the meeting on their website and mailed
approximately 3,000 invitations. The City of Los Angeles Council District 15 advertised the Open House
in three newsletters. Additionally, both digital and hard copies of the flyer were provided to Steering
Committee members for them to personally invite participants to attend .
The Public Open House Meeting was organized as an Open House style format, with public viewing of
materials between 10 am to 2 pm, and scheduled formal presentations at 10:30 am and 1 pm . There
were presentation boards summarizing the effort, and three stations to review copies of the Draft
Design Guidelines document, talk with City and Consultant staff, and provide comments. Community
input was obtained by asking attendees to fill out comment cards, providing post-it notes for attendees
to make notes and stick directly to boards and maps, and City and consultant staff received verbal
comments in small break out discussions at the stations .
The following questions were asked on the comment cards:
1. Do you have any comments on the presented Draft Design Guidelines materials?
2. Which streetscape option do you prefer?
a. With bike lanes
b. Without bike lanes
c. Hybrid approach
3. What do you think would make the Draft Design Guidelines better?
Additionally, contact information for both RPV and LA representatives, was provided on the comment
cards, so that participants could provide additional comments at a later date.
2. Meeting Materials and Records
According to the sign-in sheets, approximately 78 people attended the Public Open House. Participants
included local residents and other stakeholders from Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro, including
representatives from home owner associations, social/community groups, business owners,
representatives from local government departments, and others .
Meeting materials and records can be found in Appendices following the meeting summary:
• Appendix A: Meeting Invitation
• Appendix B: Meeting Photos
• Appendix C: Comment card, comments submitted by participants, and photographs of post-it
note comments on graphics and maps
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015 157
WESTERN AVENUE DESIG N IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
• Appendix D: Copies of email comments received in the 1 week after the meeting
• Appendix E: Meeting Presentation
• Appendix F: Meeting Boards
• Appendix G: Sign-in sheets
3. Summary of Input Received
In general, feedback on the Draft Design Guidelines, and the alternative streetscape options was mixed
and participants had very diverse comments, design goals, vision, and preferences on how Western
Avenue should be improved. No clear preference for one specific streetscape option emerged from the
feedback.
Some common themes in the comments received were related to parking along Western Avenue (both
in favor and opposed), the concern for landscaping impeding views, having medians and associated
landscaping, and the desire to use drought tolerant landscaping . Although not in the scope of the
project, there were some similar comments that emerged primarily regarding existing traffic conditions
which included the existing traffic congestion, requests for dedicated turn pockets to help maintain the
flow of traffic, having dedicated turning arrows on traffic signals, and maintaining existing travel lane
widths.
The comments received at the Open House are summarized and grouped below. To help classify the
number of comments received on each topic the term "some" wa s used if two or more comments were
received on a topic; and "several" was used if three or more comments were received. For a record of
the specific comments received, see Appendices C and D.
4. Input Received, organized by Topic
A. General Comments
• A recommendation was made to require traditional or classical designs; not a modern
style that could go out of style in 10 years.
• Due to the limited input from younger constituents and the long -term nature of the
project, one participant requested more input from younger community members.
• It was stated that people will not walk more than one block and that Western Avenue
should not be turned into a destination; it is a place that provides services and goods for
locals.
• Comment indicated the additional homes in the Ponte Vista development and the
additional traffic the project will produce.
• A suggestion to secure a second access for the Ponte Vista development (not on Western
Avenue) was made.
• Commenter stated that the existing stores and shopping centers are not outdated.
• Comment stated that private traffic control officers should not impede traffic flow.
• A comment was made requesting design features that hinder skateboards from entering
shopping centers.
• Question was asked about the type of multi-family units that would be developed in the
Terraces project.
• Comment recommended creating and reinforcing temporary sign standards.
• Comment requested placing median improvements and smaller projects on a "fast
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 158
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDE LI NES
track" processing schedule.
• A request was made to rebuild the existing sound wall in the Middle Segment.
• Comment requested to continue to inform public when improvements are made with
notices, lights, signs, etc.
B. Comments related to Bike Lanes
• Se veral participants preferred bike lanes instead of parking along We stern Avenue.
• Some participants were supportive of bike lanes, provided that the width and number of
travel lanes were not affected.
• Se veral participants were not supportive of incorporating bike lanes.
• Summary of several comments include: if bike lanes are included, they should be
separated from the travel lane; designed with wider than standard width s; protected
by a greenbelt; properly maintained; and riders should be "required" to ride in the bike
lane.
• Se veral participants stated that they support the cycle track option.
• Support of a dedicated bike lane was indicated, but noted that it would be challenging
and dangerous along the southern and middle segments of the project.
• A comment indicated a preference for a Class Ill bike way.
C. Comments related to Traffic
• Se veral participants indicated they did not want the width of the travel lanes to be
reduced and the traffic gets back-up due to turning vehicles.
• Severa l participants stated that the movement of vehicles is the primary goal and
aesthetic are secondary.
• A request for three lanes of traffic in each direction wa s provided.
• A request was to have We stern Avenue designed to have similar form and function as
Crenshaw Boulevard-to accommodate heavy traffic traveling northerly and southerly.
• A comment requested prohibiting street parking at the intersection of Trudie Drive and
Crestwood Street to allow through traffic was made.
• Some participants requested installation of bus bays to allow the flow of traffic and to
strategically place bus stops.
• Some participants requested designated turn pockets (especially at shopping areas) to
allow traffic to continue to flow when vehicles are turning.
• A request for a dedicated left turn signal at Crestwood Street and Western Avenue was
made.
• Some attendees requested revised synchronization of existing traffic lights.
• A request was made for east/west signals to be longer to address queueing issue s.
• The request was made to add green turn arrows to some existing traffic lights in certain
segments along Western Avenue to better facilitate turning movements and reduce
delays.
• Some comments requested straight travel lanes with no bump outs or curb cuts.
• Some attendees indicated the need to provide U-turn opportunities that wouldn't affect
schools or businesses (i.e. at Caddington Drive and Western Avenue).
• A commenter requested that U-turns not be allowed at Caddington Drive and Western
Avenue.
• A comment requested the speed limit on Western Avenue in the middle segment be
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 159
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
reduced.
• Some participants suggested having "major" traffic on Western Avenue use private
road(s) for through traffic traveling to Rancho Palos Verdes.
• A suggestion was made to rename Western Avenue to "Go Green Highway."
• A comment requested keeping the road into Peck Park from the Sprouts shopping
center.
• A comment recommended transit along We stern Avenue; not adding more travel lanes.
• A recommendation to have a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane was provided.
• A recommendation for P74 connections to public transit was provided.
D. Comments related to Design
• Se veral participants stated parking should not be allowed along Western Avenue as the
existing parking is used for advertising, car sales and is unsafe; whereas some comments
supported parking along Western Avenue.
• A recommendation to remove all existing parking along Western Avenue was made.
• Se veral participants support the draft plan; a recommendation was provided to ensure
the community fully understands the goal of the project: To make Western Avenue
accessible to all modes of travel including pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.
• Several participants prefer the hybrid alternative; acknowledging the heavy traffic on
Western Avenue; some participants support the alternative without bike lanes.
• A request was made to prioritize attractive design over function.
• A recommendation was made to not use art sculptures, LAX style lights or murals;
whereas another recommendation was to consider using art and iron decor along the
streetsca pe.
• Some participants do not support locating businesses next to the street and sidewalk
indicating it appears to make businesses less accessible and uninviting, crowded; creates
a tunnel effect.
• Several participants support businesses facing the street and want to see a focus on
pedestrian friendly areas and sidewalks-with streets being accessible to all users.
• Several comments requested making sidewalks safe for pedestrians, including widening
sidewalks, improving pedestrian crossings, adding more landscaping along the street,
and having fewer driveways/curb cuts.
• A recommendation was made to replace parking lot asphalt with filtration materials (i.e.
"grasscrete", or permeable concrete) or ground cover, so ponding does not occur in rain
events.
• A suggestion was made to add planting, seating areas, and bike lanes in the rear of
businesses (away from Western Avenue) if there is rear building access.
• A recommendation was made to underground electrical lines, and eliminate poles
which have been involved in traffic accidents; if electrical lines were removed, trees and
sidewalk could be removed and a bike lane could be added.
• Some attendees requested that fan palms not be used and to limit trees to a 20 foot
maximum height; another comment recommended using New Zealand Christmas trees.
• Some attendees commented that existing median trees need maintenance; therefore
additional trees should not be incorporated if they are not properly maintained.
• Several participants suggested removing median trees, and a commenter noted
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOU SE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
160
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IM PLEMENTATION GUIDE LI NES
concerns about adding additional medians.
• A request was made to consider design options that did not include plants and to
consider xeriscape alternatives such as rock gardens or other forms of design.
• Several participants recommend using drought tolerant landscaping and not using
"generic" landscaping design as their communities are not "generic".
• Some participants requested using a local nursery (within close proximity to the project)
as the nursery currently grows plants for Rancho Palos Verdes and other jurisdictions.
• A commenter requested that improvements need to ensure proper filtration and
percolation to eliminate nesting areas for mosquitos and bugs .
• A recommendation was made to implement landscaping from the sidewalk to private
property lines immediately.
• Several participants requested funds be set aside to maintain the improvements that are
implemented.
• A request to replace benches with seating opportunities and instead consider seats with
high arm rests.
SUMMARY OF MARC H 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 161
WE STERN AVENUE DE SIGN IMPLEMENTATION GU IDELINES
Appendix A
Meeting Invitation
SUMMARY OF MARC H 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARC H 20 15 162
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IM PLEMENTATION GU IDE LI NES
For more info rmation, contact:
Rebecca Liu , Council Dist r ict 15, City of Los Ange les
rebecca.liu @lacity.org or (213) 473-7015
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 163
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Appendix B
Meeting Photos
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015 164
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 165
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDELINES
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLI C OPEN HOUSE MEET IN G I M ARCH 2015 166
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GU IDE LI NES
Appendix C
Comment card, comments submitted by participants,
and photographs of post-it note comments on graphics
and maps
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 167
W ES TERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
'hftr.n ~11 • Dnacn tmplefMnt<ll llJftt 1rn dellnn
M,a;rd1 111 20l <i Publ h UJM!ft ltw ~ Mf.f'l\'18
Comment Card -----·
Welcome I
Thank you fo r making the time to partici pate i n toG a ~··s Open
Ho use. Yo w in put will b e in valuable in our etl o rts to im p rove
WeMei n AvPnuP..
Vile-ste rn A1,1e11 ue is t he prhntn y 1101 th ·5(nJt h corridor of
1he So uth Ba v, Pen insu la, and San Pe d1o communitles. In
2013, lhe Oty of Rancho Pa los Verdes .. togMher wl lh 50\G,
dPvelo pPd th e West e rn Avenue Vi sion Plan, a (.Ortlllluni l ~·-
led C>tf01l to iHJ IHOVC t ht c.o rrldor for lt>$ld ent!t, bmi11 o:;s r.:$,
and \iisit o 1s alike. In 201"1, the Cities o f Rancho Paios Verdes
and Los. Ange les, t ogether wit h SCAG, b e gan develop ing the
Western Avenue Design lmpl ementarion Guldellnes, 10 move
fo 1w<11 d wjth t hl' 11 t'd ~tc-p of l111plcrncnling the Vl~lon ~.11 1
Today's event marks the ti1s t public event for t he Desicn
G u ide lin ~. Sho1t backg1ound preentations a 1e sch edule d
a t 10:30am a nd l :OOpm toda•;. P u b lic vie·N ing o f ma teria ls is
avallable t hroughfl ut Q pen Hou ~e hom!'O (tOa m lo )pm}.
W~ tm.• C)ltitcd 10 share OU/ '"''Ofk il lld t h e Om it Design
Guldell nes with you and look forward t o Jec.eiving your
feedback. Pl easP, use th e hac.k o f t h~ form to prQvldr. you r
feetlbac;Jc.
; \!\.lat. A'41tru~ Oes:~ lmpl~taUon Gu~dt:filrw ' •
~ Mart:h.2015Puta«:Cprnl4DUM'i1.('eting , • } ,
Comment Card '·'
P lea~c p 1ovitle your <.'Ornrru~:nb below. Wt! :.!:lo h:.11~ ~Ht mHel-:rv:iil;;,Wf=, which you b n~
wekome l l) Mn!>li'!te antJ ~tkk di1e<:LI~· 011 the t!xhibiu . .S 1>me que.i.1iom• to tl\ink ;1 bo1,1t w h t>.n
prov idi"!: ccim menu:
1. O.U )'tllJ hrwe ;iny c:Dmrnt1nU <1n t he prtstintu<I Dr.ifi Ou~ittn Guldcl:uia$ m;itc ri ;\\~?
2 . Whh:h$lf t.."i.t bt:i1p l.l'optio11 doy1>uprcfor?
A. 'Whh bik¢ l :i.11c ~
'-Hybrid OJpp roadl
3. Wh ;n drJ ynu ttun:k wotild make th e-O~h 0f"iign C.ui di:-lim:l s butter?
Th(Jnk you one" again!
For fu11he1 infomil!li<m. pf~;!!>~ wnrn t ~
Joi:l Ro»•
City of ~<ini;;h o F't1 los Vf'rcf~
Communi ty Oevelop~nt Olre<.to r
310.>4<.siis
jorlr@rpvc:i BOV
RebKCa Li u
City of An~l e5
Counclt l>lstrlct l~
11131473-7015
r@\lc-(~.llu@ f.i:cltyore
v..·d:J:I• AueMA f)iesl(?n ~"°~"' 6u1chtllnH
Mmirdl l4,JDl1 P t1W~Mou•M Nh,.
Comment Card -----
Ple&Stt p rb\•l de your oommttnt!i be\:ow. Wi!! a-bu h &\•tt ~U '!;t·l t JY.)l e:.1Nbifable, w hid1 ytJ u tu oe
we lcome to onno t at~ and stic k directly on t11e e:>:htblts. 'S om e questloo.1 to th tok ab out when
prn•liding com m-nnts:
l . Oo yo u hav e G:fY)' cornrnents on t!\e presento?d Dra ft L.1e sigfl Gutdell n*materr.:1!$?
] W hich ~r~m:::;ipr,i c;prirm doym1 prl)for 7
,•._ W fthbikt!lllntts
B. W ithout bib : l:H)!!oS
C. 1+,·bri d a pprna.,;h
3. VJhal dO)'bU thi nk wculd met.e l htt Orafl D ~~i~n Gui ddinl!!.. belt~r1
Thank yau onu again/
For further i"formation, please conT<fct:
Joel ~ojas Heb&c:t:e Li u
City oi Ra ncho P:i lo:. 11or r:l c~ Li ty o f lo~ ttll@Ch:.'!!;
Cutnmuni ty Q~.,,eloprm~rlt Oi roectar Co<..1 rrd l Dil-tfict ts
310.544 .5 228 l2B) ol7>-701>
j C"~f r@r p•tra .gov rntx!l;.Vil.liV@lacity,or,!!
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 168
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GU IDELINES
We~terri AftnU! DeMll'\ lntllie:l'J\l!f\ldtlDO <iuilfet1~i
l~1<h 1•1 1015 Public Open tletUSI Ml"e'llf'W
Comment Card
Please provide \/O W oommenu below We aho ha·.rt! pcJ?..Ht nO tt!S a'lililable, t.'l.ohic:h yau .,,"
welcome to a nnoti)te and stKlc dllectly on the e11hiblt~. SOme questi1m..\ to thi nk ;about wllen
pro11ldlnr. commenu :
l . Do VO'J have tJtl'(<Oirlme nts on the presented Or.,11 Oe~n Gu idcllnn:\ m;atcriot lr.7 2 w3f;'i\::f$du'f'lup<•l"I
a. wunou 1 bike tan!l
3, WhSt!St:~f '~im? mbke the Or.art Oc \1gn GwdchnC\ b r ttrr1 j ~~~~~~~a~·!
Rcbtlcc;1 Uu
City of los AnEeleJ
Co un cil Ol5-l<ltt 1 S
(113) <13-10 15
P'Hia.~ fl"OVHl.c v-o u r 1;Qml1l(lnb b('low We also ha\-e post-It no te~ iJYa ilble, whkh you are
wclr.1rnc to :\11.l1C1tatc and stu;:k dl re<.tly oo me ohlblts. Some Quest1ons to think a.bout Vffien
rw-QY.tding<'..omme-nts:
1. Do ;•nu h;r.'t' .. fllf comments o n tile pre1ented Drah Ot-s.t,gn Guld !()es matefial!?
'J . \Vhl1;h w~c t s.rape opnon do 'fOU pref r?
A Wit h bike lanes
B Wltho-vt btt.e lan es
C. Hybrtd <ipproa ch
3. \l/hM do '(OU Ullnkwot.4d miJke the D1aft Des.lg1l Guilielini!:~ b~U~1 ·1
___ C~ ·iRfa, iV :._,
(rr=t\,. .. 11 LAp"d..'l 1vHf>'''JL v'I~ s
~-• I ,-• • • ,. ~ T ~ It f,_ k 0" I i ,, '"' 1.-l:1
Thank you once again!
for lu 1Lh er lnlarmati{ln, f1l(lai;11 w nt;ict ·
Jo It.al~
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Oevel<1pmt nl Direc1a r
310.~0<.52-28
Joel!~rpv<a.eov
Reb~Li u
Ci ty of Los Angr.leJ
Cooncil Di~tr lct tS
{213) 471 701S
1~llecd!l.1iu@bcily.OfC
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING
Please provid e your c:umm ent\ bci ltw1. Wn ;a\~ h;v.'ll poR·it nott1s uvallilble, whlcti. ')'OU are
v1ekome to :1011oti1tt" ;ind ~hek d i1rafy on the t'll h lh l1s . S001e questior'5 to thlllllc about whEn
providing comm1mt~:
J. DD lc'l>n ti~ ;an·( c.o mmrnts on t he p1c-rnn1<:"d IW'a ft l>eslp,n 6uldellnes mat
2. Which ~trcohop" option dovo~1 pre-fer?
A. With bike t.-nc~
9 . Vlrthr>ut h'l:t IV.fl('5
C Hyhnd :1pproilth
3. \Vh~1 do yau think ""IOUld milke t he Oraft L>es..en Guld 1ne~ bette r?
' '
Thank you once again!
fCll fur thei lnfum1;itkin , pliliJ!I~ t.'iml:tct:
Jo Ko j.a s
City of Rancho Palos Verdei
Commun lt'f' Oe1,1 pment o r1ec1o<
310.~11.ii .s:n.8
Joe1r@ rpvca r.ov
Reb~c-auu
City of LO SA"{:e-JeS
councltmstri<t l S.
f2 BJ 473-70 15
rebeoca .llu @laclly.org
lills?
,,, .. ,,\,
flte;;ise provide \•01Jr tommentS below. We also hiro'(! PO!t-tt OOtE!S i)y(ll ble, wtll(h VOU ilf e
wekome to annotat e and sud dlH!cdv on the e~hlblts . Some Qlll!!st1oos to thlt\k about when
providing comments:
Thank you once ogofnl
Fcir furth r-r lnformatio'1, pf(';:JSe contact ·
Jo et fl.ojas
Cit•,; of Rench a P.!llD!. Vft d~
Community Oevelop ~nl Oi 1ector
310.544.5228
Jo etll1trpvc a.f::O\l
MARCH 2015
I '·
R¢b•ct'.3 Liu
City<1f~o\An8fll('s
Co11n<il Oist ricl 1S
11 131473 7015
1et1ecc:i.fiu.@la city.Qrs
\>'I ' I '.(\ I J
169
WESTERN AVENU E DES IGN IMP LEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Ple.as.e provide \•our r.ornmcnl! bd uw. We a lso hf!Ye poit·lt notr ~ ill\'oil ll i:b ft:, wl\ld 1 'p'(lll are
.... -elcome to annotat(' ;:md $ti~ di 1t!ctlv ot1 ll'le e . .d~1 bits. Some Q ~J ~\rions t1> thi1 1k 300.Ut whe-0
p1ovldlnp, comm1mu;:
1. Do you h.at.<e al'!)' <:ommc-nt!'i on tl11e pre)e nte.d Draft Deslr.n GlJid cltn.,s m:itcr i:il :i/
2. 'Ntllch streetK.npe <ip tion 1'1> ~·ou p 1 ef~1 ·f
A Wl1h bike la nN
B. Wlchout blkl! l <lnr,;
c. Hvb rld app roach
.3 . What do 'i'O lJ t l\lnk \li'l:IUl d ntO)kc thl.' Dn.:ift De :.ig n Guidellnes better?
Thank you on'e ogain!
For fu1 the£ inlo 1ml'.ll ion, pleas.e contact.
Joe l Rojas.
Ci l\' of Rilnc ho Pal os. Vc n;h:~
Comm1.1nity Oew1lopme nt Oi rr c1m
J l0.5!1 4.522tl
joetr@ rpvca 11ov
RebeCGI lJU
Cit•f of Loi; Ane;e!~s
Council District l!J
(213) •173 ·701 5
re becca lh.1 @:l'laclt y.org
Please pl'OYid~ \IOLn co.nmerH~ b eklw. We al::.u ha·te pWl-il nolt!s ._ ... ,,.,i lable. wflic.h you ure
wekur~ tu :ll'lnOta~e and likk <l irt!cllv <HI t l1e i!:c h i b i L ~. Son~ qL1!!:U io ru to think ai:J aut y.<l!en
prat/idint; cor1lmer1b:
l. Do yoo h :we 3.n'( ctmu™!nll <H'l lhe p reu:nted Dr:tlt De.\ignGu ~<i(J lim~ m~tl ri •l\.7
2. Whieh Jtrt~botpe l!lptiOO do you prele.r7
@w11h b1k1Jl t.1 ne1; l.Jf "\'J .,.. d 1J.« h~ .._,.+<A"5 r,'M1.r).,.,...
B. Wil hoU1 bike lane;
C. Hybrid ;ipprn~dl
.1 . \\lhat da ~m 1h in k •,1,•oold make th(! Or;ift DnioiB n Gu idclint'~ h<l ttnr?
(}.,, ~ ·r I/\ Th I'" 7 T"m ....-Jc1 n 7?.1~.AI (.:,d'';lb.N l'f'v~ f ~.>/o
tt. :le; ff;;J,. /fl.: '~J.7.,! } ,..,. ,flc-1 c,, {-h"l h ·cMr 1!___
\}'..• • ,......, Vr •.q •1 N ~fe, l, I.\ r1 1 .~-.T l.i:i~/9 .N'lfd.--ft,.i,.,
li'Ur lc 1""' /.,J'r/ w1£.( r,,:o tf.~;;1 ,v:i,ib -~ ,,.f Tvt1,,,.J1.v,~ ..).,~
-ti I ,/-., ~
/}., N til '11<' ti /op/.. (h .> .t¢0, ,.J """',,v : rlO f.~ o ... r dff-r~..l. 1.v h • y,,._.,
LJ µ.. ......... ""/11..,A ,f ,tt r('1J. <l-'1..· (_J~p. ./ ;, .. ,/(.
Thank you onee again!
For furU'ler lnformatsoo, obease C'OOlan :
Joel.Ro.11n.
City of RMldio Paro$ Verdes
Community Otl'ltllnp.mcnt DirrdOJt
3l0.S44.!i22H
joelr1¥1 rp1Jt:il-8<•'I
A~bcli;t.01 l hJ
OW oi Lo~ AflBC'll's
CouncilOlstri ct 1 ~
(2l3) •73-701'
robi:f i;r;a .&u~f a i;ity.Of"g
Plr.tmi proilide \'Dur u:imme11t!. bef{Jw. Wt als.o ha~ posHt ootes av~ble, wh ich \'()U are
W(l lcomc to ann1>t ate :'Ind nick dirci:tl v tm the e:ch lt>ili;. Some questions to ttro.li. a bout v.iheo
p rqu ii;lin.g rnm mr,n t ~:
l. !Xl ~<{J(J h:w(l ;tny r.o mnw.nu (H1 li1e presented !Pa ft Oeslr;n Gui dE"J irleS nmer l a~11
2 . Whii;h .'5.trnct$Cil pc o ption do you prr.tr.-1?
A. With hik11 l;;ir-<(li;
.. .!l. Withtlu1 ~ lanr..l
'(_C .. l l•,ti rid ilpprn'"1dt
3. \i\'ha-f~o ')\'lU thi nk w m 1fd m;ikr, tll.Cl Dra ft Do~IHJl Guide line-~ be-U.er?
Thank you ante again!
f01 fufl ht!1 ir1fof"11'1allon, plea!.!! CO l'll BCl.
""''""'"' C•ty of R~nc h o Palos Vertlc-s
Comm ynltv Oeve'°'Jtment l )1rcdor
310 .~'4.>21~
joolr @ r pvt;.t i!OV
RchC"r.t.o1 hv
ltv of 1 M Arls~k·~
Co1.1n<:il OiWir.I 1 ~
P13f473 10 15
r('bc:cr..a liu@t.:l t;ity.01g
~n· W1t'"!'t~w·n~Dc-.Jienlmpl~~·Ci1.11~~·'. , ·~ ':, ·~.~,. 7; -::~,. i
· M&h'l4,:X>1'tfubhr0Pw,'H~U'ltti.'ecitini ~' · · ' ~, 1 • 1 ~:. ' '~·
Comment Card .. · .... >. . .. ·" ,.,,.. .. 1;
Plca~e prci'lidr. your r.umme-1m.: br.!ow. Wti ;aim have p<Y.'il i i nt>l¥-~ :w:i if:ab~. whic h you at!!'
wr-\a1mt! to '1 Jlfl Qtalc and $tick cli rcict l•t Qn th c:xhibib . Some.: qul)s tioo !'i t i) t hlnk about ~..t1 eo
prn•lidl ng oommonti;:
1. Ot>)'l>ll ti;;ri.•r, ~'ftomrr~nl$ on 1hc prr·11:n.11Xf Ornft Or.o;ignGuid clioo,. matcria1i?
'J . Which $11<:c:tsc;;;.pc:; o pbon do VOIJ prrf('r1
A. W il h b ik~ l.;initi.
B. Wil h o11t bike l ~nc-.s
C H';'bnd ap pro(l(.fl
3. Whaot do ')'00 thi nk IAl()ufd m.al-:c tllt Oratt l>esran Guid('lil1 Ci b('lt<i r7
Thank you an'e again!
For fur lht:r information, plt:a\f! conl.ti ct :
Joel Ro jas
City of Ra ncho ralo.s Verdes
C-0mmuntty 01?\'elopmeot Dire ctor
3 10.Sr4.t,52.l8
joefr@'rJ)\'Cti .t?,O\'
Rebecca Liu
Ow of Lm An.gelM
c.ouooc mstrt<.t 15
{213) "73-IOIS
re bec ca .Uu~l aot)'Off.
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING MARCH 2015 170
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDE LI NES
We lcome!
Th>1nk ·rou f01 milting the-Pm<' to pa-m cl pate In toda \''S Ope n
Hcmw:. 'i'aUf Input will be! Wl •ro!u.al'Ae In our efforts to Improve
V.'c>i-lCl l O/i,'IV)l\UO.
Wt'i1e m llvt>nu'i:' Is t he p,._niary oonil-south corrido.r of
lt\(l: So uth Oav, l"(>nlnwla, a11d 5.an l'e-dro co nlfl1U f11t1'?J In
?01 ~.the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, top,e t t'>er wl1h SCAG,
dc\lcfot;ICd th<! WHtem Av en11Q Vhkm rtan, a communiw-
Jc cl cffur t to 1mpro\•£1 the corrido r fat re sld E-Pts, buslnesse5,
.1ind ''IJl1ors a . e, In l01'1 , t tw! Otlei-of R3-n<ho Palos Ve rdes
a nd Los Ange le-;, to~ther \~th SCAG, began develo pl"C the
W.e5tem AY enllt OeilB n 1m1>lemeot.-.uor1 Gu idelines, to move
fo rward wnti the ne~ stl?"P of ltnc>lemenUllf, the Vision Man
lo dilv's. event ma1h tl1e first puhllc e'-e nl for th Oe ~n
<.iu ld eflnies . Sho rt ba<:li,roi.md orescrna t1 oris are ~chettuled
i t 10 30am and L(l(Jpm to d .l'~. ru~ vlevi ln g of mat~1 la's 15-
;iv;illolbie thrciup,hDu-t Open House tioU1!. llOam IO 2pml
We al'l! e.u::itt>-0 to sh are our worl .and tlH! Draft Oes lan
(iukto lino5 with vou CJfl d look fonv.trd to recel,;tne you r
fC'<ldback Plt-;m~ ttse t M! bade: of this form t o prQ\•lde )'Olll
fe41d bilc k
; •"l T-.-:, • , ~-· -'l "''
, W"tf•fn i\lll'f!Uf' Dt>..wn lmpl.,,-tl'ntJJf'IOn'1u1~1 ',
' Jv1ifdlJ4~JOtS'1.lbllc0prn~<lUWMHtlng ' ' , ••
~ Comme.nt Card ' · · ·, · ·
Pl(':lf;,,. prwo'id<: VQUI mmm ~nl\ bCJ low. \\11!: al~o h.1·~ p o~t it notes av.til:i b !t-, whic.h you are
wrlcomn to ~rmot01ta ;md ,.11d.: dir cc:tty on t h ~ m.:h ibib. Sc1mt! que)lll.llls to think abC'.lu l wh~o
provi<hng <".o:n mr.nt :t :
1 Oo yov h;:lve il!Yr' c:Qmm r .111-. on thr (1 f('Jt'".n1 r d ;aft 0(!$J.Sn foiidclinti s m;11~riai\,?
2. Which strc ('t~JK' option do you prcf('r?
A w liti blk el.ilnes
ll W l,hovt b.ikc l ~n<'S
. ttvbrltl appro.ach
3. Wtia t do yo 11 thl.flk wo11ld ma\:e the Oro ft l>es1Bn Gt.1ide bn<:s bci tter?
..
Thank you once ogoin!
For further lnfmmatkm, pleo ;i $c wnlac.'1:
Joel llo f.a s
C:lty of Rood'lo Pal os Ve rd e1
Community Devek>clme nt DlrectOf
310.SO. 522 H
Joelf@rp'ICil .fl"OV
,,
Rebecc a Uo
Oty of Los Arlp,eles
Counc il Distr ict 1 ~
1213) •1l· 70 1 ~
rebe«a.llu@laclty.orr.
l.
I 1
1 I
I
1'
I
W1•11h· ,, Ave1lue D~n l.mt!f\l.1tlon GuidennM
fl.'brc.h !~ 2015 l'"ulJhc OPM llaU'f Mrr~nt
Comment Card
Ple.oa~I! µruvidt: your commenu bt!low. W~ 1tlso haov e p.osHl no.tes ava llJ. e, whlck you a u~
wtktlrne 10 al\1ta (~1e arid !l tick direct Iv on t he exhi!JiU. Som ~ que~t~s lo think about when
proOOlng l'Oll\ITIUl1$:
1. Oo you ht111 r: anycomment_:, l.)n the p 1 t!~n t ed Dtt1I ( Oesisn Gu id ~ m&l etifl lj,?
2. \Vh fc.h t:lr ~t ~COI~ optiun do)~lU pn1ft1 t 7
A. Wi~h bikr l:mM
B. WhhQ ut bike l:i nm1
C.. 1-4ybrid ;:ippm;ic h
3 . Vlhi1 t dti VQU thi n.\; W(l1,.dd m.-.bi t ho D1iJFt 0 ~Jl 6n Gu idc linr' tu;i ltt'r7
(iLB,l;r.£ .... 1'.·nr~· J 1 • .,,,,m ,,,<>n n,,. .. ·•ider.'-""''""'· & ... ,,. f''le.•
_w.klc.k.i,;......,., .'nvg'f.lli'J ;h -1.mfic arc tJ&dh ,.;t\y p=t'''N! -A.,·.,....,.,,.._.
(i) ttzi~-:1 :t:z. :::=r :::t.::::-~ .... ~ .....
W#'\l W HQf .,..k.J,Ja .. t!'t;Jf./n we\l ~pV" .Jytjij)"Q!\
<iJ i>h no-f .,., fa.., 0n.hnx •• -r,_ tfi g\e/u {µ,,, lGI!',.~ ...,,,....-
%®..fittrff-&«, .,{20' n.,,ht tlhVf«1ru1m v /'An n .11\trt ±nnctl#'
wt'IJ t->ri,,;-< att ·.l wJ/I J<r,-ul ,.,J y w "=> ,...,, coUltt~c-.r '-dt:.Jh..
Thank you once ogoln/
For fort her lnfotm.atioA, pl eaie co "tacL
JoelRoj~
City of R;sncho P'2 11l' Verd""
C.ommunltv fJC'\•nlapmcmt Dirm;:tor
3 10 .S44 .5ll~
jm1ft@rp111:a.gov
Rebt!cca Liv
Oty o l Lo s Ansclle1
Council Dii trict l !i
(213)4H·701S
u~bt:«oa.l lu @l -'lti lv .or.ti
Plu:;e provldt '(O Ur comments be low. We ;ilso !\ave post-it rt<lles iVl<i llabl(', w hich )'OU arc
w ome to annotate and st1ck d!rectlv Of\ thee t.s ~om e que-stions to t~urik .;i!xKlt when
i:irovid ne oommems
1, oo you !\ave an',' rommel\ts on the presente d Ora ft Oeslp;n GukfeHnes materlats?
2. Whkti str eetM:ape option do-y ou pre fer1
A With bike la nes ~Wllh out blkt! laneD
C liybrld app roach
3. Wha t do vo u t nli. vtou ld make the Draft Desl~n Gutde llnes bette'7
Thank yo11 once ogoin!
For fu rther mformafuin, plcm'le r:<>ntar.t:
J<>elRo s
City of Ran<ho Palo s Ver des
(OOU'fl.U(l lty OeV!'IDPmt>n t Ol rett or
3 10 . 5 '1 ·1.5228
loe t<@rp•1Ca.gov
City of Los AnJleles
Coundi 01-sttkt IS
1213 1 •H-1015
rebe cca t1u@:lla<1w.org
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015 171
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
W9'ternAV1t1ue DeJVn l~mtnmion Gu•d'°'·r•s
M¥Pl 14~ 20ts Pvbl1c OP«I Houw MMl,,..,
Comment Card
Pft'an · prov<lc yo1.1r commcntJ belQW We ;also hiJV(! po"· it notes riu;tilablc-, whkh •rou <irC'
wettomc 10 annot;nc and stick di rc "ly on the c~h lb its . Some QlH!StiOns to think ab<JY t wllcn
prov4d~ne oomments:
1. Oo yo v ha'\'e anv comme11ts on th e presented Draft Desfen Guidelines m.atM.a ls;i
2. \.Vh •ch street'ica_pe opt1on do -,'Ou prefer '
A With blke t.anes
B. Wllhoul bike l ~s
C. H~tirtd approach
3. \1/1\al do \'Ou think wolM milke th-e Dra ft Des\gn Gu ldeU11es better?
_, fi), lth:b::, c •• u'{...,h
Thank you on ce again!
For furtl'.11r Jnform.;ition, p1rtis.c con1~ct:
J-Oe l llOjM
Ci t)' o( R:tni:ho Pak» Ve-1'd-t~
C't.H"nmur1ily Ot!Ye lOprm:1\l IXu:trn1
3 10.544.5228
jl)el(~!pvCa.g<w
Reb~cca Li u
Cit'( oi La~ Anye l!!S
Cow d Odtrit.1 15
(2131 473-701 s
1 e be,ca .l lu ~l a.cily.0 1 c
Plc"sc pra•Mcyolfr oom m<1 nts t>ckt" We a lso h.o.ve po st-It notes w1a lla blE, wl\lch you .are
wc-komc lo a11notat e and stitk dlrectlv on the aJllDlts. Some Qu es tion s to ttiklk.abou1 wheri
pro'Jtdln g comments;
I. Oo you h~'e anv comments on the pr esented ornft DeS•i" Guidelines ma terlals?
2. 'Which s1reetscape option do '(Ou prefer?
A.. Wllh bike lanes
6 . Wit hout tM\e lanes
C ll 'ftlrkl approach
3. What do ~rou think \IJOIJ ld malui> the or aft oeslg:n Guidel•n~s beltef?
'
For furthQt info rmation, plc01:;r.co nt;u:I :
Joel Rajas
Ci ty ot Ranch o Palos Verdes
Commurill'f De•.t!lopme11t Dir e<t of
3 10.S•l.41.52 28
ioek@ 1 pv ca.~
flEbe<(a Li u
G ty of L01 /o.rJ ge l ~
COtH'C il Oiwi.:.I 15
l 2JJI •n-10 1 ~
fe bt1«i.Uu@latit)'.Of1l
• "1'ff\a:ll~u•-il....,c"'1Aestf\Ulf6~~ -· · .. ·>'i"7. '· . '.1
MirthJ4.:ZOUP\Jbllc!JpenJ._l:'*'~'f; ' • ~
Plt!:n~ pr ovidt! ·row wnu n e-nts. b-t!low. W~ a o h:w~ pCHHt 1to-!e~ av.ti b1e, wt1ich yo u at
welcoml!-10 a>An<1(~te anir slkk dirt1..1fy t)n the t.llhibi b . Somt-qut!!>lfo11!. to think Jl.Ju LJt \'<lhefl
pra.ilding commertU:
1. 0Q 'fOU hti vt:.3rl)' 1:1)mmunb on the prc1~nn t~d 0r.rt o .... iin Gu id ~li iw.~ rt1a1.e 1i:.b?
/. Whir,h "itr~t l--Cil pn-ophorl doyl)u prnfor?
A. With bikr-Ia n()$
It Wi01ou t bik r, l;i nc.i:
C. Hybrid ;ippr(lildl
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING
Comment.Catd · . . ' , .. . ..
Welromol
l h ank '((IU for m11~~1~ lh~ tunu tu p;nti clp:uc in t ()d~·~ ()p()n
H uu\.e. Yo ur inpul bfl ln va 'uabln in !IUr flffnrt s, to •m prQ'l.•c
Wes.te rn fwenue.
w~~1f!'r n AVt!nm: i~ tlm prim;iry m;irth ~001h r;g rridor of
lf1e Sl)ulh B:iy, Ptin1mu lil, ;ind Sa n POOro c.omrnlJl'Urnis . tn
20 13, tJ1t! City or Rancho P"'1m \'tiH1cs, tngcth(>r wit h SCAG,
d ~dopt."d !he We.stern Av11nuq V"'tdon Jl b n, ~ rommunlt•(-
led e.lfuf"l lo im p!O\'I! the:! conldQr for rc;$i tl c-n1S, buslinC!S.'iE'11
;ind va11ors ;iii.kt<. In i o11.1, 1h C.i tiC'1 of R~ho P'talos Ve rdes
and Los Ancrlr,s, f(lg('lhcr wilh $CA.G, began <ievt.>lop!ne tile
\Ves.l~m Avenue Dcilgn lmplc.m cnt.ation Gulde llrmJ~ to mo\fl>
fo1 w.:i r d whh tlle nrirt $lnp of implcmenor;e the Vt>lo n Plan
fod.'ty's.. evrn1 mark) thr hr1t gvbl1c event fort~ Oeslp.n
Guldt!lule\... Short b;rckgrqund prPjC"n~tions ~o srbfrlqled
at l0:30um and l -OOpm tod;iy, P11bhc;"io1lne of moter\ils I ~
:l'l'.llilllhle lhlP118h MJt ()ptm ll nv5t1 hol.lrs llOam to 2pm),
We .are l:!~Ciled 1.0 share oor work ;;i:n-d th(• Or.aft Oe:Us n
Guide ll n~ wilh vou 11nd l oo~ fnr.ir.itd tOl"'(l:tC'h'lntl ynnr
feedbJd:. l'lea~e u~e l'1a b;ick of thb iorm 10 provide vour
feedb.!id:.
MARCH 2015 172
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMEN TAT ION GU IDE LI NES
Please-ptO\o'td:e you r ccun r11enb belm.'f. We al-.o h;rw: pos-t-lt notes ava llobk!, wh ich fiKl fm~
we lcome lo M nCJlarn and slid: lfirlidly on the C"th 1bits. SOme Qt1e m ons totti·nk aboti' ._.,,l~n
l)f<W~ioi;. Ct1rnrn~11l!';:
1. Ooyu.11 h:no.t: any uimm1mts oo the prc.s(lntcd Oraft tles.,g n Goktelrne"S mu tetinls7
2. Wt1it h 1>tft!t!l\rapc1 ~p tion do vou pr cfc-r7
A,..,.V/ilh bikc lci nm;
,--1( Withuut rnl:fl·l~ncs.-·'
(_ ··~~?~~lft
3. WJ1at do yau think w1>11kl m.,,~:o th(' Draft L>es lp,n Gu ld.ellries bette1 ?
Thank you once again!
for further lnforma.tioo., p leas~ C()1tt3LI :
Joetll<1}a \
Ci cv (Jf Rancho Pain$ \•n rdc~
Co mmunity Ocvr,-)(.)pmr'N OirC"Clor
J 10.S44.!i22fl
jod @rpvi.:a-ao\•
~~~~·--~~~~-
liebeCCillJU
Otyoft.osMige-le:.
Council • tr!ct 15
(l 13) •173-701 s
rEobecr,a lhs~laclty.Of!l;
flrcasr,: pr O'l'id'! your commcnb llelD\v. We al:>;o h:r.•t! po1>Ht note!. trvailziM~. which you are
we\tomr, to ;tnn(lt~tc ~d t.tid: dlrtictl}' On th!;! e.~hlb i l.$ . .S1>111e 11u e~tiuf1 s l o th.ink 3 b t)u1 when
pt(l'llldi.ng oommcnf!I·
Oovou htrvr, <iny tommcnt~ Qn t.h n pnJsnntcd Dra ft Ck}t.ign Gui deli nes m :11 e.ri:ifs·1
Whith SIU:UltSt.ilPt op tion d())'•no.J prcfar?
Thank you once again!
fo1 lu r UuH itlfo rnt ~li cm. p&ease tw1,ac:t :
JO<'I Rojas
01y of RirKilo Palos VL>rdes
Community li<eve lopmcnt Olrt:cio.r
3l05•H22S
fioo lnfil rpw;01.gQY
fflil'b<ll;ttillu
City qf l o ~ Angc lo-s
CouhCil tMtrict 15
(il3)473-7 0l S
mbu1;r;;1.l iu@ la-d~'-°'8
• \Vt\;!!''" A111'1~Ji' llr-•I" ·,"""'~f!ntilfwn U11IUl'/U11?t • ' •
MMOtl•l :tG15,._0ue,,HouJ.tMe ....
, Comment C<!rd., .:. : : , , .'
Pk;;t~,. prO'.-ldll vou r c:ommcn s bo lo , \Vc ill.s o ho\•c pos.t·it notc-s .;rJo ilcibf~, whh;:h. }'Ql,I iii.ft!
vl('lcomt1 to ;:;;o·notatt and stic tli rac. y or. thl! eichfbll s , Som que5.ti ons to thi.nk about when
JHovldtne mme11t~r
Thank you an<e agai~I
f:or furthr.r ir.fotm;J ti<in, p lQ;i~ co
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Pa lo s Ve rdes
Ceommunl ty Oe\'elopment Oire cto1
310.SM.52.28
Joe lt~rpvca.gov
\ • 1'..1 ,-• •
,~ v.•wwnAwnu" ~ 1mp~r.-Guldtl1nt'f
: Man;hJ4,201SPubl1cOp.ttiHo1,11t'~rtln&
Comment Card , , , .
Plr.t1s.n pn:1!/ildc yoiu r,mnm1mt\ bftkYN-Wi: .W o hft'll' J>l~t·i l 1 Mtle~~w:iirzibl1!, whichyt>u a se
w-0kom(! W :innotalc ;ind 5ti(:k ditc ctly un th•' m:hibih . Som~ qu~~tiun~ lD 11\irlk. nboul w h~1
p rovi ding c:omm11nti;;
l . C>ovmt h;}\'-0 ;:iin'({(lmmcnts.1).11 tho prr;-sr-nted or,.h 01!"'i8ll Guid inoU $ ma,eri;1a1
2, Whli;:h strcc t ~JJC ol)tioo do VQU prcfN?
A. Wlt h bikcla:~s.
c:b ;~~~:~:;:~~~~
3, What do ~\(lllj think woold maketh(l Oraf\ l l'(>~g r.Gui:dc lln~ bc"cr?
Thank you once ogCiin!
For furtlw1 infum111tion, p!l•l.IS.i cont:m;t :
.1<>€1 Ro!as
Cit)• of Ra ch o Palos Vetdes
Commun lt'I OeveJopmeM Ofre crnr
310.51M ,5228
joelr@."1 1pvca--GOV
fl.ebecc:a Uu
Oty of Los Angeles
council lll:strk.t 15
(213) <73-701S
rebecca.llu@ ladty.Oft
SUMMARY OF M ARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING MARCH 2015
173
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMEN TATION GUIDELINES
, Wtl,tlnu\"u1w OesfP•mpl em&ntii11ar G ul ~es ' , '
1 f1';,rr h1;111Q 15,ubllcOpHJ l'iolAeMfet1rt '
i. ~ ~omr:rif=.nt . Card .. -.. , . . ,,.': <. ,
F'lcaK'i pro ~(I VOlJI ((lmmt'll t~ b ~1 We also have pos H t 001es avu llab1e, which vou Jre
wc lcom ~ to ~m1o ta i.e arid rncli. drre nly oo the e11 hll>111 Sollle 1~uiesOOns rn th lhk abo tt1 when
prov ldlnf! co mments:
1. l><>'p-oo fiave ari'( comme nts. oo t.he pr es emed Ora ft Oesly,11 Guld eflnu rn;uerl atsf
2. Which st ree tscape opnoo do vou pr efer?
A. With bike l<l1les.
S. W ltho1n: bl k_e Ia n~
Thank you once ogolnl
F<tr funhfl r i nfnrm~llon. 11t~~c-romxl :
Jo t!'.1 Rt>ja~
rny o l R.3 ncl w PaX!s Vc 1d H
Comrn 1111H y Dh't!lopm enl O l1 et l~
3 10.544 .5228
joe l,@r pvca.1;m
Re b~t::i ll u
City of Los /1.t1gt:l~s
Co\J n cit Oi!;lritt 15
[213 1473.701.s
r ~ll«!!cra.l k1 @ ~!1 clt .,.cug
' . . . ~. ~ --
Wt n A\leltlt Dtiit" tn111lefl'l~011 Qu1drf~ .
§ ubfo;.~Ho1MMltt1r-a -.
card .. ~ " · ·_ , . l
e3!$1!! prn .... iil'E-yoltf comm.ents b~low Wr; aa li.o h.1'4-e p o~-It (10les a'/a i't ilb le, wti k h '/OV ~f!
wt!ltume lo an!lolate and st1ck dlrN1ly on tile "xhib lt~. Some questions to think abo1Jt w hen
JHovhJinf::C1.'1nmet1ts:
L 0<) y<1u have an-,· comments on \ho or<:"scntnd Or;i ft CW.:..\ijr1 GWdt!linlM ma terlills?
} . Whi ch ~l1eetMl!l pe opt1on do -yo11 prefrr?
A. Wdh b i ~ lanes
n. Wi1ha ut bike tanes
Thank you once again I
For furthe-r lnformanon, plc-a$tl con'l0>r.I:
lool Ra jas
City of Rancho P;ab Ve rtfe:..
Community Oi:wc lopmMI Oiit!C,OI
110.544.5178
j1>ofr@rp'IC3...gCYr.•
tlel>ecc;aU1,1
City of l o'° An gi:lrs
Coun l'l l 0 1Un<:t l S
1213) 413 -JOlS
rebe<;c4l llv@ l~t y.ore
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING
PINse provide yo ur commenu be lo w. We J ls<> h.we QOSt·lt notes available,. wh-kll '(OU ate
welcome to anootate and slick d!rectly on the e:th lb l ~s. Si>me q1..1estion! to think ailtc ul when
oro'lld ln e comments:
l . Oo you have il!W comments on the pre5E 1\ted Dra tt DeSiGn Guidelin~!. m.!I Lt!rUr l!>?
2. Which streetscape option do you ore fer?
A. lo\'lthbike la nes
~-~: :~~~:!>~~~~~ ·.\ f?,nn~ Al<--f ~ovn./\rJ.~
l . What dovou tl'llnk would mal.e the Oralt Dl!$ig_n Gu idefinei. ~l t~,7
r lov r T Hf ,;.~-AG ~ tf.!oN '>'fh~r ~ ll t-<tiiZ.
~ r\f>ff..tl.1.o)'Jt;. ·Y-.tfF Ll:IJ~ r [lf1CAih.A, (£_.,· 1Af.!-I
pt;•,.. Pf.ttzcrl-fr1c APHt: <-p RrJei=@u r I J . -\ -
Thank you once again/
f(lr h.lnfwlr infQ rm41tion, p lt~st' conta<:t
Joel Rojas
City of Ra ru:ho Pa~ Vff de~
c ommuf\ity oe-.-e lopme.111 Directil1
Jl0.544.52.28
1oel r@h'pv<.a.gav
flebtcc;i Liu
(ily ol LC1$ An gC'I ~
Co ul'dl On trtct 15
(213) 473 7()15
rt!b~cc a liu @llld ty.c"'8
Plr..ni: provld ~ ~~ eocnnu~ts bnfgw, We a lso ti.we pO\t •it notes iJvallab le, "''hich yw are
Wf'lr.n-mr to Dnnotate and i lic.k dlrirt"tly on t he ex tilb i t~. S(l me questions to th ink ;ihout ~·hen
pm'/kline commenli _
Thank yo u once ogoinl
Fur furthe r f11f0<ma tlo", plea~e t:o rU.lci:
Joel Rojas
Ctt v o f fla!'IC M P;:1 1os Vc:rdC's
Cl)tn munlty Oe\>cJkl;i mf!n t Ol re t tOf'
310 5'14.5 2.28
jnelr@:l rpvca .i;ov
MARCH 2015
f r/ G J-V l'F )../ CO!>'fJ J71-N.S
~Rv ,;1 !5u~C.J<1 N C
Reboctw 1 lu r-. nrrn
Ci ty of I oo Angeles
Coun ci l l>lsttlcl 15
1213) 413-)0IS
u~b1t«oi: llv@laoty «s
)d, Cf.IL ·
J~l'IN"-1 r
A r11c I'. 7-C5
174
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPL EMENTATION GUIDE LI NES
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 175
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
. MIDDI l SEGMFN T .
~
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
176
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMEN TATION GU IDE LI NES
·ghts from the Western Avenue C
ION PLAN
Cltv of rta11 chri l'alo~ Ve rdes.
S.O ucliern Ca li tomia
I Go v.,rn menrs (SCAG ),
o w mmunirv led <'ff on 10
em Avenu p fo r resldr nts.
d •ls11 ors aJtkP . r he ~Ho n
he Wesl!'m Avl!nue
Option A -With Cur b
Eldensions, No Blke way
In Option A, the existing
curb to curb dimension and
travel lane widths remain
unchanged. On-street parking
Is kept on both sides of
the street, with new curb
extensions and sidewalk
planting. In the Northern
Segment, branding signage
and artwork in the median is
encouraged .
Option B -No Curb Exten sions,
With Blkeway
In Option B . the existing
curb to curb dimension and
travel lane widths remains
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARC H 2015
177
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDELINES
I
n Is enlarged by
ately Sft. and travel
hs are reduced to
to accommodate
d Cycle Tracks and on-
arking on both sides
treet. New sidewalk
g and curb extensions
roduced throughout.
Northern Segment,
il!fl:ooTITTl<"'~u-~n:n~·~~~~,.,."""~~-.~
e widths dr" redutlld to
able to acroml'[IOd~t
otected Cytle Tr-dc~s and on
reet patklng on both s;des
I the ~ueet. New sidewal~
lanting and curb 1>•tens1on
re Introduced througtiout.
h ' l ut b 1lin1r1won, ,,111Jh1
llfllli,i! 1,1•tl lht• 'W 11th
ol t1t11J11t I tn1 ~h '1 111 hLIV
w •tm t ti t u .tl l~nlJ rm 1 will •
limd\• , .. d m 11d1 m On 'llUH!I
ri.ir1t111n 11.~ .,,, 1)fl 110 1" dti· :d
rtu: \1rf'I''· "oltuww 'll daw nl"
µhm tltiH .
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPE N HO USE MEET ING I MARC H 2015
OpNOll
r •
111 0 p
178
WESTERN AV ENUE DE SIGN IMPLEMEN TAT ION GUIDELINE S
Appendix D
Copies of email comments received
in the 1 week after the meeting
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
179
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
From: Mario M archi sio
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 2:04 PM
To: Jo el Rojas
Cc: Mario Marchisio
Subject: COMMENTS , Western Ave Vision Plan(3/14/l5)
Hello Mr Rojas,
It was difficult for me to comment during my b rief time (even with yellow stick notes)at Peck Park, so
here are a few thoughts:
1. Regardless of what streetscape is agreed on I didn't grasp any Im provement to the present vehicle
flow. The presenters emphasis was on not impeding 'today's' traffic flow.
2. Hopefully any vegetation (trees, bushes.etc) planted in a revised median and 'curb'side will not
obstruct views of N-S vehicle (and bikers, hopefully not) movement. And importantly vehicles entering
from and exiting into Western (presently there are interrupted views).
3. I didn't notice any change from parallel parking to angle parking a long Western . I th ing that would
be a very negative proposal. Even today views are inhibited by some parking on Western.
5. Pedest rian traffic in and around major commercial sit es will be well served with and of the planned
upgrades; but walking from PV drive N to Westmont??
6. Although this presentation dealt with 'Beautification ' issues they will not succeed unless Vehicle
movement is fully integrated into the plan, such as :
a) Lengthening specific left turn lanes
b) Installing more left tum signals.
c) Bus stop shelters and street lighting.
d) Although not extensively covered, the new complex across from Green Hills will have a major
input to any streetscape plans; in my opinion .
e) A traffic light for Peninsu la Verde Drive folks!
And if I was to pick a streetscape it would in most case be "B"
Enough!
Regards , ran Maf his!O: RPV
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
180
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Ma rch 16, 2015
Jo el Rojas
Community Development Direc to r
Ci ty of Ra ncho Palos Verdes
Rebe cca Liu
Ci ty of Los Angeles
Counci l District 15
Re: We st ern Avenue Desig n Im ple me nta t ion Guidelines
De ar M r. Ro j as an d M s. Li u,
We are pleased to see that th e cities of Rancho Palo s Verdes and Lo s Ange les are working t oge ther
along with Ca l Trans to address im provem ents for Weste rn Ave nue.
The March 14 presen t ation of "Wes t ern Av enue Design Implementation Guideli nes" provided on ly a
brief g lim pse at a plan documen t. The pla n see med t o in cl ude some n ice urb an de sig n f eatures such as
landsca pi ng w it h drought tolerant na t ives , re-vitalizing pub li c str eets as pla ces for peop le t o interact,
din e, and walk, perme a ble pavi ng , etc. Those ele m ents should Ind ee d all be go als for Weste rn Avenue.
But ot herwis e t he proposed guid el i nes see med t o be so ge neric, so unre lated to anything that now
ex ists on Western and so dependent on total de m o lition and reco nst ruc t ion of most of the exist ing
st ru ctures in a vag ue dist ant f uture that overall it was very disappointing.
It was q uit e dis-ori ent ing t o see plans ill ustrating few cars but with so l id walls of mu lt i-storied buildin gs
fronting the st reet. Dense m ult i-s tory buildi ngs pu she d up t o t he si dewal k edge is NO T what t he
resi den ts of this are a des ire, and to include such a "vision" i n the plan, even on ly as an il lustr ation, can
on ly be vi ewed as a threat of d enser developm ent to com e. Where did all the ex isting ca rs, buses and
trucks supposed ly go? How did all the driveways disap pea r? Ho w are w e sup posed to transition from
the current situation to t his fantasiz ed ge ne ri c plan w ithout introducin g even more design incon sistency
to the hodge podge of what al rea dy ex ists?
We can't j ust t rans plant charming ur ban streets w it h sidewa lk dini ng and public gathering spaces on to
Wes t ern Av enue even by who lesale de molit ion an d re bui lding from sc ratc h. Those charming sett ings
succeed i n ne ighborhoods where t here is an ex isting paralle l grid of str eets to di stribute the burden of
traffi c m o r e w idely and where sidewa lks are not diss ec ted by m ult i ple driveways . Weste rn Av en·ue has
very diffe r ent, chall eng ing characte ri stics and th us r equires a more custo mi zed des ign plan.
Western Avenue has some very re al proble ms now, for drivers, for cyclists , for ped es trian s, and for
bu si nesses. We need t o see so me short term options to address t hose pro ble ms and provide some
im mediate i mprovements.
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
181
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPL EMENTAT ION GU IDELINES
Current Conditions
Existing Character of Western Avenue
• It is a HIG HWAY, with all the intensity of t raffic t ha t implies.
• It is t he so le i ngress/egress route for seve ral ne igh bo r hoods.
• It ove rlays i nfrast ructu re lines (sewers, elect ric , phon e, etc.) that occas ionally requ i re d isruptive
ma i ntenance and repair.
• It is often gr id locked.
• It must acco mmo date a vast range of traffic i nclud ing: pedes t rians; bicycli sts; mot orcycl ists and
scooters ; pass enge r veh i cles in sizes ranging from sub co mpact to ov ers ized ; bus es; and trucks
rang i ng up to 18 whee l semi's.
• It mus t accommo da te d al ly commut es; local erran ds; the beg innin gs and end ings of all lon ge r
distance travel; funeral processions; business de li ve r ies; etc . It is the so le access ro ute for
emergency ve hicles to ma ny loca t ions .
• It is pedestrian ho st i le.
o The no ise level from West ern Avenue traffic makes it difficu lt to ha ve a conv ersa t ion on
the sidewa lk
o Sidewalks are fre quent ly interrupted by d ri veways to park ing lots, putting pedestrians at
ris k when drivers fail to observe pedestrians and/or r ush to bea t the pe dest rian to the
driveway i n order to squeeze throug h veh icular traffic situatio ns. There somet imes
see ms to be no such thi ng as a pedestri an ri gh t of wa y on th e si dewa lk s.
o Pede strian access t o bu si ne sses is primarily via park in g lots, but there is nothing alo ng
t he driveway or within many parking lots to acknow ledge or protec t t he p resence and
rights of ped estrians -who are ma de to fee l li ke they are not really supposed to be
there, t hat they are ju st scofflaws and jaywalkers imped ing traffic. Walking through
some pa rking lots is li ke a high stakes game of dodge ba ll.
o Ma ny of t he private reside nt ial prop erty walls on Western are i n d isrepair -so me
re taining w;ills ar e tilti ng towilrds the sidewa lk as if read y to colla ps e, a potential threat
to the safety of nearby pedestr ians . Many chain l ink fences have been bas hed out of
sha pe, whet he r by t raffic accidents o r by vandalism. These fences and walls are not
only unpleasant aesthet ical ly, but the solid wa lls reflect a great dea l of heat and noi se.
What can be done to improve Western Avenue -now, rather than decades in the future?
A key strategy to im proving t he q uality o f We stern Avenue has to be to reduce t he vol ume of veh icu lar
traffic -t he challenge is how to achieve that on a cor ri dor wh ic h must serve essen t ially all t he t ran sit
ne eds of t he com mu ni ty. Until tha t issue is add re ssed , West ern is going to continue to be prob lematic,
and i s goi ng t o ge t worse. No amo unt of w in dow dress ing w il l improv e that cond ition. Improving the
pedestria n exper ie nce on Western is also essent ia l -it must be made sa f er and less noisy or f ew peo ple
will wan t to be there .
1. Reduce the volume of vehicular t raffic and Improve traffic flow.
• Prohibit future developments t hat would i ncrease traffic o n Western
• Support multiple transit options on Western so t hat they do not conf li ct w ith one another
• Improve public transit with sma ll shuttle buses
Curren t ly Western has very limi ted bu s serv ice, includ ing the 11205 tha t r uns approximat ely
every ha lf hour on weekdays, and less ofte n on weekends. Th is is not frequent enough to make
it feas i ble fo r pract ica l use -it essentiall y adds at least an hou r of "wasted" t i me to any erra nd
o r t rip using that bus, and multip li es that waste of t i me for every ad dit ion al dest ina t ion.
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015 182
WES T ERN AVENUE DE SIGN IMPLEMENTATION GU IDELINE S
A freq uent, r eli able sh utt le ser vice using smaller vehicles would be a way to improve access for
local residents to businesse s and other venues on Western Avenue. If wait times were no longer
than 10 or 15 m inutes it wou ld be poss i ble for people to combine multiple small errands on
Western w ithout needi ng to drive a car to do so . A route extending to Home Depot and Target
or to t he medica l offices on 61
h Street i n San Pedro would also be very useful. Shuttles could
potentia lly drop off and pick up passengers within existing parking lots, mitigati ng the disruption
of bus stops to general t raffic flow on Western.
If the number of people using mass transit inc reases, there would be fewer cars on Western.
• Investigate the possibility of restricting the use of large delivery trucks to certain hours of the
day (or night).
2. Make sidewalks safe for pedestrians .
Reduce the number of driveways inter secti ng We stern Ave . Each driveway creates a hazard for
both pedestria ns and cyc li sts. The driveways also add to t raffic congestion when a li ne of cars
needs to slow down as a single ca r enters or exits a driveway. When possib le, driveways shou ld
be located on the side streets, or reduced t o a sing le ma jor driveway serving multiple parki ng
areas . Such major driveways should be treated as i ntersect ions -with stop signs or ligh t s if
needed -for the safety of pedestrians and cycl ists.
• Require parking lot driveways to include sidewalk extensions to the primary busi ness
walkways, with clearly marked crossing areas.
• Consider re-routing sidewalks further from the street and als o away from the park ing t raffic
areas if possible. Existing shopp ing area wa lkwa ys might be usefu l to consider as parts of
connecting wa lkways along Western -with connections crea te d between adjacent propert ies
where feasib le. Add bufferi ng landscaping . Amenities such as outdoor di ning cou ld be created
in such setti ng s, which would be less noisy than any location closer to the traffic.
• Consider a city "Star" award for shopping centers and businesses that have made th emse lv es
more pedestrian-cyclist-publ ic transi t friendly, Promote thos e efforts with occasional events to
intr oduce people to transit alternatives as well as to small bu si nes se s on Western.
3. Investigate the possibility of buying out or obtaining an easement for a small strip of the lower
private properties that abut Western . Even a few feet would allow the construction of a consistent
r etaining wall and some buffering landscapi ng to reduce noise and heat coming off those walls and
perhaps also provide more se tback from traffic. Improvi ng this section of West ern m ight make walking
t o the shoppi ng areas more appealing to loca l residents .
4. Please forget the cllche of palm trees -they provide no beneficia l shade or sound buffering an d drop
dangerous heavy fronds creating a hazard for peop le and traffic in storm o r Santa Ana w ind cond it ions.
A drought tolerant, prefe rably loca ll y native plant pa lette would be far more suitable.
5. What about bike lanes? The recent r eduction of t raffic lan es for cars i n order to create bike lanes on
Wes t mont and on Capitol Drive has created a great deal of an imosity in t he com m uni ty and has
worsened, rather than im proved, traffic flow. Those bi ke lanes seem to be rarely used, the lane
markings are very arcane and confusing and ma ny drivers are very angry about it. A fiasco like that
should not be repeated.
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLI C OPE N HOUSE MEET ING I MARC H 20 15 183
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Ulti ma tely bike lanes sho uld be i ncorporated into a rev it alized plan for We st ern Av enue -but t he
implementation of bike lanes shou ld not be the fi rst and on ly thi ng that is done even if it m igh t be t he
easiest t hing for the cities to i m plement. The fi rst thi ng that shou ld be done is improving public trans it
by the add it ion of a small shuttle service. Next, plans shou ld be developed t o improve public wa l kways
an d sidewal ks as discus sed above . It may w ell turn o ut that by considering re-routing of sidewa l ks and
wa l kways other options for bike pathways will become evident. Ce rtainly if t he number of driveways
occur ring along Western Is reduced, that wou ld also benefit cyclists.
Conclusions
Ge neric designs aren 't going to work for West ern Avenue. It Is a highway in the m idd le of suburbia, not
"Main St ree t " in the m id dl e of a grid of alternate rou tes. Wh ile pedest ri an-frien dly st reet fron tage , w ith
din ing areas, etc . is ve ry appea li ng, West ern Is b ur dened w ith too many funct ions to expect it to ever be
a qu i et aven ue w ith l ig ht t r affic. W ho wan t s t o dine ri ght next to a highway? We can 't even have a
conversa ti on on Western .
In or der to i mprove t he experience of Westem Aven ue we need to start from existi ng cond itions, not a
fantasy of starting from sc ratch in some abstract f utur e scena rio. We ne ed to thi nk cr eatively and
resource fu ll y in term s of w hat actually ex ists . Change does not necessaril y require a comp lete st art over
and re -do, but it does requi re some rea l thought and coo rd inated plann in g.
It wou ld be worth tryi ng to improve pub lic transit w it h a r elia ble small shuttle service . If suc ces sfu l, t hat
approach could reduce vehicula r traffic and Incr ease pedestrian traffic. In addition, if sidewa lks we r e
rerouted t o meander be hi nd pa r ki ng lots and di r ect ly in front of bu sinesses, th ere would t hen be two
zones -one for cars an d one for peop le. The add it ion of cons istent la ndscap ing co uld div ide those
zones, buffer noise and make them aes t hetica lly attr act ive. At t hat po int, there cou ld eas i ly be pleasant
spaces fo r people to dine or m ingle ou tside .
This wou ld not be a o ne-size-fi t s-all approach, but it might be t he be st option to improve W es t ern in the
near f uture.
Sincere ly,
Barbara Satt ler
Res ident
Rancho Pa los Ve r des
Cc: Linda J. Ta ira, californ ia Departm ent of Transpo rtation
Ra ncho Pa los Verdes City Counci l
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 184
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDELINES
From: Joe l Rojas
Sent: Tuesday, Ma r ch 17, 201.5 11:34 AM
To: Sabia, Christine
Cc : Leza Mikhail
Subject: FW : Western Avenue Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open ho use .
From : April Sande ll
Sent: Mon day, March 16, 2015 7:42 PM
To: CC
Cc : Joe l Rojas;
Subject: Western Avenu e Vision Plan Map as provided at the Peck Park open house.
Dear Mayor and Council me mbers ,
The "subject" map indicated several errors mislabeling tho se street na mes within the Rolling Hills
Riveria homes area . Also, the map failed to show
Dodson Middl e School but otherwise indicated Crestwood St. Elementary in the
"southern section". I hope you agree, that a clearer picture
would be appreciated by all stakeholders. More importantly, the council (i.e. elected
representatives) should not be caused confusion regarding the exact
locations of single family homes or businesses' at issue, as they are
commonly known and identified by street name.
No doubt more significant iss ues will surface throughout this process. However, at this
point, the above mentio ned boundary lines as well as cities'
boundary lin es should be clearly seen and well understood by all stakeholders.
Admittedly , it's confusing to me that the planning map described TAXCO restaurant and other
businesses within the same strip mall are not within RPV
jurisdiction yet hold the address "RPV, 90275" . Why is that?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Sincerely,
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
185
WESTER N AVEN UE DES IGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDE LIN ES
March 15, 2015
Joel Rojas
City of Rancho Pal os Ve rdes
Commun it\' Develop ment Director
Rancho Palos Ve rd es, CA 90274
Rebecca Liu
rtECEN£P
Cf'.M ~oJM ln'tlt•'tl.tWWf'\(T
t ·~i>.Ol:l fMI!"".
Ci ty of Los Angeles
Coun ci l District 1 ~
Los /mgeles, Cl\
I attended the Op en H trn~e Meeting o n March 111, 2015, for t he Western
Ave nue Design Impleme ntation uidelines.
My fe edback Is as follows :
At t he next meeune, If there Is one, It would be helpful for the speakers
to use a P.A . Syst em. Sat m da~, it was diificult to he ttr or understand
wha t the presenters w ere telllng us . Also, most of t he atten dee!~ did not
get to have a good look at t he pro posal on the t a ble or to act ually talk
with one o f t he young lad ies who we r<'.' there to lidµ us. Ye ~. a few fol ks
got to say what had to be sa id, however, t hese foll<s used up t he hal f
hour avai lable for attendee!. pe rsonal review.
I was disappointed t h.at t h£! a tt endee-~ were not allowed to ask q ue!.t ion s
or make comments duri ng t he sho rt presentotlon at 10:30 a.m. A
gentlem;m pointed m Jt t h ere would be some 700 family dwe lling5 in the
near future al Ponto Vl•ta and tho addrtlM al traffic thl• d ev el opment
wm1 l d c.reat e for Wes t ern ond he was r em inded "We are not talkin g
•bout l hatl "
Gettin g past that disappoi ntment, I do agree Western Avenue o n both
si<les tovl<l u se upi:irad i"R· However, before our ha 'ct earned t'1ic: dollar s
are spent for the grandiose v ision of w hat Western m icht be ... I suggest
there be a real trnfflc st udy, t hat th em be a ser ious stu dy of t ho se we r
and storrn drai n systems .. t hese il re as o ld as West e rn !
on So uth Gunt er Road si nce 1972 an d t hose who would or do walk on
Western do so to (1) ca tch t he bus (2 ) go to t he post office (3) go t o t he
bank or shop fo r smol l Item s or go t o a nearby eot ery (4 ) no one i n t hei r
right mi nd would just t ake a walk on Western for t he nke o f ~ pJcasant
outing or CXl:!r<:i se! T h e ~· would be gasping fo r breat h from all ot the
exha ust fumes from t he heavy trafflc on Western
Pro posed parklns lot s ot the bock of t he commorci al buildini:s is without
a dou bt one of t he most disturbing vision!>. Perhaps you know so m eth i ng
that I don't but wou ldn't t ha l re qui re one to tu rn right or left onto a
res idential st reet (all of t hese are na rrow one lane each way) then
abruptly t um rig ht or lert aga in to go i nto o r to come out of the parki ng
l ot back o f the commercial bu ll ding . I his v ision Is not a v ision, It Is a torn!
hallucinat i o n ~
There w as emph asis on lots and lots of l '1ndsci3pin.g. I c.an't h elp but
wonder WHO Is gotng t o ma n ae~ this proposed i mmN1su arnou11 t or
greenery ??"? Neit her RPV or LA pa\' much, if any, .a ttention to the
lti nd$Ca ping 01l 1Ncstern no w ! Please NO MOR E palm trees or
evergreens! Trees ;3 re great and we need t he m, however, trees do
re·quire a lo t of ma inte nance which is costly and t h at costl y item s.e ems
l o never get mcluded In the an nu al budget.
What I think would m ake t he Draft Oeslgn Gu ideli nes better:
More public Input befote acloptlns or lmplement lr1g any Vision
De sign Pla ns i.e. allow the public paving ta>:payers to voice their
co ncern s
Det i nit~ly do 3 co m p lete an d ai;cura t e t r;:iffic study of t he t c-<1ffi1;. you
n ow hav~ on We-stem before NOT A.f TER adopti ng o r implementing
any Vision Design Pluns. Have the signals sync hroni zed before
doing t he t ratfic st ud y .
SUM M ARY OF MARC H 2015 PUBLI C OPEN HOUSE MEE TING
If I un derstood torrec tlv, Ca lt rans, who owns Western, will i n t h ~ futu re
sy nch ro nize the s ignals o n We.ste rn whic:h will improve t he fl ow o f t raffic.
My t h ought here, is WHY do t i ns i n the fut ure! ·~ Western n eeds t h e
signal5 sync.hronize<J Now, whidl would be a big help In m oving t raffic for
t hose or us who have to us.e Western every day of t he week.
l r ~d lllt! to acc omplish any upgrade to W estern Avenu e would no doubt
requi re e minent domain procce-dln es to acq ui re t he strip mall prop er ti e~.
Em inent domai n can and is cruel and u sual punishment for the sma ll
s hop owner who will be put out of bus ine ss Liy court order and at th e
very lowest pri ce poss i ble I I ho pe I do n't live to see t ha t liappen l
My choke for t he .ireetscope opti on would be Withou t Bi ke La ne s
beea u ~c of t h ~ t r emend ou s amount of traffic o n We stern, i .e. regular
v•hi ol es, S\!Vs, t ru cks (big & w it h tra ilers). hug e de livery t ru cks, sc hool
buses, Metro buses, p lus a ll of t he emergency \t e hides. To narrow t he
trnlflc Inn es would be hazardous for t he ordiri ary dri ver .
Protection o f vi ews. fo r proper ty owner$ above Western In t he totally cu l
de s<1 c neighborhoods. It is my 1..m derstnndl ng that Com merci al Pro 1>ertv
~sno t i n ludcd i n RPV's View Ord in a nce. I m entione d the view ordinance
to one of the young ladie s ossl stlnR the public with t he Visio n Plan on t he
table , <rnd I was adv is.ed "t he views wou ld be protect ed!"
We-s tern Avenue il!.clf Is nu t an al.Ju sc r of th e v iew ordlnance, t he abu se
would be-t il e prop os ed gran diose landscap l ng on Weste rn and the
commercia l redevelopment b uildings on W estern. Therefore, befo re
sta rting t he redev elopment, there n eeds to be de finite ossuronccs In
writing that our v iews wou ld c:ont in u e to be u ni nterrupted ... not o ne
o f t hese "oo ps" it is alrea dy bui lt and so it gets to stay ·and obstruct our
vie w.
I cannot imagine anyo ne st rolli ng down Western on the proposed
'h'ide ned side walk s. Th e amount of t raffic alone woul d d iscourage
anyone f ro m t aking an enjoya ble wa l k o ti any part of Wes tern. I've lived
Defi n ite ly do a com pl ~t e st udy of t he orii:imal sewe.rs and origi nal
storm d r-a in :. before NOT AFTER adopting or implementi ng any
Visio n De$ign Plans
Adopt an or d ina nce to cast in con crete t h at t h e rn>: payinB property
ovmt1 rs w ho now have a vie w shl.lll r.:onti nuc to h ave a view t hat will
not be blocked eit her by land sc ap ing or commercial
redevelo pmenl o f Western A11e nue.
Before Includ ing t he ~Aden ln e of s l dewo l k~, toke o good look at how
t he current sidewa lk$ are used; a lso consider who is going to
Incl ude in their b udget the runds tu ke ep the sidcwci lb usa ble.
Do not ~dd bike lanes to any part of Weste rn , t he street has more
t h an its share o f vehicle traffic.
1 he proposed Vi sio n of out·door cafcs oppcars to be o dream;
Western h as far too m uch veh icular tlilf fi c to mJke a r.o-ld o r hot
drink enjoyable an d to eat any thi ng would be u npleasa nt I /~.nd to
sit at an llmbrella t abl e sippi ng vour dfl nk and watch a large fu neral
p rocessio n go by to Gr een Hill s. Now that would b e appetizing !
An cl las t but not l e3st, PLlASL do no t bt l ck or use any other
materi als fo r t h e crosswalks . The w h ite p.a.inted line s wor k very
well; no ra isine up o r bi e cracks to cau se t he podcst ri nn to falL
l hank you for t he o pportunity to p r~o nt my oti lnlons on this very
im portant i ssu e fo r the t ax p aye r re sident on Gunter Ro ad . Grants a re
Great, howeve r, Gran ts do not incl ude t he fu turn co st of m ainten ance to
keep t he redeveloped area b ri ght and sh i ning I
I am all f or upgrading We stern; It ls cleflnltely need ed; however, let us be
good to e ach o the r and work together wi t h a pla n t hat will t ruly work
and work well for all of u" I be lieve before ov en co 11sldorlne a Vi sion
Plan p rior to doing yo:ur homework i .e. t raffic, s.e w er, storm dr ain s.tu dies,
is like buildi ng your house before yo u have <1 found ati on. (a s the saying
goos ··puttln& t he ca rt before tile horse!)
MARCH 2015
186
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDE LI NES
fhnt sa id, I am now ROing to share with you 'omct hlng that I think need•
to be se riously thought about by those of you wh o are working on t his
or any ol hor public project.
Your taxpayi ng pro1>erty owners are just gene<ally dlscouroged by
eovernrnents' go ing ahead on projects the taxpayer doesn•t 'llimt. There
is apathy among all of tl1ose who could and s hoHld vote and attend open
house meetings_ ~or example, t he bi ke la ne.son Capitol and elsewhere .
folks were told "You just don1t want to accept change"' w hich is not true.
One needs to remernber th e ta 1t. payer/property owner ha!.-spcfl t 30+
ytar-s pay ing off a mortgage so they would h<l\I C o roof ovet their head
and a place to rais.e their thlldren, now their grandchil dren. Plus, th!.!y
have st ruggled l o have their ho mes remodel ed and upd a l ~d. 111> called
"'P tl de of Ownershi pN and it does not fee l eood m si t well when thc.se
ieetings are invaded .
We, t he taxpayer/property owner, will a<:cept change, so long as
governmen t reme mbers "we live here; we hav e lived he re fo r a lo ng
perlod of time; we know wha t wlll or will not work well for our
neighborh ood. Yes, the taxpaver/propenv owner w ill accept all c:.ha nges ,
updates,, or an)ithing that wi ll give us et bNter llfc, I t hink I am sa fe in
srty i ng the folks livi ng In the cul de sat i;:ommu nities along Wc~tC'rn are
eont1mt and comfo rt ab le in th eir 19S01s one story homes a ncl all of t hes.e
home.s are we ll-ke pt.
fh an~ yo u aga in for allowi ng me to have my i np ut; please know, I urn all
in favo r of r edoi 11 £, up e,rad ln g Wes t ern Avenue and do \et us work
togcthor and not a Ra inst each other!
Rancho Palos Verdes,
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING MARCH 2015 187
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Appendix E
Meeting Presentation
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015 188
WESTERN AVENU E DES IGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
__.
L..... ... .......:. •• ....__,.
Western Aven u e Corridor Design Im p l eme n tat i on Gu i de l ines
March 1 4 , 2015
SCAG
City of Rancho Pa l os Ve r des
City of Los A nge l es and Counc il Di str ict 1 5
Ca l trans
2 . Western Avenue Corridor Vision Plan
Ove rv i ew
Key Goals and Prin cipl es
3. Design lmpleme tatton Guidelines
Role and Purpose
Key Gu ide l ines
St reetscape Options
Meet w it h City and Co nsul tant Team
Fill o ut a Co m me nt Card
Fin al d ocu m ent wi ll be prese nted at Open Ho use i n Spr i ng 201 5
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
189
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMP LEMENTATION GU IDE LI NES
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
190
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
What is Western Avenue?
2.3 miles/45-min walk
It is the mountain -to-ocean boulevard .
SUMMA RY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARC H 2015
191
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Western Ave is not homogenous .
Inventory of Destinations
& Landmarks --31 destinations
@ ·~ ---
ii"Vf•oc\iWA•
-·----... _.
~-· ,_,... ,_,. -""' ,,....,. a.&wr
.......... -,..-'"""'-. -~ _.,.,......,.
~'iJ destinatio ns=--... _ .... _ ~ -----o destinations
Patterns of development are dated.
SUMMARY OF MARC H 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
192
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDE LI NES
The corridor lacks special places.
There are no plazas, paseos, or other hubs of community.·.:•. ' . . :
Instead , surface parking lots dominate the street edge. ·~ : . · . · · · ,
There are jurisdictional complexities .
• CAL TRANS owns and maintains the right -of-way (ROW). · , ,. · · · ·"' · •'" .,::
; Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the west (except for one block where itjumps across to the easih
• Los Angeles is located on the east. · ~~
• Lomita has jurisdiction over the intersection at Palos Verdes Dri ve North . ., ; :_
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
193
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDELINES
Learning from great streets and places
1. Strong street wa ll s
Learning from great streets and places
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOU SE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
194
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPL EMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Key Vision Plan Recommendations
1. EVOLVE THE CORRIDOR INTO A COMPLETE STREET, usable by
everyone and providing safe access and experience for pedestrians ,
bicyclists , motorists and transit r iders.
2. UPDATE THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT along the corridor and
reverse the relationship that bui l dings and surface parking lots have
with the street.
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015 195
W ES TERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPL EMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Role and Purpose of the Guidelines
Design Implementation Guidelines will help guide the development of the
public and private realm in creating a vibrant Western Avenue.
Will not change or supersede existing zoning
regulations such as:
• RPV View Protection Ordinance
• Land uses
• Development standards, building heights, or parking ratios
Role and Purpose of the Guidelines
Design Implementation Guidelines will help guide the development of the
public and private realm in creating a vibrant Western Avenue.
Will provide guidance on:
• Implementing Vision Plan
• Design of streetscape improvements, such as greening, landscaping,
and complete streets
• Consistency of des ign, character, and "theme" along Western Avenue,
in RPV and LA
• Coordination of improvements between jurisdictions and with Caltrans
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE M EE TI NG I MARC H 2015
196
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Organization of the Guidelines
7. Introduction and Vision
2. Administration
3. Framework for Street Improvements
4. Guidelines for Public Right-of-Way
5. Guidelines for Private Development
6. Acknowledgements
Framework for Street Improvements
• Overview of goals and design principles by segment (South, Middle,
North)
• Before and after visualizations
• Plans and illustrations providing proposed dimensions
• Options for streetscape improvements, for public feedback
SUMMARY O F MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
197
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Framework for Street Improvements
1.2 Gul d in& Princlpl for the
So uth.em Segment
Framework for Street Improvements
SOUlKER S!GMCr.l
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING MARCH 2015
198
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GU IDELINES
Framework for Street Improvements
SOUTllERN HG IENl
Framework for Street Improvements
SOUTHER SFG (Nl
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING MARCH 2015
199
WE STERN AVENUE DE SIGN IMPL EMEN TATION GUID ELIN ES
Street Improvements Options
Opt \ 111 1ft.j I In O h1110f11 l ho•
MIDDL E SEGMENT.
m
Guidelines for the Public Right -of-Way
• Streetscape (street furniture, lighting, and utilities)
• 1 t.nur 11t A"'o 111.ttl
,\ifllfift1•1
....
SUMMARY OF M ARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPE N HOUSE MEET ING I M ARCH 2015
200
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Guidelines for the Public Right-of-Way
• Streetscape (street furniture, lighting, and utilities)
• Mobility and Complete Streets Improvements
.tf~~at AlllOU-... *"ttil
.. ,. ff\t•-'~"'""'t "'
. i
Guidelines for the Public Right -of-Way
• Streetscape (street furniture, lighting, and utilities)
• Mobility and Complete Streets Improvements
• Landscape Design, including sustainability and green infrastructure
... ____ . ..... -------·-----------
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
201
W ES T ER N AVENUE DE SIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Guidelines for the Public Right-of-Way
• Streetscape (street furniture, l ighting , and utilities)
• Mobility and Complete Streets Improvements
• Landscape Design , including sustainability and green infrastructure
• Branding, Signage , and Wayfinding & Public Art
Guidelines for Private Development
• Building Design and Programming
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
202
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
Guidelines for Private Development
• Building Design and Programming
• Open Space
Guidelines for Private Development
• Building Design and Programming
• Open Space
• Parcel Access , Parking, Service and Loading
• Signage
.........
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
~1·-t"~4··~
..-c~
............ -,.. . ,. ,,., ""' . .. ~
~-·--·-
203
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
l . Today:
• Meet wi th City Staff and
Consultant Team to review
materials .
• Fill out a Comment Card to
provide your feedback.
2 . Consultant Team to consolidate
feedback and work with RPV, LA,
Ca/trans, and SCAC to revise
document.
3. Fina l Document Open House : Spring
2015.
.__..._ .... ____...... ......
__ l .. -".._ ~----
_J;om':!lent Card _ _ _____________ _
"*t~·---1-fl.'I•' -"'°'It-I •,_ ........ _,... -w-........... -................... ""'"'"-'""-~-
I'°'' ,,..,..,,,-•-P-WU0f"'tllt""'0--'"' __ . ; .... ,... ... ._rpo ......... _ _...., . ~~-·-( .._...:ip"~
I i\~.s"°"°"""'r•-.Jt,..-..1.,.{"..,~C....-""'-'
------------
-• ....,.__._ ..... lt-...
-""'~ ·-···"" 0...tl_ ... J_\!.>_ Cll"t.il•N...-u
'-·.~i)o'• ~ '-'•P111••I'\
fl11,....'\,flt !lll•Ul!'()t\ ..... .,.. .......
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
204
WE ST ERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPL EMENTAT ION GUID ELINE S
Appendix F
Meeting Boards
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOU SE M EETING I MARCH 2015 205
W ES TERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPL EM ENTAT ION GUIDELINE S
Identifying 2.3 miles of We stern Avenue as
THE STUDY AREA.
NORTHl RN srGMlN1
Tht' rlo•lh t'rn St'1:n~~-t ~-lh ..
k.r.1 ~''·~ar1he"i'6m«i1 ...
OciAU!o.· u l lh 11djau!1tdi.'!i (ltn•
L\clf nw.111u~I Sup;11ml'o.:nt
1orlLI G<teol liill S(~et!!fVI ll~
tlort.,cm Xoi;:mcn1 1s coM11kred
.apt""liQrlllllri "+>lv<"•l!O-nfl"n'"'"
t<.opc!rle!lce;r,11 :J.1 c l the~ te-iween
1·· ~· ~ i. ,, , • ..... 1 1r,,,
MIDDLE SEGMfNT ft,; r,1i1kl i; Sc-£ment ;~ ktt.ilt:d -
nun r.onldr.rtx-1 .... cc-n '11, • "
ar.H~·it,.s m11 l11 famor1
•ie$0:1 1!•\l l~l v s.t; 11);.tk y;w-(l; of
namr.~ on \ttor.p r.lo i:;e-sj ~r r.
k"lr Atenont111>we-.i:,wh.t"'
c~u ner<11tl U!.e5 J!t' oo l h(." e~1 \
.1rl11Qllhr1.trr"r
SOUTHE RN ~EGMENT
TM c;.n111tlf'rn'\1>en <+n t 1•
con1ld~ed lh~ t"Ommcru<ll ilocllrl
ot ov-cotrldO r. Hur, bNW•"'~1
od • ~1wt -eod."'''~r
•1·, l ll.\"dlln<.."~l Ch.1.1,'f QI
comrner(ld l u~•(ltt,,...~l'Jn lxllh
\l:h1'o of th" ~trnct
itoe Sh1ll·1 M ~a, l()' 111 0~1 or il,
lcnr.;Ul, fo1m~ 11\c m wiicip.11
hn1,1'lf1M'/l>'twtoo¥11tl11n•yt11
A8nc ho Ptikn \'ctdc) (o•• tl:e west)
¥10 tt."' Cn·, ol lo; An11.r!M: (on m.-.
~ll. OvwoU, We\ler11 """"'o~·de i
.a d ro>M>r.•1 o( U\ro ~no Jm11 Ntun. 11>
l~c S.O u1h8.r1·. Pc rimuf.t, Jtlif S~11
J'edrn commun1h!!~
Wf StfAN AV ENUE OfSIGH JM Pt f ME 1nATIOtJ lJUlfJr 1 1tlf ~ I 0
SUMMARY OF MARCH 201 5 PUBLI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING
Highlights from the Wester n Av enue Cor r idor
VISION PLAN
In 2012, Ille City ol R:infho P::llO'I \lt'iu le\,
funded hy the Suuttte111 UUl:,.-n1:i
ru.'.odallorio! G~1nme11h (S..:AG),
embai1kt-d un J ccmmurut y-'ffi ett'nrl to
Improve \'/e~t em A~11ue lti• r~ent,,
bui.l'IC'l \f:~, •rnl >1b1tor:r. al ~c Tll!."el11Jrl
culm•n~lt-:J If\ tho;: We:Ue111 AYe n u:-
Cr:uiOO! VJs;on Pl.-.11 ..,,T\kh lllu~trJteri
!ht 1h:l1cd ;'l'l.pil31b>\ and ice a~ o l tnr.
(()mmun.ty
In ]014. !he (ily o r RM 1th(). P.'llot W•d~,
to1r-lh"r with th!-r,,1y o! to~ An8f'IM,
w,H ,iw;uc.:-cS a ~econil Sf AG Bi.1•11
10 lun(l till" de••l;'ILiptnent o t oe~isn
(ju16e!ine, 10 1 lhe impleme1>t111\011 of
iht"Vi,ionP...11'1
!Ce y re<.01nn-.;omh1ti(;:u~ h<1m \ht-Vi~lon
Pl.an. wliid1.uerr:i!=<>atcd(n l heOt-•iF1 t1
Gw~litl<t~,lr..:lu~~;
• ~'"t h• •• 1itt.,. t1'1.a110Nkl p
l hatb11lldl••nlll1u•fa<-•~ld"1
lol\llM'9'1\~ththeJtr.-t . Ne w
development~ sh\,'1ila t1e;i1e 3 ~t iong
bu·ldlna \ti eel m:1U :11ona We~t em
A\~"ll>t:', wllhto!l)(.ll1h1S:f-'41Hn11.:11 tJv.
ICillfO!lh.ejlo'J !t.el
• [W1twlh•cor~•dor h1lu•uJ01p6etr
sfrH'l, wl~l l.' 1he ~=d~ d .l'I USC!~
(pe:1~1n ilns , bit\o::!ish, l1Jns1! usel'!..
:ino.1 :111?ornoblle\) •11: l"qva !y 1nt:l
Western A\·e ri<.1e ~h::iu l d Il e t~ble
bt-evt-1y~.f:f\'lv;dif1ia$111! .. :md
c:omtt'..1t •b'ee1tp!rtener.
• I' I',.,.,, lp-.dritti.n,,.tl vtl\'
\0(';"1\!;' .-.ctlv.:-pl'de~'""" .:f'len.tC'd
v~ (li\e re1.in ~I•~, snx~ry s tO!e~.
011!d tlO<d •,...1\g,1r;:1 lo'tor:mh,W "
1he11lt:t\,htmu ito\,elc)i11llht-Sro.in:t
it-Y't'I of lxill d .ns~ with d 1ec1 a::tes~
\lc m Wl.'•lem l'wf!nue
• l""Pto..e lh •publk:111"at1n .Sitlewt1lk
w'dlli\ ~hoi.Jd be 1!> h r11lnlrm.11n
M~! sti OU hl '1 tecmmr::d.ile impr(Jvi:ll
\l/l:fh ctr pe le.'11u·t:" (Ith: 1111\:'l~~•pt:,
~11.:=:I tu1n.tu1 e ,llght\ng, .lfld()l/lt!
prde11 n1 11t11~11itil:'~)
"UHIAll~P'l.ut ...... dpubW
1rtlott..lctt1f.,1h ircon d,....•'td
nl•bibll •bra.rd ..t ..... ,u., b
~~nA ....... tAnd«•p;11s
•t-.::iuld ;a.ct .1 ~ uBt'"'='nlnlr.i~t1uc l me'
.ind c~~l of drou#1t.t(llo:1.1nt "n\l
<:,a!ifo-nii> fnend'y Nili\'C jlbr'ttlnit
WE STIRN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENT A TtON GUIOELtNH I Op.n House i
MARC H 2015
206
WESTERN AVENUE DES IGN IMPL EMENTATION GU IDE LI NES
Make it safer, easier, and more convenient to
SHARE THE ROADWAY.
1hc l';i lo~ VC'f riN f'cnimul;i .;mrl ,S~n Pc rim rommunititts htrvr.> a lnne:
es labli.!he<I tmliti M ol ret1 eallon.a l biklilg , µa 1tlcut.11!v illofl!! the
Qr('an lmnt :md t hf' hilly !'l(.'nln\ul;i, l'.(»h thr> (il)' l'Jf it.:m rM i>..i lns
~1tles .:i nd the Oly or I.bi Angel~~ retQ.fo mend i fll10011drl l! l'll)rlh
;mrf ~l)lllh bt~<t.·;ry~ ;ilnng \V('Sf(!m A~~~nur in thrir lOl'lf:·r.me;,r
bl ~!! J)l.111~ rut w e ifrlµle rrre r\tatl Ufi or blk!!wilyS ~h(llJl(J rnr1iid ~1 a
bal;m\Prl ro ;idw;i•1 ;ippro~d1 I n fo r ilit<tt<J the .iflflropri;itp ~;i fcty,
il(Leosibilil'(, "n11'()(nfo11 ol .a li u ~ws of the LOri hJ01.
. .
SUM M ARY OF MARC H 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEET ING
Use trees, plan ti ng, and "green infrastructu re" to
BEAUT IFY THE CORRIDOR.
llii;. suger.-.11ul l ~nrt~.oipa
1Se~naPf)ro a c h,#1 clu1U11 r.the
W L•ctl1L'E!andplJ11t µateue,
ha~ t.11.'CI\ dci11,:.uoo 10 <1M1e\S
U·«!v;nyi.r1i::r1atul!!Ol e ach
ol the tllfl:<! ~1!111t'flb of lhc
r.arndor. lhc Deugn o;;hau!d
t MfXm ri .lr...-1 cn11t rib 1.1tc to d11:
1Y.CJlC/l('no;ociQ;11;hM1gm.}r.1.
1 rxhu:lir-£l hqQc>l!r ~a QI
ac rivel"JOltr.d floo r u$E~Af\d
pe destrian tra ffic
... -........... ~--... .. _ .... "' __ ........... _,,_...,, •• w., .. ~---·---Mo ......... ,_. ..... -... -................... .. ....,._.,..,.r,-., •• _ .... ..,,.-•• ..-.. '"--'"'_,. __ ,.....,. • .....,,_.,_,......,., •• _,_,,...,.._,. __ .,
MARCH 2015
207
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IM PLEMENTAT ION GUIDELINES
Encourage new developments to create
GOOD URBAN FORM.
Wt'~l t'fTI A\ot.'11\Je', t'~llt'IHll ~ :,kio-111 0 -. XNlht'tn Sotcntt'!ll. u .... ~1 -
po:;rtlon!!d ta Cllmpete with O!h-~r r el :rl :ind en~rt:inme r,f de.mn.:tltru
!11 tt111 ta-~~ ll)dn ;o, tr m u-:.r "~t t.ll th11 1rtlU1ng 1d,1 tlnnU'lt1
I ha! bul!:llng.; m11f ::.urfom pwtkln11 b l~ h>r>'9 .... uh thii ~11 nnt. ttnw
,1...., .. 1:1 1 lfut>nl ~ slto uhl tt t>wl .. ~ ~l r (•l'!h•Jhf•te ··lfl'\!I ""'"'II i110 u1: \Vl'Jol+'•U
"'•'C~ . ....t1i<!: lo..-;,l•l>: p 1Tlci111: 111 lhe rt"11r QI lhe p;:i r{,l. 1 hi ) help~ w
a c;ite.! .,.1br;i.n L.:ctM:, ~~~ln::in-fr 1 e n dyenv 1ronmen t.
Options for i mpleme nting improvements along t he
SOUTHERN SEGMENT.
lnOpt l::o A,1t~e•i.\1!11g C\1 1 b
to curb dimt'nsicn rrimains
umNnged t he >>"kith!
0 1 1r1ive1 !.me~ ;w-1-~hsnuy
•cdu~c<j to allow for a wid ttr
l;;nci~ta pt:!d r'OW i.:i ri. On-~tree t
pa1king Ii ~1:pt on b;ithud"~ of
tht'Strt'N,Witli~w sidc .... '31k
planrtng..
ln0 pH;Jnfl.,!l'\eeA l~l1"1 }1<::Ur'b
to rnrb dimt'n!>ion rt'mai n ~
um:han~:e a. llie w ldm~oi"
I M'ICI l~n t:~me r~uced lo
al low f;y a Cla'I-~ II &t.t'WCI'{ Oil
bot11~ldi:-sof :r.;o !tr.;;:1.0n.-
lt1 eet p•·l:ingrslr-1ltOH IY.'l\h
s iclc-~<:<fthcstrt>ct with~w
:Wlewllk.platlt\ni;:.
Opflo11 C -tlybr1d · WAhC"'tV
F.-.l~Jam umi B1._1
11\0ptionC.th.?t:urtl!O{UCb
dimer-:.j.:m I~ enl:irJi!<!d b~
appra.imatttl'f"1ft.and tra\'l:'I
lane wl<tths are redui:ed to
bt:alllo:: tn;ieoomrnodnte
PIVt<:C l'.'d (ytlt' TrdC.~5and Of~
~uee t 1:1arking on both ~ldl?~
c:if !Me ~tree~ New :.fCl'wa'l
p!anrhp. il"'ld rurb CJ.\t'ns:on~
ar;; intrcduced throug.Mut.
'!.,. ..... , ....... ,,. ................... ~--··· .... '" .. "'"'~"" '"''·-·t ................ -, .... --... ~ .. 1..._..,,~..-... -.... 1" ...... "'"" ,,.,,,,, .. ,.,, .. -~~''""·-"
... .-• .., .. -..... ~~~"''P·-·~1 .. ._ .... ~ ... ~ ... ~Nw. .. ,...,u, ............ ·---............. 1 .. ~···"'·A·•~'"J"'""""°" ... ,4·1t.1n .. 11or1v....-A ........ """'""""•/pn•sy<(>\.< .. t.,<\,'""" ..... l,..f•f .. t ... ,.,. .. ,..,.,.,~fll•<"f\AU://<''""'''o(......,,•,•11-"1""'..,."'1''·""'''"·"'"''' .. _'"'"""'* ··u ..... .,,dlJ~oo·tt .. 1oo-,..t ..... .t
WC SHRN AVENUE. OESIGN IMPLf.MENr A JtON GUIDELINES I Op11n Hou• '." -
SUMMARY OF MARCH 20 15 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
208
WE STERN AVENU E DESI GN IMPL EMENTATION GUIDE LI NE S
Options for implementing improvements alo ng t he
MIDDLE SEGMENT.
Opf'lct11A Wif ll (11rb
U1tmki1i. No llW-jl
In Option A. t~ l!ll~tini::
curb 1ocurb d menslOt'land
11 r.~ll.:tnevl>dtl>$r cmo\ln
vni:Nnscd On-m-e('t par\infi;
is IY.pt on li«h side~ of1he
1hecl v.Jlhncw,!devalk
planthg a.ml curb t'•tcn1>ons
' "'f"· i:I-Iii • Jl t ~'"M
WU ti,..,.,
lnOptbn B. \t'l('(';;istinitcurb
to cutb d•ml'nsiori 1e m~ns
1he \:uni: Tomnke 1com tar
aoroteCll!dtVClt-IJacli;onuil!
we~t and .a Cl.:m 111.llli.eway Ofl
U1ei:.1\t lro1vefllmew!d th\Mc
rC'duC('d and on-nrc-ct p.trl:ln11
K fli!lllOYed on the Wl'!>t. l'l.iH\'
1ldt-w1l~p!;mt!11gl1 11\ri"lduC?rl
tl'!routllOOt.
Optfcu~C·llytwhl Wifh C"tb
ti:t•1Ulo1V•nr/1J ...... ,,,
In Option C, ti'°" curb m curb
dimt'~io n is nnlarf,00 bv
;ippa~irn~h:ly 711 . and !ravel
laoe v.ldlhs are red1Kt>d la
~ab!t't oaccom~a tc
pro l~h;•d Cyi.J"' Tf;ic'.~ :ma On
street PMking on both sides
of 111r ~trt'ct New sidrwa.·~
p111nt\nga"l!l n11b"•llr:M;oo~
lre intrcdu:ed lhraugOOut.
, "I"·'"'
>·--
~'.:;.::::..;:,;:;!";,•.,.-:"~-;:"P'=.~.~~.::'.:.:i::!:;~;:,":;::::~":'.~=~=·~:;.;~:~~...:;:=;,•,1::2:':.';::;vr,·~~;','.;!t;::":!:~ -
ipott'<l"'"'"'"''·'lf"'>b ..... 1loh• .... ,M/_< ... l .. -•L\.'M .... l-f\~/f.•,_, "<--"'" __ ,_ ........... ,., ...... ,,..,.,.,...._.,..,..,,..,
........... -.. f1s~ ........ -v~.1 .... 1
Options for implementi ng improvements along t he
NORTHERN SEGMENT.
OprlonA Wif f1 C11rti
Ldtmlom, No,,.,,_,
lnOpticnA,tht'C'IO';tin&
corbtocurb d "menslct\aod
l•tlllt'l'411ew.:lthi 1emo)in
un;haf'&t'd On·WC'CI pa<'".,J"£
11 l.ept cn LO".l"lside1c1
the 1ll'~el. wllh new cvrb
C'ltensio:"lsandsidcv.alk
plantirlg. tn !he NOrth!;rn
'i~Srnt'nl, t:<.:tr<lintlsls1uge
al'lda1tW{lf\inthemectiim is
emcurJot!i!d.
0()riott# NorwrbfJrtf!'nJ:tON,
With/If--;
In Opti;;:n B, tke t';oei~ti.nR
curb to curb dlmen~loo end
lr ilvtl lllt11:: Yi'dttt\ ICll"lln~
v n::h.afll,ed On-street rtar\int
t r ep~Ked b,· a ;:o<ot~(tf-d
C'(Clt-Tr.Jtl a1 l:oth' ~~I
1hcsttC'ets w ithr<-w~dcv..alk
otamhg. tn the 1ro1t11Hn
Sl!'g 1nt:nt.l:1Jndlng!ign.llgr.
aM anw;;n: 1n tN: ll'lt'6i1n i~
enc:our'Co!d.
OptJon C • ffyf#HI CW'b
,..,.,,.tlo•uott<JIJ,......,
In Optbo C, the curb 10 curb
dirncr1M(H!•~ tnlt11g..,.:J lly
aporoiimatdy Sft. an::I tr;wo:-1
lane W1 dthsarnreduted to
bt:Jble ltiacoomrnod:1ti;.
p rokctt'd (Vfle Tract~ and o~
!trnH oa.rki ng on both sl'1tt
o f U>r,l r'eet. N.-w ~id.-wll'~
o1.:1nthi end cu rb ll"Jo rens<;in~
are lnt rOOu~ed ltuoughNt.
In 1l1e ~J:.lf"l hern Segmc'11,
brandinJ. si13nilft' vod artw;;r~
int.nemed...tn lsen::Ollf3ged
~~·:.;;:::::"::i·~~·==~.:~",~;;";::.,.";:~!:~.;::-::: .. ::.::.::;:::~;.;~~~\o:,':,~,='.,n~~v':i:7,:',":;=,.:!: ... N ""''""'""""''""'';u ..... ,\,1o,.,. ..... , ...... 1.-1 ......... , .... ,,.,..,,4 ... jl,U\/}o•-..._...,··"-... -· ....... "'""""'"'" ................ ,.-··.-.i ......... ..j1l~ .. .n.-...... .
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING J MARCH 2015
209
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPL EMENTATION GUIDELINES
Appendix G
Sign-In Sheets
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUB LI C OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
210
WE STERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTAT ION GU IDELINES
\N{'~lt!rn A.v cr1 U\.' Ou~1ij11 lmpli"1"e-nritnon (1u1dPltnH
March 111 10 Is Public Op~n Ht>U '1' MPC'tlflf
Sign -In Sheet ___________
~-.,---~-~-~~·---
Name
Wl'!i.lcrn AW!lllH' Di~ Hn lmrik•n1t-nl.1hon C,,uidf'lhni-5
M;uch 14 20 l !J Pub 1c Qp~n "'o u ~c Mt!l'IUIU
Sign -In Sheet
E-mail Address
Address
Affiliation
I R~ b.<11no 0 ..,.."11 PIDP9'1VO'.ff'll ' a;r-c, ,. . ··~a---..~·{" I
11·
-----~-------------~-----------------
E-ma il Address
Name A ddress
11,.111 , c 14 A 1< L n VI c\r11;; R.r-.
f (z_(-1,,,,/Ci::s 1\v&C-1! ,'\ n
Mexlihde.r H"-11
owe:"1 ,.
AP SAt11t-t.A
SUMMARY OF MARC H 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
Affillatlon
!tt •~I Do •-m JW!:lpMtfh'!e>'.
I W -f''lllt Wffl 1r1 •,.e a·ci;i 1:11 l
.s ........... ~C>J-e 'Vr...:tr.!.. ..... fJ· .... t
/\~f-< p, t--,.i. ...... r
211
WE STERN AVENUE DE SIGN IMPL EMENTATION GUIDELINE S
w~;.tcrf"I A.vcr1Ul' D•· •'ii" h111.1lemt>ntnnon Clutdf'llOe!>
Mn·ch t•, 201S Pubhc Oot!n Hou~l' M1•eflng
Sign -In Sh ee t ~
~----------------------
WPstPrn Av;o nur D?~1sn lmpleml"ntatlon Ou1 tl ellnL''
Murch 14 101 '> t•ub l1t OpPn HousP M?ettng
Sign -In Sheet
E-mail Address Affiliation
---------.-.. .•. ______ ..__... __ -~-------------------------------------
E-mail Address Affillallon
Name Address
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING I MARCH 2015
212
W ESTER N AVENU E DESIG N IM PLEM ENTAT ION GU IDELIN ES
Wr\le1 n AvenuL• D··~1g11 l11 1pl(1 rner11,1non t 111 1lffll1n"'
Man:ll lA 20:> Public Open Houu• Mt:cttng
Sign -In Sheet
•~..-•
Name
W2stern A\f>Ol.IP 0:-~i!?n •m olPmPllti'l n on Guulel1no3
March 14 JOlS 1-'ubl1t 0(,IP , t lous.t" Mt-Ptlng
Sign -In Sheet
Address
----------··· ~ _____ _,__
Na me Address
E-ma il Address
E-mail Address
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLI C OPEN HOU SE M EET ING I MARCH 2015
Afflllatlon
IH ..... rt WL aw!"CI Piiipc.rlv vr~i
'"llrtff'l ........... k .,.,, ~ -bit i
Affiliation
,H•&lllr"'I ...... etr..uwr'!'l!•.v;)JW1,owrwu ... ~ .. ~
'•rir111e."" """"°1• •ll'l!a. w I
213
WESTERN AVENUE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
W*"'itern Avt>1111t" n""'f.' '"'''!('r11entMl•J11 U 11HJ1•fl1 1e ..
Mdrth 14 201!> Publ!C Op~n H OUSl' Ml!et1nc
Name
l~~ol).~()
l 1 ·o .. t11>.1tc1 -1 l~1 ·0
W~t"rr'I Av.-nur DP'ir&n 1mple ml'ntat10n Guuli.:hm•\
M_.n h Jti .!01~ Pubhc 0pf'r Hou~~ 11.!HMC
Address
E-mail Address Affiliation
IHHIW'1 0 1Hf er.•€• ~I ow'ltlf. 909"CY
fi' "''Jl•V'll'fi1N'6if*:!
.t{uH1·\~ Hr"J/1 R1'\ffv" 1-fomt! ou .. •14lY
C. ;J::o' 1 n+.·~"f ..., l[0 .,,,_,w.,,v
Sign -In Sheet
-----~.....--..-.----·-~··----
E·mall Address Affiliation
Name A ddress
rer .... • ~e ~ .. ,~1 theo1a..til."]
/2i=-'-Y .
/\i4RTY PIL/V1ANI<;
l1t?A? ;{_ 04 4,Jde_! I
~ ht'1,)-c b\au 1 J
{:,, D. L~" n.
A\ f'V
~PV
RPI) /(g1DOJT
SUMMARY OF MARCH 2015 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEET ING I MARCH 2015
214
May 28, 2013 P.C. Minutes
215
NEW BUSINESS
6. Western Avenue Vision Plan
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief introduction to the
project and how the Western Avenue Vision Plan came about. With that, he introduced
Gaurav Srivastava, the consultant for the project, to explain the draft plan that is before
the Commission.
Mr. Srivastava explained that the document being presented is only about 75 percent
complete, as he wanted to get the Commission's input before completing the document.
He gave a brief background of the project and showed the area that includes the
Western Avenue corridor. He explained the project goals and the four categories he
placed those goals in. He explained the process being used, including public meetings,
vision committee meetings, and an open house and workshop. He discussed the vision
committee and the members that make up that committee. He explained Western
Avenue is dated and needs improvement, and reviewed the guiding principles and
aspirations that were discussed with the vision committee and the residents. He also
noted that it is critical that Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro work together to come
up with an image for Western Avenue. He discussed the three segments of Western
Avenue and their current uses, noting the poor transit access to the area. He showed
photos of comparable boulevards in the region, noting the comparable boulevards had
strong street walls, active ground floor uses, a network of special places to visit, a
primary pedestrian use, and an enhanced quality of the public realm. He stated none of
these five attributes currently makes any appearances on Western Avenue. He then
discussed the recommendations, with two themes that underpin all of the
recommendations: an emphasis on complete streets which equally serve all types of
users, and the second being the need to update patterns of development along the
corridor on a case by case basis. He showed several examples of how the Western
Avenue corridor could be improved, noting the challenges that will be faced because of
City boundaries with the City of Los Angeles. He explained there are a few short term
next steps that must take place, and described those steps.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if a demographic study was done along Western Avenue,
and where do the demographics come into play with these recommendations.
Mr. Srivastava answered that a mini market study was performed that looked at
demographics, real estate, and the kinds of users. In the document there is an analysis
of income levels and populations within one-half mile buffer, a one-mile buffer, and a
three-mile buffer. He noted those resldential densities within those buffer distances
often exceed those along Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena. He stated this is a fairly
dense urban environment compared to other successful retail corridors.
Commissioner Tomblin commented on the discussion regarding the light rail and
questioned if the discussion justifies the spending of monies, as light rail needs very
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 5
216
high residential density which does not exist along Western Avenue. He questioned if
this is something the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would like to have in terms of their
Master Plan and why this money would be spent if it is not really within the
demographics of this City.
Director Rojas did not think this was being pursued, but rather as the plan was being put
together all ideas were considered, and there is a wide range of ideas.
Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Srivastava what the recommendation was in regards
to the wide variety of types of walls along Western Avenue.
Mr. Srivastava showed a diagram on how the look of the walls would be softened with
different treatments and vegetation.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if there was any proposal or recommendation to finance
these improvements in the future through business districts or assessment districts.
Mr. Srivastava answered that there is a discussion in the document on business
improvement districts, using the model of South Lake in Pasadena. He noted that the
challenge along this corridor is the boundary between Rancho Palos Verdes and Los
Angeles.
Commissioner Lewis noted the discussion on how The Terraces is a key piece of
property on Western Avenue for any type of successful transition along this area. He
was hoping to see more about The Terraces in the document, such as a few pages
dedicated to alternative vision so the current or future owners of that property knew
what the City would be expecting. in general, he commented that he thought this was a
very interesting and well written document, without giving any specific recommendations
but rather a range of recommendations.
Commissioner Tetreault asked if traffic impacts from the proposed Ponte Vista project
have been analyzed or discussed, as he felt the project would have a very major impact
to traffic in the corridor once it is developed.
Mr. Srivastava stated that this project came up often in discussions. He felt the reality
of that project is that it is on its own timeline and there is very little in terms of
recommendations that this plan can do to influence the Ponte Vista project. He added
that he has not engaged directly with the developers and it was unlikely that he would.
Commissioner Tetreault stated that one expects there would be more dialogue as these
two projects become closer to fruition and adjustments to the Vision Plan as a result.
Mr. Srivastava explained that the process has not allowed for a full on engagement with
Ponte Vista, and he doubted Ponte Vista would be amenable to such a discussion. He
noted that the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council has been the recipient of his
ideas He stated that as an urban planner and designer there are things being
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 6
217
proposed by Ponte Vista that he would not at all recommend. He felt that given the fact
he is recommending design guidelines that will have the full partnership with the City of
Los Angeles, he may be more empowered to make recommendations and directly
engage Ponte Vista. He explained that he has stepped back from being proactive with
properties in Los Angeles, as Los Angeles is not the recipient of the grant funding. He
stated the recommendations proposed all pertain to the jurisdiction of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Commissioner Nelson noted this document is 75 percent complete, and asked what is
in the missing 25 percent.
Mr. Srivastava answered that what is missing are additional renderings and spot studies
for key opportunity areas, one being The Terraces.
Commissioner Nelson asked what the total cost of this project will be.
Mr. Srivastava answered that he did not delve into the cost of the project, as this is a
vision plan and was setting the framework for the improvements the City would like to
see. He stated that there is no analysis or understanding as to if and when the funding
will be available.
Commissioner Nelson asked how long Mr. Srivastava felt it would take to see this to
fruition.
Mr. Srivastava answered that when corridors and boulevards reinvent themselves and
try to come up with a new vision, the process to achieve that vision is always
incremental and takes a generation.
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Srivastava what the current business owners along
Western Avenue think of this plan.
Mr. Srivastava responded that what has been related to him from the business
community is that improvements to the pedestrian experience and foot traffic as well as
improved access for the customer and employees are important. The business
community also had a lot of ideas on how to generate a vision for the corridor.
Commissioner Nelson asked if there were any comments from the business community
in regards to moving their buildings up to the strong wall.
Mr. Srivastava answered that there was discussion and there was some resistance from
one of the developers.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff what has been budgeted for the consultant to do
design guidelines for this project.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the City was requesting $175,000.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 7
218
Vice Chairman Leon noted that Western Avenue is one of the primary ingress and
egress arterials for both San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes, and it appears that the
vision plan in this corridor is restricting the traffic flow. While that may be good for the
local businesses, he did not think it was good for the residents of this City. He would
like to see the traffic hurried through this area as opposed to creating lots of
experiences for them to possibly impact traffic. He suggested there be an emphasis on
things such as elevated pedestrian crossings, turn-outs for buses, and other things that
may accelerate the traffic pace rather than decelerate it He also felt that bicycles are
much more compatible with pedestrians than they are with cars and his Inclination
would be to put a bike path that is much closer to sidewalk and separated from the road
rather than putting it next to the traffic. He felt these were two suggestions that would
help improve the plan.
Chairman Emenhiser stated his concern is that Rancho Palos Verdes is once again
taking the lead on a project that should be a joint initiative between Rancho Palos
Verdes and the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Cal Trans, and residents
on both sides of Western Avenue. He felt that if it can become a project with a broad
appeal and involvement, it has a better chance of coming to fruition. He asked Mr.
Srivastava if a traffic count or traffic study was done in this corridor area.
Mr. Srivastava stated a traffic study was not done specifically for this plan, instead they
relied on the available data.
Chairman Emenhiser agreed with the Vice Chairman's comments about mixing bicycle
riders and auto traffic, and felt there was a reason bicyclists aren't presently on Western
Avenue. He agreed that bicyclists should be separated from the traffic in some fashion.
He encouraged staff to think about the politics and financing of all of this and asked staff
where this goes from here.
Director Rojas appreciated the Commission's comments, noting that the reaction is
similar to that of staff and the public when seeing such a grand vision plan. He
explained that staff has approached this very simply in that Western Avenue was
designed over fifty years ago and staff has reached out to see what can be done to
improve it. The experts have provided staff with success stories for similar situations
and shown staff what possibilities exist to improve Western Avenue. With that, staff
sees the recipe for successful future grants for implementing components of the plan, is
that there is a plan in place, the plan has approval by the City Council, and there is a
partnership with the City of Los Angeles. He explained there are many grants available
for such projects and staff is also going to press Cal Trans for improvements. He stated
that staff would like to start with getting the public improvements put into place, and
once pubfic improvements start happening that may inspire the private property owners,
many of whom have not updated their properties in decades, to improve their
properties.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 8
219
Chairman Emenhiser understood, however he reiterated his biggest concern was that
the City pays attention and does its part and the City of Los Angeles continues to treat
Western Avenue as a back alley.
Director Rojas agreed that may have occurred in the past, however he noted that for the
first time he sees the City of Los Angeles fully engaged in these efforts, which he
attributes to Councilman Busciano's early working relationship with then Mayor
Misetich. He stated he feels very good about the partnership with the City of Los
Angeles, however the challenge is always with Cal Trans.
Commissioner Tomblin preferred the Encino Boulevard, Sunset Boulevard, and Santa
Monica Boulevard through West Hollywood comparisons. He was also intrigued by
what could be done with The Terraces.
Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Srivastava what his definition of "successful" in
terms of reformation of Western Avenue.
Mr. Srivastava explained that he comes at it from an implementation angle, noting plans
are more likely to succeed if the recommendation of the plan gets implemented while
the planning process is ongoing, or soon after.
Commissioner Tetreault noted an essential theme to this plan is the reversal of the
relationship between the retail and the parking, and just taking that one change, he
asked how this impacts either the volume of the people coming into the area, how far
people will come to get to that area, the amount of traffic that comes through, and the
amount of time it takes to get through a segment. He asked if any studies have been
done on any of those topics and how moving the relationship between the parking and
buildings will affect the entire design.
Mr. Srivastava answered that it boils down to how much of a destination the stake
holders want to make this segment of Western Avenue. He used two examples,
Colorado Boulevard and the Third Street Promenade, explaining they had a vision in
mind and they put in the infra-structure to support that vision. He stated that he was not
in any way suggesting that is the level of intensity the stake holders along Western
Avenue would like to see the corridor evolve into. His opinion was that a reduced
density, not as intense of retail destination orientated redevelopment effort is the
preference of the community.
Commissioner Nelson stated that in his mind a plan is not a plan unless it is costed, and
until then it's just a dream. He felt this is an excellent dream, but it must be costed. He
asked that all residents be involved in this plan, and even include the Planning
Commission Chairman in these discussions.
With that, Chairman Emenhiser noted that the Commission had given staff feedback on
this Vision Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 2B, 2013
Page 9
220
City Council Minutes
(July 16, 2013)
221
17.76.030(B)(1) TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE
PERMIT FOR ANY NEW FENCE WITHIN A REAR OR SIDE YARD SETBACK;
AMENDING RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
17.76.030(C)(1)(B)(IV) TO CLARIFY THE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
APPLICABLE TO COMBINATION WALLS/HEDGES; AND AMENDING RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.76.030(D)(1)(A) TO CLARIFY
THAT A MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY FENCE
HIGHER THAN FORTY-TWO INCHES UP TO SIX FEET WITHIN THE STREET-SIDE
SETBACK (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346); and, 2) Direct Staff to bring back an updated
fee schedule for adoption with a subsidized (lowered) $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge
application fee.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Brooks
None
ABSENT: None
REGULAR BUSINESS: (continued)
Draft Western Avenue Corridor Vision Plan (Supports 2013 City Council Goal No.
7 -Western Avenue Corridor Issues)
City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
meeting regarding this item.
Community Development Director Rojas provided brief introductory remarks regarding
the Draft Western Avenue Corridor Vision Plan and introduced Gaurav Srivastava of
AECOM, the project consultant.
Gaurav Srivastava, consultant, AECOM, provided a detailed report and PowerPoint
presentation regarding the Draft Western Avenue Corridor Vision Plan.
City Clerk Morreale reported that there was one request to speak regarding this item.
Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he had concerns regarding the proposed
Ponte Vista project which will affect the flow of traffic along Western Avenue.
Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and Mr. Srivastava.
Council provided feedback to staff and the consultant regarding the Draft Western
Avenue Corridor Vision Plan so that the Plan can be finalized and brought back to the
City Council for approval at a subsequent meeting.
City Council Minutes
July 16, 2013
Page 9of12
222