CC SR 20180918 01 - Updated General Plan
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: September 18, 2018
Subject: Consideration and possible action to adopt the updated General Plan and General Plan
Land Use Map
Subject Property/Location: Citywide
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Brooks
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Brooks
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/18/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to adopt the updated General Plan and General Plan
Land Use Map.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR THE UPDATED 2018 GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP; and,
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE 2018 GENERAL
PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: So Kim, AICP, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Response to Comments Matrix (page A-1)
B. Public Comments (page B-1)
C. Proposed Changes to the General Plan since August 21, 2018 (page C-1)
D. Updated General Plan Land Use Map (page D-1)
E. Existing General Plan Land Use Map (page E-1)
F. Resolution No. 2018-__ for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (page F-1)
G. Resolution No. 2018-__ for the General Plan and Land Use Map (page
G-1)
H. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12 (page H-1)
I. Settlement Agreement (page I-1)
The proposed updated General Plan document (clean and track-change versions),
proposed land use changes, and all associated documents are available on the City’s
website at http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update. Hard copies of the General
Plan document (clean and track-change versions) were provided to the City Council on
1
August 21, 2018, and made available to the public at City Hall (Community
Development Department) and the Miraleste and Peninsula Center libraries.
Additionally, the related Planning Commission Staff Reports from 2012 through 2018
are available on the City’s website.
BACKGROUND
The updated General Plan maintains the majority of the original 1975 goals and policies,
and has been updated to represent the current development of the City, current
economic and demographic data, City Council-approved land use decisions over the
years, Planning Commission directed edits, Staff’s proposed text changes, and statutory
requirements. Many of the elements have been retitled in the updated 2018 General
Plan document to be consistent with element titles required by the State. In summary,
the update can be characterized as more of a “facelift” than a “rewrite” of the 1975
General Plan.
On April 26, 2018, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to review the
Planning Commission’s recommended updates to the General Plan and General Plan
Land Use Map. Since the General Plan Update was launched in 2004, this was the first
opportunity that the City Council had to review the updated General Plan in its entirety.
Based on information presented that evening, including public comments, the City
Council continued the public hearing to allow additional edits to the document. In
continuing the public hearing, the City Council accepted the April 2018 General Plan as
the “baseline” document and directed Staff to do the following:
1. Update the historical narrative with Councilman Dyda;
2. Refine the definitions of “Active Recreation” and “Passive Recreation”;
3. Remove the proposed Environmental Justice Element;
4. Delete text referring to the budget workshop from the Fiscal Planning subsection
on page 120;
5. Respond to Public Comments;
6. Add a note on the General Plan Land Use Map that it is for “illustrative purposes
only”;
7. Provide draft documents at least 1 month in advance to the City Council for review;
and,
8. Schedule the next public hearing at a regular City Council meeting
On August 16, 2018, notice of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General
Plan Update was circulated (for a minimum 30-day period) to public agencies, published
in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, posted on the City’s website, and a message was
sent to the General Plan listserv subscribers.
A detailed summary of the background can be found in the April 26, 2018. City Council
Staff Report at the following link:
2
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3138&meta_id=54639.
DISCUSSION
The following are Staff’s responses to City Council’s directives (in bold font) of April 26,
2018:
1) Work with Councilman Dyda and update the historical narrative.
Councilman Dyda provided Staff will a revised narrative that has been included in the
draft General Plan (Attachment D, pages 1-6).
2) Refine the definitions of “Active Recreation” and “Passive Recreation.”
The 1975 General Plan defined “Active Recreation” and “Passive Recreation” as
follows:
Active Recreation: Outdoor recreation activity requiring significant expenditure of
energy, e.g., baseball, golf, hiking.
Passive Recreation: Outdoor recreation activities that are non-structured in nature
(picnicking, sightseeing, nature study areas, etc.)
The public has raised concerns with the interpretation of these existing definitions
and suggested that these terms need to be clarified regarding what constitutes
active versus passive recreation. Staff agreed and felt that the phrase “expenditure
of energy” is too vague and would be subject to interpretation, and that better
examples of activities should be provided in the definitions. As a result, Staff
proposed the following modified definitions in the April 2018 General Plan document:
Active Recreation: Active recreational facilities are highly structured and
designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis
courts, baseball fields, children’s play apparatus, etc.
Passive Recreation: Passive recreational areas remain unstructured in order to
allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance.
Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking
areas, etc.
While the public acknowledged that the 1975 General Plan version lacks clarity, the
public remained concerned that the modified definitions were not any better. The
City Council also agreed that the definitions needed more work and directed Staff to
refine them further. Staff received suggested definition language from the public and
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC). PVPLC wanted to ensure
that the definition of “passive” is not inconsistent with the uses permitted in the
Preserve pursuant to the Natural Communities Conservation Plan. The public’s and
3
PVPLC’s proposed definitions for Passive Recreation can be found in the attached
Responses to Comments Matrix (Attachment A).
In considering the suggested definitions, Staff’s objective is to keep the definitions
general and not so specific as to describe different levels and types of activities
allowed. This is because specific definitions may cause more confusion and difficulty
applying the definitions in different areas of the City. Thus, Staff proposes the
following modified definitions:
Active Recreation: Recreational activities generally found within formal and
structured facilities.
Passive Recreation: Recreational activities generally found within informal and
unstructured areas that do not require specialized facilities.
The public continues to have concerns with the proposed definitions, and seeks
additional clarity for each of the proposed terms (e.g., “activity,” “formal,” “informal.”
etc.). Staff believes that the proposed definitions as written provide the necessary
flexibility for the City to regulate and control recreational activities, through policies,
rules, or regulations, for each site and/or facility.
3) Remove the Environmental Justice Element.
Staff originally renamed the Social Services Element to the Environmental Justice
Element and added text related to environmental justice. Pursuant to Council
direction, the element’s name has returned to the Social Services Element and
retains the goals and policies related to public involvement and participation;
promotes equitable public facilities, healthy and affordable housing opportunities;
promotes healthy food access and physical activity; and promotes improvements
and programs for the senior population. The text added to the April 2018 General
Plan related to environmental justice was deleted.
4) Add text referring to the budget workshop in the Fiscal Planning subsection on
page 120.
The City Council directed Staff to add a sentence in the Fiscal Planning subsection,
as reflected in the updated document that discusses changes to our current financial
planning process. Specifically, language was added to explain how the City Council
considers what the work process has been at the end of each year, makes any
amendments, and provides Staff with direction for the following year’s work plan,
which is specific, measurable, and calls out in great clarity the City Council’s
direction and focus. This helps explain why certain topics are placed on the agenda
and how the budget is allocated annually. Language to this effect has been added
(Attachment C).
5) Respond to Public Comments.
4
Staff has received public comments on the General Plan and General Plan Land
Use Map since the original public notice was issued in March 8, 2018. Staff has
compiled all the public comments received to date (Attachment B). Pursuant to City
Council directive, Staff has responded to all the public comments based on the
general topic of the comment as memorialized in the attached matrix (Attachment
A).
6) Note added to the General Plan Land Use Map that it is for “illustrative
purposes only.”
Pursuant to City Council directive, a notation was added to the General Plan Land
Use Map that it is for “illustrative purposes only” and the full-scale version is filed
with the Community Development Department.”
7) Provide draft documents at least 1 month in advance to the City Council for
review.
Staff released for public review and provided the City Council with a clean and track-
change versions of draft General Plan documents on August 21, 2018. All related
documents were also made available on the City’s website
(http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update) and a message was sent to the
General Plan listserv subscribers informing them of the availability of the documents.
8) Schedule the next public hearing at a regular City Council meeting.
In order to be more accessible to the public, the City Council requested that the next
public hearing on the General Plan be held during a regularly-scheduled City Council
meeting rather than at a special meeting. Tonight’s meeting is a regularly-scheduled
City Council meeting.
In addition to the City Council directives listed above, Staff made additional edits to the
document. The edits are attached and shown in track changes (Attachment C) and are
summarized below:
• Clarify that there are 4 areas within the Equestrian Overlay District, of which two
areas support major concentrations of equestrian uses.
• Delete ownership information and correct details of the Abalone Cove Sewer
System.
• Reference conservation under the Open Space and Recreational Resources
policies.
• Update text under Recreational Resources subsection for consistency with the
proposed definitions of Active Recreation and Passive Recreation.
• Change the name of the “Open Space Preservation” to “Open Space Preserve.”
• Add a new Commercial policy to promote and encourage the improvement and
redevelopment of the Western Avenue corridor.
5
• Remove repetitive language regarding the LAX Community Noise Roundtable
under Airport Operations subsection.
In addition to the issue listed above, the following items were presented to the City Council
at the April 26, 2018, meeting without much discussion, and are summarized below for the
City Council’s benefit.
Gateway Park Land Use Designation
In 2008, the City Council adopted the Coast Vision Plan, which identified an area known
as Gateway Park to be the future home of an equestrian center with riding rings and
public parking that would also serve as a trailhead for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. On June 30, 2015, the City Council removed Gateway Park from the Parks
Master Plan. As there are no longer any plans to improve the area known as Gateway
Park, the Planning Commission recommends that the existing land use designation
(Agriculture, Natural/Environment Hazard and Residential ≤1 du/ac) be changed to
Recreation-Passive, which is comparable with the land use designation for the City-
owned property across Palos Verdes Drive South. This recommended change is shown
in the attached General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment D).
3778 Coolheights Drive
In December 1996, the City purchased the 160-acre Forrestal Property, which is now
part of the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, for the purpose of protecting sensitive
habitat and allowing for passive recreational public use. Excluded from the purchase
was a 2.46-acre lot located at the westerly terminus of Coolheights Drive, which the
seller at the time (Diamond Brothers Three) intended to develop with a single-family
residence. However, Mr. Ortolano, who resides adjacent to the subject parcel, filed a
lawsuit against the City and the developer claiming prescriptive rights over a portion of
the property. In September 1998, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement
(Attachment I) to resolve the land dispute involving Mr. Ortolano. According to the
Settlement Agreement, approximately 0.26 acres of the 2.46-acre lot and approximately
0.19 acres of the City-owned Forrestal Property was conveyed to Mr. Ortolano. The
recorded grant deeds for these areas (now known as 3778 Coolheights Drive) prevent
any construction, improvements, and developments that would require permits from the
City. Additionally, according to the Settlement Agreement, a 10-foot-wide portion of the
property was reserved to the public as an easement for pedestrian ingress, egress,
hiking, trail and mountain biking, and other recreational purposes. Given this, the
Settlement Agreement requires a land use designation change from “Residential” to
“Natural Environment/Hazard”.
The Planning Commission considered this matter at its February 24, 2015, meeting and
voted to keep the Residential land use designation as-is. However, Staff is
recommending that the Residential land use designation be changed to “Natural
Environment/Hazard” to fulfill the terms of the Settlement Agreement (Attachment I), as
shown in the attached General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment D).
6
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Ortolano or his representatives may not
oppose, protest or otherwise object to a General Plan amendment to designate said
area as “Natural Environment/Hazard” and a corresponding zoning designation of
“Open-Space Hazard” so that the newly-created lot could not be developed with a
residence in the future.
Goals and Policies
Commissioner Nelson submitted a letter (Attachment B) suggesting that the goals and
policies currently placed at the beginning of each respective element be pulled out as a
separate document. His reasoning is that should any of the goals and policies need to
be updated in the future, there would be no need to reformat or renumber the entirety of
the General Plan document.
Staff recommends keeping the goals and policies formatted as presented in the updated
General Plan. This is because the updated General Plan is formatted so that each
element is numbered separately. For example, the Circulation Element will be
numbered C-1, C-2... and the Safety Element will be numbered S-1, S-2… This is to
avoid having to renumber the entire General Plan each time some parts are updated.
Additionally, moving forward with technology, the intent is to provide separate links to
each element and document on the City’s website. Therefore, keeping the goals and
policies at the beginning of each element would not necessarily result in reformatting or
renumbering the entirety of the General Plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On March 22, 2018, notice of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was
circulated (for a minimum 30-day period) to public agencies, published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News, posted on the City’s website, and a message was sent to the
General Plan listserv subscribers. In response to the original Public Notice, Staff
received a letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) expressing a
concern that the MND did not include a Tribal Resources section and there is no
documentation of consultation with the Native American Tribes. To address this matter,
Staff included the Tribal Resources section and recirculated the updated MND on
August 16, 2018, to the same distribution list as the original Public Notice. As for
consultation, the City provided notifications to each of the tribal organizations listed
under the NAHC Native American Contact List for the Los Angeles County area,
offering opportunities to comment on the Draft MND and the draft General Plan update.
To date, the City has not received any written requests for consultation from any of the
California Native American tribes.
7
Future Zoning Map Amendments
If the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use map are adopted by the City
Council, the City’s Zoning Map will need to be updated for consistency purposes. As
the General Plan process only involves categories of land use, any location-specific
zone changes will be subject to a future public hearing before the Planning Commission
and City Council, which is expected to occur sometime in 2019.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify specific changes to the General Plan document and/or Land Use
Map, direct Staff to return with a revised document for consideration at a
future meeting, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
2. Direct Staff to take no action at this time.
8
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MATRIX
No. Element/Topic Commentor Comment Staff's Responses
1
III Definitions -
Definitions of Active
Recreation &
Passive Recreation
Eva Cicoria
Christine Campbell
Andrea Vona
Barbara Ailor
Barbara Sattler
SUNSHINE
Sharon Yarber
Sandy Valeri
Adrienne Mohan
Madeline Ryan
April Sandell
Jean Longacre
res1mbro@verizon.net
Paul Funk
Lenée Bilski
j1000@cox.net
David Siegenthaler
Some commentors suggested language that
would clarify the definitions of “Active
Recreation” and “Passive Recreation” as
described below:
Active Recreation: Active recreation is
leisure activity which involves a high level of
physical exertion, often requiring equipment
specific to the activity, and generally
impeding the passive recreation or quiet
enjoyment of others in the space. Park sites
designated for active recreation generally
include facilities that are highly structured
and designed with specific activity areas,
such as recreational buildings, tennis courts,
baseball fields, children’s play apparatus,
etc.
Passive Recreation: Passive recreational
activities place minimal stress on a site’s
resources; and are highly compatible with
natural resource protection.
Passive Recreation: Passive recreation is
leisure activity which allows natural
ecosystems as well as the public in the area
to function with minimal disturbance and
without exposure to harm from others’
activity in the area. Passive recreational
See discussion in the Staff Report
A-1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MATRIX
No. Element/Topic Commentor Comment Staff's Responses
areas remain mostly unstructured. Passive
sites are usually used for nature studies,
hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc.
Passive recreation - Recreational activities
that do not require prepared facilities like
sports fields or pavilions. Passive
recreational activities place minimal stress
on a site’s resources; as a result, they can
provide ecosystem service benefits and are
highly compatible with natural resource
protection.
Passive recreation – A non-motorized activity
that offers constructive, restorative, and
pleasurable human benefits and fosters
appreciation and understanding of open
space and its purpose; is compatible with
other passive recreation uses; does not
significantly impact natural, cultural,
scientific, or agricultural values; requires only
minimal visitor facilities and services directly
related to safety and minimizes passive
recreation impacts.
2 General Plan
Pagination
SUNSHINE Provide adoption date, proper page
numbering and reference the City of RPV
Will be provided once adopted by
the City Council.
3 Land Use Element
Madeline Ryan
SUNSHINE
Zoning map shows 4 Equestrian Overlay
Districts and the General Plan references 2
major equestrian area.
General Plan text clarified to state
that there are 4 Equestrian Overlay
Districts, of which 2 are major
equestrian areas (See page C-13).
A-2
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MATRIX
No. Element/Topic Commentor Comment Staff's Responses
4 Noise Element
Gwen Butterfield
Judy Rochat
Jim Maclellan
Jeff Calvagna
Strengthen the Aircraft Noise Impact section
to include the discussion of ultralights and to
describe the City’s participation in various
efforts to curtail aircraft noise over the
Peninsula.
In coordination with some of the
commenters, the text has been
amended (See page C-32).
5 Goals & Policies Bob Nelson Bob Nelson See separate discussion in the Staff
Report.
6
General Plan Land
Use Map
Ralph J. Ortolano Jr. Do not change the land use designation for
3778 Coolheights pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.
See separate discussion in the Staff
Report.
7 General Plan Land
Use Map
Adrienne Mohan
Andrea Vona
Certain parks are not accurately depicted as
the Preserve on Figure 8.
Since April 2018, the Figure 8 has
been corrected (See page C-37).
8 General Plan Land
Use Map SUNSHINE "Antenna farm" on Crestridge Road should
be designated as Infrastructure Facility
The City does not have an
“Infrastructure” land use
designation nor does it need one.
The existing designation of
Institutional is proposed to remain
as Los Angeles County owns the
"antenna farm" and public facilities
operated for government purposes
are allowed in an Institutional land
use designation.
9 General Plan Land
Use Map SUNSHINE
Change the land use designation of the
water tank in the Portuguese Bend Preserve
from Residential to Infrastructure Facility
The City does not have an
“Infrastructure” land use
designation nor does it need one.
The existing designation of
Residential is proposed to remain on
this Cal Water property. Should this
water tank be removed in the
future, the idea is not to not
A-3
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MATRIX
No. Element/Topic Commentor Comment Staff's Responses
continue the infrastructure use in
that area. Cal Water will be allowed
the same continued access to their
property through the Preserve.
10
General Plan Land
Use Map
SUNSHINE Provide adoption date, compass rose, City
logo on the General Plan Land Use Map
The Land Use Map has been
updated to include the information
(See Attachment D).
11 General Plan Land
Use Map SUNSHINE
Cannot tell the color difference between
Active and Passive Recreational Land Use
designations on the General Plan Land Use
Map
Both recreation designations have
the same color designation but
Active Recreation is labeled with the
letter "A" on the Land Use map (See
Attachment D).
12 General Plan Land
Use Map SUNSHINE Gateway Park land use designation See separate discussion in the Staff
Report.
13 Land Use Element -
Open Space Hillside
SUNSHINE
Madeline Ryan
Jean Longacre
cmoneil@aol.com
April Sandell
What is the purpose of creating an Open
Space Hillside zoning designation?
Currently, the Open Space Hazard
has been drawn in certain areas
over developed properties and
implies that some properties may be
encumbered with some sort of
hazard. To clarify this, the then-City
Geologist recommended that the
Open Space Hazard Land Use
designation be reassessed and
corrected to be more accurate. A
new Open Space Hillside
designation was created for
Residential properties outside of the
landslide moratorium areas and the
Coastal Zone.
A-4
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MATRIX
No. Element/Topic Commentor Comment Staff's Responses
14
General Plan Land
Use Map -
Open Space
Preserve
Designation along
Vanderlip Drive
Bob Nelson
Lisa A. Lawson
June Horton
Katherine Pilot
pbvilla@aol.com
Sheri Hastings
Dennis Gardner
pdownjac@hotmail.com
leetwid@yahoo.com
Gordon Leon
Madeline Ryan
Jean Longacre
Sandy Valleri
SUNSHINE
Kathy Snell
According to the Land Use Map, the
designation of a portion of the City-owned
Vanderlip Drive is proposed to change from
Residential to Open Space Preserve (OSP).
OSP designation is meant for all
City-owned Preserve areas enrolled
into the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan / Habitat
Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP).
Proposed land use change of OSP
will not create a conflict with the
current and future use of the private
street and therefore is proposed to
remain as OSP. The City Council-
approved NCCP/HCP describes this
portion of Vanderlip Drive as part of
property enrolled in the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve but outside
the management responsibilities of
the Preserve. It is identified in the
NCCP/HCP as a private road and can
be maintained that way.
15 Circulation Element-
Policies SUNSHINE Remove Circulation Policy No. 22 that
describes each trail category.
Circulation Policy No. 22 is proposed
to remain as recommended by the
General Plan Steering Committee
(See General Plan Clean Version,
Page 33 on the City’s website at
http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-
Plan-Update).
16 Circulation Element-
Policies April Sandell
Add language in the trail policies that would
require the City to provide compensation for
acquisition of future trail easements.
This language is not proposed to be
added as property owners have
often dedicated portions of their
property as easements for future
trail connections without any
A-5
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MATRIX
No. Element/Topic Commentor Comment Staff's Responses
compensation. Moreover,
compensating a property owner to
acquire a trail easement would have
to be authorized by the City Council
on a case-by-case basis.
17
Conservation &
Open Space Element
- Policies
Adrienne Mohan
Andrea Vona
Public Safety Policies under the
Conservation & Open Space Element should
be moved to the Safety Element.
Staff proposes keeping the Public
Safety Policies in the Conservation &
Open Space Element because this
Element not only deals with natural
resources and open space, it also
encompasses public health and
safety in relation to landslides, sea
cliff erosion, and
drainage/hydrology in canyon areas
which is in line with public safety.
18
Conservation &
Open Space Element
-Policies
Adrienne Mohan
Andrea Vona
Add reference to conservation areas to
Conservation & Open Space Policy Nos. 39
and 40.
Policies amended to include
reference to conservation areas (See
page C-17).
A-6
From:So Kim
To:"SUNSHINE"
Cc:CC; jeanlongacre@aol.com; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: Message from SUNSHINE, (13103778761)
Date:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:20:00 PM
Attachments:Goals and Policies as modified by Committee with hilights 20100713_201703142010574421.doc
Hi SUNSHINE,
Below is an excerpt of the December 21, 2004 City Council minutes. Attached is a word document of
the Steering Committee’s proposed modifications to the General Plan goals and policies. Hope this
helps. This email chain will also be attached to the upcoming City Council report.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 1:01 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com
Subject: Re: Message from SUNSHINE, (13103778761)
Hi So,
Help me understand what is happening here.
As I recall from attending a lot of their meetings, the General Plan Steering
Committee spent a lot of time and attention on making the language of the Goals and
Polices more clear and specific. The description of their work is that the actual
implementation of said Goals and Policies is "essentially unchanged".
B-1
In 2004, The Council reviewed the proposed modifications and as opposed to
formally Adopting them as a "change"/Amendment, Council directed Staff to "update"
the Goals and Policies accordingly. Updating the factual information within the
General Plan is a separate exercise.
Then, Council agreed that Staff should also include whatever changes they had to
suggest. That has included some rewriting of a lot of text, adding text as mandated
by the State of California, introducing a new Land Use Designation and incorporating
the NCCP.
The Planning Commission's review produced a lot of put the language of the text
back the way it was.
Other than Councilman Dyda's objection to the rewriting of the City's History, I have
not gotten a grip on the impacts of the "modifications" which the Council
Subcommittee has proposed.
I have noticed two fairly dramatic changes in the Steering Committee's proposed
modifications.
On September 18, will you be presenting the impacts of the changes for discussion or
do you see the draft as ready for Adoption? ...S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 9/11/2018 11:38:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, SoK@rpvca.gov writes:
Hi SUNSHINE,
On December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee presented its recommended
modifications to the General Plan Goals and Policies to the City Council, at which
time, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with updating the General Plan Goals
and Policies, factual information within the General Plan; and the general format of
the General Plan to make the Plan more user friendly.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System
[mailto:unityconnection@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 11:11 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Message from SUNSHINE, (13103778761)
B-2
General Plan Goals and Policies
As modified by the General Plan Steering Committee
(Final Adopted Modifications - November 4, 2004)
Notes:
1. Potential changes as adopted by the Committee are noted in strikethrough for
text removed and in bold for text added.
2. Where a Goal or Policy does not include any strikethrough or bold text, the
Committee has determined that the Goal or Policy should remain as originally
adopted.
3. In some cases, the Committee has requested that a note or comment from
the Committee be placed under a specific Goal or Policy to provide additional
information to the Planning Commission and City Council pertaining to the
Committee's review of the Goal or Policy.
Natural Environment Element
Goal:
A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve, protect, and enhance its natural
resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the
entire region. Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environmental and be
accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it.
_____________________________________________________________________
Policies for Public Health/Safety Related to the Natural Environment (G.P. pages 44-
45):
1. Permit development within the Sea Cliff Erosion Area (RM1), only if demonstrated through
detailed geologic analysis, that the design and setbacks are adequate to insure public safety and to
maintain physical, biologic, and scenic resources. Due to the sensitive nature of RM 1, this area is
included as an integral part of the Coastal Specific Plan a Specific Plan District and should be more fully
defined.
___________________________________________________________________________________
2. Allow only low intensity activities within Resource Management Districts of extreme slopes (RM
2).
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Require any development within the Resource Management Districts of high slopes (RM 3) and
old landslide area (RM 5) to perform at least one, and preferably two, independent engineering studies
concerning the geotechnical, soils, and other stability factors (including seismic considerations) affecting
the site.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Allow no further development involving any human occupancy within the active landslide area
(RM 4)
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-3
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 2 of 23
5. Develop, as a part of any specific area planning study, Require a more detailed definition of the
limits and composition of any RMD’s when reviewing any development proposal that contains one or
more RMD's related to Health and Safety with particular reference to the active/old landslide areas, the
sea cliff erosion setback, and critical extreme slope areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Develop and enforce a grading ordinance with detailed controls and performance standards to
ensure insure both engineering standards and the appropriate topographic treatment of slopes based
upon recognized site planning and landscape architecture standards.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Prohibit activities that create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon wall erosion, or
potential for landslide, within Resource Management Districts containing Hydrologic Factors (RM 6).
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. In addition to the Abalone Cove Ecological Reserve, establishment of the rocky inter-tidal
areas throughout the reminder of the City's coastline as a marine reserves and strict enforcement be
applied to all regulations concerning marine resources (Resource Management Districts containing
Marine Resources RM 7).
___________________________________________________________________________________
9. Encourage developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats (RM 8) to describe the nature of
the impact upon the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offset the impact.
Committee Note: although the Committee elected (vote of 6 ayes and 4 nays) not to change this Policy,
because there was a minority of the Committee (4 votes) that felt strongly about changing the Policy by
replacing the first word "Encourage" with "Require", the Committee directed Staff to add the minority vote
to the final product presented to the City Council.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Require Encourage developments within Resource Management Districts containing Natural
Vegetation (RM 9) to re-vegetate with native material wherever clearing of vegetation is required.
appropriate locally native plants wherever reasonably possible whenever clearing of vegetation is
required.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Stringently regulate irrigation, natural drainage, and other water-related considerations, in both
new development and existing uses affecting existing or potential slide areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Provide incentives to enable Consider unique and innovative development exceptions in areas
otherwise precluding development for health and safety reasons, only if the development can establish
its engineering feasibility beyond a reasonable doubt that it can overcome the conditions otherwise
precluding development, and is otherwise compatible with the intent of the General and Specific Plans
for the area.
____________________________________________________________________________________
13. Based on current information from State and Federal Agencies, the City should
periodically publish a list Provide a listing of toxic chemicals used such as fertilizers, insecticides, and
herbicides which are determined to be damaging to the environment, with particular concern for the
marine environment, at current use levels within the City (based upon water sampling, etc.) to all potential
major users in the City, with use criteria or prohibition clearly indicated. These lists should be
distributed to all applicants for business licenses in the City. Additionally, the City should make
efforts (including brochures, pamphlets, local community television, etc.) to continually inform
and educate all residents and business operators about the impact of chemicals such as
fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides on the environment and to encourage responsible use and
disposal of such materials.
____________________________________________________________________________________
14. Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state to the maximum extent
possible in all existing and proposed developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection
policies and encourage the re-establishment of appropriate native plants.
B-4
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 3 of 23
____________________________________________________________________________________
15. Require a master landscape plan for any proposed development demonstrating showing the
retention/enhancement and protection of natural vegetation proposed, selection of new complementing
vegetation and enhancement of the environmental factors. , and all efforts involving
retention/enhancement/protection of hydrologic factors, vegetation and wildlife factors.
____________________________________________________________________________________
16. Require all projects with any natural resource management district factors falling within their
project boundaries to deal with these areas in detail in an Environmental Impact Report.
Committee Note: the Committee elected to remove this Policy because as required by State Law, all
projects are already required to be reviewed according to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and according to CEQA may or may not require the preparation of an EIR.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Overall Policies (G.P. page 45):
Proposed New Policies Related Specifically to the NCCP:
1. Implement the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
2. Review all proposed development for consistency with the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural
Communities Conservation Plan.
____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Develop a resource management ordinance to accompany the zoning ordinance, grading
ordinance, and any other regulatory vehicles. Continue to implement the City's Natural Overlay
Control District and its performance criteria.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Develop a specific set of planning and design criteria for natural environment considerations with
new development, and in upgrading existing areas for use by architects, planners, engineers, and others
in a handbook/checklist form.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Develop and integrate a specific review process covering the natural environment aspects of any
proposed development with the normal review processes associated with proposed development.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Consider in more detail natural environment factors in subsequent specific area studies as an
integral part of these studies. Continue to implement the natural environment policies of the Coastal
Specific Plan.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Consider the establishment of Collect baseline data for air and water quality in order to develop
standards for evaluation of the impacts of current or proposed development in and adjacent future
enforcement of regulations specific to Rancho Palos Verdes.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Consider Pursue the acquisition of rights over the offshore tidelands area related to the City’s
coastline. Develop proposals for grants and recognition as protected areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Encourage study of and funding to preserve unusual native flora and fauna.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Proposed New Policies for the Natural Environment Element:
Habitat Protection:
1. Work with neighboring jurisdictions to manage contiguous wildlife and habitat areas and
recreational amenities such as trails.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-5
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 4 of 23
2. Encourage the restoration of vegetation throughout the City to indigenous native plant
species. Encourage use of locally native plant species in City landscaping.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Environmental Protection
1. Develop balanced programs to provide greater safe public access to the coastline
consistent with protecting the environment.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Promote programs to encourage volunteer efforts to repair, protect and improve the
environment.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Make every effort to preserve or restore a state of natural hydrology when projects impact
canyons or other natural drainage areas when such efforts do not conflict with public safety.
___________________________________________________________________________________
4. Ensure the maximum preservation of the natural scenic character and topography of the
City consistent with reasonable economic uses.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Socio/Cultural Element
Goal:
A. It is the goal of the City to preserve and protect its cultural resources and to promote programs to
meet the social needs of its citizens.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cultural Resources Archeological, Paleontological,
Geological and Historical Resources Element
Goal:
A. The City shall strive to protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological and
historical resources within the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Policies (G.P. page 50):
1. Monitor the State’s activities for developments that could provide Seek fundsing for the
identification, acquisition, preservation, and/or maintenance of historic places and archaeological,
paleontological or geological sites.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Encourage the identification and protection of archaeologically sensitive areas and sites -
making such information available only to those that need to know.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Require all projects, that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, for new
construction, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and variances that occur in archaeologically sensitive
areas to have a special archaeological component in their Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative
Declaration or Environmental Impact Reports.
___________________________________________________________________________________
B-6
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 5 of 23
4. Forward Environmental Impact Reports to the University of California at Los Angeles, the Society
for California Archaeology’s (SCA) Clearinghouse for this area, and to California State College at
Dominguez Hills.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Preserve locations of archeological and paleontological significance on site where
possible. Allow salvage excavation of the site where some technique of preservation cannot be
implemented.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Actively press for the Point Vicente Lighthouse to be included in the National Register of Historic
Places. Attempt to acquire property as an extension of Point Vicente Park. Consider supporting
the addition of other appropriate historic sites in the City to the State and National Historic
Register.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Proposed New Policy for this section of the Socio-Cultural Element:
1. Require that any artifacts or materials of interest be offered to the Point Vicente
Interpretive Center for inclusion in its collection. The Center should work with regional entities to
share items of particular significance.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Current social, service, and cultural organizations
Goal:
A. Work toward a coordinated program to Aid in matching the facility needs of the many and diverse
groups in the community with existing and future facility resources throughout the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Policies (G.P. page 51):
1. Provide leadership in coordinating a cooperative approach to solving the need for community
meetings, cultural events, and recreational facilities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Plan for a large community meeting facility in its Civic Center.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Encourage the building of meeting facilities by private or nonprofit groups. Existing and new
businesses, churches, utilities, etc., should be encouraged to allow some use of their facilities by
community groups.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Encourage the building of playing fields for multiple uses by various recreational groups on City
land, school sites, and private land, which has not yet been programmed for development.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Social Services Community Participation and Services
Goals:
A. Encourage programs for community involvement, participation, and action to minimize the sense
of isolation and powerlessness felt by many individuals in the community. It is the goal of the City to
involve its residents in community and civic activities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B. Encourage programs for recreation, social services, and cultural and educational achievement. It
is a goal of the City to encourage and provide facilities and resources for recreational, social,
cultural, and educational programs for its residents.
B-7
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 6 of 23
____________________________________________________________________________________
C. Encourage a framework for interaction among the four cities of the peninsula and between the
peninsula and its surrounding communities to solve common problems. It is the goal of the City to
support mechanisms for participation with area wide districts and jurisdictions for the betterment
of the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Policies (G.P. page 55):
1. Encourage the development of homeowners associations and other community groups as a
vehicle for increased participation in government. and expansion of meaningful geographic
groupings and sub community committees to act as a vehicle for improved communications with citizens,
the City staff, and the City Council. Individuals should be encouraged to become involved in the
community through interaction, communication and participation.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Act to enhance mobility within the neighborhood, mobility within the City, and on the Peninsula as
a whole. Dependence solely upon the private automobile is not satisfactory.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Seek input from residents and address their concerns during the planning process. Bring
the residents’ needs into the City’s planning process and attempt to ensure that citizens and their skills
are utilized.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Encourage all groups within the City to establish representation on the sub community
committees and other civic action groups. Efforts should be made to ensure that no programs are
developed that will isolate any group and particular emphasis should be given to those who suffer from
isolation due to age, health, disability and race.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Encourage Continue the use of town meetings and forums to obtain public input. Encourage
community events. within neighborhoods and citywide to address a variety of issues and subjects of
community interest. Facilities for such events should be provided where possible, and annual citywide
events should be encouraged.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Develop information services designed to reach as many residents as practical, which lists
organizations, events, issues and services available to City residents. an ongoing centralized civic
information service of events, issues and services for the citizens. The City should encourage, through
this service, the use of existing civic and private assistance organizations.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Encourage the development of job opportunities for youth within the City. The City should
actively work toward providing meaningful opportunities for older citizens so that they will choose to
remain in the community.
Committee Note: The Committee elected to remove this Policy because the Committee felt that creating
jobs, particularly for City residents only, is not a function of the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Create recreational opportunities for all City residents. Develop recreational programs that
will address the recreational needs of all citizens, both individually and in groups. This should include the
development of a set of criteria, which will enable the City to project and evaluate the implications of its
decisions as to the long-range effectiveness of these programs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. The City will be an advocate for the efficient delivery of services to its residents. Identify,
in partnership with other agencies and organizations, the major human services areas and the respective
roles of each agency in the planning, administration and delivery of those services.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-8
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 7 of 23
10. Establish, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, procedures for the better
coordination of human services delivery. Specifically, the City should assume responsibility for acting as
a clearinghouse for up-to-date information on the current state of human services.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Develop, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, mechanisms for the better
coordination of human service planning efforts. Specifically, the City should assume responsibility for
acting as a clearinghouse for information exchange relevant to human service planning activities
throughout the community.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Place special emphasis on the Recognize the residents' cultural, educational, and recreational
needs and encourage of individuals, families, and the community and encourage the expansion of
existing programs in these areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
13. Encourage the South Bay, Harbor, and Peninsula cities to share in the identification of common
problems and work toward the development of solutions and services of benefit to each. Work with
neighboring jurisdictions and organizations to identify and address common issues. This should
include the encouragement of dialogue between the professional City employees of the four cities
neighboring jurisdictions and organizations.
____________________________________________________________________________________
14. Take leadership in the formation of a four-city Peninsula commission dedicated to the expansion
and strengthening of common Peninsula city bonds and which should further serve to develop an attitude
of mutual respect among communities.
Committee Note: The Committee elected to remove this policy as it was too specific and is better
addressed through Goal C and Policy #13 above. The Committee felt that the Council should be
responsible for deciding what mechanisms to use to implement Goal C and Policy #13 without the
direction imposed by this Policy.
____________________________________________________________________________________
New Policies Proposed by Committee:
1. Require that any artifacts or materials of interest be offered to the Point Vicente
Interpretive Center for inclusion in its collection. The Center should work with regional entities to
share items of particular significance.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Establish City committees to utilize resident skills to benefit the community.
______________________________________________________________________
Urban Environment Element
Goal:
A. It is the goal of the City to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive
contribution to all elements of the community. Growth in Rancho Palos Verdes should be a cautious,
evolutionary process that considers follows a well conceived set of general guidelines which respond to
both holding the capacity limitations for the City region, and the environmental factors and quality of life
on the Peninsula.
Activity Areas
B-9
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 8 of 23
Goals:
A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's
quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods
and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of the all
present and future residents of the community.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B. Rancho Palos Verdes is a residential city dedicated to the preservation of open space.
The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities that are not compatible with due to
the terrain and environmental characteristics of a respective region of the City. Commercial
development Activities shall be carefully and strictly controlled, and limited, giving to consideration to
the respective neighboring residential or open space areas. of convenience or neighborhood service
facilities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
C. The City shall encourage allow the development of institutional facilities to serve the political,
social, and cultural needs of its citizens residents. Such development shall be carefully and strictly
controlled, and limited, giving consideration to the respective neighboring residential or open
space areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
D. The City shall endeavor to provide, develop, and maintain recreational facilities and programs of
various types to provide a variety of activities for persons of all age groups and in all areas of the
community.
____________________________________________________________________________________
E. Existing agricultural uses within the City shall be allowed so long as they are in concert with
the environmental objectives stated elsewhere in the General Plan encouraged, since they are
desirable for resource management and open space.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Compatibility of Adjacent Activity Areas to Rancho Palos Verdes
Policy (G.P. page 58):
1. Work in conjunction with neighboring jurisdictions cities when development plans are submitted
to either this City or the other jurisdictions cities which generate impacts across jurisdictional lines.
into other organizations
____________________________________________________________________________________
Housing Activity
Policies (G.P. page 78):
1. Retain the present predominance of single-family residences found throughout the City.
community, while continuing to maintain the existing variety of housing types. Allow for the
maintenance and replacement of existing non-conforming multi-family residential uses.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space,
and other design amenities to meet the community City's standards of environmental quality.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential
neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Prepare Maintain and update the Development Codes with quality standards, but being flexible
to new technology and techniques of building.
B-10
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 9 of 23
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Support and assist in enforcement of “open housing” regulations to prohibit discrimination in the
sale or rental of housing.
Staff Note: This Policy was removed as it is already covered under the City's recently adopted
Housing Element.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Cooperate with County, State, and Federal agencies, monitoring all housing programs offered,
and studying their desirability for implementation in the City.
Staff Note: This Policy was removed as it is already covered under the City's recently adopted
Housing Element.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Cooperate with other governmental entities to explore the possibility of obtaining rent and
purchase subsidies for low-income housing in the City and South Bay region.
Staff Note: This Policy was removed as it is already covered under the City's recently adopted
Housing Element.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Initiate strong code enforcement programs so that scattered housing problems are solved rapidly
to prevent even small-area deterioration.
Staff Note: This Policy was removed as it is already covered under the City's recently adopted
Housing Element.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Discourage condominium conversion since this further limits the economic range of housing.
Staff Note: This Policy was removed as it is already covered under the City's recently adopted
Housing Element.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Require all developments that propose include open space to be held in private ownership to
provide legal guarantees to protect these areas from further development and to establish mechanisms
enforceable by the City to ensure continued maintenance.
__________________________________________________________________________________
11. Control the alteration of natural terrain.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Encourage energy and water conservation in housing design.
____________________________________________________________________________________
13. Require proposals for that development of areas reasonably protects which impact corridor(add
a hyphen between these two words -)related views to analyze the site conditions and address the
preservation of such views.
___________________________________________________________________________________
14. Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents.
____________________________________________________________________________________
15. Enforce height controls to further lessen the possibility for reasonably minimize view
obstructions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
16. Require Encourage all development proposed housing to show how it ensures the existence of
preserve neighboring site privacy., while simultaneously providing privacy to the occupants of the
proposed units.
____________________________________________________________________________________
17. Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to
Preserve the rural and open character of the City through zoning, cooperation with other
jurisdictions, and acquisition of open space land.
____________________________________________________________________________________
18. Allow no further development involving any human occupancy within the active landslide areas.
B-11
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 10 of 23
Committee Note: The Committee wanted to note to the City Council that this policy may need some
revision since the Code currently permits building additions of up to 600 square feet in the landslide
moratorium areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
New Policies Proposed by Committee:
1. Require all new housing and significant improvements to existing housing to consider
neighborhood compatability.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Commercial and Institutional Activity Development
Policies (G.P. page 85):
1. Place commercial and institutional activities developments under the same building orientation
controls as residential activities developments in regard to topographic and climatic design factors.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Require the that commercial and institutional activity where a commercial area would be
nonconforming with adjoining activities, to provide the necessary buffer and mitigate negative impacts
on adjoining residential areas. mitigating measures, including landscaping, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas
for both pedestrians and vehicles. Require commercial and institutional development to be
designed to maximize pedestrian safety.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Require that scenic view disruption preservation by commercial and institutional activities be
taken into account not only in the physical design of structures and signs, but also in night lighting of
exterior grounds.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Require commercial and institutional sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service
areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Study parking areas as to the degree of use for the total area. Where a portion of the parking
area is determined to only serve short-term seasonal demands, alternative surface treatments such as
grass should be employed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial and institutional site design to
reduce negative impacts on adjoining residential areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Specify the mix of standard and compact parking places for new development to ensure
that all parking requirements are met.
Note: This is a proposed new policy.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Institutional Activity (Public, Educational and Religious)
Policies:
Note: Re-number the following Policies so that they fall directly behind the Policies noted above.
1. Locate schools on or near major arterials or collectors, buffered Require any new schools and
encourage existing schools to from residential uses, and provide adequate on-site parking, and
automobile and pedestrian access.
B-12
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 11 of 23
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Make every effort to preserve Incorporate the Coast Guard Station as a historical and cultural
resource in the event that into Lower Point Vicente Park when it is deactivated.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Continue to work closely with the School District in coordinating planning and programming.
Coordinate with the School District on cross-jurisdictional issues.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Encourage implementation of plans for pedestrian and bicycling networks linking residential areas
with schools for the safety of children.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Encourage additional institutions of higher learning and research, particularly those related to
oceanography.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure their
compatibility with adjacent sites.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Encourage mitigation of the adverse aesthetic impacts of the County communications tower, as
changing technology and economics permit. utility facilities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Agricultural Activity
Policies (G.P. page 100):
1. Encourage implementation techniques for preservation of agricultural activities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Assist in the protection or conservation of agricultural sites.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Encourage continued operation of existing produce and flower stands., not necessarily in present
locations and structural types, but in concept, related to local agricultural use.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Preserve flower farming wherever possible, in order to provide aesthetic appeal and visual
accent.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Recreational Activity
Policies (G.P. page 99):
1. Provide appropriate access to all public recreational land.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Continue to Promote and/or sponsor recreation programs within the City considering the
diversity of needs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Encourage local, public, non-profit, recreational and cultural activities, which provide outlets for
citizens on a non-discriminatory basis.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Establish ordinances to require builders and developers to provide lands and/or funds for
acquisition and development of land for recreational use. These lands and/or funds shall be based on a
standard of providing 4 acres of local parkland per 1000 population.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Seek County, State, and Federal and private funds or sharing funds to acquire recreational
lands.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-13
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 12 of 23
6. Encourage landholders to contribute lands and/or easements to the City for recreational use.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Work through the State and Federal government in support of legislation resulting in
governmental City acquisition of coastal land.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Encourage local citizens groups to participate in the planning, development, and maintenance of
recreation facilities to the extent possible.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Engage in further study of recreational activities on a neighborhood level following the General
Plan.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Investigate the interim use of vacant school sites for recreational use.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Encourage institutions to provide public use of institutional recreational facilities, where
possible.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Infrastructure
Goals:
A. It shall be a goal of the City to ensure adequate public utilities and communications services to all
residents, while considering environmental, aesthetic and view impacts. maintaining the quality of the
environment.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide and maintain residents with a safe, and efficient and
comprehensive system of roads., trails and paths.
Committee Note: The Committee directed Staff to have the Recreation Sub-committee also review this
Goal in its original format as it addressed trails and paths.
____________________________________________________________________________________
C. It shall be a goal of the City to facilitate encourage the increased mobility of residents through
the development of an adequate public transportation system with consideration of the City's
demographics..
____________________________________________________________________________________
D. It shall be a goal of the City to work with other jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that
there are adequate storm drain and sewer systems to serve the residents.
(Note: this is a new Goal)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Resource System
Policies (G.P. page 107):
1. Ensure that the water company provides all areas of the City with adequate Cooperate with
California Water Service Company and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to improve water service
(pressure and flow) in areas of inadequate service with adequate back-up.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Encourage the investigation and use of alternative water and energy generation sources.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Promote, practice and encourage workable energy and water conservation techniques.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-14
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 13 of 23
4. Review any proposed development, major new uses of water, or significant changes to
water system for impacts (pressure and flow surge potential) to the surrounding neighborhood
and community.
(Note: this is a new Policy)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Disposal/Recovery System
Policies (G.P. page 112):
1. Take an active interest in Encourage waste management reduction and recycling programs.
and offer assistance to groups attempting to offer solutions to the problems of waste
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Require sanitary sewers in all major new developments to provide sanitary sewers connected
to the County Sanitation District's system.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Encourage the retention of all remaining natural watercourses in their natural state.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Require developers to install and develop a mechanism for ongoing maintenance of
necessary flood control devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazard induced by proposed
upstream developments.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Require that all flood control/natural water source interfaces and systems minimize erosion. be
treated so that erosion will be held to a minimum.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Encourage the investigation of methods to reduce Promote compliance with regulations
controlling pollution impacts generated by development runoff.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Promote compliance with regulations controlling discharge of wastewater into the ocean.
Encourage the Sanitation District to upgrade all wastewater discharged from the Whites Point outfalls to a
minimum of secondary treatment.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Require the installation of connection to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's sewers
in existing development if alternative sewerage systems endanger public health, safety and welfare.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Communication Systems
Policies (G.P. page 115):
1. Investigate the potential of alternative cable communications systems that take advantage of
new technology, which could disseminate information and issues to communities and/or the City as a
whole.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Require Encourage the underground installation of cable communications network in all new
developments.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. It shall be a policy of the City to balance the need to accommodate wireless
communications coverage in the community with the need to protect and maintain the quality of
the environment for residents. All new proposals to construct wireless communication facilities
shall be reviewed using guidelines adopted and kept current by the Planning Commission and
where applicable considering CC&R's. Said guidelines shall balance public and private costs and
B-15
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 14 of 23
benefits to the greatest reasonable extent, and encourage co-location of facilities and the use of
evolving wireless communication technologies to minimize impacts.
(Note: this is a new Policy)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Transportation Systems
Policies (G.P. page 137):
1. Balance traffic impacts to residential neighborhoods with efficient traffic flow and public
safety by implementing appropriate traffic-calming measures. Design public access into residential
areas to control non-local traffic.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Require any new developments or redevelopment with new streets to provide streets wide
enough to support the City's future traffic needs. adequate right-of-way widths for possible future
needs to provide for traffic patterns necessary to accommodate future growth needs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Prohibit future residential developments from providing direct access (driveways) from individual
units to arterials.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Encourage, together with other Peninsula cities, Southern California Rapid Transit District Work
with other Peninsula cities and/or regional agencies to improve public transportation on the Peninsula
and to provide access to other destinations in the region.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Explore the establishment of an independent bus system or contract for service with an
independent municipal transportation agency if RTD service remains unsatisfactory.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Design path and trail networks to reflect both a local and regional demand, Implement the Trail
Network Plan to meet the recreational needs of the community, while maintaining the unique
character of the Peninsula.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Require, wherever practical, all path and trail networks to be in separate rights-of-way.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Coordinate and cooperate with adjacent cities, the County and other appropriate agencies and
organizations in the development of path and neighboring jurisdictions to develop trail networks is
encouraged.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Prohibit motorized vehicles from using designated paths and trails, except in the case of for
disabled access, emergency or maintenance vehicles.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Require that all new developments, where appropriate, establish walkway, bikeway and
equestrian systems paths and trails where appropriate.
Committee Note: The Steering Committee wanted the Council to know that they voted 6 yes/5 no
to amend this policy as shown.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Further investigate possible Seek funding sources for acquisition, development and maintenance
of paths and trails.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Make use, where appropriate, of Implement trails on existing rights-of-way and easements in
accordance with the Trails Network Plan.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-16
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 15 of 23
13. Provide Include safety measures such as the separation of uses, fences, signage, etc., in
the design and construction of on paths and trails, particularly on bluffs and ridgelines, and include
such measures as key design factors.
____________________________________________________________________________________
14. Encourage the R.T.D. to provide bike racks (or similar) on buses.
____________________________________________________________________________________
15. Encourage the safe and courteous use of trails by educating users as appropriate.
establishment of a program designed to educate users and non-users of path and trail networks in terms
of safety and courtesy.
____________________________________________________________________________________
16. Insure Provide appropriate public access to the Rancho Palos Verdes shoreline.
____________________________________________________________________________________
17, Explore alternative methods of options to develop implementation for the stables proposed in
this Plan a City equestrian park.
____________________________________________________________________________________
18. Require adequate off-street parking for all existing and future development.
____________________________________________________________________________________
19. Investigate current and future parking characteristics and Develop appropriate ordinances which
to regulate overnight street parking and parking of recreational, commercial and/or oversized vehicles.,
etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________
20. Require, wherever possible, pedestrian access to new developments for children to schools.
Coordinate and cooperate with school districts, and parent and community groups to provide safe
and proximate access to schools.
____________________________________________________________________________________
21. Require detailed analysis for all proposals to convert local public roads into private streets or
retain new local roads as private property. Conditions for establishing private streets should include: (a)
The road is a truly local road and is not needed as a thoroughfare in the collector and arterial road
network, (b) An assessment district or a C.C.&R. district is established which will allow the district to levy
taxes or legally enforceable assessments for road maintenance, (c) Provisions are made to guarantee the
proper up-keep of the streets, (d) Dedication of Any required non-vehicular easements may must be
required provided.
____________________________________________________________________________________
22. Reflect the elements of the City's Conceptual Trails Network Plan in appropriate City processes
and procedures depending on trails categories and status as defined in the Conceptual Trails Plan. For
each trail category, the City's action should include:
a. Category I: No action required. (Definition: These trails are defined as existing,
dedicated trails, which meet trail standards). Inspect and maintain all existing
trails on a regular basis.
b. Category II: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail
segments which cross undeveloped privately owned land that is zoned as being
developable). These trails and trail segments should be implemented when the
respective parcels of land are developed. Inclusion of Consider these trails, or
alternate approaches to provide equivalent access, in all new developments. should
be considered in conjunction with the review and approval by the Planning Commission
or City Council of all proposals for land development* or major construction.**
* Land development shall mean development proposed through a subdivision of
land application and/or conditional use permit application
B-17
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 16 of 23
** Major construction shall man development proposed through a conditional use
permit application, major grading application, or variance application.
c. Category III: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail
segments which are located on existing trail easements, City property, or street
rights-of-way and which require implementation or improvements). Require
consideration by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Recreation
and Parks of these trails or alternate approaches to provide access, prior to bid
solicitation in for projects involving the Department of Public Works or the Department of
Recreation and Parks.
d. Category IV: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail
segments which cross privately-owned land designated as Open Space or Open
Space Hazard, or on land owned by a public utility or public agency). These trails
and trail segments involve the acquisition of easements, and may require
implementation or improvements. Efforts to Implement these trails by soliciting
voluntary offers to dedicate easements. In some cases Where appropriate, the City
may should seek the dedication of an easement as a mitigation measure for significant
property improvements.
* Significant property improvements shall mean development proposed through a
conditional use permit, grading application, or variance application.
e. Category V: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails which would
primarily benefit neighborhood residents, and which cross privately-owned land).
Implementation of these trails only upon initiation by affected property owners or
community groups. The City shall not initiate efforts to implement Category V trails
provide appropriate support to the property owners offering easements.
f. Category VI: Individual evaluation of these trails.
____________________________________________________________________________________
23. If City land is sold, any appropriate public access easement, restriction, reservation and/or
right of way should be recorded.
Note: This is a new Policy.
____________________________________________________________________________________
24. Descriptions of relevant trails in the Trails Network Plan should be provided to potential
applicants when inquiries for development are first made.
Note: This is a new Policy.
___________________________________________________________________________________
23. Design and construct new trails in accordance with the Trails Network Plan and other
National, State and local U.S. Forest Service standards, wherever appropriate. possible.
____________________________________________________________________________________
24. When constructing paths and trails, require the use of construction techniques that
minimize the to have a minimal impact on the environment.
____________________________________________________________________________________
25. Where appropriate, align trails to provide maximum maximize access to scenic resources.
____________________________________________________________________________________
26. Include those the bikeways in the Conceptual Bikeways Plan or alternate approaches to provide
access, prior to approval of proposals for land development* by the Planning Commission or City Council.
B-18
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 17 of 23
* Land Development shall mean development proposed through a subdivision of land
application and/or conditional use permit application.
____________________________________________________________________________________
27. Consideration of the inclusion of bikeways in the Conceptual Bikeways Plan, or alternate
approaches to provide access, prior to project bid solicitation during project design is required in all
Department of Public Works or Department of Recreation and Parks projects.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Infrastructure
Policies (G.P. page 138):
1. Explore the possibility of eliminating major or critical infrastructure facilities and networks that
serve other parts of the City from landslide areas.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Prohibit Discourage the installation or extension of any infrastructure component into any area
known to be unstable or of major environmental significance. hazardous unless appropriate liability
safeguards (such as geological hazard abatement districts) are in place and adequate mitigation
measures are incorporated into the design.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Consider, at such time that a service or services do not adequately meet the needs of Rancho
Palos Verdes, which utilities might better be a function of the City or other public agency.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Underground all new power lines and communications cables. Implement programs to place
existing lines and cables underground where feasible.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Continue to Encourage the establishment of undergrounding assessment districts by
homeowners, in areas of existing overhead lines.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Investigate funding sources to be used in local undergrounding programs for areas of existing
overhead lines.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Allow new development to only occur where adequate infrastructure systems can reasonably be
provided.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and
networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Safety
Goals:
A. It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of life and property from both natural and
man-made hazards within the community.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide for the protection of the public through effective law
enforcement and fire protection programs and volunteer programs such as Neighborhood Watch and
the Community Emergency Response Team.
____________________________________________________________________________________
C. It shall be a goal of the City to develop and enforce health and sanitation requirements and
develop emergency communications and disaster preparedness programs to ensure the overall health
and safety of all residents.
B-19
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 18 of 23
____________________________________________________________________________________
D. It shall be a goal of the City to protect life and property and reduce adverse economic,
environmental, and social impacts resulting from any geologic activity.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Policies (G.P. page 175):
1. Promote the education and safety awareness pertaining to all hazards, which affect Rancho
Palos Verdes residents and adjacent communities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations using best practices which
contain design and construction standards based upon specified appropriate levels of risk and hazard.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure back-up law enforcement and
fire protection assistance mutual aid in emergency situations.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow
capabilities with adequate back-up throughout all areas of the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Continue to cooperate with the fire protection agencies to determine the feasibility of in utilizing
public facilities for the existing helicopter “pad” at the Nike Site for a water and refueling locations.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Using best practices, develop and implement stringent site design and maintenance criteria for
areas of high fire hazard potential in coordination with fire protection agencies.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Implement reasonable and consistent house numbering and consistent street naming systems.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Coordinate with the Fire Department to determine the feasibility of provideing adequate
emergency access to the end points of long cul-de-sacs (in excess of 700 ft.).
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Ensure that services are provided available to deal adequately with address health and
sanitation problems issues.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Work with other jurisdictions to ensure that local, County, State and Federal health, safety,
and sanitation laws are enforced.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are available to all areas
of the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Promote Development and maintenance maintain relationships of liaison with various levels of
health, safety, and sanitation agencies.
____________________________________________________________________________________
13. Encourage Ensure the availability of paramedic rescue and fire suppression services to all
areas of the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
14. Be prepared to Maintain and implement contingency plans a current Standard Emergency
Management Systems (SEMS) Plan to cope with a major disasters.
____________________________________________________________________________________
15. Maintain liaison with other local, County, State and Federal disaster agencies.
____________________________________________________________________________________
16. Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and numbers of animals and balance the interest of animal
owners and persons whose welfare is affected.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-20
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 19 of 23
17. Ensure the protection of compatible levels of wild animal populations, which do not adversely
impact humans and their domestic animals.
____________________________________________________________________________________
18. Work with adjacent jurisdictions with respect to Encourage liaison of animal regulation
activities with adjacent cities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
19. Give Consideration to alternative animal control and enforcement methods and to facilitate for
shelter, medical treatment, and training classes where needed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sensory Environment
Goals:
A. It shall be the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through proper land use planning and
regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community with a minimum of restriction on
citizen activity.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B. Palos Verdes Peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin
and coastal region. Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources, these views and vistas
are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors, as they provide a rare means of experiencing
the beauty of the Peninsula and the Los Angeles region. It is the responsibility of the City to preserve
these views and vistas for the public benefit and, where appropriate, the City should strive to enhance
and restore these resources, the visual character of the City, and provide and maintain access for the
benefit and enjoyment of the public.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Noise Aspects
Policies (G.P. page 187):
1. Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., with land strip buffers,
landscaping, site design).
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Develop an ordinance to control noise commensurate with the local ambiance.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Regulate land use so that there is a minimal degree of noise impact on adjacent land uses.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Contain Encourage through traffic to existing arterials and collectors so that local roads are not
used as bypasses or short cuts so as in order to minimize noise.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Require residential uses in the 70 dB(A) location range to provide regulatory screening or some
other noise-inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to
minimize noise.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Maintain current and up-to-date information on noise control measures, on both fixed point and
vehicular noise sources.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Require strict noise attenuation measures where appropriate. be taken in all multi-family
residential units.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B-21
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 20 of 23
9. Coordinate with all public agencies, especially our adjoining jurisdictions neighbors, who might
wish to enter into a joint effort to study and/or control noise emissions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Review noise attenuation measures applicable to home, apartment, and office building
construction, make appropriates proposals for the City zoning ordinance, and make appropriate
recommendations for modifying the Los Angeles County Building Code as it applies to the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Encourage the State and Federal governments to actively control and reduce vehicle noise
emissions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Encourage State law enforcement agencies such as the California Highway Patrol to vigorously
enforce all laws that call for the control and/or reduction of noise emissions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Visual Aspects
Policies (G.P. page 192):
1. Develop controls to preserve existing significant visual aspects from future disruption or
degradation.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Enhance views and vistas where appropriate through various visual accents.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Preserve and enhance existing positive visual elements while restoring those that have been
lost, which are lacking in their present visual quality.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Make a further study on Consider the visual character of neighborhoods consistent with
following the General Plan and Neighborhood Compatibility in order to assess visual elements on an
individual neighborhood basis.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Develop well-located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed. These
should have safe ingress and egress and be adequately posted.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Develop and maintain, in conjunction with appropriate agencies, public access to paths and trail
networks for the enjoyment of related views.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Require developers, as developments are proposed within areas which impact the visual
character of a corridor, to address treatments to be incorporated into their projects, which enhance a
corridor’s imagery.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Require developments within areas which will impact corridor-related views to fully analyze
project impacts in relation to corridors in order to mitigate their impact.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Require developments which lie between natural areas to be maintained and viewing corridors to
show how they intend to mitigate view disruption.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Develop a program for the restoration of existing areas, which negatively impact view corridors.
through the urban design element (e.g., landscaping and under grounding).
________________________________________________________________
Land Use Plan
B-22
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 21 of 23
Goal:
A. It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to provide for land uses which will be sensitive to
and enhance the natural environment and character of the community City, supply appropriate facilities to
serve residents and visitors, promote a range of housing types, promote fiscal balance, and protect the
general health, safety, and welfare of the community City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fiscal Element
Goals:
A. It shall be a goal of the City to hold the property tax to a minimum and to continually explore and
analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternate or new sources of revenue.
____________________________________________________________________________________
B. It shall be a goal of the City to explore cooperative financing strategies that might be undertaken
in association with others. jurisdictions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
C. It shall be a goal of the City to take maximum advantage of regulatory legislation to obtain
contributions, dedications, and reservations (option to purchase) and rights of way (i.e., easements).
____________________________________________________________________________________
D. It shall be a goal of the City to ascertain that all revenues generated by growth are development
shall be sufficient to cover the costs related to such development growth.
____________________________________________________________________________________
E. It shall be a goal of the City to thoroughly evaluate capital acquisition and asset expenditures to
ensure that available financing alternatives are sufficient to meet related ongoing operating
expenditures and their impacts before implementation of programs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
F. It shall be a goal of the City to maintain a prudent general fund reserve.
Note: This is a new Goal.
____________________________________________________________________________________
G. It shall be a goal of the City to consider all available funding sources for City expenditures.
Note: This is a new Goal.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Policies (G.P. page 241-242):
1. Consider the cost effectiveness and community benefits of all new major City services and
facilities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Require that wherever appropriate, special benefit new City services be paid for by the users in
the form of specified fees or taxes.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Work toward integration of common services among the four Peninsula cities neighboring
jurisdictions, agencies and organizations for improved cost effectiveness and quality of service.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Consider the financial impacts of City decisions on other jurisdictions governmental agencies
and/or public utilities serving our residents.
B-23
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 22 of 23
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Encourage State legislative action to provide equitable distribution of tax revenues commensurate
with the City’s responsibilities.
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Obtain a fair share of revenues available Seek funds from other government sources with due
consideration being given to the impact on local control and obligations incurred. only if the impacts to
and obligations of the City caused by accepting those funds are not unduly burdensome.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Continually Evaluate the merits of contracting for services versus in-house staffing.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Encourage private contributions and donations to the City. as alternatives to public funding.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Assess current Consider administrative and enforcement capabilities and available funding
before imposing new regulations to insure that address whether such new regulations can be effectively
administered. without undue costs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Utilize regulatory methods in a fair and equitable manner to reduce public costs.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Consider the financial impact of City decisions as they affect costs other than taxes to our on City
residents.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Finance recurring expenditures from recurring revenues.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The following is a proposed new policy.
13. Consider the cost impacts of approving any new development within the City.
____________________________________________________________________________________
"Super-Goals"
Proposed by Steering Committee
Committee Note: The Committee requested that these new goals be considered as "super-goals" to be
inserted into the front of the General Plan. Other "super-goals" could be added that give an overall goal
or context for the City.
1. Rancho Palos Verdes is a residential community dedicated to the preservation of open
space.
2. Seek all available funds when looking at developing or implementing programs or
development projects.
____________________________________________________________________________________
"General Plan Implementation Goals"
Proposed by Steering Committee
Committee Note: The Committee recommended creating a new "General Plan Implementation" section
of the General Plan that could include policies such as these with the hope of providing resolution and
commitm ent to the Plan. This new section could be located either in the beginning or end of the General
Plan document.
B-24
General Plan Goals and Policies
Revisions Proposed by the General Plan Update Steering Committee
Page 23 of 23
1. Periodically (such as every five-years) City Staff should present to the Planning
Commission changes in natural elements or changes arising from technological advances that
warrant revisions to policies or goals. Staff is encouraged to suggest proactive steps or work that
will result in greater safeguards or protection to the environmental elements (examples include
grading for slope stability, corrections of sea cliff erosion, hydrology improvement, etc.).
2. Develop an on-going program to improve public awareness of the policies and goals
contained within the General Plan. Such a program should include publishing and periodically
distributing (not merely upon initial publication) of brochures, articles in local newspapers, City
cable television programs, and school programs.
B-25
From:Andrea Vona
To:So Kim
Cc:CC; Matt Waters; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Date:Monday, September 10, 2018 5:23:21 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Thank you So.
I offer the following comment with regard to the proposed definitions. It seems these definitions generally describe the
location of the activities (i.e. facilities or non-facilities) but are silent on the nature of the activity itself. A qualifier in the
definition of passive recreation would be helpful. For example:
Passive recreational activities place minimal stress on a site’s resources; and are highly compatible with natural
resource protection.
Warm regards,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
310-541-7613 X204
310-541-7623 (Fax)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
From: So Kim [mailto:SoK@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 6:28 PM
To: christinecampbell407@gmail.com; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Vona, Andrea <avona@pvplc.org>; Barbara Ailor
<barbailor@gmail.com>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>; momofyago@gmail.com;
smhvaleri@cox.net; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Good Afternoon,
The Community Development Dept and Park/Recreation Dept Staff considered your input and modified the definitions of
Passive and Active Recreation definitions. As the General Plan is meant to be general in nature, the definitions are also
general. Staff’s opinion is that permitted or prohibited uses in different areas of the City are more appropriate in policies,
park rules, or Preserve rules, etc. for those specific areas. Below are the revised definitions:
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
B-26
From:SUNSHINE
To:CC; So Kim; Elias Sassoon; Cory Linder
Cc:momofyago@gmail.com; cicoriae@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com
Subject:General Plan discussion Sept 18. The Trails Network is not the only topic at risk
Date:Monday, September 10, 2018 6:13:41 PM
MEMO
FROM: SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council
DATE: September 10, 2018
RE: Making an end to the RPV General Plan Update
As much as I would like to see RPV functioning under a nice and tidy General Plan so
that we can go back to conducting our local affairs in an orderly fashion, the draft
version in circulation isn’t it.
The best way I can describe what I am feeling is like trying to sleep with a lot of
cracker crumbs in between the sheets. Sweep away a few in one place and bunches
more appear in another.
Council needs to find a way to have a specific Public Hearing on a few major topics
with an emphasis on pulling together a consistent directive even though the “topic”
appears in many different Elements and influences overlapping sub-Plans. Think
Complete Roadways Act.
Trails and Pathways is a perfect example. There has never been an actual, Council
level discussion about whether or not this City wishes to continue to coordinate with
and pursue the Peninsula’s network of off-road circulation corridors for emergency,
civil defense, recreation, transportation and wildlife anti gene pool isolation
purposes.
This is of regional significance and deserves a conscientious and
publicly made decision. Obviously, Staff is against it. Given the sprawling
B-27
nature of RPV’s geography, the draft General Plan Update, as presented, will
facilitate the disappearance of the whole network by attrition.
It has been a subtle attack. Under Infrastructure Goals, the General Plan
Steering Committee (in their Final Adopted Modifications of November 4, 2004)
recommended the reduction of the concept to a recreational amenity. This would be
a big change which deserves further discussion.
B. It shall be a goal of the City to provide and maintain residents with a safe, and efficient and
comprehensive system of roads., trails and paths.
Committee Note: The Committee directed Staff to have the Recreation Sub-committee also review this
Goal in
its original format as it addressed trails and paths.
Under the Circulation Element, the Consultant, Willdan Engineering, was given
only the trail map from the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) and the draft Vision Plan
which only shows the trails (existing and conceptual) that are in what had become
nature reserves up until August 2008 and the Coastal Zone. To put it bluntly, the
“circulation” represented by the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network Plan were not
included in the draft Traffic Impact Analysis of July 2010 which is included in the draft
General Plan Update. Is that an error or sabotage on the RPV Trails Network Plan?
Here are three other points that indicate that Staff is not “complying” with the Current
General Plan. The term “conceptual” is used to indicate the bigger Goal. When the
1975 General Plan was written, RPV had no “public trails”. The “figures” show what
physically existed with a direction to preserve and enhance the circulation
opportunities. Per So Kim, (in red) these are Staff’s interpretations:
The Goals and Policies included in the proposed General Plan reflects the Steering
Committee’s modifications and further changes by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Staff recommended changes are to the general text.
See the problem? What Staff is proposing in the text goes way beyond what is stated
in the goals and some “policies” cause redirection. Wasn’t it Staff who originated the
change to an Open Space HILLSIDE land use designation? This “change” needs to
be more thoroughly vetted before all of the little consequences get implemented.
B-28
This “interpretation” is what caused the need to visit the definitions of Active and
Passive Activities. Staff’s interpretations of the language in the text has taken their
proposed definitions in a whole different direction. (Notice that Eva Cicoria has
objected, too.)
Trails identified in the CTP are “conceptual”. Similar to other trails in the City, once
applicable easements are acquired and funding is made available, trails may be
designed and improved.
Staff has it backwards. The trail connection across the “Bronco Area” exists and the
CTP says so. There are so many properties involved that the CTP recommends that
an “ideal pathway” be designed point-to-point so that easement offers can be
collected where the desired TYPE of trail can be improved. Staff has developed a
nasty habit of recommending that the Council accept easements where a trail is
either inadvisable or physically impossible. That is what was done in relation to 10
Chaparral. This piece of Spoke #2 in the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network is back in
“opportunity mode”. Should Council choose to keep the Infrastructure Goal of
IT SHALL BE A GOAL OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH A SAFE AND
EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF ROADS, TRAILS AND PATHS.
As opposed to the recommended change,
It shall be a goal of the City to provide and maintain* residents with a safe, and efficient and
comprehensive system of roads., trails and paths.
Staff will have to track down a whole bunch of new text which is not supportive and
get back to implementing the Trails Network Plan.
While it may be a good idea to modify the trail policy to simply reference documents
to reduce the amount of text, the Trails Network Plan (TNP) is currently pending and
to reference existing documents that will be folded into the TNP would quickly make
said policy outdated.
The RPV Trails Network Plan is not “pending”. A City Council Adopted it in 1984.
Then, in 1990, a City Council approved replacing the existing text under Conceptual
Trails Plan and Conceptual Bikeways Plan with the new text. The CTP and CBT
were never intended to be used as independent documents. “Folding” them into the
TNP as originally intended will not make the policy outdated. In fact, referencing our
sub-documents should encourage Staff to treat our sub-documents as “living
B-29
documents”, as in having a Council Policy which directs Staff to process
Amendments and individual updates as word-processing exercises. The TRAILS
DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 was recommended to
replace the current text under STANDARDS. If Staff had been doing that all along,
the Trump Maintenance Agreement would not be such a mess. And, I’m thinking
that this “by reference” methodology would also work for the Coastal Specific Plan,
the Parks Master Plan and the NCCP. (The PUMP is getting folded into the NCCP,
right?) General Plan Amendment 22 can come out. It was to be in the CTP Section
of the TNP update but, Staff was ignoring it. Having it in the General Plan didn't give
it any more clout. Save us lots of redundant and potentially conflicting text in the
General Plan.
Please don’t get tired or, bored. The future of what we love as RPV is at stake.
* Speaking of maintenance, do you suppose the General Plan Steering Committee
felt the need to add “and maintain” to the term “provide” because up until at least
2004 a lot of roadway maintenance was not getting done? Here is another cracker
crumb. If you do make the recommended change to roadways, who is going to
check and see if maintenance has been added to all of the other “provide something”
Goals? I am looking for consistency and this draft update is not giving it to us.
B-30
From:Barbara Sattler
To:So Kim; Eva Cicoria; Vona, Andrea; Barbara Ailor; Adrienne Mohan
Cc:CC; Matt Waters; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Date:Monday, September 10, 2018 3:46:07 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Dear Ms. Kim,
Thank you for this update.
I am deeply disappointed that the City intends to retain these confusing and problematic definitions in the
General Plan.
I have served on a number of City Committees over the years, going back to the Forrestal Committee and the
early NCCP Planning Group. In every case, the City’s odd definitions of the terms “Active” and “Passive” has
required lengthy interpretations and explanations by Staff because the definitions are so far out of line with
common usage of the English language. It has been my impression that no one is ever satisfied or
comfortable with those explanations.
“Active” and “Passive” are both commonly understood to refer to a level of intensity of activity.
The General Plan should be written in terms that are straightforward and easy to understand without having to
resort to a glossary to check whether commonly used terms are used with an unexpected meaning.
Furthermore, the definitions of terminology used in the General Plan should not conflict with commonly used
definitions that might be used in other governing documents by local, state or federal entities.
General Plan updates are an opportunity to correct flaws and weaknesses.
If the city’s intent is only to define “structured” vs. “unstructured” facilities, or “formal” vs “informal” areas, why
does it not simply use those terms without twisting the meaning of other terms?
Please take this opportunity to restore common usage of “Active” and “Passive” to refer to intensity of activity
rather than to structures.
Barbara Sattler
On 9/5/2018 6:27 PM, So Kim wrote:
Good Afternoon,
The Community Development Dept and Park/Recreation Dept Staff considered your input and modified the
definitions of Passive and Active Recreation definitions. As the General Plan is meant to be general in nature, the
definitions are also general. Staff’s opinion is that permitted or prohibited uses in different areas of the City are more
appropriate in policies, park rules, or Preserve rules, etc. for those specific areas. Below are the revised definitions:
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
B-31
B-32
From:SUNSHINE
To:Nathan Zweizig; Lukasz Buchwald
Cc:CC; So Kim; Kit Fox
Subject:Thank you for the directions plus a few suggestions
Date:Saturday, September 08, 2018 5:53:05 PM
Hi guys,
Thank you for helping me find the current General Plan. This brought up some
Customer Service suggestions.
The 1975 General Plan document file includes the Amendments Log only up to #16
which is when the Land Use Map was last updated. Three things about that. One,
there have been a lot more Amendments since then. Since the first page of the Log
is in this file, the second should be too. Second, in her Agenda Reports to Council,
So Kim keeps referring to updates to the 1975 Land Use Map instead of the 1984ish
one. And, I can no longer find the 1984ish one in the archives. That is where I must
have gotten the 8 ½ x 11 one that is hanging on my wall. #15 is when the “Eastview
area” was annexed in. Poof? Third, the Planning Commission is considering an
annexation of three lots. Has that been logged in as a pending General Plan
Amendment so that it will appear when you insert the second page of the log? An
aside to that. Some years ago, the Planning Dept. changed the format of the
Amendment Log. I, for one, find the new format to be much more difficult to
reference and to figure out what was changed. I have no clue who could influence
putting them back in a simple, numerical order. I’ll copy So Kim on this and maybe,
she will add it to her other “update” accomplishments.
I was working with Dan Landon to try and get the people who write Listserve Notices
to follow a template to be sure all the basic info is included. Who, what, when,
where, why and a named contact should one have questions. Not only is it usual for
some info to be missing, I really question why the City Clerk’s office is the contact for
engineering projects.
Lastly, notice the difference in your solutions to my problem. I had been chatting with
Dan about this and he didn’t seem to be having any impact on the Listserve Notice
writers.
Subject: City's General Plan
Date: 9/4/2018 5:42:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
B-33
From: lbuchwald@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Sunshine,
Please go to http://www.rpvca.gov/769/Existing-Documents and click 1975 GENERAL
PLAN under EXISTING DOCUMENTS. I think this is the document you are looking
for.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Lukasz Buchwald
Information Technology Manager
Subject: General Plan (1975)
Date: 9/4/2018 5:31:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: NathanZ@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Sunshine,
I searched the City website for the General Plan and was able to find the one adopted
in 1975 (see below). I did the search in quotes which makes the website search that
B-34
exact phrase. Doing it that way made it the second search hit.
http://www.rpvca.gov/documentcenter/view/5755
Nathan B. Zweizig
If the document that the Listserve Notice is directing the public to is in the
/DocumentCenter/View/, that link is so much easier than Click here,
search around, scroll down, click again, repeat as needed. Get it?
Thank you for sending me the spelling of your whole names. It appears to have
started when Doug Willmore arrived but has not been totally consistent. Every time I
need to contact someone new, I call the receptionist and ask if the email is first initial
and last name or, first name and last initial. Lukasz, you might want to check the
City’s employee roster. The receptionist told me your last name is spelled
Bushwald. It went ding in my head when your voicemail greeting pronounced it
“Bookwald”. Good thing I left a voice message instead of emailing you my question.
Just in case nobody has mentioned it, SUNSHINE is my whole, legal name. From an
IT point of view, I don’t know how many data bases the City maintains, I think I have
them all populated with Sunshine as my first name and SUNSHINE as my last
name. It was not polite when I showed up on a Work Order as Sunshine Unknown.
I don’t mean to be a pest but, a lot of people turn to me to figure out how to get
answers to their questions. I will continue to suggest that the City Council create an
Infrastructure and Activities Commission like Rolling Hills Estates has a Parks and
Activities Commission with a full time Community Services Director. Right now, our
City Council is rather burned out with what does get onto their Agendas. In the mean
time, you will be hearing from me when I hit dead ends in other communication
channels. Thanks for being there.
…S 310-377-8761
B-35
B
-
3
6
B
-
3
7
B
-
3
8
B
-
3
9
B
-
4
0
B
-
4
1
From:Eva Cicoria
To:So Kim; christinecampbell407@gmail.com; avona@pvplc.org; barbailor@gmail.com; bsattler@igc.org; sunshinerpv@aol.com;
momofyago@gmail.com; smhvaleri@cox.net; amohan@pvplc.org
Cc:CC; Matt Waters; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Date:Thursday, September 06, 2018 3:22:39 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Thank you for this notice, So. There are a number of issues that come to mind with a quick read of these
definitions.
In General
"The General Plan is meant to be general." Okay, but isn't the RPV General Plan update supposed to
adhere closely to the 1975 RPV General Plan? This doesn't do that with respect to the definitions of
active and passive recreation. It would be helpful if you were to provide the definitions of active and
passive recreation as they appear in the General Plan text and glossary for comparison to what you are
proposing.
I realize that a lot of time has passed since the General Plan update process began, but originally staff
(and as I understood it, City Council and Planning Commission) indicated that only minor technical
changes would be made to the General Plan. That’s because we recognize that the General Plan has
stood us well for decades. Has that approach changed?
Over the years, some have attempted to add structures and high impact activity to our passive parks and
been frustrated by the language in the General Plan and citizens who have insisted on compliance with
the General Plan. The General Plan ties “our” hands. And that's the point of it, isn't it?
For several years, it has seemed that staff seeks to frame permitted passive park uses in such a way as
to provide additional flexibility in park development beyond the level of intensity that the 1975 General
Plan envisioned. In the case of the definitions you’ve provided in your email, one aspect of the defined
terms has been eliminated--the plain meaning of the terms active and passive. The definitions of active
and passive recreation in the 1975 General Plan get at two aspects of recreation--structures/facilities and
impact level. The definitions you've put forth below get at only one--structures/facilities.
Terminology
Is "facilities" defined anywhere in the General Plan? If a facility is not specialized, but accommodates a
variety of activities, would that be acceptable in a passive park? I know staff has been concerned about
making the definition of passive recreation work for existing sites where there are now structures, PVIC,
in particular. That can be addressed with a statement to the effect that “Structures in place at passive
recreation park sites at the time of adoption of this definition are permitted to remain and may be
replaced with structures of like kind and size.”
Is "formal" or "informal" defined anywhere in the General Plan? What would you consider "formal
facilities"? Would a recreational activity have to be found in both a "formal” and “structured" facility to be
considered active recreation? What would you consider "informal areas"? And "specialized facilities"?
Historically, walking paths and trails have been considered acceptable in passive parks. Are they
specialized facilities? "Informal trails" has been a term used to refer to trails that are created by use,
rather than planning and implementation, so this terminology in the definitions of passive recreation may
lead to confusion regarding whether only informal trails--ie trails created by use as opposed to
constructed trails--are permissible in a passive park.
Including examples of what is and isn't acceptable in a passive park, as the original definitions did,
provides guidance.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
B-42
To: christinecampbell407 <christinecampbell407@gmail.com>; Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>; Vona, Andrea
<avona@pvplc.org>; Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com>; Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>; SUNSHINE
<sunshinerpv@aol.com>; momofyago <momofyago@gmail.com>; smhvaleri <smhvaleri@cox.net>; Adrienne Mohan
<amohan@pvplc.org>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2018 6:27 pm
Subject: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Good Afternoon,
The Community Development Dept and Park/Recreation Dept Staff considered your input and modified the definitions of
Passive and Active Recreation definitions. As the General Plan is meant to be general in nature, the definitions are also
general. Staff’s opinion is that permitted or prohibited uses in different areas of the City are more appropriate in policies,
park rules, or Preserve rules, etc. for those specific areas. Below are the revised definitions:
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
B-43
From:Madeline Ryan
To:CC; SUNSHINE
Cc:So Kim; Matt Waters; christinecampbell407@gmail.com; smhvaleri@cox.net; momofyago@gmail.com;
hvybags@cox.net; jeanlongacre@aol.com; Citymaster@hotmail.com; res1mbro@verizon.net; Paul Funk;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; j1000@cox.net; david_siegenthaler@nps.gov
Subject:Re: Sept. 18 City Council discussion. More public Land Use restrictions
Date:Thursday, September 06, 2018 8:00:12 PM
Dear Council Members, City Staff, et al -
I have to disagree or, at least, point out the concern I have with Active
Recreation and Passive Recreation definitions:
and, those 'Active Recreations' should be defined as Softball Leagues,
Baseball Leagues, Football Leagues, Soccer Leagues, Archery, Skateboard,
etc. Almost any type of sport that would require a field or structured
facility where each organized sport could be played.
More to my concern is the definition of Passive Recreation -
So, do I understand correctly that this 'passive recreation' would include
hiking, walking, horse riding, bicycling, jogging, almost anything one can
do without a formal facility? What if off-road bicyclists want to organize a
'Bike-a-thon'; a jogging group wants to organize a race; an equestrian
group wants to organize an eventing/cross country course competition.
How would the City handle these requests?
I am not against any of the above, but I sure wouldn't want passive users
to encounter any of these organized sport competitions while trying to
enjoy their 'passive recreation'.
Thank you for further consideration and requirements for either 'Active' or
'Passive' Recreation.
Madeline Ryan
RPV
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 04:25:45 PM PDT, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> wrote:
MEMO
FROM: SUNSHINE
B-44
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
DATE: September 6, 2018
RE: Proposed Active and passive recreation activities definitions equal public Land
Use restrictions
I am not sure that I can be happy with these new definitions because they still speak
more to facilities than activities. The existing definitions became a problem because
Staff used the language elsewhere in the text to apply the word “structured” to mean
the same as “structure” as in, passive recreation areas could not have any structures,
not even rest rooms.
The thing about a well written definition is that it should not be open to interpretation.
Scroll on down to the definition clarifications that Matt Waters came up with back in
2004. Question. Is “tot lot” apparatus a “formal and structured facility” even though
what the tots do with it is not a “structured activity”? The difference is in whether or
not tot lot apparatus or even those exercise course stations would be precluded from
being installed on “passive parkland”. This is a development/infrastructure issue, not
a rules and regs issue.
The situation got a serious airing by the 14 member Task Force. If Staff needs specific
direction about what sort of infrastructure/structures/facilities are permitted where, I
suggest that it be dealt with elsewhere in the General Plan. Active v.s. Passive
activities as defined below are a general division of what will lead to rules and regs for
specific sites based on their Land Use Designation. Problem solved.
…S 310-377-8761
Subject: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Date: 9/5/2018 6:27:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: SoK@rpvca.gov
To: christinecampbell407@gmail.com, cicoriae@aol.com, avona@pvplc.org, barbailor@gmail.com,
bsattler@igc.org, sunshinerpv@aol.com, momofyago@gmail.com, smhvaleri@cox.net, amohan@pvplc.org
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, MattW@rpvca.gov, AraM@rpvca.gov
B-45
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good Afternoon,
The Community Development Dept and Park/Recreation Dept Staff considered your input and
modified the definitions of Passive and Active Recreation definitions. As the General Plan is
meant to be general in nature, the definitions are also general. Staff’s opinion is that permitted
or prohibited uses in different areas of the City are more appropriate in policies, park rules, or
Preserve rules, etc. for those specific areas. Below are the revised definitions:
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
August 14, 2012
To whom it may concern.
In the process of writing a draft to recommend as an update to the 1984 RPV Parks
Master Plan, the RPV Open Space Planning and Rec & Parks Task Force ran into a
problem with the definitions of “active” vs “passive” recreation facilities. As I recall,
this is what we were given, verbally, and after some debate, we found them to be
perfectly adequate.
ACTIVE recreation is “structured” as in the activity has published rules of conduct and
B-46
specifically delineated infrastructure.
PASSIVE recreation is not “structured” as in the activity is composed of whatever the
participants agree upon among themselves using whatever infrastructure is available
and/or brought in by themselves.
Bocci ball became the “gray area” of discussion. This brought up the discussion of
sanctioned competition on City property vs practice, training and “just for fun”
facilities. Bring your own bocci balls, choose a relatively level place of no specific size
(ideally mowed lawn) and the game is on. That is “passive recreation”. If you want to
organize a league or club and have the City provide and maintain a designated
“court”, then it becomes “active recreation”.
Big clarification. Rest rooms are “structures” but they are not a necessary part of a
“structured activity” nor a necessary part of a “non-structured activity”. They are just
welcome when needed, passively.
The current situation has been caused because the above definitions were provided by
the RPV Rec & Parks Dept, never compared with the RPV General Plan GLOSSARY
OF TERMS and never vetted by the National Parks Service which is responsible for
enforcing a whole lot of “deed restrictions” on a whole lot of RPV’s “parklands”. And,
the City Council did not even discuss the proposed update of the RPV Parks Master
Plan called the PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE STRATIGIC PLAN
(March 29, 2005). Two years of volunteer research and $125K of Consultant fees
were flushed down a black hole in one minute of City Council silence.
The time has come for everyone to choose a side. I do not mean Republicans v
Democrats v Libertarians. I mean human property rights v fuzzy animal rights. The
more land that gets designated as “passive”, the more places your great grandchildren
will not be permitted to visit.
The California Coastal Trail and the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network are both potential
human access amenities. RPV Staff is avoiding improving them.
I strongly support human access to government owned native/natural places and
growing food. What I do not support is precluding humans from growing food and
B-47
visiting beautiful, natural places.
The obvious ramifications and the unforeseen consequences are huge.
Now, the RPV Community Development Dept. is in a quandary. Having been on a few
committees and having attended many workshops, my conclusion is that RPV
residents and the public at large want the Coastal Zone to be “passive”, the PV Nature
Preserve to provide emergency, recreational, educational corridors and all the other
parklands to be available for “active” recreation development proposals as time goes
by.
The specific point is that the RPV Planning Commission has agreed with Staff’s
recommendation that several little RPV properties be designated as “passive” in the
updated General Plan Land Use Map. I submitted an argument against this
particularly because “passive” has not been clearly defined and because some of this
land should not be precluded from “active” facility proposals way in the future.
We now have another opportunity to speak up. Drop a note to cc@rpv.com. Ask the
RPV City Council members to say “NO” to reducing active recreation opportunities on
City owned land outside of the Coastal Zone.
SUNSHINE
(310) 377-8761
B-48
From:SUNSHINE
To:CC
Cc:So Kim; Matt Waters; christinecampbell407@gmail.com; smhvaleri@cox.net; momofyago@gmail.com;
hvybags@cox.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; Citymaster@hotmail.com;
res1mbro@verizon.net; Paul Funk; leneebilski@hotmail.com; j1000@cox.net; david_siegenthaler@nps.gov
Subject:Sept. 18 City Council discussion. More public Land Use restrictions
Date:Thursday, September 06, 2018 4:30:59 PM
MEMO
FROM: SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
DATE: September 6, 2018
RE: Proposed Active and passive recreation activities definitions equal public Land
Use restrictions
I am not sure that I can be happy with these new definitions because they still speak
more to facilities than activities. The existing definitions became a problem because
Staff used the language elsewhere in the text to apply the word “structured” to mean
the same as “structure” as in, passive recreation areas could not have any structures,
not even rest rooms.
The thing about a well written definition is that it should not be open to interpretation.
Scroll on down to the definition clarifications that Matt Waters came up with back in
2004. Question. Is “tot lot” apparatus a “formal and structured facility” even though
what the tots do with it is not a “structured activity”? The difference is in whether or
not tot lot apparatus or even those exercise course stations would be precluded from
being installed on “passive parkland”. This is a development/infrastructure issue, not
a rules and regs issue.
The situation got a serious airing by the 14 member Task Force. If Staff needs specific
direction about what sort of infrastructure/structures/facilities are permitted where, I
suggest that it be dealt with elsewhere in the General Plan. Active v.s. Passive
activities as defined below are a general division of what will lead to rules and regs for
specific sites based on their Land Use Designation. Problem solved.
…S 310-377-8761
B-49
Subject: Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Date: 9/5/2018 6:27:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: SoK@rpvca.gov
To: christinecampbell407@gmail.com, cicoriae@aol.com, avona@pvplc.org, barbailor@gmail.com,
bsattler@igc.org, sunshinerpv@aol.com, momofyago@gmail.com, smhvaleri@cox.net, amohan@pvplc.org
Cc: CC@rpvca.gov, MattW@rpvca.gov, AraM@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good Afternoon,
The Community Development Dept and Park/Recreation Dept Staff considered your input and
modified the definitions of Passive and Active Recreation definitions. As the General Plan is
meant to be general in nature, the definitions are also general. Staff’s opinion is that permitted
or prohibited uses in different areas of the City are more appropriate in policies, park rules, or
Preserve rules, etc. for those specific areas. Below are the revised definitions:
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
August 14, 2012
To whom it may concern.
B-50
In the process of writing a draft to recommend as an update to the 1984 RPV Parks
Master Plan, the RPV Open Space Planning and Rec & Parks Task Force ran into a
problem with the definitions of “active” vs “passive” recreation facilities. As I recall,
this is what we were given, verbally, and after some debate, we found them to be
perfectly adequate.
ACTIVE recreation is “structured” as in the activity has published rules of conduct and
specifically delineated infrastructure.
PASSIVE recreation is not “structured” as in the activity is composed of whatever the
participants agree upon among themselves using whatever infrastructure is available
and/or brought in by themselves.
Bocci ball became the “gray area” of discussion. This brought up the discussion of
sanctioned competition on City property vs practice, training and “just for fun”
facilities. Bring your own bocci balls, choose a relatively level place of no specific size
(ideally mowed lawn) and the game is on. That is “passive recreation”. If you want to
organize a league or club and have the City provide and maintain a designated
“court”, then it becomes “active recreation”.
Big clarification. Rest rooms are “structures” but they are not a necessary part of a
“structured activity” nor a necessary part of a “non-structured activity”. They are just
welcome when needed, passively.
The current situation has been caused because the above definitions were provided by
the RPV Rec & Parks Dept, never compared with the RPV General Plan GLOSSARY
OF TERMS and never vetted by the National Parks Service which is responsible for
enforcing a whole lot of “deed restrictions” on a whole lot of RPV’s “parklands”. And,
the City Council did not even discuss the proposed update of the RPV Parks Master
Plan called the PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE STRATIGIC PLAN
(March 29, 2005). Two years of volunteer research and $125K of Consultant fees
were flushed down a black hole in one minute of City Council silence.
The time has come for everyone to choose a side. I do not mean Republicans v
Democrats v Libertarians. I mean human property rights v fuzzy animal rights. The
more land that gets designated as “passive”, the more places your great grandchildren
B-51
will not be permitted to visit.
The California Coastal Trail and the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network are both potential
human access amenities. RPV Staff is avoiding improving them.
I strongly support human access to government owned native/natural places and
growing food. What I do not support is precluding humans from growing food and
visiting beautiful, natural places.
The obvious ramifications and the unforeseen consequences are huge.
Now, the RPV Community Development Dept. is in a quandary. Having been on a few
committees and having attended many workshops, my conclusion is that RPV
residents and the public at large want the Coastal Zone to be “passive”, the PV Nature
Preserve to provide emergency, recreational, educational corridors and all the other
parklands to be available for “active” recreation development proposals as time goes
by.
The specific point is that the RPV Planning Commission has agreed with Staff’s
recommendation that several little RPV properties be designated as “passive” in the
updated General Plan Land Use Map. I submitted an argument against this
particularly because “passive” has not been clearly defined and because some of this
land should not be precluded from “active” facility proposals way in the future.
We now have another opportunity to speak up. Drop a note to cc@rpv.com. Ask the
RPV City Council members to say “NO” to reducing active recreation opportunities on
City owned land outside of the Coastal Zone.
SUNSHINE
(310) 377-8761
B-52
From:Adrienne Mohan
To:So Kim
Cc:Vona, Andrea; CC; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: Additional comments for the General Plan
Date:Thursday, September 06, 2018 2:48:28 PM
Attachments:image004.png
Great, will do! Thank you, So.
-Adrienne
Adrienne Mohan
Conservation Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
(310) 541-7613 x203
(310) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the enjoyment and education of all.
Join our mailing list
Join us on
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:08 PM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Adrienne,
Thank you for your response. I would greatly appreciate suggested changes for section 7.6. As the report will go out next
week, if you can get me the changes for review by first thing Monday morning, we still have time to consider and attach
any acceptable changes to the City Council.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Adrienne Mohan [mailto:amohan@pvplc.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 1:49 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Vona, Andrea <avona@pvplc.org>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Additional comments for the General Plan
Hi So,
B-53
Thank you for your reply to the GP comments!
Please see my notes in blue below
Adrienne Mohan
Conservation Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
(310) 541-7613 x203
(310) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the enjoyment and education of all.
Join our mailing list
Join us on
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Adrienne,
Please see my comments in red below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Adrienne Mohan [mailto:amohan@pvplc.org]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 4:35 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Vona, Andrea <avona@pvplc.org>
Subject: Additional comments for the General Plan
B-54
Hi So,
I apologize if this is duplicative, but I do have some comments for how the passive or active recreation definitions
are applied and also how the Preserve is described in the document.
Figure 8, page 93: Shows areas categorized as Parks which I believe should be categorized as Nature Preserve
(within the 1400 acres) and passive recreation only. Point Vicente Park and Abalone Cove Park boundaries are
not drawn correctly. Also, Pelican Cove is not a Park (it's part of the Preserve). The following descriptions I feel
should separate the lands and how they are described, and not join park and Preserve areas together as they have
different allowable uses. Thank you for catching the error. The corrected map will be presented to the City
Council at its September 18th meeting. Super, thank you.
Page 94, Public Open Space Areas: change "creating outdoor recreational opportunities" to "providing
opportunities for compatible passive recreational activities" Suggested change already incorporated. Super, thank
you.
Page 99 NCCP/HCP Reserve Areas: There should be a statement that all of these open space areas allow for
compatible passive recreational activities, and that each area has specific regulations for which passive
recreational uses are permitted. This is just an inventory of the Reserve areas, not to explain its use. I disagree --
some of the Reserve descriptions do specify user groups (ie. see the note below).
-Also, I find it inconsistent the way the property acquisitions are described. "The City purchased" does not
acknowledge key contributions/funding sources from government agencies, while Forrestal Reserve properly
acknowledges the funding sources. Below are the two sections you are referencing. Please let me know how you
would like to see the text amended for consistency and we will consider it. I was referencing ALL of the Reserve
descriptions (not just the two below) and how they inconsistently reference how they were acquired. Some of the
descriptions have nice detail around the amount and funding sources while others do not. In the spirit of historical
record, it would be great if these could recognize the Land Conservancy's critical role in helping to preserve the
lands and garnering public contributions.
-It is also potentially problematic to specify the uses at each reserve, because if they change in the future the
general plan will be outdated (for example, if the Lunada Canyon Trail removes it's designation to permitt
bikes). Under NCCP/HCP Reserve Areas, each Reserve area is described by its size, existing improvements if
any, and types of habitat. It doesn’t specify uses. The section 7.6 describing each Reserve area starting does
B-55
indeed name uses for some of the Reserve areas (and in fact, does not accurately describe Filiorum, which also
currently allows bikes). This is problematic if the City decides to restrict certain uses in the future -- my
recommendation would be to have a standard statement for all of the Reserve areas that "This area contains trails
for recreational uses", without naming "hikers, bikers, and equestrians". Here is an example:
Also, under the Vista del Norte Reserve description -- I think the affordable housing project is called Sol Y Mar, not
"Mirandela", and the heading for Malaga Canyon Reserve is not formatted like the other headings, etc. We are
happy to provide a red-line version of suggested changes to this section 7.6 for you to consider.
Page 137, Open Space Preservation: the description of the recreational use is better here. I recommend making prior
definitions more like this. Would you mind being more specific?
Many thanks for the opportunity to provide you with our feedback.
Respectfully,
Adrienne
Adrienne Mohan
Conservation Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
(310) 541-7613 x203
(310) 930-4332 (cell)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the enjoyment and education of all.
Join our mailing list
Join us on
B-56
From:So Kim
To:"christinecampbell407@gmail.com"; "Eva Cicoria"; Vona, Andrea; "Barbara Ailor"; "Barbara Sattler"; "SUNSHINE"; "momofyago@gmail.com";
"smhvaleri@cox.net"; "Adrienne Mohan"
Cc:CC; Matt Waters; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Passive and Active Recreation Definitions
Date:Wednesday, September 05, 2018 6:27:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Good Afternoon,
The Community Development Dept and Park/Recreation Dept Staff considered your input and modified the definitions of
Passive and Active Recreation definitions. As the General Plan is meant to be general in nature, the definitions are also
general. Staff’s opinion is that permitted or prohibited uses in different areas of the City are more appropriate in policies,
park rules, or Preserve rules, etc. for those specific areas. Below are the revised definitions:
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
B-57
From:So Kim
To:"SUNSHINE"
Cc:PC; CC; Elias Sassoon; Cory Linder
Subject:RE: Draft Land Use Map errors and omissions
Date:Wednesday, September 05, 2018 6:06:00 PM
Hi SUNSHINE,
Please see my responses in red below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 12:30 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder
<CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Draft Land Use Map errors and omissions
Hi So,
This from the Weekly Administrative Report.
LA-RICS Proposed Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Network: On April 23, 2018, the Planning Division received
notice from the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Authority that a
LMR network is proposed at the Los Angeles Countyowned “Antenna Farm” located at 5741 Crestridge
Road. The project consists of installing a LMR antenna on a new 150-foot lattice tower and constructing
a 400ft2 equipment structure. Pursuant to State Government Code Section 65402, the Planning
Commission, at its June 12th meeting, will consider the project’s consistency with the General Plan. A
notice will be sent to property owners within a 500’ radius of the project site announcing the Planning
Commission meeting. To obtain more information about LA-RICS and LMR networks, please visit the
following website at https://www.la-rics.org.
If the County owns the property with the “Antenna Farm” on Crestridge Road,
shouldn’t it be shown on the RPV Land Use Map as an INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITY? No, because the current Institutional Zone allows public facilities owned
or used and operated for governmental purposes by the City, the County, the State
and the Government of the United States of America, and any special district or other
local agency. If they don’t own it, who does? Los Angeles County is the property
owner. Who is getting paid for this use?
This brings up the fact that the Don C. Wallace Radio Ranch Museum Park site is not
shown at the corner of Highridge and Armaga Spring. (It used to be, literally, an
“antenna farm”.) I know that the adjacent HOA maintains it as open space as if it
B-58
was their own. Has the City deeded it over to them? No, the City still owns this site.
The City contemplated some time ago whether or not to change the existing land use
designation of Residential and decided not to. So it remains residential and remains
vacant covered with lawn.
When, in the current Update process, will these “concerns” be addressed?
…SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
B-59
From:So Kim
To:June Horton
Cc:Gabriella Yap; Ara Mihranian; CC
Subject:RE: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Designation--hearing April 26, 2018
Date:Wednesday, September 05, 2018 4:31:00 PM
Hi Ms. Horton,
My apologies in the delay. Just to let you know, the General Plan Update is scheduled for the
September 18th City Council meeting. Related documents are available on the City’s website at this
link: http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: June Horton [mailto:JHorton@wmeentertainment.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 4:27 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Designation--hearing
April 26, 2018
Thank you for responding….albeit 4 months after I sent my email
June Horton | WME
JHorton@wmeentertainment.com
310.859.4512
From: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 4:17 PM
To: June Horton <JHorton@wmeentertainment.com>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Designation--hearing
April 26, 2018
Dear Ms. Horton,
Thank you for your email. A similar concern was raised by Ms. Kathy Snell, which the Community
Development Director responded to. Rather than reiterate the Director’s response, it is attached to
this email for you.
B-60
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: June Horton <JHorton@wmeentertainment.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:50:26 PM
To: CC
Cc: June Horton
Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Designation--hearing April
26, 2018
I am unable to attend the April 26, 2018 meeting in person, but would like to go on record. I
understand that RPV is considering designating Vanderlip Drive as Open Space Preserve and I am
vehemently opposed to this idea for a number of reasons. First, as a homeowner on Vanderlip
Drive, I am troubled that I was not consulted or notified that this action was being considered. My
family has owned our home on 85 Vanderlip Dr. since 1962, and it has always been viewed as a
private driveway leading to our home. Neither the city, nor Portuguese Bend Homeowners
Association has maintained the Drive ever—in fact, the residents on Vanderlip Drive pay for all the
upkeep. The Portuguese Bend community is a private gated community open to residents and their
guests. Are you planning to add other Portuguese Bend Streets to the Open Preserve Land? Having
Vanderlip Drive accessed by large numbers of hikers, pets, sightseers, bikers etc. will without a
doubt affect our privacy and sense of security, not to mention the cleanliness of the area. I’ve seen
the hordes of cars on Del Cerro Park and the idea that Vanderlip Drive would be added and
advertised as a destination is anathema to me.
Don’t get me wrong: I am very supportive of the designation of Open Space, and I was all in favor of
expanded the protected areas….but this does not seem like a well-thought out idea.
Please don’t do this.
Sincerely,
June Horton
June Horton | WME
JHorton@wmeentertainment.com
310.859.4512
B-61
From:SUNSHINE
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:So Kim; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; sherihastings@yahoo.com; CC; katherine.pilot@gmail.com; Emily
Colborn; pbvilla@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com; dennisgardner@me.com; gardner4@earthlink.net;
pdownjac@hotmail.com; leetwid@yahoo.com; katrinavanderlip@yahoo.com; narcissavf@sbcglobal.net;
kelvin@vanderlip.org; ksnell0001@aol.com; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Leon@gmail.com>; pvpasofino@yahoo.com;
jeanlongacre@aol.com; smhvaleri@cox.net
Subject:Re: Additional comments: Land purchase conditions. General Plan hearing April 26
Date:Thursday, April 26, 2018 11:31:49 AM
Hi Ara,
Which of the Hon property purchase funding sources has the condition that if any of
their money was used to purchase land (even if they provided only a portion of the
purchase cost), the whole property is to be deed restricted with that agencies
specified conservation easements?
First, I am under the impression that these restrictions have not yet been recorded.
More importantly, I am under the impression that when the City declared the creation
of the Gateway Park area, the acreage was calculated by how many acres could be
counted has having been purchased with the unrestricted funds. If the City did not
record a lot split as part of the purchase, the discussion to change the unrestricted
area from 25 to 17 acres becomes moot.
I am inquiring to start the process of finding out what sort of action can be taken to
release or prevent conservation restrictions on Gateway Park, Vanderlip Drive, the
affected portion of Narcissa Drive and the Crenshaw Extension ROW.
To put it bluntly, Staff has done the citizenry a huge disservice by pursuing grants
which reduce the public's access to and use of City owned property. Are you in a
position to propose a fix to this PB Reserve mess? Seems to me the text of the draft
General Plan Update and the draft Land Use Map is closing some loopholes.
Actually, the purchase of large tracts of land for open space purposes is in conflict
with the existing General Plan.
I kept this down to two questions. The name of the funding source and yes or, no.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
In a message dated 4/25/2018 10:27:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, AraM@rpvca.gov writes:
Kathy,
The City acquired the former-Hon property using funds provided by the State and Federal
agencies, as well as other funding sources (County and private donations to the PVPLC), so
that it can be enrolled in the Preserve and its natural resources protected in perpetuity.
B-62
At that time, the City was fully aware that the lot included a portion of Vanderlip Drive and
Narcissa Drive, which are private streets.
The terms of the NCCP/HCP requires the land in its entirety be designated as Open Space
Preserve to be consistent with the primary use of the property.
The funding sources used to acquire the property restrict the City from transferring any
portion of the property to a private entity or individual.
That said, such a land use designation does not automatically imply that the private streets
are accessible to the public, or that the private street are in violation of the NCCP/HCP.
Furthermore, the General Plan Land Use designation is intended to generally reflect the use,
the implementing document that establishes the regulatory authority is the Zoning Code
(Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code) and the Zoning Map.
Procedurally, once the General Plan Update is approved, the City will begin the process to
amend the Zoning Code and Zoning Map for consistency, and these documents will specify
what uses are allowed in the Open Space Preserve zoning district.
Public access within the Preserve is conditional pursuant to the NCCP/HCP.
That essential means the public does not have unrestricted access throughout the property
(including the private streets or private gated communities).
The public must remain on designated trails.
Those who veer off-trail are in violation of the Council-adopted Preserve Trails Plan and the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and subject to possible citations.
The City has no intention to provide trail access to Vanderlip Drive nor to remove the
fencing that delineates the private street from the open space portion of the Preserve.
For these reasons, I do not see the proposed land use change as creating a conflict with the
current and future use of the private street.
Lastly, putting the General Plan aside, your questions regarding maintenance of the road by
the property owners and private street easement holders can be discussed as a separate
matter.
I hope this answers your questions.
B-63
If not, please give me a call at 310-544-5227 in advance of tomorrow’s Council meeting.
Thank you,
Ara Mihranian
Director of Community Development
From: Kathy [mailto:ksnell0001@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:04 PM
To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>
Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ksnell0001@aol.com;
sherihastings@yahoo.com
Subject: Additional comments: Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa stripe changing to Open Space
Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26
Mayor Brooks,
Changing Vanderlip Driveway and the northern strip on Narcissa will be a violation of
the Grant Deed for the parcel in question.
In addition, I reviewed the General Plan and proposed maps a few months ago.
Vanderlip and the Narcissa strip were not noted nor were the legals and addresses
shown. All the other properties being changed showed maps and legals.
In my opinion, the Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa strip changes to the General Plan
did not get a fair hearing and comment for changes. The Grant Deed needs to be
reviewed. The description of the parcel needs to be confirmed for the weird
B-64
configuration. Those homes where they will have to drive over Preserve property
need to be noticed.
When did the City Staff figure out that Vanderlip & the Narcissa strip was owned by
the City as I have several documents showing that Staff was confused.
An overlay residential district needs to include historically planted northern and
eastern side to the fence. 35’ Road plus 20’ for landscaping.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Respectfully, Kathy Snell
On Apr 24, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Thanks for catching that, Kathy.
I’ve already heard from all the residents, and Ara is looking into an
overlay residential district.
Susan Brooks
Mayor 2018
Rancho Palos Verdes
(Home) 310/ 541-2971
(City Hall) 310/544-5207
http://rpvca.gov
The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be
interpreted as the individual work product of the author. They do not
necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other
entities.
Sent from my iPhone
B-65
On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:16 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for your comments. Your email will be
provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
So
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Kathy <ksnell0001@aol.com>
Date: 4/21/18 8:14 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>, Gabriella Yap
<gyap@rpvca.gov>, Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>,
pbvilla@aol.com, sherihastings@yahoo.com,
dennisgardner@me.com, gardner4@earthlink.net,
pdownjac@hotmail.com, ksnell0001@aol.com,
leetwid@yahoo.com, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>,
CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>,
sunshinerpv@aol.com, kpilot1@aol.com
Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open
Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April
26
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map hearing April 26, 2018.
This is to request the removal of Vanderlip Driveway from the Draft
General Plan map designating the driveway as Open Space Preserve.
Including Vanderlip Driveway on the map as open space will encourage
B-66
more unwelcome trespassers onto the drive and into Portuguese Bend
Association neighborhood inviting crime and trash.
Vanderlip Driveway has been the only access to multiple private homes
beginning in the 1900’s and needs to remain as such.
What restrictions are placed on the “Open Space Preserve” mapping change
in the General Plan for Vanderlip Driveway? How does the City intend to
manage the roadway maintenance and the trail access? What fire
abatement can be performed on the drive?
Has RPV notified the owners of properties having easements to the
driveway? If not, please don’t approve this designation on the map as
Open Space Preserve until the owners of the easements are notified and
have an opportunity to comment on the change. RPV City Council needs to
protect their residents and property rights.
Should the driveway have been deeded to the residences on Vanderlip
Driveway pre-NCCP due to liability issues but was overlooked by staff?
Respectfully,
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Driveway
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca
310 541 1266
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11698
B-67
From:SUNSHINE
To:So Kim
Subject:Re: NCCP connection. Fwd: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush Clearance
Date:Saturday, March 31, 2018 9:13:05 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
Mumzie front page -0049.pdf
Mumzie pg 2 -0055.pdf
Hi So,
Sorry I called you Kim. I will be 70 years old this year. My parents lived to be well
over 90. They cared so I care. RPV ain't what it used to be. What shall it become.
The devil is in the fine print. ...S
In a message dated 3/27/2018 3:09:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, sunshinerpv@aol.com
writes:
Apparently, the PVPLC/NCCP has "eyes" on what gets changed to OPEN
SPACE HILLSIDE on the Draft General Plan Land Use Map. The
Development Code already controls what can be done on 35 percent slopes
because they are a "hazard". Get this "end run" out of the NCCP mess.
TNX. ...S
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: SoK@rpvca.gov
Cc: pc@rpvca.gov
Sent: 3/27/2018 2:36:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Re: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush Clearance
Hi Kim,
Thanks for the clarification. Elkmont Canyon is one of those gullies
that could support a trail connection. I guess it is not as steep as it
looks or the steep side is in RHE. I'm still looking for some
consistency in what is OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE and what is not.
OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE areas do retain their underlying residential
zoning don't they? (Except, of course, in the Miraleste Parklands
District, right?) ...S
In a message dated 3/26/2018 4:58:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
SoK@rpvca.gov writes:
Hi SUNSHINE,
I sent you the incorrect snapshot. Below is Elkmont Canyon. No changes
are proposed to its existing Residential land use designation.
B-68
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: So Kim
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:50 PM
To: 'SUNSHINE' <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush
Clearance
Hi SUNSHINE,
The disparity between the mapping of the General Plan’s Hazard areas and
the Zoning Map’s OH zoning boundaries, along with a history of concerns
raised by property owners through the years about the inaccuracy of the
Open Space Hazard mapping on the Zoning Map, prompted Staff to task
the City Geologist to review the Hazard land use mapped Citywide to
determine if it was consistent with existing topographic and geologic
conditions that warranted such zoning pursuant to the General Plan.
Specifically, the City Geologist was tasked to review the Hazard land use
mapping throughout the City to determine if existing topographic and
geologic conditions warrant a Hazard land use designation. Based on his
B-69
review, Staff was directed to adjust the Hazard boundary lines on certain
properties so that the Hazard designation is located outside of developed
or developable portions of parcels, in an effort to limit the Hazard areas,
where preservation of the topography was necessary to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare. In 2012, the Planning Commission directed
Staff to move forward with adjusting the General Plan Hazard land use
boundaries in a manner that would decrease the amount of Open Space
Hazard land use designations recommended by the City Geologist.
Additionally, the “Hazard” designation is proposed to be removed as some
property owners may feel as an unwarranted stigma to their property
value, and be replaced with a new designation of Open Space Hillside. This
would only apply to properties outside of the landslide areas and the
Coastal Zone.
As for Elmont Canyon, it is shown on the land use map (see snapshot
below).
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:25 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
B-70
Subject: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush
Clearance
Hi So,
I'm still trying to figure out what having a "HILLSIDE" land use
designation is supposed to accomplish. My first thought is that
it makes slightly more than 35 percent slopes less onerous
sounding in relation to a grading or other development
application than "HAZARD". Another thought is that it is
private property that could be "preserved". But then, the
Miraleste District's parkland is already preserved. Either way,
why isn't Elkmont Canyon shown? ...S ...310-377-8761
In a message dated 3/26/2018 11:55:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
listserv@civicplus.com writes:
View this in your browser
This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being
sent to subscribers of this list who might be interested in its
content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this
message, it is a non-monitored email address. If there is
contact information it will be included in the body of the
message.
On March 23, 2018, Mr. Perera, the owner of the Elkmont
Canyon site (APN 7576-026-028), obtained an Encroachment
Permit (Click here to view) from the City’s Public Works
Department which allows vehicular access to the property from
Hawthorne Blvd. in order to complete the annual weed
abatement required by the L.A. County Weed Abatement
Division (enforces laws requiring the removal of weeds, brush,
and debris from vacant properties).
However, it was brought to Staff's attention that the
encroachment permit allowed for "Property access off of
Hawthorne Blvd for Geology Investigation (GIP) and
Weed Clearance", when it should have only been
issued for "Weed Clearance". The City's Public Works
Department has issued a corrected encroachment
permit today which supersedes the permit issued on
3/23 and only allows for: “Property access off of
B-71
Hawthorne Blvd for Weed Clearance” and can be
viewed by clicking here. The Encroachment Permit expires
on April 15, 2018 and is subject to several conditions listed in
the document linked above associated with the weed
abatement work.
Prior to the start of the weed abatement work, on Tuesday
March 27, 2018, City Staff will be meeting with Mr. Perera at
the Elkmont Canyon site, as well L.A. County Weed Abatement
Staff to ensure clarity regarding L.A. County’s requirements for
the 2018 weed abatement. Inquiries should be directed to Amy
Seeraty, Senior Planner, at (310) 544-5231 or via email at
amys@rpvca.gov.
This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes. If you do not wish to continue receiving these
messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by
visiting our website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx
Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or
give your e-mail address to any organization without your
explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
Elkmont Canyon on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click
the following link:
Unsubscribe
B-72
B
-
7
3
B-74
From:So Kim
To:SUNSHINE
Cc:CC; ksnell0001@aol.com; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: Yellow speck in green above end of Narcissa
Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 4:16:00 PM
Hi SUNSHINE,
The spec north of Narcissa Road is the water tank owned by the CA Water Service Company. The
current land use designation of residential is not proposed to be changed. Should this water tank be
removed in the future, the idea is not to not continue the infrastructure use in that area.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 10:08 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Yellow speck in green above end of Narcissa
Hi So,
What are these specs? ...S 310-377-8761
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: ksnell0001@aol.com
Sent: 4/23/2018 2:15:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Re: Yellow speck in green above end of Narcissa
WOW. I see it. If it is the water tank, it should be lavender as in an
infrastructure facility. Another mystery. I spotted a light bluegreen speck just
east of Gateway Park. I'm guessing it is the old Ishibashi home now known
as the Mexican Village. That brings up the whole issue of Hazard and Hillside
being independent or superimposed, inconsistently on other "Zoning" land
use designations. The driveway to the Mexican Village is on the PV Loop
Trail ideal route and should on parkland, not in the Preserve rather like
Vanderlip Drive. Can't tell on the Land Use Map. Boy is this becoming a can
of worms. ...S
In a message dated 4/22/2018 6:45:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ksnell0001@aol.com writes:
B-75
Sunshine, if you make the map really big, do you see a yellow speck in
the green. Is that the water tank?
>
>
> http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11786
>
>
>
>
B-76
From:So Kim
To:SUNSHINE; cprotem73@cox.net
Cc:CC; PC; Irving Anaya; Trails; Elias Sassoon
Subject:RE: General Plan Update. We have a long way to go and it is not just about trails
Date:Wednesday, September 05, 2018 3:37:00 PM
Attachments:Existing Goals and Policies_201503171913053779.doc
Goals and Policies as modified by Committee with hilights 20100713_201703142010574421.doc
Hi SUNSHINE,
Please see my responses to your comments in red below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:38 PM
To: cprotem73@cox.net; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; Trails
<trails@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: General Plan Update. We have a long way to go and it is not just about trails
Hi Ken and So,
While rummaging around in my archives, I keep finding documents and
correspondence, like the following, which appear to need repeating. Attached is a
submittal from the OSP and Rec.& Parks Task Force. I was happy to see that trail
Category VI does not appear in the draft General Plan Update. I am not so happy
about the other editing.
More in line with the following Memo from 2004, I’m now thinking that the definitions
and policies about the trail Categories should not appear in the General Plan, at all.
They should be in an appropriate place in the draft Trails Network Plan Update.
There is a lot more “unnecessary text” about trails in the draft GP Update. The same
can be said about the Coastal Zone, parks, roadways and open spaces.
References to our Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan, Roadways Study,
NCCP and Trails Network Plan should suffice…if only we had a Policy/Procedure to
treat our “fundamental documents” as “living documents". (Has the Roadways Study
B-77
ever been updated?) The existing General Plan includes these trail Categories (see
attached Existing Goals and Policies, page 11). In 2004, the General Plan Steering
Committee modified, but kept the same trail Categories (See attached Goals and
Policies as modified by Committee…page 15). The Steering Committee’s proposed
language is reflected in the proposed General Plan text. The Steering Committee
spent a lot of time and effort to modify the existing goals and policies while keeping
the original intent intact. While it may be a good idea to modify the trail policy to
simply reference documents to reduce the amount of text, the Trails Network Plan
(TNP) is currently pending and to reference existing documents that will be folded
into the TNP would quickly make said policy outdated.
As for references about the Coastal Zone, parks, roadways, and open spaces, the
State Guidelines require inventories of various land uses. These discussions are
necessary to comply with the State Guidelines.
I am still very concerned about how the General Plan Update is proceeding. I think
that everyone, particularly the City Council, should be able to see the differences
between what is “wordsmithed” text for purely updating the language style, what is
text added per the latest State of California mandates, what is text and graphics to
reflect preciously approved Amendments and what is Staff recommended changes to
policies and Land Use Designations. Right now, they are all mushed together in
such a way that they cannot be critiqued, individually. The Goals and Policies
included in the proposed General Plan reflects the Steering Committee’s
modifications and further changes by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Staff recommended changes are to the general text.
To view track changes, please click this link: http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-
Update. Please click the 4/26/2018 tab on the left hand side to access to view all
changes made to the original General Plan text in track changes. Then click the
9/18/2018 tab to view the changes made since 4/26/2018.
The proposed HILLSIDE Land Use Designation should definitely be treated as a
“stand-alone” Amendment. See The Council Policy.
To put it bluntly, as “professional” as the draft Update appears, I don’t like it. There
are too many unforeseen consequences hiding in there. …S 310-377-8761
February 19, 2004
MEMO from Sunshine
TO: The RPV General Plan Update Steering Committee.
B-78
RE: Update suggestions
I have three rather “global” suggestions.
One is that the inventories of parklands, trail easements and such lists that should be
updated every time the City acquires or vacates the rights to use any land should be
separate documents and simply referenced in the section that spells out the Policies
and Goals relevant to said uses.
Another is that every page should have a title and date on it. It is quite disconcerting
when photocopies of individual pages are attached to other documents and the
pages from the General Plan are not even identified as being an RPV document.
The third is that Goals should have some system of prioritization and/or proportion.
Given that the acreage within the City is finite, any proposal to expand or improve
public facilities with public funds should include a review of how this will impact the
balance as compared with some ideal. The recent telephone survey provides lots of
numbers upon which to base such specific goals.
B-79
From:So Kim
To:"SUNSHINE"
Cc:Gabriella Yap; Kit Fox; Ara Mihranian; CC
Subject:RE: Only you might notice that I am repeating myself and do something about it.
Date:Tuesday, September 04, 2018 9:06:00 AM
Attachments:LandUseMap2018.pdf
Hi SUNSHINE,
Most of your comments were previously addressed for the April 2018 version. See my responses to
your comments in red below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2018 9:47 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Only you might notice that I am repeating myself and do something about it.
FYI
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 10:47:15 PM
To: CC
Subject: Only you might notice that I am repeating myself and do something about it.
March 25, 2018
Land Use Map Update critique
Subject: Land Use Map Update critique and Gateway Park
Date: 3/25/2018 6:13:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: pc@rpvca.gov, sok@rpvca.gov, coryl@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, pvpasofino@yahoo.com, smhvaleri@cox.net
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV Planning Commission, So Kim and interested parties
RE: RPV Draft General Plan Land Use Map
B-80
This is so much better than the previous update other than a few things have been
carried over and a few things that should have, have not.
One thing is a problem with the whole General Plan. It is even worse since Staff has
opted to use “the City” instead of writing out the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In the
past, it has been a problem when a figure or page has been copied, there is no
identification of the document. Every page should say City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
General Plan, Adopted date. Near the page number is common. The Title Page for
each Element has the adoption date. The page numbering is not complete at this
time in cases there are additional amendments. Once the General Plan is adopted,
proper page numbering and City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be added to each
page.
The date on the map needs to be much bigger. Date will be added after adoption.
There should be an “N” or North on the compass rose. There is already a “N” on the
compass rose. See attached land use map.
The version of the City logo with the date on it would be nice. It’s already on the map.
See attached land use map.
I can’t tell the difference between the colors of active and passive recreational. Both
are same colors with active identified with the letter “A”. Which blue is the Point
Vicente lighthouse site? Institutional Public. Attached is a suggestion for the colors
in the LEGEND.
Page 103 describes Gateway Park as follows… Gateway Park – Recreational Active:
The approximately 17-acre Gateway Park is located at the southern tip of the Portuguese
Bend Preserve. As part of the Coast Vision Plan, Gateway Park was identified to include an
equestrian center and a parking lot that would also serve as a trailhead to the Preserve. No
permanent structures are envisioned on this property due to active land movement in the area.
I think it should stay this way and I’m guessing the map has it as passive. An older
map shows the driveway to the Mexican Village as being in the Preserve. It should
not be. It is not only on the PV Loop Trail “ideal route”, someday someone will notice
there used to be a house up there and that the promontory is in between the
landslides. Great potential for some recreational or educational facility. We really
could use a replacement for Pony Club’s “cook shack”, rest room and picnic area. It
is now inaccessible in York’s “Event Garden”. The house burned down so I’ll bet
there is still a septic tank up there. Gateway Park area is identified as Passive at this time.
However, based on the City Council’s direction on this matter, it may be changed.
Greenwood Canyon should be shown as open space whatever. It is steep enough
that restoring the Sol Vista Trail (Sunnyside) across it was a problem. I'm not sure
what the Hillside designation is for. There are a lot of steep areas in parks and the
Preserve which are not show. The area you are referencing are privately owned and
the currently Open Space Hazard designation is proposed to be changed to Open
Space Hillside.
This is a start. I'll keep feeding you what I notice
B-81
From:So Kim
To:Madeline Ryan
Cc:Sunshine Sunshine; CC
Subject:RE: RE: OMG. RPV City Hall has sprung a leak.
Date:Tuesday, September 04, 2018 10:09:00 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Madeline,
Thank you for your comments. The requested text will be added.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 10:04 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Sunshine Sunshine <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RE: OMG. RPV City Hall has sprung a leak.
Hello So, Kim
Thank you both for pointing out, Sunshine, and So for clarifying.
Pointing out in the General Plan that there are 4 Equestrian Overlay
District Areas would be important.
In other words, why doesn't the General Plan state: "Within the City, there
are 4 Equestrian Overlay District Areas, two general locations now support
major concentration...…….."
I'm not comfortable with pointing out 2 Equestrian Overlay District Areas
that do not have significant horse populations, yet both of those areas
have easy access to the peninsula trails network.
Thank you for your work.
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
B-82
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 09:35:13 AM PDT, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi SUNSHINE,
This is in response to your two comments below. Please see my comments in red.
For instance, on a not trails related inconsistency. The current General Plan and Zoning Map indicate
that we have four Equestrian Overlay Districts. The draft Update text says we have only two. And now,
all four are shown on the Land Use Map when “Overlay Districts” have never been there, before. Is it
poor “quality control”? I suspect not. We can’t expect our Council Members to spot this sort of
overlapping twists to a new sort of Code Enforcement. The Zoning Map shows 4 Equestrian Overlay
District Areas. The General Plan states the following: “Within the City, two general locations now
support major concentration of horses and limited equestrian trails; the eastern side of the City and
the Portuguese Bend area…” The first two areas shown below (sections of the Zoning Map) are the
Portuguese Bend and eastern side of the City, which are significantly larger than the Via Campesina and
Middlecrest Road. Note that the areas cropped below were done at the same scale. The point being
made in the General Plan was to identify the two major equestrian areas, not to identify the total number
of Equestrian Overlay District areas.
Portuguese Bend & Eastern side
Via Campesina & Middlecrest
The latest tracking changes to the draft General Plan Update are rather challenging to find on the City's
web site. Don't let this lack of "transparency" shut you up. Persevere. It is in there. That is the way to
see the impact, if any, of your previous comments about anything. The track change versions are
available online at http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update. There are tabs on the left hand side
as shown below. Click on the 4/26/2018 tab and scroll down to DRAFT GENERAL PLAN WITH TRACK
CHANGES to view all changes up to that date. Go to 9/18/2018 tab and scroll down to CLICK HERE TO
VIEW THE GENERAL PLAN (TRACK CHANGE) to view all changes from 4/26.
B-83
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:06 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: OMG. RPV City Hall has sprung a leak.
FYI
Sent using OWA for iPhone
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 8:45:52 PM
To: smhvaleri@cox.net; peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; jduhovic@hotmail.com; EZStevens@cox.net;
jessboop@cox.net; hvybags@cox.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com;
amcdougall1@yahoo.com; Bill Gerstner <wgg@squareoneinc.com>; ksnell0001@aol.com;
jeanlongacre@aol.com; robert.gonzalez@ladwp.com; russ@cheapvintage.com;
beachjake@sbcglobal.net; jeff@jefflewislaw.com; john@johncruikshank.us; Krista Johnson
<kristamjohnson@cox.net>; vdogregg@aol.com; ortolanor@yahoo.com; PC; Kit Fox;
B-84
Brian Campbell (Gmail); momofyago@gmail.com; cmoneil@aol.com;
ken.delong@verizon.net
Subject: OMG. RPV City Hall has sprung a leak.
Dear neighbors including City Council Members,
It is after 4:40 pm on a Friday evening before a holiday weekend. I am receiving multiple emails from
various Staff Members. Some answer questions I have asked going as far back as 2007. Peter Von
Hagen’s “nasty-gram” to our City Manager about cleaning house in favor of “cronyism” may have
touched a few nerves.
Oh what fun. The "flood gate" is open. The latest version of the draft General Plan Update is “noticed” to
be on the Council’s September 18, 2018 Agenda. Now is our chance to “pick it to pieces” line-by-line.
Do not assume that your “previously sent” comments will have been “considered”. Play dumb. Send
them, again. Dig a little deeper.
My personal focus is on the Peninsula’s trails network and public access to the California Coast. The
proposed changes to our General Plan and Land Use Map impact a whole lot more than these “rights”
and “liberties”. Only you can spot the “errors”, “omissions”, “obfuscations” and just plain apparently
insignificant “changes” which will impact how our City Government treats you, personally.
Think of it this way. We pay our Property Taxes and our utility bills with some expectation of an agreed
upon the definition of “health, safety and welfare”. That is our General Plan. Only our City Council can
change that.
If you voted for Susan Brooks, Ken Dyda and/or John Cruikshank and they vote for Staff’s
Recommendations on September 4, 2018 in relation to the Trump Project (Jerry Duhovic and Eric
Alegria have to recuse themselves because they live too close), consider yourself “screwed”. It is not the
Project which is flawed. It is the quality of Staff’s documentation of the Conditions of Approval and
Maintenance Agreement “in perpetuity” which is unenforceable. And that is the future of our City.
If a majority of our whole Council Adopts the General Plan Update as currently written by Staff, kiss your
private property rights good-by. Bring it up so that Staff is forced to deal with it or it goes into the Public
Record as being “manipulated, dodged and/or obfuscated”. It is complicated so do the best you can to
give our Council Members the “short and sweet” of your issue.
For instance, on a not trails related inconsistency. The current General Plan and Zoning Map indicate
that we have four Equestrian Overlay Districts. The draft Update text says we have only two. And now,
B-85
all four are shown on the Land Use Map when “Overlay Districts” have never been there, before. Is it
poor “quality control”? I suspect not. We can’t expect our Council Members to spot this sort of
overlapping twists to a new sort of Code Enforcement.
What we need now is for the Council to be able to make informed decisions. This is the reason why I
always refused to run for Council. Staff is standing between us and them.
The latest tracking changes to the draft General Plan Update are rather challenging to find on the City's
web site. Don't let this lack of "transparency" shut you up. Persevere. It is in there. That is the way to
see the impact, if any, of your previous comments about anything.
Write, write, write to personal email addresses. Our voices may overwhelm Staff’s.
…S 310-377-8761
B-86
From:So Kim
To:SUNSHINE
Cc:Elias Sassoon; Ara Mihranian; Irving Anaya; jeanlongacre@aol.com; Citymaster@hotmail.com;
traildoctor@cox.net; CC; PC; Doug Willmore
Subject:RE: Why the RPV Trails Network Plan (TNP) is such a mess. General Plan, too
Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 4:30:00 PM
Hi SUNSHINE,
Your comments will be attached to the September 18th Staff Report.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 5:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim
<SoK@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; jeanlongacre@aol.com;
Citymaster@hotmail.com; traildoctor@cox.net
Subject: Why the RPV Trails Network Plan (TNP) is such a mess. General Plan, too
July 2, 2018
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, RPV Planning Commission, RPV Staff and interested parties
RE: It is the Process, not the Plans which make keeping them up to date such a pain.
I want to thank Elias Sassoon for telling me that it got mentioned at the June 19, 2018
Council Meeting. I thank Teri T. for helping me with a City web site issue so I just
now got to hear the audio of that meeting. And, a big THANK YOU Jerry Duhovic for
bringing it up.
This is getting to be more and more urgent. Projects are being approved without the
B-87
appropriate designs and records.
The problem is that there is no regular “update process”. There is a Council Policy on
Amending the General Plan. Unfortunately, such Amendments do not get revised in
the text nor the Land Use Map. It wasn’t until 1993 that the City got an in-house
word processor. It was much more recently that the City got easy and relatively
inexpensive access to computer aided graphics. Only the Parks Master Plan has
been designated to be maintained as a “living” document. Well, Cory Linder assured
the Council that it would be.
I am still hoping that the Council will divide up the review of the Draft General Plan
into “updates”, State mandated additions and proposed Amendments. There are a
lot of unforeseen consequences with having all these “changes” mushed together.
There are now three different versions of the “who is responsible for which trails”
document. General Plan Amendment 22 is in the middle.
Creating a draft Trails Network Plan Update is more complicated than it appears.
Mostly, this is because most Staff Members don’t know that it exists. That means
new trail easement recordings are not added to the inventory, signage is not
coordinated City-wide and the Maintenance Superintendent doesn’t know to what
CRITERIA existing trails are to be maintained. Nobody appears to know what a
point-to-point trail is. (Essentially all of them under the NCCP.) Staff doesn’t know
who to contact when a proposal that impacts a trail comes through the door. And,
there is no Rec. & Parks Committee to review citizen generated easement offers.
I do need to clarify Mayor Brooks’ use of the term “conceptual”. The trail maps in the
original General Plan are labeled “conceptual” not because they didn’t exist but,
because they did exist and Staff needed to take action to legally preserve them.
Many, but not all of them are now on City property or City-owned easements. The
current maps have been deleted from the Draft Update on the grounds that they are
“obsolete”. I support the notion of having the Updated General Plan refer to our
“foundation documents” without a lot of detail text and figures which quickly become
obsolete. But, that requires that the “foundation documents” be updated/word-
processed/graphics-fixed every time the Council approves a change like accepting an
easement, vacating an easement or completing an improvement.
In 1987, the City Council became aware that the Trails Network Plan was not being
implemented. So, they seated the RPV Trails Committee and gave them a full-time
Rec.& Parks Analyst for support. The Committee was charged with documenting
B-88
where the most important trails were, in such a way that Staff could easily look at the
location of a new application or a Public Works project and learn if there was a “trail
improvement opportunity” to be pursued. That work product is identified as the first
phase of the Trails Network Plan update. Specifically, the Conceptual Trails Plan
(CTP) and the Conceptual Bikeways Plan (CBT). (Luckily, one of the Committee
Members had a word processor or it never would have happened.) The City Council
adopted these plans to be inserted into the TNP on January 22, 1990.
Staff has never gotten around to Phase 2 which was to add to the easements
inventory and Phase 3 which was to be a professionally written Signage Section.
The minor things like funding sources and local trails advocates lists was supposed
to be updated as soon as the City had a word processor. What happened is that the
few hard copies of the TNP were literally lost and forgotten. I shared my copy so I
know Ara has one. But he keeps referring to the update as only the CTP.
In 2004, when the Open Space Planning and Rec. & Parks Task Force was told to
keep “hands off” of any land that might get put into the NCCP, the Open Space
Subcommittee took on the chore of updating the TNP. We came up with a new
Table of Contents and produced a list of 11 recommendations for making it more
“user friendly”. We produced 20 pages of examples of how the text and maps could
look. They were submitted with a cover letter by the Subcommittee Chair, Jim
Knight.
On November 7, 2012 (eight years without a functioning Trails Network Plan), Staff
presented the City Council with the 11 recommendations and their comments on
each. In between 2004 and as of July 4, 2012, the Western States Trails Foundation
had finalized their “matrix” into the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE
CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 for submittal to Congress for use by the National Parks
Service and the National Forest Service. This version had been presented to RPV
Staff and “criteria” is mentioned in the Staff Report. This Staff Report also projected
completion of the draft TNP to be “forthcoming” and the draft General Plan Update to
be 2013. In the Minutes, the motion approving Staff’s Recommendations is pretty
fuzzy. Just the sort of thing that Staff needed to continue doing nothing.
As of this June 19, 2018 discussion, the 1975 General Plan and the 1984 Trails
Network Plan still stand as written and are essentially ignored by subsequent Staff
Recommendations which do not take the “Big Picture” into consideration. Most of
the individual trail descriptions have been written into the Task Force recommended
format, by volunteers. .Attached is page 50 from the 1984 TNP. This is the one
page that Staff needs to be reminded of. Also attached is the California Coastal Trail
portion which goes across Trump's Tract 50666 which Council recently approved as
B-89
less than what an updated TNP would have called for. We, the People are losing a
very special part of the RPV “concept”. We need some ACTION.
B-90
From:So Kim
To:SUNSHINE
Cc:Gabriella Yap; Matt Waters; Kit Fox; Katie Lozano; Elias Sassoon; Ara Mihranian; CC; DReeves895@aol.com; bjhilde@aol.com;
pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Bill Gerstner; ortolanor@yahoo.com
Subject:RE: Trail urgency news, NOT
Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 4:20:00 PM
Hi SUNSHINE,
Your comments below will be attached to the upcoming September 18th Staff Report.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:02:02 PM
To: ken.delong@verizon.net; ortolanor@yahoo.com
Cc: DReeves895@aol.com; bjhilde@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Bill Gerstner
<wgg@squareoneinc.com>
Subject: Re: Trail urgency news, NOT
Hi Ken,
Here is an old question / suggestion and nothing has changed. Matt Waters is an Analyst. That
means he shuffles words from one report to another. In addition to shuffling the papers for the
Ladera Linda Design process and the Civic Center Advisory Committee, he is now also the Co-
Editor of the City's Newsletter. I suspect he also writes the quarterly "recreation activities" insert
which the City Council recently approved spending a few thousand dollars to have printed.
From their discussion, I got the impression they thought they were funding the Newsletter
printing as opposed to just the insert. Matt didn't clarify.
One thing has just come up. The PVP Horsemens Association (PVPHA) somehow inspired
Katie Lozano in R&P to arrange a meeting with our maintenance people and the Rolling Hills
Community Association Staff at the Martingale Trailhead Park site. This is the first time I have
ever heard of Katie having anything to with a trail that is not in the PV Preserve.
What I have heard about the meeting indicates that none of the "complications" I had written to
Elias Sassoon about were addressed. That leaves the impression that Community
Development is still not sharing the Trails Network Plan updates with the other departments. I
have not received a response from Mr. Sassoon. He was not at the meeting. Neither was our
new Maintenance Superintendent. Let me know if I didn't send you the list of complications and
if you want to see it.
The implication in General Plan Amendment 22 that Staff should contact their list of concerned
trail users at the first indication that a potential project has a potential trail improvement
opportunity has been watered down in the draft GP Update. Council directed Staff to send
replies to the comments submitted on the draft GP Update. I have not received anything on
any of mine, including this one.
B-91
Katie's meeting was not mentioned in the Weekly Administrative Report. Only one RHE
resident PVPHA Board Member was invited. She invited Madeline Ryan which is how I know
anything at all.
Martingale Trailhead Park is a "border issue" but nobody is treating it as such. Nobody has
answered my question about what the current Policy is about trail maintenance and signage up
to a change in jurisdiction.
There has been no hint that anyone is looking into Ed Stevens and my suggestion to remove
the foliage which is blocking the public's view of the coast.
RPV Staff is still uncoordinated and functioning outside of the original General Plan's and the
Council's influence. I am not seeing anything in the draft Charter Initiative which indicates that
this condition can be changed.
Rummaging through old correspondence is making me cranky. ...S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 6/3/2007 11:37:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, ken.delong@verizon.net writes:
The concept is good. However, before RPV starts hiring more staff,
We need to be sure all are fully engaged. What does Matt Waters do in R &
P?.
Since CC / Stern moved Open Space to Planning / Rojas R& P does not appear
Other than 4th of July to have much on it's plate. I suggest kicking this
rock to
see what happens.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Ortolano [mailto:ortolanor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:26 AM
To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; ken.delong@verizon.net
Cc: ortolanor@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Trail urgency
If we all can manage to get this position seated
with Public Works or Parks, and expand the concept to
Sunshine's intent (making sure every plan submitted to
the city is checked for conflicts with trail
networks), I think we can realize great success.
We can take a not-so-good idea advanced by PVPLC
to misdirect even more taxpayer funds to their service
and we can morph it into something much, much better.
Hopefully, PVP Watch will support California
Trails Assoc. in this initiative with the new city
manager.
Ralph
--- SunshineRPV@aol.com wrote:
B-92
>
> This is definitely urgent. It is the mechanism
> which is broken. Once a
> fence, a wall, a pilaster or whatever is permitted
> to be built, it is next to
> impossible to make it go away. Even when it is on
> public property. ...S
____________________________________________________________________________
________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
B-93
From:So Kim
To:SUNSHINE
Cc:jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; cmoneil@aol.com; Kit Fox; CC; Elias Sassoon; Cory Linder;
Irving Anaya; Trails; Deborah Cullen; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: General Plan Update, TNP Update, Open space preservation Re: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property Tax status
Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 3:17:00 PM
Hi SUNSHINE,
Please see my responses in red below. This email will be attached to the upcoming September 18th
Staff Report for the General Plan Update project.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 3:35 PM
To: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon
<esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; Trails
<trails@rpvca.gov>; Deborah Cullen <DCullen@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; cmoneil@aol.com
Subject: General Plan Update, TNP Update, Open space preservation Re: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property
Tax status
CTP SECTION FIVE trail F2 Bronco Trail and proposed General Plan Land Use Map
People of the RPV Trails Team,
Here is the bigger picture of the preservation/enhancement opportunity of this trail
connection.
1. The undated RPV Land Use Map in the early release for the City Council’s
September 18, 2018 meeting is not clear about which of the more than 35 percent
slopes in this area are being proposed to be designated as OPEN SPACE –
HILLSIDE. Several lots are on this extreme slope. All Open Space Hazard
designation on residential lots, with exception to the Landslide Moratorium area will
be renamed as Open Space Hillside. When an Application to build on 10 Chaparral
was in the works, there was some discussion about modifying the perimeter of the
Open Space – Hazard area. Now is the time to get it right. The Open Space
Hazard boundary line for 10 Chaparral was already relocated. It was approved by the
City Council in 2012.
2. The draft General Plan Update which includes a rewrite of Amendment 22 has
eliminated the direction that Staff assist with potential Irrevocable Offers of Trail
B-94
Easement when presented to Staff by interested parties or groups. That needs to be
corrected and I hereby request assistance with producing the acceptable to RPV
document for presentation to Dave and Sue Breiholz on their lot which faces Bronco
Drive adjacent to 12 Bronco Drive. The Offer should describe the easement offer as
the same as the sewer easement along the north side of the property. This would
put the easement in line with the recorded easement offer on 12 Bronco. This Lot is
listed for sale and the Listing Agent is Charlene o’Neil, the current President of the
PVP Horsemens Association. Who should she call to expedite this matter? Dave
and Sue Breiholz may contact the Community Development Department and speak
with a planner.
3. The Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) portion of the RPV Trails Network Plan (TNP)
needs to be updated in relation to this trail connection. The City of Rolling Hills
Estates now calls this trail extension the Stein-Hale Trail or “The Nature Trail” in
George F. Canyon. From the trail user’s point of view, this trail name should be
continued on through to Bronco Drive. Your comments pertaining the TNP will be
considered.
4. This trail is described in the current CTP as a point-to-point trail and because so
many properties are potentially impacted, it recommends that an exact route be
designed before easements are solicited. Now would be a good time to have a
Public Works Engineer do this design not only because of the 8 Chaparral
opportunity but because the southern end of 10 Chaparral and the Cake property on
the other side of 10 Chaparral are a potential addition to the PV Nature Preserve with
a well-designed trail connection across the middle like there is in RHE. Trails
identified in the CTP are “conceptual”. Similar to other trails in the City, once
applicable easements are acquired and funding is made available, trails may be
designed and improved.
5. Parks use background. On some LA County maps, this area still shows up as the
original Martingale Trailhead Park and as a potential equestrian facility (community
riding ring) in the existing General Plan. Not clear on what you’re referencing.
The magic word here is “opportunity”. It is going to take the whole “team” to pull it
off. Please let me know what I can do to help. …S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 8/23/2018 4:38:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, sunshinerpv@aol.com
writes:
Hi Kit,
Has this property shown up above your radar?
In relation to RPV TNP/CTP, SECTION FIVE Trail F2 and Spoke #2 of the
Peninsula Wheel Trails Network, this existing trail connection still crosses a
B-95
few private properties. I don't know who else to ask.
In the General Plan (existing and draft Update) and the existing CTP, the
preservation and enhancement of this trail connection falls to what is now the
Community Development Department. The CTP clearly states that "The
exact route should be designed prior to easement solicitation." In conjunction
with applications to develop #10 Chaparral, CDD has proven that they missed
this directive and that they are incapable of producing a viable trail design.
The availability of 8 Chaparral is an opportunity to have Public Works look into
the best route of a TYPE 5 trail that connects the Bronco/Martingale
intersection with the Nature Trail in RHE. Given that RPV has one Trail
Easement and one Irrevocable Offer of a Trail Easement in the area, who is
in a position to say whether or not acquiring 8 Chaparral (particularly if it
cannot meet the geologic factor of safety for a residential development) would
contribute toward preserving the trail connection?
Kit, I sure hope you can pull this together. I advised against the City acquiring
the East Crest Road "Trailhead Park" property. I am looking for some
intelligent thought on this opportunity. ...S 310-377-8761
From: jeanlongacre@aol.com
To: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: 8/22/2018 3:06:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property Tax status
Hi Sunshine,
In the Breeze, Monday, August 18. 2018, the property at 8 Chaparral is listed
as being tax delinquent in the amount of $22,864 for the 2015-2016 fiscal
year. The taxes yearly are around $5,000 so that means it is getting close to
the 5 year delinquent sale date. The property is currently listed for sale for
$945,000 (a $50,000 reduction) but it has been on the market for some time.
The owner is Mohammad Halisi and he purchased it in 2004 for $370,000.
Mr. Halisi is the president of Z Auto Sound in Orange County. According
to an L.A. Times article on Oct. 15, 1992, Mr. Halisi was arrested and alleged
to be the ring leader of a group who were pirating music tapes big time.
Jean
B-96
From:So Kim
To:Andrea Vona
Cc:Adrienne Mohan; CC; Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE: comments for general plan
Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 3:56:00 PM
Hi Andrea/Adrienne,
Please see my comments in red below. I’m copying the City Council so that they are informed on
Staff’s response to your concerns.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Andrea Vona [mailto:avona@pvplc.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:32 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>
Subject: comments for general plan
Hello So and Ara,
I have a question/ comment on the general plan updates.
The goals of the conservation and open space elements are clear, but then public
safety is listed first under the policy break outs for the conservation and open space
element. It seems that the public safety policies would be better suited under the
safety element of the plan.
Also, the language on page 59 discusses that there is a classification of conservation
and open space into 1)preservation of natural resources and open space and 2)
public health and safety. It is unclear why or how conservation and open space is
being classified as public health and safety and how that would support the stated
goals of:
To conserve, protect, and enhance the City’s natural resources; beauty; and
open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of
the entire region. Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the
natural environment and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize
the protection of it. 2. To protect and preserve all significant archaeological,
paleontological, and historical resources within the City
To protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological, and
B-97
historical resources within the City.
The Conservation and Open Space not only deals with natural resources and open
space, it does discuss public health and safety in relation to landslides, sea cliff
erosion, and drainage/hydrology in canyon areas. Related to this, the following Goal
from the Social Services Element has been moved to the Cons/Open Space
Element: “To protect the environment in order to reduce environmental hazards in
the community.”
A few more specific comments:
Similar to the policies set forth in 2.2 number 28, to “ Seek funding for the
identification, acquisition, preservation, and/or maintenance of historic places and
archaeological, paleontological, and geological sites”, I recommend a policy in
section 2.1 to read “seek funding for conservation surveys and the restoration and
enhancement of natural lands in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve” Your requested
language is too specific. I believe it is covered through the revised language below
regarding funding.
Section 2.3 number 37, please add “ and conservation activities” after “cultural
activities”
Staff will propose your recommended language as shown below.
Encourage local, public, non-profit recreational, and cultural and conservation activities
Section 2.3: add a policy “seek Los Angeles County, state, federal, and private funds
to acquire, improve, and maintain conservation lands”
Staff will propose your recommended language as shown below.
Seek County, State, Federal and private funds to acquire, improve and maintain
conservation and recreational lands.
Sincerely,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
310-541-7613 X204
310-541-7623 (Fax)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
B-98
From:April Sandell
To:So Kim
Cc:PC; CC; Ara Mihranian
Subject:Re: (REVISED NOTICE ) RE: A final Draft of the updated General Plan Document, land use map. And associated
Environmental Assessment. (Received by mail today April 9, 2018)
Date:Friday, May 18, 2018 7:32:38 AM
Hi So,
With all due respect, we see things differently. And in some cases, it appears you didn’t see at all, much
less respond. So, I have provided a single response to your’s in GREEN text below.
Thank you for your time and no hard feelings on my part. Have a nice day.
Regards,
April
P. S. The Ave Feliciano as designated flood zone maps which provided my information are probably much
older than your referenced maps. )
On May 16, 2018, at 1:31 PM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi April,
Below are my responses to your comments in red text.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 7:22 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: (REVISED NOTICE ) RE: A final Draft of the updated General Plan Document,
land use map. And associated Environmental Assessment. (Received by mail today
April 9, 2018)
Dear Ms Kim,
B-99
First of all, please know I don’t have an abundance of leisure time to respond as
fully as I would like. I apologize for the random bullet points noting my various
comments, mis-spellings and/or unclear language.
Notice of Concerning issues:
*pg 240 of 240 “Future Commercial Activity”
Eastview the “ one opportunity: Western Avenue Corridor, Western Avenue
Vision Plan framing the foundation revisions of the Western Ave. Specific Plan
1.
I am concerned this summary of plans is not likely to be read by but a few.
As far as I can tell;
* The document fails to make clear the original General Plan ( around 1975 or so)
did not include the Eastview area. I think residents’ might better understand
the citys' need to revise the General Plan at this time. The General Plan was
adopted in 1975 and the Eastview area was not annexed into the City until 1983.
The purpose of revising the General Plan is not solely to include the Eastview
area. There are other land use designation changes adopted by the City since
1975 that is not reflected as well as the need to update outdated information. I
know the General Plan revisions are not “solely”
limited to the Eastview boundaries. I hoped you
would see the adoption of Eastview into the General
Plan Update is one aspect of the city’s long term
planning that should be high-lighted during the
adoption process. Eastview is exceptional to other
areas of potential land use planning.
*It is not made clear that Western Ave Specific Plan became part of the San
Pedro specific plan a year or two ago. (Sustainable strategies ) (If I am wrong
about this. Let me know) The Western Avenue Specific Plan is a document for
the City of RPV. It was not updated or replaced since its original adoption in
2010.
*. Although, the Borders Issues report was included nothing more was said
about the staff’s / cc decision to reduce the reporting from bi-monthly or monthly
to bi annual. Which happened not too long ago. But obviously not in the best
B-100
interest of those property owners most affected by bordering city issues.
* On a colored coded map…..shows Eastview as light grey “ Open space
Hillside” which seems currently not the case. Open Space Hillside is shown as
light green. The only light grey area is Green Hills Memorial Park, which is
designated Cemetery.
* Somewhere on page 11 and 12 talks about “must resolve” Equal Status potential
conflicts through clear language and policy consistency. It may be folks are
fairly aware of climate change action plans and local energy assurance plans, but
not likely to grasp the over all impact. The document should/ could provide a
broader understanding. On Page 12, it lists criteria that a City’s General Plan
must meet. Once of which is Equal Status Among Elements. All elements of the
general plan have equal legal status. In Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of
Kern County (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, two of Kern County’s general plan
elements, land use and open space, designated conflicting land uses for the same
property. A provision in their general plan text reconciled this and other map
inconsistencies by stating that “if in any instance there is a conflict between the
land use element and the open–space element, the land use element controls.”
The court of appeals struck down this clause because it violated the internal
consistency requirement under Government Code section 65300.5. This holding
affirmed the principle that no element is legally subordinate to another; the
general plan must resolve potential conflicts among its elements through clear
language
and policy consistency.
* Land Use issues Page 140 Commercial , would be better understood by the
community if not so broadly said ‘as warranted for future economic and social
conditions. Page 140, last sentence reads, Due to the length of time that these
businesses have been in existence, and the community’s demand for them, it is
preferable that these sites should not revert to the surrounding land use, but
rather that the sites should retain the flexibility to either continue the existing use
or revert to the underlying land use as warrantedby future economic and social
conditions. The text of the General Plan is intended to be general. We can
certainly entertain using a different synonym, such as “necessitated”, but it will
not provide a better understanding.
* More should be included regarding troublesome canyons, streams, water
drainage and hazard to hillside as related to land reuse and the “built out”
city. The Land Use Element is required to include the general distribution,
location, and extent, including discussions about density and intensity, and
potential for flood for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public
facilities, solid and liquid waste disposal, and other. The General Plan and its
associated elements are not intended to be a detailed descriptive document to
speculate how existing land uses could be reused depending on the site specific
conditions, which may include various topographical conditions.
*# 20 on page 31 Category IV re: public utilities street easement , bikeways, and
right of way, “city shall provide support to the property owners affecting the
easement’ ….clearer terms might be “city will provide compensation’. In the
B-101
past, property owners have dedicated portions of their property as easements for
future trail connections on their property without the City providing any
compensation. While the City may, on a case-by-case basis, provide
compensation for any land acquired, easements are simply the rights to use a
portion of one’s property without taking ownership. Staff recommends that the
policy language
*#21 should be included within #20. Policy #20 is to ensure that the City’s Trails
Network Plan is appropriately reflected in City processes and procedures. Policy
#21 is to ensure that if City land is sold, record any appropriate public
easement/restriction etc. These are two separate policies that should remain
separate.
* establishing a property assessment for under grounding overhead wires. This
could be a big financial burden and I would not like to see the city pursue at city
cost and place lien on the home/property owner, unless this issue is fully
understood as far as city needs and wants are two separate things. Policy #38 is to
Encourage the establishment of undergrounding assessment districts by
homeowners in areas of existing overhead lines. This is not a requirement by the
City. This means that if the homeowners have interest in creating assessment
district to underground existing overhead lines, then the City should encourage
that.
*It’s my understanding the Avenida Feliciano is within a designated potential
flood zone hazard. Given the western most end at Feliciano is set down hill from
the City of Rolling Hills Estates/reservoir and/or open area draining down hill
toward the Ponte Vista/High Park housing development. So, if that is correct ,
then affected residents probably would like some further clarification on potential
risks. Government Code Section 65302(a) requires general plans for cities and
counties to consider those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding
identified by floodplain mapping prepared by FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) or the Department of Water Resources. The Flood
Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (see page 193 of the Draft General
Plan) do not indicate Avenida Feliciano area as designated flood hazard area.
*Traffic Conditions. The document explains just south of PV Dr North to
Delasonde , Delasonde to Trudie , Trudie to Summerland are unacceptable. (Ie
Western Ave. Corridor) I think most would appreciate knowing the standard
meaning of “Acceptable”.Obviously , you can’t explain the details at this point
in adopting a plan yet to be made complete. But everyone knows the traffic
conditions are not great between certain hours but most of the time reasonably
acceptable. Traffic impacts are determined by assessing traffic volumes at
intersections and roadway segments and assigning a level of service (LOS).
Level of service is a method of describing the operating efficiency of a roadway
or intersection. Typically, it is described on a scale from A to F, with F being the
most congested and A representing free-flow conditions. Currently in the City,
intersections and roadways are considered impacted if they exceed LOS D; thus,
A through D are considered “Acceptable.” Please see below for a description of
the “Acceptable” LOS criteria.
B-102
· A - This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is
low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length
is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive
during the green indication and travel through the intersection without
stopping.
· B - This level is assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and
either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A.
· C - This level is typically assigned when progression is favorable or the
cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more
queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity
during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of
vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through
the intersection without stopping.
· D - This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is
high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long.
Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
* Topography/ Extreme slopes as related to development and/or redevelopment
restrictions or not.
* Hydrology (Figure 4) the map shows a good deal of arrows directed near and
around Westmont Center (RPV) and Garden Village Shopping Center ( City of
Los Angeles). Hmm, to say the least.
* 7.3 Eastview Park Specific Plan District. Ability to access and maintain the
underground sewer lines. The city’s intent since 1989. Who knew?
* page 25- higher density/views , values, marketability the developer/builder etc.
etc. ( note; I haven’t the time for further mention on this particular issue. Just
know, Ms. So, Eastview residents did not embrace the Western Avenue Vision
Plan showing/ displaying high-rise buildings on Western Ave. Some may have
changed their opinions in this regard but to the best of my knowledge most think
the Western Avenue Corridor Vision Plans are not on the table any longer.
(Again, I could be wrong about that and I am not speaking on behalf of anyone
but myself.) If they do read the Draft, then they might speak for themselves.
Thank you for the opportunity for public input.
I do want to mention further, a guy with a petition came to our door yesterday or
Saturday. Anyway, the petition sought signatures for a ballot initiative.
Bottomline is, Terrenna Resort (sp?) and Trump Golf course did not plan for
adequate employee parking. Now, this petition seeks to engage the city with a
solution to provide off site parking in another area in the city and/or provide
public transit for San Pedro employees’. I can’t imagine why the city did not
require employee parking at the site during the planning process.
Sincerely,
B-103
April L. Sandell
28026 Pontevedra Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
B-104
From:Charity Malin
To:So Kim
Subject:Re: Comments for General Plan
Date:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:59:27 PM
Hi Ms. Kim
Thank you for sending the comments to me personally. I was able to read them in the Staff
Report. I am sure that you and the other staff members take great care to consider what
additions to the municipal code would be beneficial to our community.
Charity Malin
On May 16, 2018, at 1:41 PM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Ms. Malin,
Below are Staff’s responses to your comments (also addressed in the April 26th Staff
Report that was presented to the City Council).
Proposed noise mitigating construction practices may be burdensome to
homeowners: The Noise Element and the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies
measures to mitigate construction noise. These measures include providing noise
attenuating shields/barriers, placing construction equipment away from sensitive
receptors (neighboring residences), locate equipment in staging areas away from
sensitive receptors, constructing a temporary wall to deteriorate noise attenuating
effects, adjust all audible back-up alarms at the lowest level unless safety
provisions require otherwise, include sound-muffling material to line storage bins
etc., and restricting parking and queuing construction trucks outside of permitted
construction hours. The standard conditions that apply to construction projects
currently include temporary fencing and restricting parking/queuing construction
trucks outside of permitted construction hours. The additional mitigation
measures include the requirement for staging areas to be as far away from
sensitive receptors as feasible and lowering back-up alarms to a level unless safety
provisions require otherwise. Staff does not believe that the additional noise
mitigation measures will create a burden to homeowners as these measures are
recommended only when deemed feasible and practicable.
Proposed Air Quality mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
related to dust mitigation are too vague and difficult to regulate: Mitigation
measures AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-6 related to dust mitigation are not new
requirements. These are standard conditions that apply to all projects both
ministerial and discretionary.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
B-105
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Charity Malin [mailto:charityjmalin@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:07 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments for General Plan
<General Plan Comments.pdf>
B-106
From:So Kim
To:"Gwen"
Cc:Robert Nemeth; Ara Mihranian; judy.rochat@gmail.com; Jim; jrodjensen@me.com; CC; "Jeff Calvagna"
Subject:RE: Revised General Plan - 8.16.2018
Date:Friday, August 17, 2018 8:10:00 AM
Hi Gwen,
Thank you for working closely with Robert in strengthening the Aircraft Noise discussion in the Draft
General Plan. Per the City Council’s direction, I’m copying the Council with the email chain between
you and Robert so that they are aware that your concerns have been addressed.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Gwen [mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:08 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Final Edit - Aircraft and Train Noise Impacts Section in the General Plan
Excellent!
From: Robert Nemeth [mailto:rnemeth@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:42 PM
To: Gwen
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Final Edit - Aircraft and Train Noise Impacts Section in the General Plan
Good afternoon Gwen,
Thank you for your recommendations on the Aircraft and Train Noise Impacts
Section.
The content was edited a final time for consistency with the remainder of the General
Plan and submitted to the City Council (see below).
6.4 Aircraft and Train Noise Impacts
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began implementing the Southern
California Metroplex in 2017. The Metroplex redesigned some jet flight paths over
Southern California to improve the efficiency and safety of the air travel, as well as
minimizing adverse impacts to communities. According to the Metroplex, there are
currently no regularly scheduled flight paths over the City from Los Angeles
International and Long Beach airports, which are major airports serving the greater
B-107
Los Angeles area. However, there is a history of jet flights over the City that deviate
from the FAA’s jet departure flight paths resulting in impacts to the City. In response,
the City has been an active member on the LAX Community Noise Roundtable since
2000 to address jet overflight noise impacts to ensure a continued serene quality of
life for its City’s residents. The LAX Community Noise Roundtable is a forum that
provides a mechanism that attempts to ensure cooperation between the FAA, Los
Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and local impacted communities in achieving noise
impact reduction to those communities. The City is developing a long-term,
cooperative and direct relationship with the FAA, LAWA, other public agencies, and
local airport facility managers to mitigate noise impacts from jets and low flying
aircrafts (i.e. light sport, ultralights, banner planes) over the City particularly
residential neighborhoods, public parks, the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, and the
shoreline.
The City is also involved with issues related to helicopter routes to and from Torrance
Airport. In 2011, the “South Crenshaw” helicopter route was approved by the
Torrance City Council, based in part upon input from the City. This route avoids
subjecting sensitive receptors—such as the Terranea Resort, Abalone Cove
Shoreline Park, and residences in the Portuguese Bend community—to helicopter
noise. The City plans to continue working with other Roundtables, public agencies
and airport facility managers (i.e Hawthorne Airport, Torrance Airport) to mitigate
noise impacts from civilian-operated helicopters over the City particularly residential
neighborhoods, public parks, the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, and the shoreline..
The City has no railroad lines either in or abutting the City.
Robert Nemeth
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5285
From: Gwen [mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 11:18 AM
To: Robert Nemeth
Cc: Jim; gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com
Subject: FW: Revised General Plan - 8.3.2018
Hello Robert,
Your revisions are very good.
I would suggest adding a sentence after the first sentence in your text and revising the next few
sentence:
However, as there is a history of overflights of the City occurring that do not meet the FAA guidelines
to do so only if a safety issue makes it necessary The City will continue to be an active member of
the LAX Community Noise Roundtable.
The City has been a member since 2000 to help ensure a continued serene living quality of the City.
B-108
The LAX Community Roundtable is a forum……………………..
Hope you find this helpful.
Best,
Gwen
6.4 Aircraft and Train Noise Impacts
There are currently no regularly scheduled jet flight paths over the City from Los Angeles
International and Long Beach, which are major regional airports. Nevertheless, to ensure a
continued serene living quality of the City, the City has been a member of LAX’s
Community Noise Roundtable since 2000. The LAX Community Noise Roundtable is a
forum that provides a mechanism that attempts to ensure cooperation between the
airport and local impacted communities in achieving noise impact reduction to those
communities. The City plans to continue its involvement with the LAX Community Noise
Roundtable to reduce jet noise impacts that occur over the City. The City plans to develop
a long-term, cooperative and direct relationship with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), other public agencies and airport facility managers to mitigate noise impacts from
jets and low flying aircrafts (i.e. light sport, ultralights, banner planes) over resident homes,
public parks and the shoreline.
The City is also involved with issues related to helicopter routes to and from Torrance
Airport. In 2011, the “South Crenshaw” helicopter route was approved by the Torrance
City Council, based in part upon input from the City. This route avoids subjecting sensitive
receptors—such as the Terranea Resort, Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, and residences in
the Portuguese Bend community—to helicopter noise. The City plans to continue working
with other Roundtables, public agencies and airport facility managers (i.e. Hawthrone
Airport, Torrance Airport) to mitigate noise impacts from civilian-operated helicopters
over resident homes, public parks and the shoreline..
The City has no railroad lines either in or abutting the City.
From: Robert Nemeth [mailto:rnemeth@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 9:36 AM
To: Gwen
Cc: 'Jim'
Subject: Revised General Plan - 8.3.2018
Hi Gwen,
Your comments were exactly what I was requesting (and you are correct about the challenges of
general plan versus details).
Would you review these revisions and offer feedback one more time?
Thank you.
--Robert
From: Gwen [mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com]
B-109
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:49 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Jim' <jimmaclellan714@aol.com>
Subject: RE: General Plan - Revision to address sport aircraft
Thanks Robert,
I hope I did not offend you, I do realize that for language in the general plan it is hard to include
details.
Gwen
From: Robert Nemeth [mailto:rnemeth@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:41 PM
To: Gwen
Cc: Jim
Subject: RE: General Plan - Revision to address sport aircraft
Thank you for taking the time to make these suggestions, Gwen.
Let me revise my previously written draft then send it to you soon.
Robert Nemeth
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5285
From: Gwen [mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 5:22 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Jim <jimmaclellan714@aol.com>; gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com
Subject: FW: General Plan - Revision to address sport aircraft
Hi Robert,
Thanks for sending this to us to review!
The attached language is not adequate and is poorly written.
Reading the attached proposed revision you would think there never has been
any jets flying over PV.
It makes the helicopter problem seem very insignificant.
It does not address Ultralights adequately even though the last sentence is ok,
but too weak and not clear enough.
Ultralights come from Hawthorne Airport and only Torrance airport regarding
helicopters is mentioned.
The attachment states:
B-110
“The City plans to continue its involvement with the LAX Community Noise
Roundtable to reduce aircraft noise impacts that may occur over or close to
the City.”
Reading this plan language you would think you have no overflights from LAX
and that you just go to the Roundtable to monitor what is happening. The
language attached and cut and pasted above would make you think we are
waiting to have the first jet fly over us.
I believe the recent work regarding jets who do overfly the peninsula should be
included. Mention of working with the FAA should be considered to be added.
Also, there is not mention that helicopters and ultralights fly too low and too
close to homes and serene places like Abalone Cove, Terranea, Trump, Point
Vicente and homes along the coast line. The attached does not include
parkland at Lower Pt Vicente or mention parkland at Trump or near Terranea.
Besides the impacted Portuguese Bend Community the language should add
the community between Point Vicente and Lunada Bay. There are many
homes on the bluff top severely impacted. We live a few blocks above PV
Drive West and are impacted. The helicopters, ultralights, banner planes
and some small private aircraft often fly too low and close to shore and
homes.
Also the first sentence should just address rail and not be mixed with Aircraft.
I would also add banner planes that are extremely noisy and fly close to
sensitive areas along the coast (parkland, hotel, homes).
I hope you can help re-write this General Plan revision into a meaningful
revision to the general plan.
Thanks again,
Gwen
From: Robert Nemeth [mailto:rnemeth@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 8:34 AM
To: 'Gwen'; Jim
Subject: General Plan - Revision to address sport aircraft
Hi Gwen and Jim,
The City proposes the attached revision to address low flying light sport aircraft (e.g. ultralights). If
you get a chance, would you let me know your thoughts (by Friday August 3 if possible or before
Monday August 6)? Thank you!
B-111
Robert Nemeth
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5285
B-112
From:Katherine Pilot
To:CC
Cc:Ara Mihranian; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; Emily Colborn; pbvilla@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com;
dennisgardner@me.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; pdownjac@hotmail.com; ksnell0001@aol.com;
leetwid@yahoo.com; So Kim; CityManager; sunshinerpv@aol.com
Subject:Request to remove Vanderlip Drive & Narcissa Drive from Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan
hearing April 26
Date:Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:44:55 AM
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map hearing April 26, 2018.
This is to request the removal of Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive from the “Draft
General Plan” map designating these drives as “Open Space Preserve”.
Including Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive on the map as open space will encourage
more unwelcome trespassers onto the drives and into Portuguese Bend Association
neighborhood inviting excess traffic in this small gated community, crime and trash.
Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive have been the only access to multiple private
residences beginning in the 1900’s and needs to remain as such.
- What restrictions are placed on the “Open Space Preserve” mapping change in the “General
Plan” for Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive?
- How does the City intend to manage the roadway maintenance and the trail access? - What
fire abatement can be performed on and adjacent to each drive?
Has RPV notified the owners of properties having easements to these drives? If not, please do
not approve this designation on the map as “Open Space Preserve” until the owners of the
easements are notified and have an opportunity to comment on the change. RPV City Council
needs to protect their residents and property rights.
Should the driveway have been deeded to the residences on each drive, pre-NCCP, due to
liability issues but was overlooked by staff?
Respectfully,
Katie Pilot
Daughter of Kathy Snell - 8 Vanderlip Driveway, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11698
Sent while I'm on the go...
Katherine Pilot
Executive District Manager, Independent Consultant
ID# 22562816 | t. 310.809.3661
KatherinePilot.arbonne.com
Arbonne International
USA • UK • Canada • Australia • New Zealand • Poland • Taiwan
SWISS FORMULATED • BOTANICALLY BASED • VEGAN • GREEN • GLUTEN FREE
ANTI-AGING | SKIN CARE | COSMETICS | NUTRITION | WEIGHT LOSS | DETOX
B-113
B
-
1
1
4
B
-
1
1
5
B
-
1
1
6
From:So Kim
To:Jaeehee
Subject:FW: New Newsflash Public Notice- 5741 Crestridge Road (Location) For rpvca.gov
Date:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 9:37:00 AM
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 9:37 AM
To: 'SUNSHINE' <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Interim IT Manager
<interimitmgr@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: New Newsflash Public Notice- 5741 Crestridge Road (Location) For rpvca.gov
Dear SUNSHINE,
Please see my responses to your comments in red below. As couple of your comments pertain to the
General Plan, I am copying the City Council.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 2:58 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Interim IT Manager <interimitmgr@rpvca.gov>; So Kim
<SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: New Newsflash Public Notice- 5741 Crestridge Road (Location) For rpvca.gov
More about the proposed antenna on Crestridge
Hi Ara and??,
So Kim has not yet acknowledged my email regarding this project and the draft Land
Use Map Update. While I am waiting on that, here are more Administrative and IT
related concerns.
I will be responding to all emails received regarding the draft General Plan and associated land use
map by the end of next week.
The direct address to the NOTICE is
B-117
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11911
Why don’t your people put that in the Public Notices? Once one finds this particular
document, it is in a format which does not allow one to highlight, copy and paste the
details needed to create a specific Subject Line without retyping all those specific
titles and numbers. That is not usually the case. And, in this case, the NOTICE
does not provide Jaehee Yoon’s email address.
We prepare the notices early as the newspaper requires that we email them the final version by
Monday of the same week for publishing (Thursday). When there’s a holiday that falls on a Monday
(e.g. Memorial Day), the notices are due to the paper by either Thursday or Friday, the week before
the publishing date. As the notice is not uploaded online until afterwards, the direct link is not
available on the notice itself. As for making scanned PDFs copy/paste-able, we will look into it.
The upcoming public hearing is for the Planning Commission to determine if the project is consistent
with the General Plan. The public hearing is not to discuss the merits of the project. If you have
comments on the project itself you will need to contact Tomas Molina with LA-RICS Authority at
323-881-8165 or tmolina@citadelcpm.com. If you have any comments on the Gen Plan consistency,
please contact Jaehee at jyoon@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5224.
Is this one of those situations in which the potentially impacted private citizens who
use the surrounding Institutional facilities and the Nature Reserve have no influence
on what LA County is proposing to construct? The residents have the ability to comment
directly to Tomas Molina with the LA-RICS Authority at 323-881-8165 or tmolina@citadelcpm.com.
He explained that they have their own public noticing process.
How can anyone comment on the “consistency” with the General Plan about this
proposal if the existing facility is not specifically addressed? Since it is not on the
current Land Use Map (HAZARD) and not on the draft Update (HILLSIDE), where is
it covered in the existing text? Is a new 150 foot tall tower supposed to get
“grandfathered in”? This “antenna farm” predates the City’s incorporation. Please
respond on or before June 4 so that I can choose to comment prior to June 5, 2018.
The 1975 General Plan Land Use Map designates the entire area along Crestridge Road as
Institutional-Educational. Under the corresponding Institutional zoning district, Public facilities
owned or used and operated for governmental purposes by the city, the county, the state and the
government of the United States of America, and any other special district or other local agency may
be permitted by a Conditional Use Permit. Interestingly, as this lot is currently owned by LA County,
projects on that property are not subject to City approval.
Vigilant as ever. …S 310-377-8761
From: listserv@civicplus.com
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent: 5/17/2018 10:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
B-118
Subject: New Newsflash Public Notice- 5741 Crestridge Road (Location) For
rpvca.gov
View this in your browser
This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be interested in
its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our
apologies, and unsubscribe by following the instructions at the bottom of this message.
* * * * * * *
May 17, 2018
Public Notice- 5741 Crestridge Road
(Location)
The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7 p.m.…
Read on
* * * * * * *
This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be interested in
its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our
apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx ;
Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your
explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Public Notices on
www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
B-119
From:So Kim
To:CityClerk
Subject:Late Correspondence
Date:Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:41:00 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: So Kim
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:41 AM
To: 'Ortolano' <ortolanor@yahoo.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: FW: Settlement Agreement - Ortolano
Hi Mr. Ortolano,
In reviewing the minutes for the February 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, I stand corrected. While Staff
recommended that the land use designation be changed to reflect the Settlement Agreement, the Commission voted
to keep the existing land use designation. Staff will be reporting both the Planning Commission's recommendation
on this matter (not change the land use) as well as Staff's position (change the land use) to the City Council for their
consideration at tonight's meeting.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
-----Original Message-----
From: Ortolano [mailto:ortolanor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:21 AM
To: Ortolano <ortolanor@yahoo.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: FW: Settlement Agreement - Ortolano
Dear Ms. Kim:
To the contrary, the Planning Commission voted to retain the current zoning, not to change it. You are proposing to
change it.
Furthermore, your department claims my lot is unbuildable only because you persist in maintaining RS-1 zoning on
a lot that is slightly larger than 1/3 acre, in a neighborhood where that lot is surrounded by about 590 RS-3 lots.
Which is more consistent with maintaining the tax base of our residential community, with its increasingly limited
taxable land: RS-3 or Open Space Hazard? Which would benefit the community more?
With respect to the Settlement Agreement you reference, I was deploying on a Navy ship for an extended period
during which I'd be completely incommunicado with my attorney (back then, we didn't have all the
communications we have today; and this was a sealift ship with limited communications, not a combatant). Your
attorney literally said that the City "would litigate until the cows came home" while I was on deployment. In a
"supreme act of respect for our armed forces" (sarcasm intended), the City took advantage of this situation to
advance that settlement, which was literally signed the day I deployed.
It is absolutely NOT consistent with the previous act of the Planning Commission to now change this zoning in what
you propose to present to the City Council. I am unaware of any different action purported to have been conducted
on March 27, 2018. I've been out of town for several months.
B-120
Sincerely,
Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr.
OrtolanoR@yahoo.com
310-982-5499
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/25/18, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Subject: FW: Settlement Agreement - Ortolano
To: "Ortolano" <ortolanor@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Ara Mihranian" <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 5:55 PM
Hi
Mr. Ortolano,
I
was forwarded your voicemail regarding your concerns with the proposed land use change for what is now known
as 3778 Coolheights. You may recall having email
exchanges with me, before this item was presented to the Planning Commission in 2015 at a duly noticed public
hearing.
In
a nutshell, in September 1998, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with you to resolve a land dispute.
According to the
Settlement Agreement, Parcel C (see below) of a former developer-owned lot and Parcel E (see below) of a City-
owned Forrestal property were conveyed to you.
It should be emphasized that consistent with the Settlement Agreement, grant deeds were recorded for both parcels
C and E (now known as 3778 Coolheights Drive) that prevent any construction, improvements, and developments
that would require permits from the
City. The purpose of a residential land use designation is to allow residential use, including the development of a
home. Since residential use is not allowed on the subject lot per the recorded grant deeds that run with the land,
the current Residential
land use designation is inconsistent. As a result, the Planning Commission in 2015 agreed with Staff’s
recommendation to change this land use from Residential to Natural Environment/Hazard.
This was reconfirmed on March 27, 2018. The Planning Commission’s role is advisory to the City Council. So
their recommendation to change this land use will be presented to the City Council at its upcoming public hearing
tomorrow night. A public notice was
issued in the Peninsula News, a hard copy mailed to you and your neighbors, made available and the City’s
website, and announcement of availability made via a list serve message.
B-121
As
a reminder, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (Section
3.2.4), you or your representatives shall not oppose, protest or otherwise object to a General Plan amendment to
B-122
designate parcels C and E as “Natural Environment/Hazard” and a corresponding zoning designation of “Open-
Space Hazard”. Those provisions were
included in the Settlement Agreement because it was the intent of the parties that the General Plan and Zoning
designations would be changed, as currently proposed by Staff, so that the newly created lot could be maintained
and used as it was at the time of
the settlement agreement and not developed with a residence. Attached are the recorded grant deeds and
Settlement Agreement.
Please
feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
So
Kim,
AICP
Deputy
Director/Planning Manager
Community
Development Department
City
of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310)
544-5222
B-123
B
-
1
2
4
B
-
1
2
5
B
-
1
2
6
B
-
1
2
7
B
-
1
2
8
B
-
1
2
9
B
-
1
3
0
B
-
1
3
1
B
-
1
3
2
B
-
1
3
3
B
-
1
3
4
B
-
1
3
5
B
-
1
3
6
B
-
1
3
7
B
-
1
3
8
B
-
1
3
9
B
-
1
4
0
B
-
1
4
1
B
-
1
4
2
B
-
1
4
3
BASELINE DRAFT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WITH
TRACK CHANGES SINCE THE APRIL 26, 2018
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
INTRODUCTION
1 Palos Verdes Peninsula
The residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are the beneficiaries of a unique geography,
formed from millions of years of volcanic activity, plate tectonics and terracing from changing
sea levels. The nine-mile wide Peninsula, once an island, now rises above the Los Angeles
Basin to a maximum of 1,480 feet, with uniquely terraced configurations and steep, rocky cliffs
jutting upward 50 to 300 feet from the ocean. Erosion has contributed to the creation of
numerous steep-walled canyons. These physical characteristics give the Peninsula magnificent
views of the Los Angeles Basin, the Mountain Ranges of Santa Monica, San Gabriel and Santa
Ana, the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor.
The Peninsula’s history is equally interesting, from the Native American Tongva people who
migrated to the area, the Spanish explorers and missionaries, cattle ranchers of the Rancho de
los Palos Verdes land grant , and to the whalers of the late 19th century. The early 20th century
brought interest in developing the land for residential use, the Palos Verdes Project and
formation of its present -day cities.
With its magnificent views, beautiful rolling terrain, mild climate, and clean air, the Peninsula is
a most desirable place to live. Home construction began in the 1920’s and has continued to
the present. The rate of construction increased dramatically in the 1960’s, substantially
increasing the area’s density, primarily in the unincorporated areas of the Peninsula now known
as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
2 History of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
At the close of the 19th Century, the Palos Verdes Peninsula was inhabited solely by a few cattle
ranchers and sheepherders. The Land was mostly covered with nothing more than native
vegetation. Then, for a brief period in the early 1900s, the Peninsula enjoyed prosperity not
only as a cattle ranch, but also as a rich farming area. Japanese families farmed the most
southern slopes, growing fields of beans, peas, and tomatoes, while barley, hay, and grain were
grown on the dryer northern slopes. In 1913, Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National
Bank of New York, purchased the 16,000-acre Palos Verdes Peninsula with a vision to develop
the “most fashionable and exclusive residential colony” in the nation. Unfortunately, his dream
was put on hold after the Stock Market Crash, the Great Depression and the onset of World
War II. None of these setbacks, however, reduced the beauty of the Palos Verdes Peninsula or
its potential desirability as a residential area.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 1 C-1
In July 1953, the Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, which was leasing land on the Peninsula for
mining, purchased 7,000 acres of prime undeveloped land from the Vanderlip family. After
several unsuccessful mining attempts, the Great Lakes Corporation abandoned its mining
operations and hired a group of skilled architects and engineers to create a master plan for
development of its vast property. Palos Verdes Estates had incorporated in 1939, and just prior
to the great building boom in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the cities of Rolling Hills and
Rolling Hills Estates both incorporated in 1957.
Fueled by the master plan and the post WW II economic growth in the South Bay area, the
remaining unincorporated part of the Peninsula (now the City of Rancho Palos Verdes), which
remained under the control of the County of Los Angeles, began to develop rapidly as the
County granted more zone changes for higher density construction with little regard for the
Peninsula’s beauty, openness, or sensitive environment. During the 1960’s, the citizens of the
unincorporated area repeatedly attempted to convince the County to restrain from this kind
of uncontrolled developed and to institute planning and zoning regulations more consistent
with the area’s unique qualities. Homeowners’ associations bonded into the Peninsula Advisory
Council, and the citizens’ group Save Our Coastline was created to consolidate efforts to
promote proper limitations on the development of the Peninsula’s coastal areas. The majority
of such attempts failed, however, as the County repeatedly authorized higher density uses of
many pristine areas of the community.
Efforts to incorporate the Peninsula’s fourth city (Rancho Palos Verdes) began in 1962 and
intensified in 1969 when the County’s new Master Plan for the Peninsula authorized population
density far greater than that desired by the local residents. After many legal battles and several
disappointing setbacks, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in September 1972,
in Curtis vs. Board of Supervisors, that landowners could not prevent voters from determining
their municipal government. After this court decision, the Local Area Formation Commission
(LAFCO) permitted a citywide election to take place and on August 28, 1973, an overwhelming
majority of 5 to 1 of the residents of the unincorporated portion of the Peninsula voted in favor
of incorporation and elected its five City Council members. With its incorporation, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes became the youngest of the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula,
each of which had incorporated for the same basic reason – to take control of planning and
policy implementation over the area in order to preserve its natural beauty, openn ess, and
small community atmosphere.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located at the southwest tip of Los Angeles County (See
Figure 1 – Regional Vicinity). It covers 13.5 square miles of land and 7.5 miles of coastline and
has a population of 42,448 (2013). Utilizing a council manager form of government, the City’s
governing body, the City Council, is responsible for establishing policy, passing local
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 2 C-2
ordinances, voting appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the City. The City
Council appoints a city manager to oversee the daily operations of the government and
implement policies it establishes. The City was also formed as a contract city, contracting for
public services such as police and fire protectio n.
Fueled by a Los Angeles County (County) master plan and the post-World War II economic
growth in the South Bay area, the remaining unincorporated part of the Peninsula (now the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes), began to develop rapidly as the County granted several zone
changes allowing higher-density construction. Little regard was paid to the Peninsula’s beauty,
openness, or sensitive environment. During the 1960’s the leaders of the three existing cities
and citizens of the unincorporated area repeatedly attempted to convince the County to
restrain uncontrolled development and institute planning and zoning regulations more
compatible with the area’s unique qualities.
In the mid-1960’s the Peninsula Advisory Council, a group of homeowner associations from
the unincorporated areas was created to provide more clout in negotiations with the County.
The Peninsula Advisory Council along with representatives from the three incorporated
Peninsula cities-Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills repeatedly met with
the County and developers to encourage proper limitations on the development of the
Peninsula’s coastal area.
The E e mergence of Save Our Coastline (SOC).
The failure of this coalition of city leaders and the Peninsula Advisory Council’s efforts to restrain
unbridled development became evident when, in December 1969, the County surprised the
Peninsula representatives by unveiling and adopting a new Master Plan for the area , known as
the Bevash Plan . This plan enabled high -density uses including high-rise developments (up to
73 units per acre) along the coastline.
It was evident that if the unincorporated area was to be preserved, a different strategy was
necessary. The incorporation of the Peninsula’s fourth city efforts now intensified. In April 1970,
Save Our Coastline (SOC) was created. Its function was to bring about the incorporation of the
Peninsula’s unincorporated areas in order to establish local control.
SOC now faced a major challenge. The annexation laws at the time required that the assessed
value of the land owned by the signatories needed to represent 25% of the total assessed land
value of the proposed city. In addition, the incorporation attempt could be killed if 50% plus
one of the assessed value of land ownership protested incorporation . The major developers
opposing the incorporation controlled 38% of the assessed value of land so they needed only
12% more to defeat the incorporation attempt. This they accomplished. SOC filed a lawsuit in
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 3 C-3
a California Su perior Court contesting the constitutionality of a law that was based on assessed
value of land rather than one-man one vote as specified in the 14th amendment.
After a number of legal battles and several disappointing defeats suffered by SOC, the
California Superior Court declared that using assessed value of land, as a basis for determining
the outcome of an election was unconstitutional. This ruling was promptly appealed to the
California Supreme Court. SOC enjoyed success when the State Supreme Court refused to hear
the appeal, thereby allowing the Superior Court’s ruling to stand.
Embolden by the legal victory, SOC petitioned the County Board of Supervisors to accept the
signatures on the initial petition and continue the incorporation process, since the number of
voters exceeded the 25% filing requirement and the developers protest fell well short of the
50% plus one requirement. SOC’s request was approved by a slim 3 to 2 vote by the Board of
Supervisors.
Rancho Palos Verdes Become the Peninsula’s Fourth City
The County agency responsible for conducting incorporations, the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), set the election for the proposed city of Rancho Palos Verdes on August
28, 1973. Some 80% of the registered voters went to the polls and voted by a margin of 5 to
1 for cityhood. The name Rancho Palos Verdes was approved and 5 candidates out of a field
of 24 challengers were elected to the first City Council. They were Dave (Cisco) Ruth, Guenther
Burke, Marilyn Ryan, Ken Dyda and Bob Ryan.
The boundaries of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) now covered the remaining portions of the
unincorporated area within the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District boundaries. Three
unincorporated Peninsula areas were not included, the first two known as Academy Hills and
Westfield were excluded because they were not contiguous to the Rancho Palos Verdes
Boundaries. The third area known as Eastview or the Western Avenue corridor was excluded
due to a lack of enthusiasm for the incorporation. When the petition drive for incorporation
was initiated, it quickly became apparent to SOC that the unincorporated area along Western
Avenue (which was outside the school district boundaries) provided little support for cityhood.
As a result the boundaries for the incorporation were ch anged to exclude that area. Other
than a few minor boundary adjustments with Rolling Hills Estates, the Rancho Palos Verdes
boundaries remained the same for the next ten years.
Major Annexation Enlarges the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Later, a major annexation consisting of an estimated 9,055 population and 840 acres changed
the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. When the Eastview area was deleted from
the proposed RPV boundaries, SOC committed to consider annexation if cityhood was
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 4 C-4
achieved. Shortly after the successful incorporation, an offer was made to the Eastview area to
annex to the new city. This offer was rejected.
A short time later, the city of Lomita began eyeing the Eastview area as an annexation target.
Many Eastview residents were opposed to becoming part of Lomita and requested that Rancho
Palos Verdes initiate annexation proceedings for their area. RPV could not intervene since the
Lomita annexation was underway. However, with the apparent strong opposition to becoming
part of Lomita, the annexation boundaries were redrawn by Lomita to eliminate the Eastview
area. With that action the gateway to annexing to Rancho Palos Verdes was open to the
residents of Eastview. Again, since the apparent threat from Lomita was removed, the residents
of Eastview declined the opportunity to annex to Rancho Palos Verdes.
Another threat to the Eastview area arose when the City of Los Angeles published an
annexation program that included several small-unincorporated areas in its boundaries. A
schedule indicted that the Eastview area would be the second annexation attempt. Annexation
law provided that the entire population of the annexing city and the population of the
proposed annex area would determine whether annexation would occur. Eastview residents
recognized that the large City of Los Angeles vote would undoubtedly overwhelm their meager
vote count and force annexation. Not wanting to be part of the City of Los Angeles, the
Eastview residents again petitioned the City of to begin annexation prior to any attempt by the
city of Los Angeles. An updated financial feasibility report prepared by the Ccity of concluded
that anticipated revenues would cover projected expenses, and that the City should proceed
with annexation.
Not withstanding this recommendation to proceed with annexation, the Eastview residents
decided to implement the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 (MORGA) and take it upon
themselves to annex to Rancho Palos Verdes. The MORGA Act required that the annexing area
must have a contiguous boundary and share infrastructure with the adjoining city. Eastview
met these provisions. The unique aspect of the MORGA was that only the residents of the area
to be annexed could vote. The residents of Rancho Palos Verdes could not vote in an election
that would add 20% more registered voters to the City.
In November of 1978, a group of Eastview residents submitted an annexation petition to
LAFCO to annex to Rancho Palos Verdes. LAFCO undertook an environmental study and,
finding no significant environmental impact, filed a negative declaration. Following a series of
hearings, and after excluding a portion of Eastview from the annexation, LAFCO approved the
proposal and directed the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to call a special election at which only
the residents of Eastview could vote whether to approve or disapprove annexation. The
residents voted in favor of annexation.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 5 C-5
On June 28, 1979, a coalition of Rancho Palos Verdes residents and homeowners associations
in the City, filed suit against LAFCO and its executive officers. The suit sought a declaration that
the provisions of the 1977 Act concerning annexations of inhabited territory were
unconstitutional and an injunction restraining defendants from executing a certificate of
completion. The injunction was denied and the matter was remanded to the superior court.
After more litigation, the MORGA Act was ruled constitutional and on January 5, 1983 the
Eastview annexation area officially became a part of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Today
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located at the southwest tip of Los Angeles County (Figure
1, Regional Vicinity). It covers 13.5 square miles of land and 7.5 miles of coastline and has a
population of 42,448 as of 2016. Using a council-manager form of government, the City’s
governing body, the City Council, is responsible for establishing policy, passing local
ordinances, voting appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the City. The City
Council appoints a city manager to oversee the daily operation of the government and
implement policies it establishes. The City was also formed as a contract city, contracting for
many services including police. Fire is handled by the Los Angeles Fire District and Library by
the Palos Verdes Library District. Education is provided by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District.
With its incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes became the youngest of the four cities
on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, each of which had incorporated for the same basic reason – to
take control of planning and policy implementation over the area in order to preserve its
natural beauty, openness and small community atmosphere.
Today, as a result of the foresight of its founders and residents, the City continues to offer
magnificent views, open spaces, and clean air and remains as an extremely desirable place to
live.
With its magnificent views, beautiful rolling terrain, mild climate, and clean air, the Peninsula is
a most desirable place to live. Home construction began in the 1920’s and has continued to
the present. The rate of construction increased dramatically in the 1960’s, substantially
increasing the area’s density, primarily in the unincorporated areas of the Peninsula now known
as the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
3 What is a general plan and what are its regulatory requirements?
Like many other parts of the country, major milestones in California’s planning law date to the
early 1900s, when California’s cities began to experience significant development and increases
in population. Subsequently, in 1937, California directed all of its cities and counties to adopt
a general plan “for the physical development of the county or city” (Gov’t Code §65300).
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 6 C-6
o Circulation Element identifies the general location and extent of existing and
proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other local public utilities
and facilities.
o Housing Element assesses current and projected housing needs for all economic
segments of the community.
o Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural
resources.
o Open Space Element details plans and measures for the long-range preservation
and conservation of open-space lands.
o Noise Element identifies and addresses issues related to noise.
o Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from
risks associated with such things as seismic or geologic hazards, floods, and wildfires.
In addition to these mandatory elements, a city may also include optional elements in its
general plan. The City’s original General Plan, adopted in 1975, included the following three
additional optional components/elements—Fiscal, Environmental Justice, and Sensory
Environment—and these have been included in this General Plan (note the Sensory
Environment element was been incorporated into the new Visual Resources Element).
4 Adoption of the General Plan
The City’s first General Plan was adopted on June 26, 1975, less than 2 years after incorporation.
Since its adoption, the General Plan has received only minor amendments. Apart from state-
mandated Housing Element updates, the last significant update occurred in 1984 to address
the Eastview Annexation.
At it s January 12, 2002, meeting, the City Council discussed master plan issues and specifically
focused on updating the City’s General Plan. The City Council acknowledged that portions of
the General Plan needed updating and directed staff to take the initial steps to assist the City
Council in determining the direction and extent of the needed update. The City Council
expressed that a thorough review of the goals and policies was a necessary first step and that
this would help to define the direction and extent of future updating work to be conducted by
the Council, staff, and the community. Further, as in the effort to adopt the 1975 General Plan,
the City Council expressed the importance of including public input, encouraging the use of
local talent within the community, and specifically forming a General Plan Update Steering
Committee to assist in the update process. The City Council then determined that one person
from each of the following commissions, committees, and organizations within the community
(but two persons from the Planning Commission) should be represented on the General Plan
Update Steering Committee:
City’s Planning Commission
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 9 C-7
DEFINITIONS
Active Landslide: An area presently undergoing downslope movement.
Active Recreation: Active recreation activity requiring significant expenditure of energy, e.g.,
baseball, golf, hiking. Recreational activities generally found within formal and structured
facilities.
Activity Area: A given area within the City for which a particular land use is suited and is so
designated.
Ambient Noise: The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, usually
being a composite of sounds from many sources, near and far.
Amenities: An attractive or desirable feature of a place; anything that adds to ones comfort or
convenience; pleasant qualities.
Arterial Street : Main channel for the movement of vehicles and is not intended to be a
residential street.
Biotic Resources: All plant and animal organisms, both marine and terrestrial.
Buffer Zone: A zone or area which exhibits a dampening effect between two unlike areas; e.g.,
open space between commercial areas and residential areas.
Buildout: An area which has achieved its maximum development potential has achieved its
buildout.
Coastal Setback Line/Bluff Setback: A boundary established in the discussion starting on Page
CO-8. Due to possible risks to human life or property, no development will be allowed to
proceed without a detailed engineering and geology study which demonstrates site stability
and suitability for development.
Collector Street: Conducts traffic between arterials and sometimes links with other collectors.
Cluster Development: A technique of grouping structures in a given area for the purpose of
conserving and creating open space, lowering construction and materials costs, conserving
energy, and creating a more secure environment.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 11 C-8
Old Landslide: An area determined to have had past movement and/or identified in the
California Department of Conservation’s landslide-inventory maps that portray the location of
prior failure.
Open Space Land: Any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and
devoted to an open-space use for the purposes of (1) the preservation of natural resources,
(2) outdoor recreation, or (3) public health and safety.
Overlay Control District: Areas within the City which possess special natural, social, cultural, or
urban features which warrant control of development.
Passive Recreation: Outdoor recreation activities that are non -structured in nature (picknicking,
sightseeing, nature study areas, etc.). Recreational activities generally found within informal
and unstructured areas that do not require specialized facilities.
Planned Unit Development (PUD): PUD refers to a development which has been completely
planned by an architect, land planner, or developer which affords him arrangement flexibility
not previously available. It implements planning for a diversification of dwelling types and
aesthetic variety, while assuring that overall density standards will not be violated. Through
various options or combinations of options (grid, cluster, etc.) open to the planner, more
efficient use of the land can be made. Large common open areas, integrated land u se
designed to serve the needs of the residents, lower development costs per unit, and housing
for a wider range of income levels are some of the amenities associated with Planned Unit
Developments. These can all be achieved through a well designed PUD at a lower cost of
construction per unit. Many PUD’s are able to offer an amenity such as a lake or golf course
as a focal point for the development.
Possible Landslide: An area suspected to be a landslide on the basis of topographic evidence.
Quimby Act: This act (also known as the Park and Land Dedication Act of 1965) allows the
local government to impose a fee or require dedication of land or both, to be used for park or
recreation purposes only, by an applicant requesting approval of a final subdivision map.
Seismic Safety: Safety measures taken to prevent loss of life and/or property due to natural or
man made earthquakes and tremors.
Seismic Zone: Areas which have been divided and categorized according to the impacts which
would occur as a result of an earthquake or earth tremor.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 14 C-9
3.Facilitate mobility of residents through an adequate public transportation system with
consideration of the City's demographics.
4.Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that there are adequate storm
drain, water systems and sewer systems to serve the residents.
5.Where appropriate, utilize complete street concepts to integrate the needs of all users
of the roadway system consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.
2 Policies
2.1 Transportation Systems
1.Design public access in to residential areas to control non -local traffic.
2.Require any new developments or redevelopment to provide streets wide enough to
support the City’s future traffic needs and to address potential impacts to nearby
intersections resulting from such developments.
3.Encourage synchronization and coordination of traffic signals along arterials.
4.Future residential developments shall provide direct access to roadways other than
arterials.
5.Work with other Peninsula cities and/or regional agencies to improve public
transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the
region.
6.Implement the Trail Network Plan to meet the recreational needs of the community,
while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula.
7.Coordinate and cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop trail networks.
8.Prohibit motorized vehicles from using paths and trails, except for disabled access,
emergency or maintenance vehicles.
9.Require that all new developments, where appropriate, establish paths and trails.
10.Seek funding for acquisition, development and maintenance of trails.
11.Implement trails on existing rights-of-way and easements in accordance with the Trails
Network Plan. Where applicable, consideration should be given to adding cross-walk
push -buttons at proper equestrian height levels where equestrian trails traverse
signalized intersections.
12.Include safety measures such as the separation of uses, fences, signage, etc., in the
design and construction of paths and trails.
13.Encourage the safe and courteous use of trails by educating users as appropriate.
14.Ensure public access to the Rancho Palos Verdes shoreline.
15.Ensure trail access to the Eastview Area and Western Avenue.
14.16. Encourage and provide trail and recreational facilities that support healthy living.
15.17. Explore options to develop a City equestrian park.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 18 C-10
16.18. Require adequate off-street parking for all existing and future development.
17.19. Develop appropriate ordinances to regulate street parking, parking on narrow
residential streets, and parking of recreational, commercial and/or oversized vehicles.
18.20. Coordinate and cooperate with school districts, and parent and community
groups to provide safe and proximate access to schools.
19.21. Require detailed analysis for all proposals to convert local public roads into
private streets or retain new local roads as private property. Conditions for establishing
private streets should include: (a) The road is a truly local road and is not needed as a
collector or arterial road (b) Provisions are made to guarantee the future up-keep of
the streets, (c) Dedication of non -vehicular easements may be required.
20.22. Reflect the elements of the City's Trails Network Plan in appropriate City
processes and procedures. For each trail category, the City's action should include:
a.Category I: (Definition: These trails are defined as existing, dedicated trails, that
meet the City’s trail standards. Inspect and maintain all existing trails on a regular
basis.
b.Category II: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail
segments which cross undeveloped privately owned land that is zoned as being
developable). These trails and trail segments should be implemented when the
respective parcels of land are developed. Consider these trails, or alternate
approaches to provide equivalent access, in all new developments.
c.Category III: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail
segments which are located on existing trail easements, City property, or street
rights-of-way and which require implementation or improvements). Require
consideration by the Department of Public Works or the Department of
Recreation and Parks of these trails or alternate approaches to provide access,
prior to bid solicitation for projects.
d.Category IV: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail
segments which cross privately-owned land designated as Open Space or Open
Space Hazard, or on land owned by a public utility or public agency). These trails
and trail segments involve the acquisition of easements, and may require
implementation or improvements. Implement these trails by soliciting voluntary
offers to dedicate easements. Where appropriate, the City should seek the
dedication of an easement as a mitigation measure for significant property
improvemen ts.
e.Category V: (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails which would
primarily benefit neighborhood residents, and which cross privately-owned
land). Implement these trails only upon initiation by affected property owners or
community groups. The City shall provide appropriate support to the property
owners offering easements.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 19 C-11
21.23. If City land is sold, any appropriate public access easement, restriction,
reservation and/or right of way should be recorded.
22.24. Descriptions of relevant trails in the Trails Network Plan should be provided to
potential applicants when inquiries for development are first made.
23.25. Design and construct new trails in accordance with the Trails Network Plan and
other National, State and local standards, where appropriate.
a.When constructing paths and trails, require the use of construction techniques
that minimize the impact on the environment.
b.Where appropriate, align trails to maximize access to scenic resources.
c.Include the bikeways in the Conceptual Bikeways Plan or alternat e approaches
to provide access, prior to approval of proposals for land development through
a subdivision of land application and/or conditional use permit application.
d. Consideration of the inclusion of bikeways in the Conceptual Bikeways Plan, or
alternate approaches to provide access during project design is required in all
Department of Public Works or Department of Recreation and Parks projects.
2.2 Infrastructure Systems Policies
29.Discourage the installation or extension of any infrastructure component into any area
known to be hazardous unless appropriate liability safeguards (such as geological
hazard abatement districts) are in place and adequate mitigation measures are
incorporated into the design.
30.Allow new development only where adequate infrastru cture systems can reasonably be
provided.
31.Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities
and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of infrastructure facilities and
networks.
2.3 Resource System Policies
32.Ensure that the resource companies provides all areas of the City with adequate service
(including adequate back-up and growth capabilities.
33.Encourage the use of alternative water and energy sources.
34.Promote, practice and encourage workable energy and water conservation techniques.
35.Review any proposed development, major new resource uses, or significant changes to
resource system for impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and community.
36.Encourage the use of recycled/reclaimed water in the irrigation of large open space
areas including golf courses, open space areas owned by Homeowners Associations,
and City Parks and ball fields.
37.Encourage the California Water Service Company to complete a Conservation Plan that
provides for the availability of a recycled water system in the City.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 20 C-12
coastal zone, encouraging the use of surface material that aligns with the natural setting of
the coast.
Pedestrian Trails
While sidewalks typically have impervious surfaces and parallel streets and roadways,
pedestrian trails are typically identified by their pervious surfaces and typically do not parallel
a street or roadway; rather, they typically traverse open space areas to offer a more natural
experience and opportunity for recreation. These pedestrian trails also connect their users to
natural and scenic points on the Peninsula that can only be reached on foot due to
topographic and/or environmental sensitivities t hat make them inaccessible by motorized
vehicles or other means.
Pedestrian trails are an important part of a balanced transportation network; however, the
primary function of pedestrian trails is to a more recreational need.
Equestrian Trails
Since th e time of the earliest settlers, the horse has been a part of life on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. First used primarily for utilitarian purposes, such as basic transportation and aiding
in farm activities, the function of the horse is now recreational. With the change of functions
have come changes in development pressures and public attitudes toward horses.
Development pressures have taken significant amounts of land from the rural and semi-rural
categories, which can best support equestrian activities, and attitudes now demand that
equestrian activities may only take place in certain locations.
Within the City, there are four areas that make up the Equestrian Overlay District, of which two
general locationsareas now support major concentrations of horses and limited equestrian
trails: the eastern side of the City and the Portuguese Bend area. The equestrian trails in the
Conceptual Trails Plan (City of Ranch Palos Verdes 1993) were identified to provide a
designated trail between these two areas, as well as to establish linkages to the extensive trail
systems found in adjacent cities.
Trails Network Plan
The City’s first General Plan identified broad deficiencies in the City’s path and trail networks.
A Bikeways Plan was adopted on March 4, 1974, that identified major transportation and
recreation linkages. The City developed a comprehensive Trails Network Plan in 1984 to
address pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Trails Network Plan uses policies
established in the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, with a major theme of a
network that functions as a transportation system, linear recreation facility, and linkage
between recreational, commercial, and educational activity areas. It is important to note that
the purpose of the document was to serve as an advisory tool and guide for implementing
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 29 C-13
bikeways can be categorized as semi-regional in nature because riders from beyond the
Peninsula either ride or drive here expressly to ride along the bikeways and streets.
The Conceptual Bikeways Plan calls for considering the implementation or improvement of all
non-existing and existing but substandard bikeways contained in the plan in the course of
scheduled street improvements, consistent with the goals and policies of the Circulation
Element.
With the adoption and implementation of the Vision Plan, the PUMP and its Preserve Trails
Plan, and the Conceptual Trails Plan, there is a need to update the Conceptual Bikeways
Plan as part of the Trails Network Plan update. The update must analyze and identify
opportunities to provide connections and linkages from the bikeway network to the multi-
use trails identified in the former-Vision Plan and the PUMP.
Future Planning Efforts
As mentioned above, the Trails Network Plan consists of a combination of a variety of
individual documents. However, the Conceptual Trails Plan and the Conceptual Bikeways Plan
portions of the City’s current Trails Network Plan have not been updated since the early- to
mid- 1990s. In recent years, the City Council has reviewed and approved trails plans for
subareas of the City, which have included the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, the coastal
zone, and adjoining areas, but there has been no comprehensive, City-wide update to the
Trails Network Plan . As such , a comprehensive update and consolidation of the City’s
Conceptual Trails Plan, 1996 Conceptual Bikeways Plan, Vision Plan, and Preserve Trails Plan
into a single comprehensive Trails Network Plan document launched in 2014 and is
anticipated to be developed completed in 2018.
Infrastructure Systems
The existing infrastructure meet the current needs of the City. Various infrastructure functions,
however, are not without problems and deficiencies. The deficiencies currently found in
infrastructure functions are rarely of a common nature, therefore they are discussed on an
individual basis throughout the Infrastructure section.
The Portuguese Bend slide area was found to be the major problem area regarding
infrastructure function. All infrastructure networks, to some degree utilize the slide area for
right-of-way. Because the earth is constantly moving in that area, all networks are above
ground and most have had to incorporate special devices to allow for movement, for example,
“slip span” in cables, and “swing joints” in water lines. Additionally, in early 2000, a new
combination above/below-ground sewer system was completed for the Portuguese Bend area
in order to minimize water percolation resulting from the septic systems that were common in
the area.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 32 C-14
performs visu al inspections on each manhole in the City at least once per year. This work is
funded with an annual contribution from each parcel connected to the City’s sewer system.
Although the City owns the sewer collection system, the County Department of Public Works
is responsible for the continuing operations of sewer collection system and for identifying and
correcting pipeline capacity-related problems found in the system.
Within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, there are approximately a total of 790,000 linear feet
of wastewater conveyance pipelines, 17 primary lift stations, 44 grinder pumps (all part of the
Abalone Cove sewer system), and approximately 3,707 manholes. The gravity pipe ranges in
size from 8 inches in diameter to 15 inches in diameter.
The collection system also consists of privately owned laterals that extend from individual
private properties to the City owned collection system located in the street, right of way or
easements. Private property owners, with the exception of the Abalone Cove landslide area,
are responsible for the operations and maintenance of their individual service laterals.
Abalone Cove S ewer S ystem: The Abalone Cove Sewer System is currently owned, operated,
and maintained by the City. Because the City is responsible for all aspects of operating and
maintaining this system, the County collects a fee from property owners, then reimburses a
part of the fee to the City.
The Abalone Cove Sewer System consists of 44 grinder pumps, with 1441 of them each
serving one parcel, and three duplex grinder pumps serving two or more residences. The
three duplex grinder pumps are located on Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, off West
Pomegranate Drive, and off Vanderlip Road. The system was installed in 2001 to replace
septic systems in the landslide area. There are 1370 manholes, one diversion structure,
approximately 19,000 linear feet of gravity pipeline, 19,615 linear feet of low -pressure pipe,
and 2,505 linear feet of force main. The low -pressure sewer pipelines in the Abalone Cove
area are generally range from 1.25 inches. The diameter of the force main are to 4 inches. in
diameter.
Existing Conditions: The majority of the system (over 73%) is now more than 40 years old and
made of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). The average design life for VCP is generally accepted as 50
years. This leaves the remaining design service life for most of the system at less than 10
years. The lateral pipes are made of metal and are almost at capacity. As a result, there will
most likely be an increasing trend in pipe structural failures with time.
Sewer System Master Plan: The City conducted a citywide sewer inspection in 2003 that led to
the preparation of an updated Sewer Master Plan, which included a capacity analysis,
maintenance schedules, and capital improvement plans. The Sewer Master Plan was updated
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 40 C-15
V CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
The State of California requires both a Conservation Element and an Open Space Element to
be included in every local government general plan. As many of the goals and policies of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the requirements of the State are related, these two
elements have been joined into one element for this General Plan.
Open space is one of the prominent features that defines the character of Rancho Palos
Verdes, and plays a large role in the City’s residents’ quality of life, and non -residents seek
to visit. Conserving open space provides opportunities for public outdoor recreation,
viewshed protection, and conservation of natural and biological resources, which provide a
healthy ecosystem for vegetation and wildlife, flood and erosion control, protection of the
public health and safety, buffering between incompatible land uses, and the enhancement
of roads and public spaces.
The majority of Rancho Palos Verdes is developed with residential land uses; however, a
significant amount of land is dedicated to open space uses, including parks, golf courses,
trails, and a dedicated nature preserve. The City seeks to create a system that integrates
parks, trails, natural habitats, and cultural resources into a series of networks for residents and
visitors.
1 Goals
The goals of the Conservation and Open Space Element are as follows:
1.To conserve, protect, and enhance its natural resources; beauty; and open space
for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region.
Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environment and
be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it.
2.To protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological, and historical
resources within the Cit y.
3.To protect the environment in order to reduce environmental hazards in the
community. (MOVED FROM SOCIAL SERVICES GOALS)
The basis for this is the environmental capabilities inherent in the land of Rancho Palos
Verdes. Land “capability” is an evaluation of the basic ecological units dealing with the natural
factors of land, climate, hydrology, biotic resources, geotechnical factors, and the systematic
relationships that must exist among them. This Element provides a discussion of each of
these ecological and environmental units as it applies to individually to Rancho Palos Verdes,
, then in appropriate classification combinations. Each of these combinations is classified into
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 47 C-16
33.Preserve locations of archeological and paleontological significance on site where
possible. Allow salvage excavation of the site where some technique of preservation
cannot be implemented.
34.Attempt to acquire the Point Vicente Lighthouse property as an extension of Point
Vicente Park.
35.Consider supporting the addition of appropriate historic sites in the City to the State
and National Historic Register.
36.Require that any artifacts or material of interest that are uncovered as a result of a
project requiring City permits be offered to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center for
inclusion in its collection as permitted by law. The Center should work with regional
entities to share items of particular significance.
2.3 Open Space and Recreational Resources Policies
37.Provide access to all public recreational land.
38.Promote and/or sponsor recreation programs within the City.
39.Encourage local, public, non-profit recreational and cultural and conservation activities.
40.Seek County, State, Federal and private funds to acquire, improve, conserve, and
maintain recreational lands.
41.Work through the State and Federal government in support of legislation resulting in
City acquisition of land.
42.Encourage land holders to contribute lands and/or easements to the City for
conservation and/or recreational u se and encourage the City to accept such
contributions.
43.Encourage institutions to provide public use of its recreation facilities.
44.Encourage building additional parks and playing fields, where appropriate, for multiple
uses by various recreational groups.
3 Basic Ecological and Environmental Units
This section discusses the basic ecological and environmental units that deal with natural factors
affecting the City. It is these factors and the relationships between them that serve as the basis
within which the environmental resource management policies are developed. The “Biotic
Resources” portion describes the significant ecologic habitats associated with the land -based
natural vegetation communities, as well as ocean related resources along the immediate
shoreline. The section on “geotechnical factors” consists of topographic conditions, geologic
hazards, and mineral resources. Hydrology covers the natural and built water drainage patterns
within the City and the factors affecting them, as well as their influence on the other natural
environment factors.
3.1 Topography
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 51 C-17
dedicated a large number of parks, each with its own qualities and attributes, in recent years
the City has worked extensively toward the purchase of large open space areas to create a
habitat Preserve, also known as the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, as identified by the City’s
NCCP/HCP. These public open space areas serve residents and visitors by providing an
“open feel” to the City, preserving natural resources, and creating outdoor
recreationalproviding opportunities for compatible recreational activities.
7.2 Recreational Resources
Aside from the Preserve, active and passive recreational facilities that are publicly owned supply
approximately 413 acres of recreational areas; 396 acres are developed and 165 acres is a
public golf course. The total acreage figure does not include a significant amount of
recreational areas supplied by Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District facilities.
Recreational resource areas include sites which have been set aside or are proposed for either
active or passive use. These sites are structured to various degrees to allow specific site activities
to take place. While many of these resource areas provide specific path and trail networks,
systems which involve linear right -of-way for the purpose of transportation or recreation, these
path and trail networks are addressed in more detail within the Circulation Element.
Recreation sites are developed into either active or passive facilities. Active recreational
facilities, as defined are highly formal and highly structured. and designed with specific activity
areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children’s play apparatus,
etc. On the other hand, most passive recreational areas are informal and unstructured that do
not require specialized facilitiesremain unstructured in order to allow natural ecosystems to
function with the least amount of human disturbance. Passive sites are usually used for nature
studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc.
Most recreational sites have a specific Land Use Designation from the General Plan Land Use
Map of “Recreational-Active” or “Recreational-Passive”, thus clearly establishing the types of
uses envisioned for the site. However, a few of the sites, based upon their specific site
conditions, ownership and/or unknown future use, have multiple Land Use Designations that
also include “Institutional” and “Open Space Preserve”, or single Land Use Designations other
than “Recreational Active” or “Recreational Passive”.
The following provides a brief description of each site including its General Plan Land Use Map
Designation, and groups the recreational facilities into the level of government which controls
and operates the facility.
7.3 Recreational Parks and Facilities
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 82 C-18
VI Environmental Justice Social Services Element
Environmental Justice as defined by Government Code section 6540.12(e) means, “The fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to development,
adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
Environmental justice laws have been established to ensure that all people have equal
protection from environmental hazards where they live, work and play, as well as to ensure
that all people have equal ability to participate in the decision -making process regarding
environmental regulations.
This Element seeks to address environmental justice through the development of a
comprehensive set of goals and policies, consistent with State requirements, to encourage
greater public participation and reduce environmental hazards to target populations in the
City. Social services provided or coordinated at the local level by city governments have been a
growing concern of local government officials. Human needs are complex, and their
identification and fulfillment remain difficult due to the many and varied factors interacting in
today’s society. This Element serves as a blue-print for the physical development of the City
and is intended to assist elected and appointed officials in the decision-making process. This
Element also provides direction to City Staff, developers and the general public to ensure that
environmental justicesocial factors be considered during the planning and development
process
Background
The Environmental Justice movement existed for several decades at a grass roots, city,
county, state and federal level before gaining institutional support by the Clinton
Administration with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations” in 1994.
State legislation adopted in 2016, Senate Bill 1000, requires cities and counties that have
disadvantaged communities to incorporate environmental justice policies into their general
plan, either in a separate environmental justice element or by integrating related goals,
policies and objectives throughout other elements.
An Environmental Justice Element is required to identify a disadvantaged community within
the area covered by the plan. A disadvantaged community means, “An area identified by the
California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and
Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by
environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects,
exposures, or environmental degradation” (Gov. Code Section 65302(h)(4)(A)). Section 39711
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 92 C-19
of the Health and Safety Code further identifies a disadvantaged community as areas with
sensitive populations.
The General Plan of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has historically included goals and
policies that seek to address environmental justice concerns in the community, including
greater accessibility to parks and recreational activities, as well as the promotion of energy
efficiency in residential design and public and commercial facilities.
1 Goals
1.Promote public input and participation in the decision making process by all members
of the community.
2.Protect the environment in order to reduce environmental hazards in the community.
(MOVED TO CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOALS)
3.2.Promote the efficient and equitable use of public facilities by all members of the
community.
4.3.Promote healthy and affordable housing opportunities for all segments of the
community.
5.4.Promote healthy food access and physical activities for all segments of the
community.
6.5. Prioritize improvements and programs in the City to better address the needs of its
senior population.
2 Policies
Public Input and Participation
1.Support mechanisms for participation with area wide districts and jurisdictions for the
betterment of the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
2.Encourage and provide facilities and resources for recreational, social, cultural, and
educational programs for its residences.
3.Involve its residents in community and civic activities.
4.Seek input from residents and address their concerns during the planning process.
5.Aid in matching the facility needs of the community with existing and future facilit y
resources throughout the City.
6.Utilize culturally and linguistically inclusive approaches to public participation and
involvement.
7.Continue the use of town meetings and forums to obtain public input. Encourage
community events.
8.Develop information services designed to reach as many residents as practical, which
lists organizations, events, issues and services available to City residents.
9.Encourage the development of homeowner associations and other community groups
as a vehicle for increased participation in government.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 93 C-20
Environmental and Health Risks
10.Implement policies and programs identified in the City’s Emissions Reduction Action
Plan (ERAP) in order to improve air quality in the City. (MOVED TO SAFETY ELEMENT
POLICIES)
11.Promote transit improvements or facilities that are powered by electricity and
alternative fuels. (MOVED TO SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES)
Public Facilities
12.10. Plan for a
Civic Center.
13.11. Provide
leadership in solving the need for community meetings, cultural events, and recreational
facilities.
14.12. Encourage
the building of meeting facilities by private or nonprofit groups. Existing and new
businesses, churches, utilities, etc., should be encouraged to allow some use of their
facilities by community groups.
15.13. Design recreational facilities including parks and trails for the use of older adults
in the City with limited mobility.
Safe and Sanitary Homes
16.14. Promote the incorporation of universal design 1 concepts in new construction
and rehabilitation projects, including but not limited to, general internal space
planning consideration to accommodate wheelchair bound individuals.
17.15. Prioritize enforcement activities of residential structures with known health
hazards.
18.16. Promote efforts to repair, improve, and rehabilitate substandard housing.
Healthy Food Access and Physical Activity
19.17. Create
recreational opportunities for all City residents.
20.18. Be an
advocate for the efficient delivery of services to its residents.
21.19. Work with
neighboring jurisdictions and organizations to identify and address common issues.
This should include the encouragement of dialogue between the professional City
employees of neighboring jurisdictions and organizations.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 94 C-21
22.20. Continue the implementation of community education and programming
related to healthy living and physical activity.
23.21. Continue to provide a variety of active and passive parks and recreational
activities accessible to all residents.
24.22. Promote the use of alternate modes of transportation including biking and
walking.
Improvements and Programs
25.23. Recognize
the residents’ cultural, educational, and recreational needs and encourage programs in
these areas.
26.24. Work with
neighboring cities, agencies and organizations to identify, assist with provide and/or to
promote services for the large population of older adults within the City.
27.25. Establish
City committees to utilize resident to benefit the communit y.
3 Setting
The population of those 60 years and older in the City has grown to almost 30% of the total
City population. As such, the City acknowledges and works to support the needs of this large
segment of its population. In addition to coordinating for recreational classes for seniors, the
City helps in assisting seniors through organizations such as the Peninsula Seniors.
Pen insula Seniors:
Established in 1982 with help from the League of Women Voters, Peninsula Seniors is a non -
profit membership organization that caters to the needs and interests to the senior-citizen
community. With more than over 2,000 members, Peninsula Seniors provides a variety of
programs for Rancho Palos Verdes residents and those from surrounding cities.
In addition to Peninsula Seniors, other services available in the area:
o H.E.L.P. (Healthcare and Elder Law Programs);
o Peninsula Transit Authority’s Dial-a-Ride Program; and
o South Bay Senior Services
The City works with each of these organizations to assist in addressing concerns for this specific
demographic. Due to the activity and involved participation of the City’s older adult
population, the City is continuously receiving input and suggestions for new or improved
services to be provided, and the City works with the members of the community to help in
areas that it is able.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 95 C-22
Specific and measureable work plans with a clear focus help the City Council determine the
appropriate goals for the year.
Financial Planning: While annual budget review and approval is a sound business practice and
is required by the State of California Government Code and the City’s Municipal Code, an
understanding of the City’s long-term financial picture is more important than just looking at a
1-year snapshot. While preparing the 5-Year Financial Model, staff works with all departments
to assess expected trends for future expenditures and performs a complete analysis of all
revenues based on a set of assumptions. After developing future estimates, fund balances are
analyzed to ensure that reserves are maintained and expenditures do not exceed funding
sources. At the end of each year, the City Council considers what the work process has been
through the year, makes any amendments and provides staff direction for the following year’s
work plan. The work plan is specific, measurable, and calls out in great clarify the City Council’s
direction and focus for the following year. Each year, Then, the City Council-appointed Finance
Advisory Committee is presented with the draft Model and provides comments prior to the
City Council’s review at the Budget Workshop. The budget is developed based on estimates
consistent with the model.
Use of Reserves: The establishment and management of reserves (sometimes referred to as
rainy-day funds, or contingency funds) is a prudent fiscal policy, as well as an important
consideration in the evaluation of the City’s credit rating. Local governments have experienced
much volatility in their financial stability due to the economy, natural disasters, and actions
taken by state government, which includes taking revenues from local governments to resolve
state budget problems. California cities are at an even greater disadvantage than the rest of
the country due to the unique regulations imposed through a strong voter initiative process,
and the difficulty to raise property taxes should the need arise.
Sound financial management includes the practice and discipline of maintaining adequate
reserve funds for known and unknown contingencies. Such contingencies include, but are not
limited to, cash flow requirements; economic uncertainties including downturn s in the local,
Past
Future
The Five-Year
Financial Model Present
Historical Financial
Data
Current Revenue &
Spending Plan
5 Years of Estimates
based on current policy &
information about the future
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 101 C-23
determinants follow below, in addition to the concepts of overlay control districts and specific
plan areas.
Th ere are two broad classifications of land use in the City: Natural Environment/Hazard Areas
and Urban Activity Areas.
The Natural Environment/Hazard Areas include areas that possess extreme physical
constraints due to the impacts of features such as active landslides, sea cliff erosion,
and extreme slopes. They also represent areas designated as Open Space
Preservation Open Space Preserve, which make up the City’s Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve.
The Urban Activity Areas include the Residential (also discussed in the Housing
Element), Commercial, Institutional, Recreational, Agricultural, and Infrastructure
Facility land use designations.
Also included in the General Plan is the analysis of population and housing trends from the
City’s incorporation to “build out” in 2030. This Element also discusses the application of
special districts such as Overlay Control Districts and th e Specific Plans that have been
adopted for certain sites or areas within the City. This Element briefly discusses the
compatibility of development activity in adjacent jurisdictions as it related to the City. Finally,
this Element enumerates the City’s land use policies.
1 Goals
1.Provide for land uses that will be sensitive to and enhance the natural environment and
character of the City, supply appropriate facilities to serve residents and visitors,
promote fiscal balance, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the City.
2.Carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all
elements of the community. Growth in Rancho Palos Verdes should be a cautious,
evolutionary process that considers the capacity limitations for the City, and the
environmental factors and quality of life on the Peninsula.
3.Preserve and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing
neighborhoods and housing in a manner which serves the needs of the residents.
4.The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities that are not
compatible with the terrain and environmental characteristics of a respective region of
the City. Activities shall be carefully and strictly controlled, and limited, giving
considerat ion to the respective neighboring residential or open space areas.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 113 C-24
21.Require all new housing and significant improvements to existing housing to consider
neighborhood compatibility.
Commercial
22.Place commercial and institutional developments under the same building orientation
controls as residential developments in regard to topographic and climatic design
factors.
23.Require that commercial and institutional activity buffer and mitigat e negative impacts
on adjoining residential areas.
24.Require commercial and institutional development to be designed to maximize
pedestrian safety.
25.Require that scenic view preservation by commercial and institutional activities be taken
into account not only in the physical design of structures and signs, but also in night
lighting of exterior grounds.
26.Require commercial and institutional sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior
service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.
27.Specify the mix of standard and compact parking spaces for new development to
ensure that all parking requirements are met.
28.Require adequate screening or buffering techniques for all new and existing commercial
activities in order to minimize odors, ligh t and noise pollution.
28.29. Promote and encourage the improvement and redevelopment of the Western
Avenue corridor.
Institutional (Public, Educational and Religious)
29.30. Require any new schools and encourage existing schools to provide adequate
on -site parking and automobile access.
30.31. Incorporate the Coast Guard Station into Lower Point Vicente Park when it is
deactivated.
31.32. Coordinate with the School District on cross-jurisdictional issues.
32.33. Encourage implementation of plans for pedestrian and bicycling networks
linkin g residential areas with schools for the safety of children.
33.34. Review the location and site design of future institutional uses to ensure their
compatibility with adjacent sites.
34.35. Encourage mitigation of the adverse aesthetic impacts of utility facilities.
35.36. Encourage the unification of the Eastview students into the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District.
Recreational Land
36.37. Encourage local groups to participate in the planning, development, and
maintenance of recreation facilities.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 115 C-25
Agricultural Land
37.38. Encourage preservation of agricultural activities.
Open Space PreservationOpen Space Preserve
38.39. All land with an Open Space PreservationOpen Space Preserve Land Use
Designation shall be utilized in compliance with the City’s NCCP.
3 Natural Environment / Hazard Areas
Natural environment/hazard areas to be maintained encompass approximately 1245 1,710
acres of land. There are four separate land use designations (Figure 1) that encompass these
areas: “Hazard,” “Open Space Hillside,” “Open Space PreservationOpen Space Preserve, and
“Greenways.” Descriptions of each of these designations are as follows.
3.1 Hazard
The Hazard areas possess extreme physical constraints and will be maintained in open space
at this time, with very light intensity uses permitted such as agriculture and recreational
activities, for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The constraints include: active
landslide, sea cliff erosion hazard, and extreme slope of 35 percent and greater. These relate
directly back to the analysis and policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element and the
Safety Element in the section on areas for consideration of public health and safety.
The Hazard designation includes an area of existing residences, part of the Portuguese Bend
community, located within on the active Portuguese Bend landslide. This Plan recognizes these
existing residences, in a density range of 1-2 d.u./acre, overlaid with the Hazard designation.
The criteria and policies to regulate this area have been codified in the City’s Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance (Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code), which was originally
enacted in September 1978. The purpose of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance is discussed
in more detail elsewhere in this Element. .
The Haza rd Area designation also occurs on other properties throughout the City that are
blufftop lots along the City’s coastline. In many cases, the Hazard designation along the
coastline has been applied to portions of residential properties.
3.2 Open Space Hillside
The Open Space Hillside areas also are subject to extreme physical constraints and will be
maintained as open space, with very light -intensity uses permitted, such as landscaping,
agriculture, recreational activities, and very minor structures, for the protection of the public
health, safety, and welfare. The constraints include active landslide and extreme slope of 35%
or greater. These relate directly back to the analysis and policies in the Conservation and
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 116 C-26
Open Space Element and the Safety Element in consideration of public health and safety. The
Open Space Hillside areas are typically steep -sloped areas near canyons and are found on
private property that contain existing residential structures and related accessory structures.
3.3 Open Space PreservationOpen Space Preserve
The Open Space PreservationOpen Space Preserve areas are composed of the City’s Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. These are lands that have been acquired by the City as permanent
open space, which are managed by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. The
purpose of these lands is to provide permanen t open space buffers within the community, to
protect sensitive plant and animal communities, and to provide opportunity for passive
recreational uses that are compatible with this purpose.
The Land Use Element designates approximately 1,400 acres for Open Space
Preservation Open Space Preserve. This designation includes portions of properties acquired
by the City for open space purposes that previously had other land use designations such as
Hazard and Residential (Figure 1). These properties have primarily been consolidated under
the ownership of the City to form the “backbone” of the Preserve (refer to the Conservation
and Open Space Element).
3.4 Greenways
Greenways are pedestrian and bicycle, non -motorized vehicle transportation, and
recreational travel corridors that meets certain requirements, including being located
adjacent to an urban waterway. Urban waterways are creeks, streams, or rivers that cross
developed residential, commercial, industrial, or open space land use (Civil Code Section
816.52). While the City has various trails and pathways, none are considered greenways as
there are no urban waterways as defined in Civil Code Section 816.52.
Urban Land Areas
Urban activity areas encompass the majority of the land uses in the City, totaling approximately
6,564 acres (Figure 1).
Urban activity areas consist of sites that have been set aside for some structured use which,
either directly (primary activity areas) or indirectly (secondary activity areas) serve a function
oriented toward urbanizat ion. Primary activity areas are those sites where residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, or institutional activities take place. Secondary activity areas
are those sites that are used in infrastructure activities which provide service to primary urban
activity areas. Since secondary activity areas were considered to be a reflection of
infrastructure, they are, therefore, included in the infrastructure section of the General Plan’s
Circulation Element.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 117 C-27
The following section deals with both existing and proposed primary Urban Activity Areas. As
of 2017, the City is nearly built out. As described in Table 1, limited opportunities remain for
new residential or non -residential development of undeveloped land within the City. As such,
new development activity is expected to be mainly limited to the re-development of existing
improved sites.
Table 1
Land Use Acreage by Land Use Type by 2030
Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Total
Acreage
Natural Environment/Hazard Areas: 1,710
Hazard 0 92 92
Open Space Hillside 0 251 251
Open Space Preservation Open Space Preserve 0 1,367 1,367
Urban Activity Areas: 6,564
Residential* 5,111 389 5,500
Commercial 273 9 282
Institutional 338 10 348
Recreational 396** 17 413
Infrastructure 21 0 21
TOTAL 8,274
Notes:
*Residential includes the combined land use designation of Residential 1–2 d.u./acre
and Hazard that is found within the active Portuguese Bend landslide area.
** Recreational facilities that fall under the “Developed Acreage” column may be partially
developed with buildings, other structures, landscaping, and/or hardscaping, while
other portions of the same Recreational facility are undeveloped.
4.1 Residential
Residential activities are the major land use in the City (Figure 1), with existing and proposed
residential uses encompassing approximately 5,500 acres (66.5% of the total land area). The
predominance of residential use is based on several factors: the ability of residential activity to
produce low environmental stress, the geographic location of the community with no major
transportation facilities, lack of market potential for any major commercial development, and
need for support facilities only to meet the community’s demand.
Residential Intensity and Density Standards
This element establishes several ranges of residential intensity and density standards. The
density, or the number of existing and projected population per land use is shown under
Section 3.4 Population Projections. The intensity ranges, which are described in more detail
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 118 C-28
below, are intended to accommodate residential development spanning the spectrum from
very low density, semi-rural detached homes to moderately dense, attached multifamily
residences.
•1 Dwelling Unit per 5 Acres. Land designated in this density possesses or is immediately
adjacent to sensitive plant or animal habitats, and development could have a direct
effect on these and the watershed of canyon habitats. Such land generally has slopes
of 25 to 35%. It is anticipated that any future residences could be clustered in the most
buildable sections of such lands, extending existing dead-end streets, and providing
development types consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods, while preserving the
most sensitive areas of the canyons. This development approach would serve to
mitigate environmental impacts.
•1 Dwelling Unit per acre. L and designated in this density two primary types. Firstly,
areas identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element having high slopes,
wildlife habitats, natural vegetation, canyons within the general area, some ancient
landslide, plus some immediately adjacent areas included for continuity, are designated
at this density. This density would tend to promote development which would have low
environmental stress and be so designed under the use of overlay control districts that
the physical and social impacts could be minimized. Much of the land originally
designated at this density in these environmentally-sensitive areas has now been re-
designated as Open Space PreservationOpen Space Preserve, as discussed above.
Exceptions include the undeveloped Point View and Plumtree properties within the
City’s Landslide Moratorium Area. Secondly, areas in the Coastal Specific Plan District
that were not yet committed to urban use at the time of the City’s adoption of its first
General Plan (which is further described under “Specific Plan Districts”) was designated
at this density. Since the adoption of the first General Plan, most of this land has been
committed to urban use, including the Lunada Pointe and Oceanfront Estates
neighborhoods and the Trump Nation al Golf Club. There currently remain only a few
vacant lots within the Coastal Specific Plan District that are designated for future
development at this density, mostly within the Trump National project.
•1 to 2 Dwelling Units per Acre. Land designated in this density range in the original
General Plan had low and moderate physical constraints, and social constraints, such as
public views and vistas, which at this density could be controlled through subdivision
design. This density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent
existing densities and/or a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities.
There currently remain only a scattering of vacant lots to be developed at this density,
mostly within the City’s equestrian neighborhoods located within the Portuguese Bend
community and along Palos Verdes Drive East and Via Campesina.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 119 C-29
new residences. Although this discussion has been tabled at this time, if enacted, this would
result in the possible future development of new residences on existing legal lots in Zone 2
within the Portuguese Bend community. Additionally, in early 2016, a code amendment was
adopted, revising the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance that allows the property owners of
the 94-acre Point View property and the 28-acre Plumtree property to be developed with
one dwelling unit on each lot plus ancillary structures.
In addition to the consideration of new development on existing vacant lots in the LMA, there
have been inquiries through the years to consider excluding certain larger undeveloped
properties from the LMA to allow for future development. The City has yet to act upon a
request for an Exemption.
10 Flood Hazard Areas
Government Code Section 65302(a) requires general plans for cities and counties to consider
those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by floodplain mapping
prepared by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) or the Department of Water
Resources. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA indicate that most of the City
falls within “Zone X,” which is not a designated flood hazard area. Other portions of the City
fall within “Zone D,” which are identified as areas where flood hazards are possible but not
yet determined. Areas of the City included within “Zone D” include Lunada and Agua Amarga
canyons, the Portuguese Bend and Forrestal Reserves, and other public and private
properties. Much of this property is designated as Hazard Area or Open Space
Preservation Open Space Preserve in the Land Use Element. Therefore, the development
potential within “Zone D” is generally limited, as is the risk of the exposure of the general
public to flood hazards. However, in accordance with the requirements of the Government
Code, the City will annually monitor the portions of the City designated within “Zone D” for
any changes in flood hazard status, as determined by FEMA. For additional information
about flood hazards, see the Safety Element (Chapter 6).
11 Compatibility of Adjacent Activity Areas
In evaluating the impacts of adjacent activity areas outside of the City, the major concern is
compatibility of these activities with adjoining areas in the City. Compatibility is primarily
reflected in use and intensity of the adjacent activities.
In the past, the main areas of concern to the City are two sections of Rolling Hills Estates which
are nearly landlocked by Rancho Palos Verdes. The southernmost area (bounded by city
boundaries on both the north and east, Crest Road to the south, and Hawthorne Boulevard on
the west) previously contain sed Northrop’s research and development facility, a small nursery,
and large amounts of undeveloped land, a portion of which was then in agricultural use. In
recent years, nearly all of these sites have been developed or redeveloped, with the exception
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 141 C-30
the Torrance City Council, based in part upon input from our City. This route avoids subjecting
sensitive receptors—such as the Terranea Resort, Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and residences
in the Portuguese Bend community—to helicopter noise.
The City is part of the LAX Community Noise Roundtable, which was created to mitigate
adverse aircraft noise impacts on nearby cities. The Roundtable communicates noise impacts
to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Roundtable meetings are open to the
public and are held every other month.
Industrial Plants
The City does not have industrial operations in the City, including, but not limited to, railroad
classification yards.
5.2 Community Noise Sources
Community noise has two basic components: steady state or constant level noise; and
intermittent, single-event noise. These two types of noise affect the outdoor noise level,
causing it to rise above the ambient noise level. Ambient noise is the all-encompassing noise
within a given environment. Ambient noise levels range from approximately 58 to 74 dBA Leq
near residential properties (ESA 2017 Noise and Vibration Report).
Steady State Noise
In Rancho Palos Verdes, steady state noise would include noise generated from traffic flows,
activities around service stations, shopping centers, and other non -residential uses in the
community. A neighbor’s air conditioner or pool equipment might also be considered as
contributors to steady state or quasi-steady state noise intruders.
For the most part, the impact of these steady state noise intruders can be mitigated through
the use of land strip buffers, landscaping, berms and site design. These solutions would be
quite effective in mitigating noise intrusion for both traffic and non -residential steady state
noise generators.
Con trolling noise intrusion emitted by residential steady state noise producers will require an
ordinance which will prescribe setbacks and quantifiable permissible noise level limits.
Single-Event or Intermittent Noise
Although of shorter duration, the intermittent or single event noises are often more annoying
than the steady state constant level noise. These include such noise as a plane flying overhead,
a neighbor with the stereo or television turned up too loud, barking dogs, a roaring motorcycle,
and special events permitted by the City.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 149 C-31
maximum level of 87 dBA with trucks passing at 50 feet. However, the projected construction
traffic will be small when compared to the existing traffic volumes on affected streets in the
vicinity, and its associated long-term noise level change will not be perceptible. Therefore,
short -term construction -related worker commutes and equipment transport noise impacts
would not be substantial.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation,
grading, and/or construction. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has
its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various
sequential phases may change the character of the noise generated on the site. Therefore,
the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Average construction noise levels at various
construction stages range from approximately 71 to 80 dBA Leq at 100 feet and
approximately 65 to 74 dBA Leq at 200 feet from construction activities.
6.3 Stationary Noise Impacts
Future residents of proposed projects would generate and would be exposed to on-site noise
sources typical of residential neighborhood related activities including; air conditioning units,
lawn care equipment, radio/stereos systems, domestic animals, etc. These noise sources
contribute to the ambient noise levels experienced in all similarly-developed areas and
typically do not exceed the noise standards for the types of land uses proposed on the
project site. In addition, these noise sources are consistent with the planned developments
adjacent to the project site. Therefore, residential-related on -site stationary noise impacts
would be less than significant.
6.4 Aircraft and Train Noise Impacts
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began implementing the Southern California Metroplex
in 2017. The Metroplex redesigned some jet flight paths over Southern California to improve the
efficiency and safety of the air travel, as well as minimizing adverse impacts to community’s.
According to the Metroplex, The City has no railroad lines either in or abutting the City, and
there are currently no regularly scheduled flight paths or aircraft over the City from Los Angeles
International, and Long Beach airports, which are major airports serving the greater Los
Angeles area. However, there is a history of jet flights over the City that deviate from the F AA’s jet
departure flight paths resulting in impacts to the City. In response, the City has been an active , and
Torrance airfields. Nevertheless, to ensure continued serene living quality of the City, the City
has been a member of LAX’s Community Noise Roundtable since 20102000 to address jet
overflight noise impacts to ensure a continued serene quality of life for its City’s residents. The
LAX Community Noise Roundtable . The LAX Community Noise Roundtable is a forum that
provides a mechanism that attempts to ensure cooperation between the the FAA, Los Angeles
World Airport s (LAWA) airport and local impacted communities in achieving noise impact
reduction to those communities. The City is developing a long-term, cooperative and direct
relationship with the FAA, LAWA, other public agencies, and local airport facility managers to
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 155 C-32
mitigate noise impacts from jets and low flying aircrafts (i.e. light sport, ultralights, banner
planes) over the City particularly residential neighborhoods, public parks, the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve, and the shoreline.
The City is also involved with issues related to helicopter routes to and from Torrance Airport.
In 2011, the “South Crenshaw” helicopter route was approved by the Torrance City Council,
based in part upon input from the City. This route avoids subjecting sensitive receptors—such
as the Terranea Resort, Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, and residences in the Portuguese Bend
community—to helicopter noise. The City plans to continue working with other Roundtalbes,
public agencies, and airport facility managers (i.e. Hawthorne Airport, Torrance Airport) to
mitigate its involvement with both the LAX Community Noise Roundtable and Torrance Airport
to prevent adverse noise impacts from civilian -operated helicopters over the City, particularly
residential neighborhoods, public parks, the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, and the shoreline.
resulting from potential changes to flight times and patterns.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 156 C-33
The City has no railroad lines either in or abutting the City.
X Safety Element
The residents of the Peninsula have historically dealt with the various natural and human -
induced hazards affecting the area, including earthquakes, land movements (landslide and
debris flow), wildfires, and tsunamis. The increase in population on the Peninsula over the
years means more people are exposed to these risks, resulting in a need to update disaster
preparations, communication, and infrastructure plans.
In order to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities,
infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards, the Cities of
Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates developed a Joint Hazards Mitigation Plan in
2004 and updated it in 2014. Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as “any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk
to human life and property from natural hazards.” The primary goal of the 2014 Joint
Hazards Mitigation Plan was to create a collaborated effort among the agencies,
organizations, and citizens to work toward mitigating risks from natural hazards. The
mitigation plan provides a list of activities that may assist the cities in reducing risk and
preventin g loss from future natural hazard events. The list of activities addresses multi-
hazard issues, including earthquakes, wildfires, earth movements (landslide and debris
flow), and tsunamis.
Similar to the 2014 Joint Hazards Mitigation Plan, this element of the General Plan identifies
hazards; assesses vulnerability; analyzes risk; and contains goals, policies, and objectives to
reduce risk and prevent loss from future natural hazard events within the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes (City). This Element first discusses the various hazards that may impact the City,
including wildfire hazards, flood hazards, geologic hazards, and other hazards. This
discussion is followed by Emergency Services available to the City in addressing these
hazards, including risk assessment, leading to policies to help address these impacts.
1 Goals
1.Provide for the protection of life and property from both natural and man -made
hazards within the community.
2.Provide for the protection of the public through effective law enforcement and fire
protection programs and volunteer programs such as Neighborhood Watch and the
Community Emergency Response Team.
3.Develop and enforce health and sanitation requirements and develop emergency
communications and disaster preparedness programs to ensure the overall health and
safety of all residents.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 157 C-34
20 Evaluate whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and
identify construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new
development is located in flood hazard zones.
21 Maintain the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities during
flooding.
22 Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones,
including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations,
emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identify
construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are
located in flood hazard zones.
23 Establish cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility
for flood, fire, and climate change protection.
Climate Change Policies
Public Facilities and Developments
1.Continue to work with South Bay Cities Council of Governments to develop an Energy
Efficient Climate Action Plan and a Climate Action Plan that would include strategies
that consider the unique characteristics and conditions of the City.
2.Promote new energy efficient buildings and retrofit existing public facilities to be as energy
efficient as feasible.
3.Continue to manage the City transportation fleet’s fueling standards to achieve the
greatest number of hybrid and alternative fu el vehicles.
4.Support development of publicly accessible alternative fuel infrastructure.
5.Encourage utility companies to provide informational literature about energy
conservation for the public at City facilities.
6.Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation routes and amenities to serve
the travel needs of residents and visitors. Where feasible, connect major destinations
such as parks, open spaces, civic facilities, retail, and recreation areas with pedestrian,
bicycle, and public transportation infrastructure; promote shared roadways; and require
new development and redevelopment projects to provide pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transportation amenities and streetscape improvements.
7.Continue to support the preservation of natural resources and open spaces throughout
the City.
8.Implement policies and programs identified in the City’s Emissions Reduction Action
Plan (ERAP) in order to improve air quality in the City. (MOVED FROM SOCIAL
SERVICES POLICIES)
7.9.Promote transit improvements or facilities that are powered by electricity and
alternative fuels. (MOVED FROM SOCIAL SERVICES POLICIES)
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 159 C-35
Private Developments
8.10. Continue to review development proposals for potential regional and local air
quality impacts per the California Environmental Quality Act, and if potential impacts
are identified, require mitigation to reduce the impact to a level that is less than
significant, where technically and economically feasible.
9.11. Continue to enforce Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations 5 building
construction requirements and apply standards that promote energy conservation.
10.12. Continue to promote and encourage participation in the City’s Voluntary Green
Building Construction Program and award participating developers with a streamlined
entitlement process and up to 50% rebate on permitting fees.
11.13. Continue to implement the required components of the Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) and continue to work with Los Angeles County on annual
updates to the CMP.6
3 Wildfire Hazard
Wildfire hazard areas are commonly identified in regions of the wildland/urban interface,
presenting a substantial hazard to life and property in communities built within or adjacent to
hillsides and mountainous areas. Such fires can burn large areas and cause significant damage
to structures, valuable watershed and increased risk of mud flows. Ranges of the wildfire
hazard are further determined by the fire ignition susceptibility resulting from natural or human
conditions as well as the difficulty of fire suppression. The wildfire hazard is also magnified by
several factors related to fire suppression and control such as the surrounding fuel load,
weather, topography, and property characteristics.
While the hazards are not as great in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as those in other cities,
the area does have a propensity for major fires, especially during its long, hot summers. On
the other hand, several assets tend to minimize the potential number and degree of damage
of these fires. The low density of the built -up areas, the quality of fire control agencies and high
standards of fire prevention contribute to creating a safer community.
The following subsections describe the various wildfire hazards and protection measures within
the City:
•Wildland Fire
•Interface Fire
5 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also titled the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings,
was created and is periodically updated by the California Building Standards Commission in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
California’s energy consumption.
6 A CMP was enacted by the State Legislature to improve traffic congestion in California’s urban areas. In accordance with the state statute,
the L os Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority adopted and updated several CMPs. Cities are required to continue adopting
an annual self-certified conformance resolution for conformance with the CMP requirements.
General Plan -Track Change Version - Page 160 C-36
[k
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
¹º
Palos Verdes
D
r
W
Source:City of Rancho Palos Verdes &Natural Community ConservationPlanning
Open SpaceRecreational Areas
Figure8
P
a
cific
Oce a n
Title Header
0 0.5 1
!"#$110
Rolling Hills
Palos Verdes Estates Rolling Hills Estates
Rolling Hills Estates
Rolling Hills Estates
Lomita
Torrance
San Pedro
San Pedro
PVReservoir
Pal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
W
Haw
t
h
o
r
n
e
B
l
v
d
C r e st Rd
PalosVerdesDrS
Sil
v
e
r
S
p
u
r
R
d
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
CrestRd
Pal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
K
LA
H
a
r
b
o
r
C r e s t R d
Palos VerdesDrS
Point Vicente
LongPoint
PortuguesePoint InspirationPoint
C r e n s h a w B l v d
Miles
Figure 8: Open Space Recreational Areas
Point VicenteInterpretive Center Point Vicente Park &Civic Center
PelicanCove Frank A.Vanderlip Sr.Park
Robert E.RyanCommunityPark
Fred Hesse Jr.CommunityPark
Abalone CoveShoreline Park
Del CerroPark
Ladera Linda Park
Marilyn Ryan SunsetPoint Park
FriendshipPark
Miraleste Parks &Recreation District
EastviewPark
MartingaleTrailhead Park
ClovercliffPark
Founders Park
Vista CatalinaPark
GrandviewPark
School DistrictsPVPUSD1 - Point Vicente Elementary2 - Vista Grande Elementary3 - Soleado Elementary4 - Silver Spur Elementary5 - Cornerstone at Pedregal6 - Mira Catalina Elementary7 - Miraleste Intermediate8 - Ridgecrest Intermediate9 - Miraleste Early Learning Academy
LAUSD11 - Crestwood Elementary12 - Dodson IntermediatePrivate
13 - Montessori Peninsula14 - Christ Lutheran Christian15 - St. John Fisher Elementary16 - Ascension Lutheran Preschool17 - Brighter Days Montessori18 - Children's World Learning Center19 - Congregation Ner Tamid Preschool20 - Hilltop Nursery21 - Marymount College Preschool22 - Mount Olive Lutheran23 - Marymount California University
10 - Palos Verdes Peninsula High
1
13
2 22
8 19
20
15
3
10
5
18
4
16
7
9
14
11
17
12
6
23 21
Los VerdesGolfCourse
Links at Terranea
Trump National Golf Club
P a l o s V e r d e s D r E
Mirale
s
t
e
D
r ¹ºSchools
[k Miraleste Parks & RecreationDistrict
Parks
Golf Courses
Preserve Boundary
C-37
Legend
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE
OPEN SPACE HAZARD
RESIDENTIAL 1-2/ OPEN SPACE
RESIDENTIAL <=1 DU/5 ACRE
RESIDENTIAL <= 1 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 1-2 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 2-4 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 4-6 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 6-12 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 12-22 DU/ACRE
CEMETERY
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
COMMERCIAL RETAIL
COMMERCIAL OFFICE
INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY
INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS
RECREATIONAL ACTIVE
RECREATIONAL PASSIVE 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
Official General Plan Land Use MapCity of Rancho Palos Verdes
µ
REC
REC
A
A
A
Adopted on September 18, 2018
This map is for illustrative purposes only and the full-scale versionis available at the Community Development Department.D-1
"'natural environment/hazard
~-a ard areas
urban en·1 ronment
residential
....--... s 1 d.u./5 acres
s1 d.u./acre
t--.... 1-2 d.u./acre .......... 2-4 d.u./acre
~..,.. 4-6 d.u./acre
6-12 d.u./acre
12-22 d.u./acre
commercial
retail
office
recreational
recreational
active
• passive
institutional
educational ........... public
t--..... religious ..__ ....
agricultural
(i ;\. I agriculture
industrial
scientific research
infrastructure
facility
........ arterial
............. collector
cont .rol districts
urban
~ ..... ::::::::::: socio-cultural • • • • •
~~~;~i:'.\;;o~·'~' natural ~;~-~~;~'.~~··~:::
specific plan
E3 specific plan district
aos 0 0 ° 0 0 ° 0 '<t CXl '$! ----_...._ __
en era an
land use map
adop t ed june 26 , 1975
-~' ,;~';'.~·~~.~~·;, ''• .
. ": ·".i.t;1.'.~L!!~;'.'.~ii~:U,":;.i'.
_, • -~ 'j '
~ 3,.r:;
) c'.i ~-.~ •. ~r:~
' • :..,, "·. ,~f>·~·-'
J
E-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE UPDATED 2018 GENERAL
PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2002, the City Council initiated a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and formed a 15-member General Plan Update Steering
Committee to assist in the update process; and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee’s
recommendations, along with a General Plan Update Program, were presented to the
City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the following for future
review by the proposed Planning Commission and City Council: (1) Draft proposed
amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies as recommended by the General
Plan Update Steering Committee; (2) Update the factual information within the General
Plan; and (3) Propose improvements to the general format of the General Plan and the
mandatory elements to make the Plan more user friendly. The City Council also directed
Staff to obtain a consultant to assist with updating portions of the General Plan and
disbanded the General Plan Update Steering Committee; and,
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City Council entered into an agreement
with three consulting firms to assist Staff with the update; and,
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission
held a joint workshop to kick off to the General Plan Update process; and,
WHEREAS, beginning in late 2009, the Planning Commission began to conduct
public hearings on the update of the General Plan document and the General Plan Land
Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed and accepted the draft of
the updated General Plan. Since that time, additional necessary land use changes that
were inadvertently left out and text amendments based on new statues were introduced by
Staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. In 2015, the Planning Commission again
reviewed and accepted a complete draft of the updated General Plan and the General
Plan Land Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, in late 2015, the new City Attorney reviewed the draft updated General
Plan document and determined that certain text was legally insufficient and the technical
studies (Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise) needed to be updated given the recent statutes.
Accordingly, the City contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), who
completed the technical studies in 2017. The technical studies were reviewed and
accepted by the Planning Commission in 2017; and,
F-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and a listserv message was sent announcing the March 27, 2018,
public hearing with the Planning Commission and the availability of the final draft of the
General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2018, a public notice announcing the availability of the
Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and final draft of the General Plan
and Land Use Map was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, mailed to
appropriate public agencies, and posted on the City’s website for a comment period of
more than 30 days, commencing on March 22, 2018, and concluding on April 26, 2018.
Additionally, a listserv message was sent to General Plan subscribers; and,
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2018-12, recommending that the City Council approve the updated General Plan
and General Plan Land Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, a revised public notice with the corrected 6 p.m.
starting time for the April 26, 2018, public hearing was mailed to all appropriate
agencies and property owners affected by and adjacent to proposed land use changes;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
and continued the meeting to a future meeting to allow Staff to incorporate comments
and concerns received from the public and City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2018, a public notice announcing the availability of
the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and final draft of the General
Plan and Land Use Map was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, mailed to
appropriate public agencies, and posted on the City’s website for a comment period of
more than 30 days, commencing on August 16, 2018, and concluding on September 18,
2018. A listserv message was sent to General Plan subscribers; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on September
18, 2018, in compliance with law, including compliance with the relevant provisions of the
California Government Code and Rancho Palos Verde Municipal Code, entertained the
written and oral report of staff, and took public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
Section 2: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other
evidence and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner
F-2
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 3 of 5
required by law, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the self-mitigating goals
and policies of the 2018 General Plan, that the approval of the updated 2018 General
Plan and General Plan Land Use Map would result in a significant adverse effect upon
the environment.
Section 3: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures that
address impacts upon air quality and noise and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be reduced below a
level of significance:
AQ-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized or
covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile.
AQ-2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
measures shall be taken in areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to
minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line.
AQ-3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud,
and dirt from being released or tracked off site.
AQ-4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the
Applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other
debris from being tracked onto the City’s public roadways, and if tracked, the
Applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City’s
public roadways.
AQ-5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no
trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks
are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in
cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded
such that the material does not touch the General Plan Update Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 front, back, or sides of the cargo
compartment at any point less than 6” from the top and that no point of the load
extends above the top of the cargo compartment.
AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the Applicant
shall demonstrate to the Director of Community Development’s satisfaction that
dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that
require regular watering for the control of dust.
AQ-7: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all
excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as
F-3
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 4 of 5
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure,
grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
AQ-8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including
proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems.
N-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized or
covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile.
N-2: Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Non-noise producing
equipment, such as trailers, may be located as a sound barrier between the
stationary noise sources and sensitive receptors.
N-3: Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance
between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors during
all project construction.
N-4: Construct a temporary sound barrier/wall. The temporary construction
barriers can use particle boards or gypsum boards, with no gaps or holes in them
that could potentially deteriorate the noise attenuation effect.
N-5: Unless safety provisions require otherwise, adjust all audible back-up
alarms at the lowest volume appropriate for safety purposes.
N-6: Include sound-deadening material (e.g., apply wood or rubber liners to metal
bin impact surfaces) to line or cover hoppers, storage bins, and chutes.
N-7: When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging
areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment.
These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities
and neighboring properties.
N-8: Use noise attenuating shields, shrouds, or portable barriers or encloses to
reduce operating noise of noise producing equipment, such as jackhammers and
pavement breakers.
Section 4: Based on substantial evidence, both written and oral, from the
public hearing, including the Initial Study, Staff Report, and the minutes and records of
the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project as conditioned and
mitigated will not have a significant environmental impact and also finds that the
preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto complies with CEQA.
Therefore, the City Council does hereby adopt this Resolution No. 2018-__, certifying
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
F-4
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 5 of 5
incorporated herein by this reference, making certain environmental findings to approve
the updated 2018 General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September 2018.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2018-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2018.
City Clerk
F-5
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 1 of 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE 2018 GENERAL
PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2002, the City Council initiated a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and formed a 15-member General Plan Update Steering
Committee to assist in the update process; and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee’s
recommendations, along with a General Plan Update Program, were presented to the
City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the following for future
review by the proposed Planning Commission and City Council: (1) Draft proposed
amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies, as recommended by the General
Plan Update Steering Committee; (2) Update the factual information within the General
Plan; and (3) Propose improvements to the general format of the General Plan and the
mandatory elements to make the Plan more user friendly. The City Council also directed
Staff to obtain a consultant to assist with updating portions of the General Plan and
disbanded the General Plan Update Steering Committee; and,
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City Council entered into an agreement
with three consulting firms to assist Staff with the update; and,
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission
held a joint workshop to kick off to the General Plan Update process; and,
WHEREAS, beginning in late 2009, the Planning Commission began to conduct
public hearings on the update of the General Plan document and the General Plan Land
Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed and accepted the draft of
the updated General Plan. Since that time, additional necessary land use changes that
were inadvertently left out and text amendments based on new statues were introduced by
Staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. In 2015, the Planning Commission again
reviewed and accepted a complete draft of the updated General Plan and the General
Plan Land Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, in late 2015, the new City Attorney reviewed the draft updated General
Plan document and determined that certain text was legally insufficient and the technical
studies (Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise) needed to be updated given the recent statutes.
Accordingly, the City contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), who
completed the technical studies in 2017. The technical studies were reviewed and
accepted by the Planning Commission in 2017; and,
G-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 2 of 11
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and a list-serve message was sent announcing the March 27, 2018,
public hearing with the Planning Commission and the availability of the final draft of the
General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News and a listserv message was sent announcing the April 26,
2018, public hearing with the City Council and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
was circulated (for a minimum 30-day period) to public agencies, posted on the City’s
website, and a message was sent to the General Plan listserve subscribers; and,
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2018-12, recommending that the City Council approve the updated General Plan
and General Plan Land Use Map; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, a revised public notice with the corrected 6:00 PM
starting time for the April 26, 2018, public hearing was mailed to all appropriate
agencies and property owners affected by, and adjacent to, proposed land use
changes; and,
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
and continued the meeting to a future meeting to allow Staff to incorporate comments
and concerns received from the public and City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2018, a public notice announcing the availability of
the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and final draft of the General
Plan and Land Use Map was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, mailed to
appropriate public agencies, and posted on the City’s website for a comment period of
more than 30 days, commencing on August 16, 2018, and concluding on September 18,
2018. A listserv message was sent to General Plan subscribers; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on September
18, 2018, in compliance with law, including compliance with the relevant provisions of the
California Government Code and Rancho Palos Verde Municipal Code, entertained the
written and oral report of staff, and took public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
Section 2: The updated General Plan includes comprehensive revisions to all
previous elements of the General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element,
which was adopted by the City Council, and certified by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development, in 2014. The updated General Plan contains
G-2
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 3 of 11
each of the remaining six required elements under Government Code Section 65302, as
follows:
A. Circulation Element, presenting a plan to ensure that utilities and transportation,
including public transportation services, are constantly available to permit orderly
growth and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
B. Conservation and Open Space Element, combined two elements, providing an
evaluation of the basic ecological and environmental units dealing with the
natural factors of land, climate, hydrology, biotic resources, geotechnical factors,
and the systematic relationships that must exist among them.
C. Land Use Element, describing the distribution and location of land uses,
population density, and building intensity.
D. Noise Element, identifying existing and potential future sources of noise within
the community, and strategies to limit the exposure of the community to
excessive noise levels.
E. Safety Element, identifying hazards; assessing vulnerability; analyzing risk; and
containing goals, policies, and objectives to reduce risk and prevent loss from
future natural hazard events within the City.
Section 3: The updated General Plan also addresses three additional topics
that are of particular importance to the community, as allowed by Government Code
section 65303, as follows:
A. Fiscal Element, an optional element, establishing the policy framework
necessary to guide all of the City’s short- and long-term fiscal decisions.
B. Social Services Element, an optional element, providing a comprehensive set of
goals and policies to encourage greater public participation, promote equitable
public facilities, healthy and affordable housing opportunities; promote healthy
food access and physical activity; and promote improvements and programs for
the senior population.
C. Visual Resources Element, an optional element, providing guidance through the
establishment of goals and policies to ensure the continued preservation,
restoration, and enhancement of significant visual resources within the City.
Section 4: The updated General Plan includes the following revisions based
on the current development of the City, current economic and demographic data, City
Council-approved land use decisions, and statutory requirements.
A. Circulation Element (renames the existing Infrastructure Element).
G-3
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 4 of 11
1) Deletes infrastructure-related narrative at the beginning and adds a new
introductory section describing the role and purpose of the element.
2) Deletes outdated descriptions of improvements to freeways outside of the
City limits.
3) Relocates the air quality discussion to the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Climate Change discussions under the Safety Element.
4) Updates discussions related to arterial, collector, and local streets; level of
service and a list of streets operating at unacceptable levels of service; and
future conditions based on the 2017 Traffic Study.
5) Adds a discussion on the effects the Portuguese Bend Landslide has on the
City’s circulation system.
6) Relocates the vehicle noise discussion to the Noise Element.
7) Updates public transportation information.
8) Adds airport and seaport discussion, as required per Gov. Code §65302(b).
9) Updates the path and trail network discussion.
10) Updates infrastructure, resource (water, natural gas, and electricity),
disposal/recovery systems (sewer systems, solid waste, flood control and
storm drain systems), communications systems discussions based on
completed projects and improved technology.
11) Adds military airport and port discussion as required per Gov. Code
§65302(b).
B. Conservation and Open Space Element (renames the existing Natural
Environment Element).
1) Adds an introductory section.
2) Relocates the discussion on climate and air quality to the Safety Element as
part of the updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change
discussion.
3) Updates topography, geologic conditions, geotechnical factors, and landslide
information.
4) Adds a coastal discussion consistent with the 1978 Local Coastal Program.
5) Updates mineral resources and hydrology discussions.
6) Adds a discussion on the City’s Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan (NNCP/HCP).
7) Updates ocean resources management discussion.
8) Updates open space and recreational resources, including descriptions of all
City-owned and County-owned public parks and facilities in the City.
9) Updates school district facilities discussion.
10) Adds descriptions of the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
11) Adds discussion related to City-acquired private property.
12) Adds discussion on the City’s Parks Master Plan.
13) Adds discussion for military support and tribal resources as required per Gov.
Code §65302(d) and §65560.
14) Deletes text on agriculture as the single zoned area is now obsolete.
15) Adds text on the grove of trees planted at Ryan Park and Malaga Cove
G-4
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 5 of 11
Library under Historical Resources based on the Rancho de Los Palos
Verdes Historical Society and Museum’s list of dedicated historical sites on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
C. Social Service Element.
1) Deletes unnecessary narrative in the introduction.
2) Adds new goals and policies.
3) Deletes social and cultural development discussion.
4) Updates the existing Senior Services discussion under a new heading named
Setting.
5) Adds text related to public input and participation and environmental and health
risks (promotion of public facilities, safe and sanitary homes, and healthy food
access and physical activity).
6) Adds text related to special events, PVIC, Reach program, and dog parks.
D. Fiscal Element.
1) Replaces the existing introductory narrative with simply the purpose and
layout of the Fiscal Element.
2) Replaces the existing text as it reflects specific information about the fiscal
state in 1975 with less specific text to avoid being outdated soon after
adoption, while providing a snapshot in time, and to provide an understanding
of what’s happening in the City. As with all elements, Staff intends to update
individual elements periodically.
E. Land Use Element (renames the existing Urban Environment Element).
1) Expands the introduction section to include the purpose and content of the
land use element.
2) Adds a text on the new land use designations, such as Open Space Hillside
and Open Space Preservation.
3) Adds discussion on Greenways as required per Gov. Code §65302(a).
4) Updates acreage of land use types.
5) Adds a discussion on primary and secondary urban activity areas.
6) Updates the residential density section to include intensity as required per
Gov. Code §65302(a).
7) Updates the commercial section to include density and intensity as required
per Gov. Code §65302(a).
8) Updates retail facilities, commercial, and office space information.
9) Adds a discussion related to industrial activity as required by Gov. Code
§65302(a).
10) Adds a description of cemetery activity in the City.
11) Deletes most of the outdated content related to future commercial activity.
12) Adds a discussion related to the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
13) Updates the service station section.
G-5
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 6 of 11
14) Updates the institutional section to include density and intensity as required
by Gov. Code §65302(a).
15) Updates the discussion on City facilities and provides a list of all City parks.
16) Updates the discussion related to fire description, county facilities, state
facilities, and federal facilities.
17) Adds the statement that no public or private airports or airstrips exist in the
City, per Gov. Code §65302.3.
18) Updates the discussion related to school facilities and added historical
enrollment data for PVPUSD.
19) Expands the recreational land use discussion to include acreage, parkland or
in-lieu (Quimby) fees, and census data.
20) Adds a dog park section.
21) Removes most of the discussion under agriculture as the only area
designated as Agriculture in the City is proposed to be removed.
22) Adds a timberland production activity section as required by Gov. Code
§65302(a)(1).
23) Adds military readiness section as required by Gov. Code §65302(a)(2)(B).
24) Updates the infrastructure facilities section.
25) Adds solid and liquid waste disposal facilities section, per Gov. Code
§65302(a).
26) Updates the discussion on population description, including updated acreage
per density and census data.
27) Updates and expands the Overlay Control Districts section to include the
Automotive Service, Mira Vista, and Equestrian Overlay Districts.
28) Expands the specific plan districts section to include the Coastal Specific
Plan, Western Avenue, and Eastview Park Specific Plan District.
29) Adds a discussion on the City’s former redevelopment project area and its
history.
30) Adds a discussion about the Landslide Moratorium Area and its history.
31) Adds a flood hazard area discussion, per Gov. Code §65302(a).
32) Updates compatibility of adjacent activity areas to the City, including border
issues.
33) Adds unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities as required by SB
244.
F. Noise Element is a new element that was previously part of the Sensory
Environment Element.
1) Replaces most of the existing text based on the 2017 Noise Study.
2) Updates airport operations data, included the discussion related to helicopter
routes, and City’s involvement with the LAX Community Noise Roundtable.
3) Adds a sentence stating that there are no industrial plants in the City as
required by Gov. Code §65302(f)(E).
4) Adds military installation section as required by Gov. Code §65302(f)(1)(D).
G. Safety Element.
G-6
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 7 of 11
1) Replaces the introduction to include text related to the Joint Hazard Mitigation
Plan and the purpose of the safety element.
2) Updates the discussion related to fire hazards and adds a fire hazard zone
section.
3) Updates the discussion related to flood hazards and adds flood hazard zones,
Army Corps of Engineer, and FEMA flood insurance map sections as required
by Gov. Code §65302(g)(2).
4) Updates the discussion related to geologic hazards.
5) Adds climate change section, including discussions related to GHG
emissions, climate change adaptations, and vulnerabilities in the City as
required by Gov. Code §65302(g)(4).
6) Deletes air pollution discussion as updated information was added under the
climate change section.
7) Replaces the outdated emergency services, healthcare, flood control, police
protection, disaster preparedness and response, emergency communications,
animal control, and air pollution control sections in their entirety.
8) Updates the fire protection section including discussions related to minimum
road widths and clearances around structures as required per Gov. Code
§65302(g)(1).
9) Updates codes and ordinances sections to be less specific and more general
so that the data is not outdated immediately after adoption of the General
Plan.
H. Visual Resources Element is a new element that was previously part of the
Sensory Environment Element.
1) Expands the introduction section.
2) Updates the definition of Views, Vistas, and View Corridors, replaces and
expands most of the existing text to include information from the View
Restoration Guidelines and the voter-approved Proposition M.
Section 5: The updated General Plan Land Use Map includes the following
land use designation changes:
A. Land use designation changes approved by the City Council since 1975:
1) Tract 28750 (Peacock Ridge and Highridge Road) - changed land use
designation from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac.
2) Established regulations for development in the Coastal Zone.
3) Tract 27832 (Lots 1-8 Indian Valley Road) - changed non-conforming land
use from Single-family to Multi-family.
4) Ave. Esplendida & Ave. Classica and Indian Valley Rd. & Armaga Spring
Road - changed land use from Institutional to Residential 2-4 du/ac on two
former school sites.
G-7
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 8 of 11
5) 980 Silver Spur Road - changed land use from Commercial Office to
Commercial Retail – remove Natural Overlay Control District.
6) Former Abalone Cove school site – changed land use from Agriculture to
Commercial Recreational.
7) Paseo Del Mar at La Rotonda Drive - changed land use from Institutional to
Residential 1-2 du/ac.
8) Residential Planned Development (Villa Capri) Tract No. 44239 – changed
land use from Commercial Retail to Residential 6-12 du/ac.
9) 3945 Dauntless Drive - changed land use from Institutional to Residential 2-4
du/ac.
10) Eastview Annexation – established land use designations for Eastview
Annexation.
11) 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. - changed land use designation from Residential to
Commercial.
12) Citywide - eliminated non-conforming auto service stations
13) 6108, 6118, 6124 Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) – changed land use
designation from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Commercial for 6108 and 6118
PVDS; Residential 2-4 du/ac to Institutional for 6124 PVDS.
14) 5325 Ironwood Street and 5303 Bayridge Road - changed land use
designation from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 1 du/5ac.
15) 6100 Palos Verdes Drive South – changed land use designation from
Commercial Office to Residential.
16) Several properties within the San Ramon Canyon area - moved
Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and change the land use
designation on several properties from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 2-4 du/ac
17) 3324 Seaclaire Drive – moved Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and
change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 2-4 du/ac.
18) 28220 Highridge Road (0.010-acre portion of a 28-unit condominium project
annexed from Rolling Hills Estates) – changed the land use designation from I
to RM 12-22 du/ac.
19) 32639 Nantasket Drive – changed the land use designation from Commercial
to Residential, (CR to R2-4 du/ac).
20) 5555 Crestridge Road - relocated Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line
and change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Institutional.
21) 5656 Crest Road – changed land use designation from Residential 1-2 du/ac
to Residential 2-4 du/ac.
22) 10 Chaparral Lane – relocated the Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line
and change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 1-2 du/ac.
B. Land use designation changes based on recommendations by the City Geologist,
consistency with the 2012 Zoning Map, and consistency with the updated Draft
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan.
G-8
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 9 of 11
1) 699 specific properties - adjust the Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line
so that less areas of the property is designated as Natural/Environment
Hazard as recommended by the City Geologist in 2013.
2) Portion of a residential tract east of Hawthorne and Silver Spur - change land
use designation, from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac.
3) All properties that comprise the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve - establish
a new zoning designation of Open Space Preservation.
4) Certain properties located seaward of Seacove Drive to match the 1978
Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map - change land use designation, from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 1-2 du/ac.
5) Certain residential properties located landward of Seacove Drive - change
land use designation from Residential 6-12 du/ac and Residential 4-6 du/ac to
Residential 2-4 du/ac to match the 1978 Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map.
6) Citywide - add Natural Overlay Districts consistent with the Zoning Map.
7) City-owned portion of Ladera Linda Park - change land use designation from
Institutional-Educational to Institutional-Public.
8) Vacant land on Silver Spur - change land use designation from Commercial to
Recreational-Passive.
9) Park properties: Pointe Vicente School Access Trail, Island View vacant land,
Eastview Park, Vanderlip Park, Clovercliff Park, Martingale Trailhead Park,
and East Crest Road Parcel - change land use designations to Recreational-
Passive.
10) Portions of Tract 31617, 33206, 37818, 45667, and 46651 - change land use
designations to Residential 1-2 du/ac instead of having two different land use
designations separating the same neighborhood.
11) Portions of Tract 50667 - change land use designation so that the entire tract
is Residential ≤1 du/ac instead of having two different land use designations
separating the neighborhood.
12) Tract 16540 - change land use designation from Residential ≤1 du/ac to
Residential 4-6 du/ac per the City Council’s action in 2009.
13) 3778 Coolheights - change land use designation from Residential 1-2 to
Natural/Environmental Hazard per a 1998 Settlement Agreement between the
City and the property owner.
Section 6: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the
City, acting as Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the project on August 16, 2018, beginning a
30-day review period. The MND was posted on the City’s website and a message was
sent to the General Plan listserv subscribers announcing its availability.
Section 7: The draft updated General Plan and Land Use Map was made
available to the public on August 16, 2018 as follows: digital copies were posted on the
City’s website; hard copies available for review at the Community Development
Department of City Hall; and a public notice published in the Peninsula News and a
message sent via list-serve informing the community about opportunities to provide
G-9
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 10 of 11
input or participate in public hearings. Written comments on the draft General Plan and
Land Use Map were encouraged to be submitted between August 16, 2018 and
September 18, 2018 and were presented for consideration by the Planning Commission
during their review of the General Plan.
Section 8: The updated General Plan and Land Use Map were completed in
compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300, et
seq.
Section 9: The City Council reviewed and considered the updated General
Plan and Land Use Map and finds that it is consistent with and reflective of the City’s
continuing goals, policies, actions, and intent to adopt a general plan for the physical
development of the City. Based on the foregoing evidence and findings, the City Council
hereby amends the existing General Plan, with the exception of the City’s certified
Housing Element.
Section 10: Based on substantial evidence, both written and oral, from the
public hearing, including the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby adopt this Resolution No.
2018-__, adopting the updated 2018 General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.
G-10
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 11 of 11
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September 2018.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2018-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2018.
City Clerk
G-11
H
-
1
H
-
2
H
-
3
H
-
4
H
-
5
H
-
6
H
-
7
H
-
8
H
-
9
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE
1. PARTIES: The parties to this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE ("Agreement") are Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr.
("Ortolano"), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City"),
Diamond Brothers Three, a California limited partnership
("Diamond Brothers"), Frank Hsu and Joseph Hsu (the "Hsus"), So
Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, husband and wife (the "Lys"), and Arthur
F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and
wife (the "Tsengs").
2. RECITALS: This Agreement is made with reference
to the following facts:
2.1. Pursuant to that certain "AGREEMENT FOR
PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND
BETWEEN DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE PARTNERSHIP AS SELLER AND THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AS BUYER" dated as of October, 1996,
Diamond Brothers conveyed certain real property located within
the City to the City in or about December, 1996. That property,
consisting of, in part, portions of Lot 69 ("Old Lot 69") and
portions of Lot 92 ("Old Lot 92") and referred to hereinafter as
"City's Property", is more particularly described in Exhibit A
hereto. In connection with such conveyance, Diamond Brothers
reserved unto itself, i.e., did not convey, that certain portion
of property referred to herein as "New Lot 92," which is more
particularly described in Exhibit B hereto. No Certificate of
Compliance certifying the lawful creation of New Lot 92 has been
recorded.
2.2. On or about July 17, 1997, Diamond Brothers
conveyed New Lot 92 to the Lys and the Tsengs for valuable
consideration.
2.3. On July 17, 1997, Ortolano filed a civil
action against the City, Diamond Brothers and the Hsus, which
civil action is currently pending in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, State of California, as Case No. 174759
and is styled Ralph J. Ortolano v. Diamond Brothers Three, et al.
(the "Lawsuit"). Ortolano named the Lys and the Tsengs as "Doe
Defendants" in the Lawsuit in or around December 1997. In the
Lawsuit, Ortolano alleges a cause of action for quiet title by
which he claims title to portions of New Lot 92 and Old Lots 69
and 92 by adverse possession and a cause of action for trespass.
2.4. Each party herein denies any liability to
each of the other parties herein. Nonetheless, the parties
hereto are entering into this Agreement to avoid the expense and
uncertainty of litigation.
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.8A
I-1
2.5. Therefore, is the intention of the parties
hereto to settle and dispose of, fully and completely, any and
all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages, and
liabilities of any nature whatsoever that any party has or may
have, individually or collectively, against any other party or
parties which exist prior to the effective date hereof (as
defined below) , whether known or unknown, including but not
limited to all claims, demands and causes of action reflected by,
or incidental to, the Lawsuit.
2.6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
2.5 and paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, this Agreement is not intended to
affect in any way any rights, duties and/or obligations that do
or might exist between husband and wife; further, this Agreement
is not intended to affect in any way any rights, duties and/or
obligations that do or might exist between the Hsus, individually
or collectively, and Diamond Brothers.
3. TERMS:
3.1. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.2
through Section 3.2.4 of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree
to the transfers of real property specified in paragraphs 3.1.1
through 3.1.5, inclusive, below.
3.1.1. The Lys and the Tsengs will cause
that portion of New Lot 92 described at Exhibit c hereto to be
conveyed by unconditional Grant Deed to the City in the form of
Exhibit C-1 hereto, and the City shall accept said conveyance.
The portion of New Lot 92 retained by the Lys and the Tsengs is
described in Exhibit D hereto and shall be referred to
hereinafter as "Revised New Lot 92."
3.1.2. Upon delivery and acceptance of the
Grant Deed referred to in paragraph 3.1.1, above, the City will
cause the portion of New Lot 92 described in Exhibit C hereto, to
be conveyed to Ortolano by restricted Grant Deed in the form of
Exhibit C-2 hereto, except that the City shall reserve and retain
an easement for public access as described Exhibit C-2 hereto.
3.1.3. The City will cause the portion of
the City's Property described in Exhibit E hereto to be conveyed
to Ortolano by restricted Grant Deed in the form of Exhibit E-1
hereto, subject to any requirement for approval of such
conveyance by the State of California Wildlife conservation Board
("WCB"), County of Los Angeles ("County") or other agency from
which approval of the said conveyance is legally required. The
portion of the City's Property not conveyed to Ortolano and
retained by the City shall be referred to hereinafter as the
"City's Revised Property." The property described in Exhibit c
hereto and conveyed to Ortolano as specified in paragraph 3.1.2,
above, together with the property described in Exhibit E hereto
and conveyed to Ortolano as specified in this paragraph 3.1.3,
shall be referred to hereinafter as "Ortolano's Property."
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.SA - 2 -
I-2
3.1.4. The parties hereto agree that the
city shall be granted an easement for public access ten feet in
width from the terminus of the Coolheights Drive right of way to
the City's Revised Property across Ortolano's Property and
Revised New Lot 92, as described in Exhibits F and G hereto, and
the parties shall execute such conveyances and instruments as are
necessary or requested by the City to establish such public
easement. In furtherance of this provision, the Lys and the
Tsengs shall cause to be conveyed to the City an easement for
public access across Revised New Lot 92 as described in Exhibit G
hereto, by Grant Deed in the form of Exhibit G-1 hereto.
3.1.5. It is mutually understood by the
parties hereto that the conveyances ref erred to at paragraphs
3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 hereinabove are not subject to and
are exempt from the Subdivision Map Act (Cal. Government Code
§§ 66410, et seq.) ("Map Act") pursuant to and by virtue of
Government Code § 66428. Upon delivery and acceptance of the
deeds and conveyances referenced at paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
3.1.3 and 3.1.4 hereinabove, and except to the extent prohibited
by the Map Act, the City shall cause to be issued and approved
Certificates of Compliance with respect to Ortolano's Property,
Revised New Lot 92 and the City's Revised Property and the
conveyances referenced at paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and
3.1.4 hereinabove.
3.1.6. The Lys and the Tsengs agree to
furnish a policy of title insurance insuring Ortolano's title in
the property described in Exhibit C hereto free and clear of the
lien of the mortgage deed of trust executed by the Lys and/or the
Tsengs encumbering New Lot 92.
3.2. The City and Ortolano hereto understand and
agree that use of Ortolano's Property shall be limited as
follows:
3.2.1. It is understood and agreed that
neither Ortolano nor Ortolano's agents, employees, heirs,
successors, assigns, grantees or devisees shall construct upon,
improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon,
improve or otherwise develop, Ortolano's Property.
3.2.2. In furtherance of paragraph 3.2.1,
above, it is understood and agreed that the Grant Deeds referred
to in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, above, shall specifically
recite the restrictions contained herein, and Ortolano agrees to
accept the same with said restrictions.
3.2.3. For purposes of paragraphs 3.2,
3.2.1 and 3.2.2, above, and the restrictions therein set forth,
"construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any
construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or
development, including without limitation any addition to any
existing structure, improvement or development for which a permit
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.BA - 3 -
I-3
or permits from the City would be required under then-applicable
law, regulations, statutes or ordinances.
3.2.4. Also in furtherance of paragraph
3.2.1, above, and in furtherance of this Agreement and the
purposes hereof, Ortolano agrees that neither Ortolano nor
ortolano's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns,
grantees or devisees, shall oppose, protest or otherwise object
to a General Plan amendment to designate Ortolano's Property as
"Natural Environment/Hazard" and a corresponding re-zoning of
ortolano's Property to "Open Space -Hazard" under the City's
General Plan and Development Code.
3.2.5. It is understood and agreed by and
between Ortolano and the City that Ortolano has used the land
defined herein as Ortolano's Property for the purposes and
activities specified in subparagraphs (a) through (m), below, and
has made the improvements to Ortolano's Property specified in
subparagraphs (a) through (m), below. Notwithstanding paragraphs
3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, it is understood and agreed by the
parties hereto that, subject to paragraph 3.2.6, below, Ortolano
shall be permitted to use Ortolano's property for the uses
specified in Section 17.32.030 of the City's Development Code as
may be amended from time to time in accordance with all other
applicable ordinances and requirements, and shall be allowed to
continue and maintain the uses of and activities and improvements
on Ortolano's Property specified in subparagraphs (a) through
(m), below, provided that Ortolano does not expand or intensify
any such uses, activities or improvements. Photographs of
Ortolano's Property and the conditions, uses and improvements
existing thereon as of September 11, 1998 are on file in the
City's Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
(a) existing split rail fencing
around the perimeter of Ortolano's Property in the general
location existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998
consistent with the type and dimensions existing as of
September 11, 1998, in conformance with the City's
Development Code;
(b) existing wood panel fencing in
the approximate location existing as of or prior to
September 11, 1998, consistent with the type and dimensions
existing as of September 11, 1998, in conformance with the
City's Development Code;
(c) existing unpaved footpaths of
the size and type and in the locations existing as of or
prior to September 11, 1998 consistent with the size and
type existing as of September 11, 1998;
(d) horticultural and agricultural
uses, including the growing of fruits, vegetables and seed
crops, existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998
98()1)10 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.8A - 4 -
I-4
consistent with the intensity of the horticultural and
agricultural uses existing as of September 11, 1998;
(e) weed and brush abatement as
required by applicable fire regulations in areas which have
been previously cleared of native vegetation and habitat,
provided that uncleared areas of native vegetation and
habitat which exist as of September 11, 1998 shall not be
disturbed;
(f) landscaping, plants, trees,
shrubs and groundcover existing as of or prior to September
11, 1998 consistent with the intensity of existing
landscaping as of September 11, 1998, and subject to
applicable laws and regulations including, without
limitation, the provisions of Section 17.02.040 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code;
(g) the existing irrigation system
as of or prior to September 11, 1998 consistent with the
type, visual appearance and capacity of the system existing
as of September 11, 1998, provided that the irrigation
system shall be maintained in good repair and working order
so as to prevent leakage and/or erosion;
(h) existing retaining walls as of
September 11, 1998;
(i) activities such as the moving
of dirt reasonably necessary to maintain pathways, garden
beds, landscaping, retaining walls and other improvements
existing as of September 11, 1998, or reasonably necessary
for erosion control, land stabilization or drainage control,
of such scope, size or degree less than that which would
require a grading permit pursuant to Section 17.76.040 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code;
(j) the existing unpaved horseshoe
pitch and recreational activity area, including benches and
unpaved and unenclosed shade structure ancillary to same
existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998;
(k) the existing storage shed
structure of less than 120 square feet as of September 11,
1998, and up to two previously existing storage sheds
provided the combined total area of the three sheds is less
than 120 square feet and the shed or sheds are not habitable
by humans, and provided further that, within thirty (30)
days of the effective date of this Agreement, the existing
shed is relocated in compliance with the City's Development
Code so that it does not encroach within the front yard
setback area or within the City's easement as referenced in
paragraphs 3.1.2 and/or 3.1.4, and provided further that no
shed or encroaches within any required setback area or
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.8A - 5 -
I-5
within the City's easement as referenced in paragraphs 3.1.2
and/or 3.1.4;
(1) the keeping of small domestic
animals or pets (e.g., rabbits) as provided in Section
17.02.020(E) of the City's Development Code, provided that
this provision is for the benefit of Ortolano personally and
shall not run with the land notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, including one triangular rabbit
hutch of approximately 200 square feet and one fenced dog
run of approximately 14.5 feet by 63 feet, provided that
such enclosure(s) for the keeping of said animals comply
with all applicable provisions of City's Development Code
and do not exceed a combined total of area of 1100 square
feet, and are not habitable by humans, and provided further
that they are consistent with those kept as of or prior to
September 11, 1998, and provided further that no nuisance is
created thereby or by such animals or pets;
(m) the keeping of a maximum of
five beehives for non-commercial purposes as provided in
Section 17.02.020(G) of the City's Development Code,
provided that no nuisance is created thereby.
3.2.6. Ortolano shall be required to apply
for and obtain any and all required permits for any and all
grading, fencing, landscaping, paving, construction or other
improvements made at any time prior to this Agreement to
Ortolano's Property, and shall be required to apply for such
permits and to pay any and all applicable fees and penalties for
such permits within ten days of the date he receives the deeds
referred to in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, including, without
limitation, permits as may be required for existing fences,
walls, patios, irrigation system, grading or structures.
3.3. Ortolano consents to, and agrees not to
protest in any way whatsoever, the creation of the "hammerhead
turnaround" at the terminus of Coolheights Drive.
3.4. Upon conveyance of the property referenced
in paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, above, Diamond Brothers
shall distribute the sum of $30,000.00 as follows:
3.4.1. Diamond Brothers shall issue a
check payable to "So Quoc Ly and Arthur Tseng" in the amount of
$20,000.00.
3.4.2. Diamond Brothers shall issue a
check payable to the "City of Rancho Palos Verdes" in the amount
of $8,494.00 (which is calculated as $ 1.10 per square foot of
the 0.19 acres of property described in Exhibit E hereto and to
be conveyed by the City to Ortolano in accordance with paragraph
3.1.3, above, of this Agreement).
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.SA - 6 -
I-6
3.4.3. Diamond Brothers shall issue a
check payable to "Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr." in the amount of
$1,506.00.
3.5. Within five days of the effective date
hereof, counsel of record for Ortolano shall file a Request for
Dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice to its refiling.
3.6. Within two business days of the effective
date hereof, counsel of record for Ortolano shall deliver to
counsel of record for the Lys and the Tsengs a Notice of
Withdrawal of Lis Pendens in recordable form with respect to any
Lis Pendens Ortolano recorded or caused to record respecting Old
Lot 69, Old Lot 92, New Lot 92, Revised New Lot 92, the City's
Property, the City's Revised Property and/or Ortolano's Property.
3.7. Each party to the Lawsuit shall bear
his/her/its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection
with the Lawsuit.
4. RELEASES AND PROMISES: In consideration of the
foregoing, the parties promise and agree, and release and
discharge as follows:
4.1. Except as to such rights or claims as may be
created by this Agreement, and except as to rights, duties,
claims and obligations existing between husbands and wives and
between general partners and limited partnerships, the parties
hereto, and each of them, hereby covenant not to sue, acknowledge
full and complete satisfaction of, and hereby release, remise,
and forever discharge each of the other parties hereto,
individually and collectively, including their respective
predecessor and successor corporations, past and present
directors, officers, agents, servants, employees,
representatives, administrators, assigns, heirs, successors or
predecessors in interest, and attorneys, of and from any and all
claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, agreements,
liens, judgments, orders, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and
expenses of any kind, in law or in equity, existing prior to the
effective date hereof, whether known or unknown, that such
parties, individually and collectively, now hold, or have ever
held against each of the other parties, individually and
collectively, including but not limited to any and all claims,
demands, or causes of action reflected in, or incidental to, the
Lawsuit.
4.2. Ortolano hereby further agrees on his own
behalf and on behalf of his successors and assigns and any future
owner of Ortolano's Property, and covenants not to sue, and
hereby releases, remises, and forever discharges the City,
including its predecessors and successors corporations, past and
present directors, officers, agents, servants, employees,
representatives, administrators, assigns, heirs, successors or
predecessors in interest, and attorneys, of and from any and all
980910 R6876-0!054 gmk 078226! .8A - 7 -
I-7
I
/
/
I •
claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, agreements,
liens, judgments, orders, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and
expenses of any kind, in law or in equity, whether known or
unknown, that Ortolano, now holds, has ever held, or may
hereafter have or hold or claim to have or hold, against the City
based on the deed restrictions specified in paragraphs 3.2,
3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3.3 of this Agreement, and/or based on the
general plan amendment and zone change specified in paragraph
3.2.4 of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, claims
for inverse condemnation.
4.3. The parties specifically waive the benefit
of the provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State
of California, which provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his
favor at the time of executing the release, which if
known by him must have materially affected his
settlement with the debtor."
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1542, the
parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is also
intended to include in its effect, without limitation, claims
which the parties do not know or expect to exist at the time of
the execution hereof, and that this Agreement contemplates the
extinguishment of such claims.
4.4. This Agreement is solely by and among the
parties to this Agreement and does not release any party except
as set forth herein, and except as provided in Section 6.1.
5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES: The parties
represent, warrant, and agree as follows:
5.1. The parties have received independent legal
advice from legal counsel with respect to the advisability of
making the settlement provided for herein, or have voluntarily
chosen not to seek the same, with respect to the advisability of
executing this Agreement, and with respect to the releases,
waivers, and all other matters contained herein. The parties
acknowledge that they have executed this Agreement without fraud,
duress, or undue influence. This Agreement shall be construed
fairly as to all parties and not in favor of or against any party
regardless of which of the parties prepared this Agreement, and
the parties hereby waive the benefit of the provisions of Section
1654 of the California Civil Code.
5.2. No party, nor any officer, agent, employee,
representative, or attorney of such party, has made any
statement, representation, or promise to any other party
regarding any facts relied upon in entering into this Agreement,
and no party relies upon any statement, representation or promise
of any other party, or of any officer, agent, employee,
980910 R6876-010S4 gmk 0782261.8A - 8 -
I-8
J '
representative, or attorney for such party, in executing this
Agreement, or in making the settlement provided for herein,
except as expressly stated in this Agreement.
5.3. The parties have read this Agreement and
understand the contents hereof.
5.4. The execution, delivery and performance of
this Agreement and the documents contemplated hereby have been
duly authorized by all corporate, partnership or city council
action required for the parties to so act, and the signatories to
this Agreement on behalf of each party have full power and
authority to enter into this Agreement.
5.5. The parties have not heretofore assigned,
transferred, or granted, or purported to assign, transfer, or
grant, any of the claims, demands, causes of action, obligations,
agreements, liens, judgments, orders, damages, liabilities,
losses, costs and expenses of any kind, in law or in equity,
whether known or unknown, that any party now holds, will ever
hold, or has ever held against any other party.
5.6. The parties will execute all such further
and additional documents as shall be reasonable, convenient,
necessary, or desirable to carry out the provisions of this
Agreement.
6. MISCELLANEOUS:
6.1. This Agreement is binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective
predecessor and successor corporations, and the past and present
directors, officers, shareholders, agents, servants, employees,
representatives, administrators, partners, general partners,
managing partners, limited partners, assigns, heirs, successors
or predecessors in interest, adjusters, attorneys, and insurers.
6.2. This Agreement constitutes a single,
integrated written contract expressing the entire agreement of
the parties. There is no other agreement, written or oral,
express or implied, between the parties with respect to the
subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified
only in a writing signed by all parties affected by such
modification.
6.3. The Agreement shall be considered severable,
such that if any provision or part of the Agreement is ever held
invalid under any law or ruling, that provision or part of the
Agreement shall remain in force and effect to the extent allowed
by law, and all other provisions or parts shall remain in full
force and effect.
6.4. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been
executed and delivered within the State of California, and the
980'JIO R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.8A - 9 -
I-9
rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed
and enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the
state of California.
6.5. If any controversy, claim or dispute arises
out of or with respect to this Agreement, or enforcement or
interpretation of the same, then the prevailing party or parties
in any resultant legal proceeding shall be entitled to recover
his/her/its attorneys' fees and costs from the losing party or
parties, in addition to any other relief to which it may be
entitled.
6.6. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to
enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
6.7. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
counterpart facsimile signature pages, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute
one Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective on the date
last executed by one of the parties hereto if so executed in
counterparts (the "effective date").
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDES A
RELEASE OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
DATED: September 1998 RALPH J. ORTOLANO, JR.
DATED: September ' 1998 DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE
Frank Hsu
Its: General Partner
DATED: September ' 1998 FRANK HSU
DATED: September ' 1998 JOSEPH HSU
(signatures continue)
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.8A -10 -
I-10
!/"' DATED: September.x..:L, 1998
ATTEST:
l\ I ;
i. YC '-;t· \_,,
Clerk
DATED: September 1998
DATED: September 1998
DATED: September 1998
DATED: September ' 1998
980910 R6876-01054 gmk 0782261.8A
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SO QUOC LY
MUOI T. LY
ARTHUR F. TSENG (A.K.A. FU TSENG)
YU-CHEN TSENG
-11 -
I-11
EXHIBIT I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
THOSE POllTIOHS OP 'Im 69, 70, 90, 91 AUD 92 OJ' L.A.C.A. NO. 51, IN TBB CITY
OP RAN'alO PALOS VBRDBS, IN TUB COON'l'Y OP LOS AHGBl.BS, S'l'ATB OP CALIFORHIA,
AB PD MAP RBCORDBD IH BOOK 1, PAGB(S) l OP ASSBSSORS MAPS,. I1f 'l'BB OPPICB
op TBB comm RBCOJU>BR. op SAID c:omrrr, msCRDBD AS l'OLLOWs 1
BBGIBHIHG AT 'l'BB MOST BOR'l'BBRLY CORIQIR OF 'Im 901 i'BBlllCB IN A GDBRAI.LY
SOO'l'HBRLY DDtBCTIOH AUmG '1"BB · BOR'l'BllBSTBRLY MD WUTBRLY LIDS OP SAID Ult,
'1'0 'l'BB llOR'l'BWBS'l'BRLY LDIB OF 'l'RAC'r 22835, AS PD MU RBCORDBD IN BOOK 603
PAGBS 62 '1'SROmB 65 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, Dl TJIB OPl'ICll OP '1'BB C0UHTY RBmm:>BR
OP SAID COtDmC1 TBBRCB ll'Oa'l'BDSTBRI.IY, BOR'l'BBRLY MID SOOTllBAS'l'BRLY .AL01tG 'l'HB
HOK'mWBSTBRLY I WBS'l'BRLY AHD ITOJLT.llBASTBRY LIDS OP SAID '1'KACT TO '1'BB MOS'1'
SOU'1'aWBS'l'BRY COIUllBK OP 'l'BB LDD DBSCRIBBD IN 'l'SB DBBD TO PALOS VBBJ>BS
PBRD1StJLA mnFIBD SarooL Dismx:CT op LOS JmABt·M comrrr, RBC01U>BD MJUtCB 2,
1970 AS D1S'l'lltlMBlft RO. 1093, lH BOOlt "645 PAall 858, On'ICDL RBCORDS OP
SAID COOllTr, '1'BIDICB ALQHO '1'SB 11BS'l'DLY Al1D ~y LD1BS OP MID
LUID, NORTH 34° 01' 47• BAST, 368.26 PBBT1 TBBRCB llOB.TB 13• 28' 13° WBST,
40.69 l'BB'l'; 'l'llJll1CB llOR'l'll 34° 01' 47• BAST, 674.00 FBB'1'1 TBBllCll SOD'l'JI 57•
45' oo• BAST, 250.59 PBB'l' TO Tiii BBGDUIDIO or A '1'AIJQJDIT CD1WB CQRCAVB
SOU'l'BWBSTBRLY HAVDIG A RADIUS OF 1570. 00 PBBT 1 'tBBRCB SOU'l'llBASTBRLY, ALONG
SAID cmtVB 'l'BRO'CIGH A CDTBAL AHGLB OP 31° 53' 37• AN DC DISTDCB OP 8'73. 94
PBBT '1'0 '1'BB mm OP SAID cmt.VB1 'l'BBHCB TAllGBR'l' '1'0 SAID CDRVB, SOOTH 25• 51'
23 • BM'1', 200. oo PBB'1' '1'0 TBB MOST trllSTBRLY CXJRRRR or 'l'HB LAND DBScamsn m
RCAI> DBBD '1'0 TBB CO'DlrJ.'Y OP LOS MGBLBS, RBOORDZD HOVBMBBR 6, 1967 AS
D'8T1UJMID1T 50. 188', I1f BOOJt D3821 P.Aall 210, Ol'PICIAL RBCORDS OP SAID
c:ommt; 'l'llBHCB !IOR'l'BBAS'l'BRLY MD SOCTBBASTBRLY ALOBO 'rBB BORTHllBSTBRLY AND
HOR.'l'BBAS'l'BRLY LDIBS OP SAID LUU> '1'0 'l"IDI HOa'1'BllBSTBl1LY '.E'BRMDOS OP '.l'BAT
CD.TAD cotJaSB OH TBB NOrl'IDIJISTBRLY LDIB OP Jr0BRBSTAL DlUVll 60 PJIB'l' WlDB,
AS SHOWll OH TBB MAP OP TRAC'!' 2'834, AS PBR MAP RBCOJlDBI) Ill BOOI: 591 PAGBS 3
'1'BRCDGB 8 IllCLUSIVB ·op MAPS, ncmms or SAIJ> OOORTY, SH01IR AS BAVDIG A
BBARDlG OP JllOJlTK H• 08' 37• BUT mD> A LBll0'1'll O'B 60 PBB'l'; 'l'HISCB ALONG 'l'llB
HOR.TBBASTDLY LD1B OP J'ORRBSTAL J>RIVB, SOU'l'H 25• 51' 23• BIST, 4.24 l'BBT TO
'1'BB li0&'1"JDIBS'l'BRLY amDll OP u:n 161 0'8 SAID LAST MlftIQDD TRACT 1 i'WWWCB
BASTBRLY ARD SOlJTBIWITBRLY ALCBI '1'SB HOll'l'BllBSTBRY MID HOa'l'BUBTBRLY LDIBS
OP LOTS 15' "l'ID10mB 1'1 01' mw> ftAC'l' '1'0 '1'llB SOU'l'IDIBS'1'BY OORRBR OP U1r 12
OP 'rRAC'1' 30360, AS PD ID.P RBCOlU>BD IR BOOK 761 PAOBS 41 M1D 42 OP JOUtB,
RBCORDS OP SAID CXXJlllTY; TBDTCB HORTllBASTBRLY ALOHG '1'BB BOllTBNBS'l'BRLY LD1BS
OP u:YrS 12 MID 1 OP SAID '1'BACT TO 'l'BB JIORTJIBISTBRLY C0BRBR OP SAID Ult l,
SAD> C0DBR DBDIG ALSO TllB SOU'l'IDIBS'1'BY COJDIBR OP TRACT 29057, AS PBR. MAP
RBCOlU>ED DI BOOK 739 PAGU .23 TBROlJGH 27 IHCLUSIVB OP MUS, RBCORDS OP SAID
COtlll'l'Y I '11WICB llOK'.L'BIWITBlU!r DD sotmlBU'l'BRLY ALm1G TRB NOlmlWBSTBRLY MID
HOR'l'BBASTBRLY LDIBS OJ' &m TRACT TO THB SOU'l'IDIBS'1'BY CODBR OP TRACT
27511, AB PBll MAP DCOm>BD DT BOOK 705 P.MDIS 31 'tJllWDQB 36 DTCLUSlVB OP
MAPS, RBCORl)S OP SAD> CXJ011'1'Y1 'l'BBDi'CB l10Jl'1"SBASTBY ALOHO THB ROl.TBWBSTBRLY
LDIB OP MD> T.RA.C'1' '1'0 TD MOST SOU'l'IDIBS'1'BY COBllBR OP Im 83 OP TRAC'1'
33:aoc. AS PBR. ID.P IUICORDBD IR DCOK 930 PAGBS 53 '1'llROmK 59 IHCLUSIVB OP
MAPS, RBCORDS O'W SAD> comn'YI "1'iiBllCll ~y AUllCI TBB HOaTlllfllSTDLY
I.DIE OP SAID LOT TO l'BB BOU'1'11'11BSTBY C01IRBll OF LOT 1 OP 'l'BACT 27525, AS
PBR. MAP RBCORDBD IH . .JIOOJC 781 P.MDIS '3 ARD 4' OP MAPS, RBCORJ>S OP SAID
COtmTY 1 i'BBHCB llORTIDIBSTBRLY .JWlHO '1'BB SOC'1'BllBS'l'BY LDIB OP SAID UYr TO
TD SOlJTBBUTBRLY OORRBR OP u:n 2 OF '1'llACT 25561, AS PBR MAP RBCORDBD Ill
BOOX 782 PAGBS 53 DD H OP MAPS, RBCORDS 01' SAID COUH'l'Y1 '1'BBDICB
NO:RTJDIBSTBRLY ALOHO TBB SOU'l'llllBSTDLY . LID o:r SAID un TO THE SOO'l'HWBS'l'B:RY
CORBEil OP. SAID un, SAlD CQDBR BBI1fQ ALSO THB SOtJ'J.'HBUTBllLY comnm OP THB
LaBD DBSCRIBBD IR '1'llB DBBD '1'0 a.a. ARD M.Jt. MORJUS RBCX>RDBD aP'rBMBER 12,
1945 AS DISTIWMBNT 50. 722. DI BOOlt 22313 P.IGB 18, OPPICIAL RECORDS OP SAID
CO'llN'l'r 1 TBBHCB NOll"l'JiWBSTBRLY .JWlHO 'l'HB SOO'l'HWBSTBRLY LIBE OP SAID LAHD TO
TBB MOST SOOTBDLY CCRNBll OP PARCBL 39 OP RECORDS OP SOltVBY MAP PILBD Dt
BOOK 59 PAGBS 8 'l'JIROtJml 10 mcLOSIVE OP RECORD OP SURVEY, IN '1'HB OITICB OP
'l'BB comm RBCOlU>BR. OP SAID C01DIT'!' I 'lHBLllCB COlft'DlOINO ALOBG '1'HB
SO'D'l'BWBSTBRLY LDIBS OP PARCBLS 3 9 AHO 3 8 TO TRB SOUTBBASTBRLY LDIB OP
PAB.CBL 3 7 I TBDCB SOtJTmiBSTBRLY JW)B(J '1'IDI SOtJ'l'HBASTBRLY LIDS OP PARCBL 3 7 I
30 AHO 29 TO '1'BB MOS'l' SOO'l'JI CX>RHBR OP PARCBL 291 'l'BBHCB NBSTBRLY ARD
BORTHWBSTBRLY ALOm TRB S01J'l'HBRLY AID> SOOTBWBSTBRLY LDBS or PARCELS 19 '1'0
29 OP SAID RBCORD OP SU1lVBY TO '1'BB l'OIRT OP BBOnmmG.
BXCBPl'DTG TBDBPROM THAT POR.TIOH OP 'Im 92 OP SAID L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51
DBSCltIBBD AB FOLLOWS 1
BBGitOIINQ AT THB NORTHWBST CORHBR OP 'Im 110 OP TRACT NO. 29057, AS PBR MAP
RBCORDBD m BOOK 739, PAGBS 23 TBROtJGB 27, OP MAPSJ TBDTCll: SOC'.l'll 2a• 50'
45• WBS'l' AUmG 'l'HB WBSTBRLY LIRB OP SAID TRAC'1' NO. 29057, 358.00 l'BB'l'I
TBBNC:Z NORTH 55• 09' is• WEST, 200.00 l'BB'1'1 'l'HBHCB HORTH oo• 50' 45• BAST, '
280.00 PBB'l'; TBBHCB NORTH 49• 20' 45• BAST 180.00 PBB'l'J 'l'HBHCI SOtJ'l'H 44•
44.' 35• BAST 278.'7 l'BBT TO 'f'HB 'l'Rtm POI.HT OF BBGINNINO.
CONTAINDtG APPRCXIMATBLY 107,362.56 SQOARB PDT.
HOTS; SAID l'QRBGODIQ BXCBPTBD PORTIOH OP Im 92 IS SOMETIMBS ALSO RBnDBD
TO AS u:tr t2 OP 'l'D'l'A'l'IVB TRACT MU RO. 37885.
10-10·96 9039-00001
S:\DOC\153\96040015.AG5 3
I-12
.,r
~ .
~/ I
EXHIBIT B
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT NO. 29057, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27, OF MAPS; THENCE
SOUTH 28Q 50' 45" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO.
29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55Q 09' 15" WEST, 200.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH OOQ 50' 45" EAST, 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49Q 20'
45" EAST 180.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44Q 44' 35" EAST 278.67 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 107,362.56 SQUARE FEET.
NOTE: SAID FOREGOING PORTION OF LOT 92 IS SOMETIMES ALSO REFERRRED
TO AS LOT 42 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885.
I-13
oate: 14 September 1998
Pafford Survey Na.98.018.01
Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Pafford
.A$aociatee
Surveyor&
3470 Wilshire
Boulev:i'rd
Suite 900
Los Angeles
CA 90010-3909
T.213.48 7 .5900
F.213.381.303 7
PORTION OF ORTOLANO PARCEL WITHIN DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17
FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH.28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TOA LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE ANO 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HAVING
A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39· 1 O" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE. PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01'" EAST 61.50 FEET; THENCE
7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59• EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE
8. NORTH 28° 51' 01· EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE
9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT
HEREINABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085906 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
LLOYD PILCHEN, L.S.6976
LICENSE EXP. 9/30/01
SEP-14-1998 17=04 2133813037
/4Ssp9S
DATE
96% P.04 I-14
Ul rn -u
I .....
~
I ....
l.D
l.D
CD
....
-.J
CSI w
llJ .... w w
CD .... w
CSI w
-.J
l.D
-.J
~
-u
(S)
I\)
' .
....
N
0
0
0
I \
-
Scale: 1 '= 30'
JO
PAFFO
Pafford ,.
Associates
Surveyors 0 JO 60 90 ree1
RRBARI I I I 34 70 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles. Co 90010
Tel. (213) 487-5900
FAX (213) 361-3037
10.§1
I
I
I
I
~ ~1
~I
1-rj , L.
!J::<
!A:J :z r~
() ["'") 9
M ~ \~
~ 9 l.
M ?1
~I
~I
~l
~I
~I
l
1-rj
!J::<
!A:J
()
M
~
()
21<0.00'
26 JUNE 1998
SURVEY NO. 98.018
LOT 92
LAC.A. MAP NO. 51
BOOK 1/1
v>
Q
LOT 111
TRACT NO. 2905 7
M.B. 739/23-27
POlNI Of
B(G\Nl-l\NG __,-
r.¢i1
I ,_. -.. I
0 l I \ ~ o I
C) ~I
22 m I < C5 I m~I
V>
I-15
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $.-"-0 _____ _
.. X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR
..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances
remaining at time of sale.
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax -Firm Name
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, Husband and Wife and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen
Tseng, husband and wife
hereby GRANT(S) to
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic,
the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
Dated-------' 1998
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF -------------~
}ss
So Quoc Ly
On _______________ before me,
________________ anotary public, MUOI T. Ly
personally appeared. ______________ _
---..,.,,...-=----------,-----=--=--=-~-· Arthur F. Tseng
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged Yu-Chen Tseng
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity
upon behalf of whichthe person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature-------------------
(This area for official notarial seal)
980011 99999-99999 sj 1491361 0
·----------·-----···--· --·--·-·----------------------------------
I-16
Exhibit A
(portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit C in that certain settlement agreement between the
parties and certain other parties)
That certain real property located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los
Angeles, State of California described as follows:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT
NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT
NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER
OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
l. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00
FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED
IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HA YING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET;
THENCE
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361 0 1002 (1/94)
I-17
7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE
8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE
9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF
THAT HEREINABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT NO.
97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
Said property is depicted as "Parcel C" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361 0 . 1002 (1/94)
I-18
(/) m
'"U
I ......
~
I ....
IB co
.....
--J ..
CSl
LJ
I\) .....
LJ
LJ co .....
LJ
el
-,.}
~
~
'"U
CSl
l\J
''
I
tI1 I g
to t ~
> I -0
0 q
P.£lFFO~-.
• . Pafford Scale: 1 = 30 Associates
Surveyors
JO 0 JO 60 9° Feet 34 70 Wilshire Sou levord
13 R R A R I I I I Los Angeles. Co 90010
10.ro2·
'"O
:i;;
:~ n
t:i:I
t"1
t:i:I
I
I
I
I
'l
l/) I ~-I -<
' L z \b
r-. \6' -6'
9 l.
:;o I
~I
:._ I
0\ ~l 01
CX> l
'"O
:i;;
~ n
t:i:I
t"1
n
211a.oo·
Tel. (213) 487-5900
FAX (213) 381-3037
26 JUNE 1998
SURVEY NO. 98.018
LOT 92
LAC.A. MAP NO. 51
BOOK 1/1
Vl
0
LOT 111
TRACT NO. 2905 7
M.B. 739/23-27
PO\N1 Of
B(G\\'l\'1\NG ___,-
r-¢.l
I
'6 n I ~ o I 0~1
22 co I <,...., m~I
Vl
I-19
Certificate of Acceptance
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed
from So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, husband and wife, and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu
Tseng ) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife, to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
public body, corporate and politic, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on
behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to the authority duly conferred by the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
a public body, corporate and politic
Dated:
Title: ---------
980911 99999-99999 •j 1491361 0 1002 (1194)
I-20
\vJreN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,
California 90274
Attention: City Clerk
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $,...-.0 _____ _ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
.• X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR
..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances
remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax -Firm Name
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic
hereby GRANT(S) to
Ralph L Ortolano, Jr., an individual
the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
Dated , 1998 --------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss
COUNTY OF __________ __.___
On before me, ---------------____________________ ,a
notary public, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body,
corporate and politic
Attest:
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) By: --------------------
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) City Clerk
on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature-----------------
(This area for official notarial seal)
980911 99999.99999 aj 1491361.1 I I-21
Exhibit A
(portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit C in that certain settlement agreement between the
parties and certain other parties)
That certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1PAGE1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT
NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT
NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER
OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00
FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED
IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HA YING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET;
THENCE
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.1 I 1002 (1/94)
··---------~------------------
I-22
8.
9.
SOUTH 61° 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF
THAT HEREINABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT NO.
97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
Reserving to the public an easement for pedestrian ingress, egress, hiking, trail and mountain
biking and other recreational purposes over the following described property:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 1PAGE1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
BOUNDARIES:
COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF
TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 TO 27,
INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY
THEREON 6.83 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF
SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL
WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, SAID POINT BEING THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 61.50 FEET;
THENCE
4. SOUTH 13° 25' 24" EAST 14.87 FEET TO FIRST SAID PARALLEL LINE;
THENCE
5. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 72.50 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Subject to the qualifications and exclusions set forth in that certain Settlement Agreement
among the parties and certain other parties dated as of September, 1998, the Property is
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.1 I . 1002 (1194)
I-23
further subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which shall run with
the land and be binding on successors in interest:
Neither Grantee nor Grantee's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or
devisees shall construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon
improve or otherwise develop the Property. For purposes of these covenants, conditions,
and restrictions, "construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any
construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without
limitation any addition to any structure, improvement or development for which a permit or
permits from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required under applicable law,
regulation, statute or ordinance.
Said property is depicted as "Parcel C" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.1 I 1002 (1194)
I-24
Ul m
"'U
I .....
A
I .....
~
.....
...J ..
Ci) w
Scale: 1 '= 30'
JO 0 JO 60 90 Fet>t
9RRHHI I I I
P~FF091
Pafford
Associates
Surveyors
34 70 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles. Co 90010
Tel. {213) 487-5900
FAX (213) 361-3037
26 JUNE 1998
SURVEY NO. 98. 018
pQlN1 Of Bt.G\t-1\~\NG ___,-
__. r.¢.1
0 ' . Ci I ~ o'
0 0 \
2a :t '1 < C!l m Cl' ~I
VI
I-25
Date: 14 September 1998
Pafford Survey No.98.018.01
Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
-'
Pafford
Associates
Surveyors
3470 Wilshire
Boulevard
Suite 900
. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Los Angeles
CA90010-3909
PROPOSED ORTOLANO PARCEL
(DOES NOT INCLUDE LOT 111)
T.213.487.5900
F.213.381.3037
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No.
29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT
NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER
OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET;
THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1065908 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNlY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN
SAID DOCUMENT AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01• EAST 61.50 FEET;
THENCE
7. SOUTH 61° OS' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE
8. NORTH 26° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE
9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS WRITTEN BY LLOYD PILCHEN, LAND SURVEYOR. AND
IS APPROVED FOR USE IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE U..W AND LOCAL ORDINANCE.
LLOYD PILCHEN. LS.6976
LICENSE EXP. 9/30/01
SEP-14-1998 17:04 2133813037
/4Ss:p9a
DATE
97% P.03 I-26
Date: 14 September 1998
Pafford Survey No.98.018.01
Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
-----·--·-----· ..... -...,.;..::.:. ......
¢ ,l
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PORTION OF ORTOLANO PARCEL WITHIN CITY PARCEL
Pafford
Associates
Surveyors
3470 Wilshire
Boulevard
Suite900
Los Angeles ·
CA 90010-3909
T.213.487.5900
F.213.381.3037
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057,
PER MAP RECORDED JN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17
FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT: THENCE
1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE·SOUTH 28" 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THAT LINE
DESCRIBED AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET HEREINBELOW, BEING THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LANO DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET: THENCE
7. SOUTH 61° OB' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THeNCE
8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE
9. NORTH 73° 51' 01• EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51, WITHIN THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT No. 29057, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS; THENCE SOUTH 28° 50' 45"
WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID T~CT No. 29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 55• 09' 15~ WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH oo· so· 45· EAST, 280.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 49° 20' 45" EAST 180.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44• 44' 35• EAST 278.67
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
/4SeP?S
SEP-14-1998 17:05 2133813037 97%
-----------·
P.05 I-27
/
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,
California 90274
Attention: City Clerk
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $._,,_O _____ _ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
.. X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR
..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances
remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax -Firm Name
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic
hereby GRANT(S)·to
Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr., an individual
the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
Dated-------' 1998
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body,
corporate and politic
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss
COUNTY OF __________ __.._
personally appeared------------
---,........,------------..,.---~' personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satis-factory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) Its: -----------------
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their Attest:
authori:zed capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity By: -----------------
upgn behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument. City Clerk
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature-----------------(This area for official notarial seal)
980911 99999.99999 sj 1491361.2 I I-28
.r . /
f ..
Exhibit A
(portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit E in that certain settlement agreement between the
parties and certain other parties)
That certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1PAGE1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT
NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT
NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER
OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
L ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00
FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO
THAT LINE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET
HEREINBELOW, BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF
LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.2 I 1002 (1194)
I-29
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET;
THENCE
7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE
8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE
9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51,
WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT NO. 29057, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS; THENCE
SOUTH 28 ° 50' 45" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT
NO. 29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55° 09' 15" WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00° 50' 45" EAST, 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49° 20' 45" EAST 180.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44° 44' 35" EAST 278.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Subject to the express exclusions and qualifications set forth in that certain Settlement
Agreement between the parties and certain other parties dated as of September, 1998, the
Property is further subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which shall
run with the land and be binding on successors in interest:
Neither Grantee nor Grantee's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or
devisees shall construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon
improve or otherwise develop the Property. For purposes of these covenants, conditions,
and restrictions, "construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any
construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without
limitation any addition to any structure, improvement or development for which a permit or
permits from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required under applicable law,
regulation, statute or ordinance.
Said property is depicted as "Parcel E" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.2 I 1002 (1/94)
I-30
lf) rn
'1l
I ,_.
.s::.
I ,_.
~
CD
,_.
-J
f3
~
:::i:= -to
:=i
> I -
~
~
'1l
R1
''
~
N
0
b
0
Scale: 1 '= 30'
30 0 JO 60 90 Feet
SHARRI I I I
10.<Dz·
~
:i:-
~ n
tTj
t:-t
tTj
Par=r=o=to·
Pafford
Associates
Surveyors
34 70 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles. Co 9001 0
lei. (213) 487-5900
FAX (213) 361-3037
26 JUNE 1998
SURVEY NO. 98. 01 B
pOltf'i Of B(G\N\~\NG
--r
~ r¢i1 0 I ~ nl
-l 0 I
0 0 \
::0 r:: I <~I m C) I
~I
VI
I-31
Date: 26June1998
Pafford Survey No.98.018
Client: Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ClTY TRAIL EASEMENT
-·-··---
Pafford
Ao.ocla'tes
Surveyors
3470 Wilshire
Boulevard
Suite 900
lo& Angeles
CA90010~3909
T.213.487.5900
F.21 :3 .381.3037
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LA.C.A. MAP No. 51, 1N THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CAL•FORNIA. PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 1 PAGE .1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNlY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT
No. 29057, PER MAP RECOROl:D IN BOOK 730 PAGES 23 TO 27. INCLUSIVE, OF
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREON 6.83
FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. NORTH 61° OB' 59• WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH
SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, SAID POINT BEING THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE
. 3. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 26° 51' 01" WEST 61.50 FEET;
THENCE
4. SOUTH 13° 25' 24" EAST 14.87 FEET TO FIRST SAID PARALLEL LINE;
THENCE
5. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 72.50 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
-~. u"'---9B-'---__
LLOYD PILCHEN. L.S.6976
LICENSE EXP. 9130/01
JUL 29-1998 17:50
7147980511
DATE
97% P.07 I-32
~·
Date: 26 August 1998
Pafford Survey No.98.018.01
Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Pafford
Associates
Surveyors
34 70 Wilshire
Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles
CA 90010-3909
LEGAL DESCRIPTION T.213.487 .5900
f.213.381.3037
CITY TRAIL EASEMENT
OVER PROPOSED PARCEL OF DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE
(PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51)
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, lN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17
FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 20° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59• WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT
RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 1 O" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES: THENCI:: .
5. NORTH 13°'25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT
BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT
RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 5.13 FEET TO A LINE
PARALLEL WITH SAID COURSE HAVING A LENGTH OF 114.55 FEET AND 10.00 FEET
NORTHERLY THEREFR_OM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE
7. ALONG LAST SAID PARAUEL LINE SOUTH 89° 39' 10" WEST 122.86 FEeT TO LAST
SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE
8. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 17.35 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LLOYD PILCHEN, L.S.6976
LICENSE EXP. 9/30/01
AUG-28-1998 12:05 2133813037 97% P.06 I-33
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274
Attention: City Clerk
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $,--"-0 ______ _ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
.. X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR
..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances
remaining at time of sale. Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax -Finn Name
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, Husband and Wife and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen
Tseng, husband and wife
hereby GRANT(S) to
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic,
the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
Dated _______ , 1998
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss
COUNTY OF-------------l
On _________________ before me,
personally appeared---------------
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satis-
factory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me
that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature------------------
9S0911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.3 0
So Quoc Ly
Mum T. Ly
Arthur F. Tseng
Yu-Chen Tseng
(This area for official notarial seal)
I-34
•
Exhibit A
(portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit G in that certain settlement agreement between the
parties and certain other parties)
An easement for ingress, egress, hiking, trail and mountain biking and other recreational
purposes over that certain real property located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County
of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK I PAGE I OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES:
COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF
TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT
:NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER
OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE
1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00
FEET; THENCE
2. NORTH 61° 08' 59'WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE
3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO A
POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT
No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND
BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY
THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.3 0 1002 (1194)
I-35
•
6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 5.13 FEET
TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID COURSE HAVING A LENGTH OF 114.55
FEET AND 10.00 FEET NORTHERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RIGHT
ANGLES, THENCE
7. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89° 39' 10" WEST 122.86 FEET
TO LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE
8. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 17.35 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said easement is depicted on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.3 0 1002 (1/94)
I-36
Certificate of Acceptance
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed
from So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, husband and wife, and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu
Tseng ) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife, to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
public body, corporate and politic, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on
behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to the authority duly conferred by the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated:
980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.3 0
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
a public body, corporate and politic
By:~~~~~~~~
Title: ---------
1002 (l/94)
I-37
I
II
D s
I .... w
I ....
~
.... .... ..
[fl
~
R -.:
J
3
'
~
> I -~
0
b .. q
Par=FO=iD
Seo.le: l '= 30'
JO 0 .30 60 90 feet
Pafford Associates
Surveyors
3470 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, Ca 90010
Tel. (21.3) 487-5900
FAX (213) 381-3037
89999! I I I
-b-;-\
" -t " " .......
.ft-i\.' ·. I ,
I
\
~ ~1
~\ cL
Z \N
fT1 9 -\~
~ 1· . I
~\
~I
~\
~\ gl
\
.
~ ... v-...... ~ c::
'-A. • ~
-t...~-f". • <"' " ~~'\·~ V' .
..,.., ·...S,. ;
'°-N .._,_ cX '
-'I
26 JUNE 1998
SURVEY NO. 98.018
LOT 92
LAC.A. MAP NO. 51
BOOK 1/1
LOT 111
TRACT NO. 29057
M.B. 739/23-27
~ c \ -r-1 'fz.AlL. ~~~
io MV oRlfitlNA'-~ ,, po1Ni Of la:n.4L
7.~G\NN\NG
I
nl o' ol ~ c;: I <ml
m § t
(J')
~
':!;_
I-' w ....... ......
lD
lD
CD
...... ......
N
CJl
N ......
w w
CD ,,_.
iw
Ci)
w
-.J
;u
ti:J
l>
"1J
£
~
(j)
H
¥5
"1J ;t) ·I;
i
I I-38