Loading...
20110719 Late Correspondence1l/ May 27, 2005 'A Dear Ms. Leeds, Tuesday, June 7, 2005 at 7:30 P.M. it is our hope that as many of you as possible will be present at this meeting to ensure that our common interests are well represented. As you, know, we have worked d>rli+ctly tc be goad nelgtl an have nothing; but fie best interests of our b. ul at essentially, we hope to present, and obtain approval for our proposed Driving Range Practice Facility at Trump National Golf Club In Rancho Palos Verdes. The Driving Range is the last facet in our qty's world-class golf Course to be completed. To advance this goal in a timely manner, we need to have your support at the council meeting. The proposed Driving Range Practice Facility will be substantially removed from the roadside. on the west side of the slope of Palos Verdes Drive South, abutting the east side of homes in the Portuguese Bend Club. This proposal will inppW-habitat and open space by removing sixteen singl&Umily homes that are ourrei ly appr l #oris tract. Th[s not only de�sQs a denstyiodsting3enhfiiements, but also greatly--' lncrea anorarrrr v us c osestod It our intent to retain as much natural habitat as possible, while establishing a well-groomed practice facility serving the public interest. As you are aware, obtaining city council approval can be a long and arduous process. If, however, we have representatives of the community present at this meeting, it will expedite the approval of this practice facility. "atTruin-NaWhat ilf-Ctub;-al ys-surto concerns, as well as create a haven for,,) or, believe we are accomplishing our goals, and at thi communities we serve. We -took forward not only t at the meeting on June 7` at` 7'30 P.M. Sincerely, Vincent Stellio Executive Vice President — Development The Trump Organization and enthusiasts. We wMng the neighboring b� seelng you D MADE A PART OF' itINCIL MEETING OF. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK One Ocean Trails Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 ■ tel. 310 265 5000 €m- 310 265 5522 www.oceanwails.com Afrf,76121- -------------- &-Folzc- Ar-76�z- 1041"law, , , RFA Prp i (- RUA.,, 15E-F6� /� �! C-r---- AD 4FI;6-r- '1 � c �r� _� �, � . �, A, i -F -r-6`2 r F�w �� M om - C) P-Br-(bpzc� 6T-% �, 4 ' m+~ �~7 /�'�-� �-�7 �/z~| ur��' '� ' --~^-�-~^ ~'^- ' ' -- *L o� 8Gfoer- am REM RFiVl- COASTLINE CONTRACTORS 23557 MORRELL CUTOFF RD. Las GATOS MTNS., CA 95033 PH (310) 4B0-4585 07/16/2011 To Whom It May Concern: I have repaired deck at Orlando's residence located at 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. in Rancho Palos Verdes. The deck is very solid. In fact, it is so strong that you can easily build another story on top. All the work was inspected and approved by a City Inspector, Bill. The deck has been constructed in the following manner: *There are four 6x6 posts supporting it in the front. *On top there are 4x8 headers *On top of the beams are 2x10 roof rafters 16 inches apart *In between roof rafters on the outside edge are 410 blocks *Covering it, is a 3/4 inch plywood and then water proofing membrane *At the front is 2x12 fascia board It was my as well as water proofing company recommendation that the railing be placed around the outside perimeterto prevent leaks. I have been doing construction for 33 years and I had never seen the deck so decomposed. Sincerely, omir Drapal Contractor License number: # B649482 :IVED FROM MADE A PART OF THE CORDA11 NCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CIT LER CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Coldwell Banker Source One Realty 2502 Artesia Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 July 19, 2011 Re: 28105 Golden Meadows Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Property Value damage to 1476 Via Coronel, P. V. E., CA 90274 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am a licensed real estate agent practicing in the South Bay. I have reviewed the increased privacy impacts to the residence at 1476 Via Coronel from the balcony extension at 28105 Golden Meadows. It is well recognized that privacy is one of the most valued real estate assets in the Peninsula community. One of the reasons the peninsula homes are so cherished is because they are generally further apart then the homes in neighboring beach city communities, and through the years neighbors have respected each other's privacy. The proposed extension at 28105 Golden Meadows creates a dramatic and visually obvious privacy intrusion. It is obvious to anyone walking in the backyard to observe that this condition creates a significant and damaging property value impact. Based upon my personal real estate agent points of view and observing buyer tendencies in today's competitive market that the potential impact of this imposition will reduce of the property value. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, J��-,�r� Angela Harn, Realtor®, (License No.01166164) GRI(Graduate Real Estate Institute) CIAS(certified investor agent specialist) Tel: 310-878-7118 MADE A PART OF THE REUumu " NCIL MEETING OF l OFFICE OF THE CIT CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK July 19, 2011 Gary Chang Betty Chang 1476 Via Coronel, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Dear. Gary. and. Betty: As per your request, i visited your residence last night to assess the "privacy" issue of your property. Immediately upon entering your back yard, it was apparent that your neighbor's deck is directly overlooking into your property. As we all know that "privacy" is a key factor for all residences. The current situation does make your property less desirable, and will have negative impact on the value of your property. - Please bear in mind that I am assessing this from a realtor standpoint. To resolve this issue, you will have to work with your backyard neighbor and the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates. Good luck and hopefully you can resolve this soon. ddSincerely yours, Step aw Real t Print ,t _ - btip://us.Ml.mail.yaloo.com/dc/launch From: Betty Chang (bettyschang@yahoo.com) To: catchang@rocketmail.com; Date: Tue, July 19, 20116:46:52 PM Cc: Subject: Fw: Decline in Value Due to "Loss of Privacy" --- On The, 7/19/11, Betty Cng <bettyschang@yahoo.cotn> wrote: From: Be Chang <b ttyschang@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: eclinAn Value Due to "Loss of Privacy" To: "Winston ang" <winstonchang8@gmail.com> Cc: "Cathy Ch" <catchang@rocketmail.com> Date: Tuesday, ly 19, 2011, 11:45 AM Win, Should Ind these 21e ers to Leza? Cathy --- On The, 7/19/11, George <georgewong168@coxnet> wrote: From: George <georgewongl68@cox.net> Subject: Fw: Decline in Value Due to "Loss of Privacy" To: bettyschang@yahoo.com Cc: georgewongl68@cox.net Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 5:52 AM ----- Original Message ----- From: George To: bettychang@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 5:49 AM Subject: Decline in Value Due to "Loss of Privacy" Dear Mr. & Mrs. Chang, I have been an active Reaftor selling homes on the Palos Verdes Peninsula for the past 26 years Privacy is one of the most important factors when a buyer is considering purchasing a home. Buyers almost always object to buying a property where neighbors can look down into their back yard, pool and their bedrooms and baths. If a buyer were making a decision on buying a home with exactly the same features except one lacks privacy, the buyer will almost always avoid the property that lacks privacy unless there are some very special circumstances. Some examples of why a buyer would choose to buy a house that lacks privacy are: 1 of 2 7/19/20116:51 PM Prift btip://us.ngl.mail.vaboo.com/dc/laumb 1. Being on the Strand. 2. Price - a home like yours would experience a 10-15% decline in value if its privacy were to be compromised especially to the extent to which the privacy of your home has been compromised by the deck that is built to almost your rear property line. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, George Wong DRE# 00893378 Keller Williams Palos Verdes Realty 310-378-6593 2 of 2 7/19/20116:51 PM t. i r J �.. .�.. #;' 4(� 'Ic ., 6 � :� .f � 3 ��� � �. x. ,a t .. ...,, _<,. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JULY 19, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material E Email from Sunshine 4 Letters from Chip and Pat Zelt; Email from Gene Rogers; Note from Barbara Huffman 5 Email from Cathy Chang; Email exchange between: Staff and Cathy Chang; Sil Orlando and Scot Nicol; Letters from: Mitsue Burack; Arturo and Mirtha Zaldivak; Kenton Ho; Ofelia Gurney; Beverly Phillips; Ina Ehmoufi; James E. T. Blake; Darrel A. Hesser; Tom and Diane Iles; Linda Kobayashi Respectfully submitted, 11orreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, July 18, 2011**. W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110719 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:24 PM To: cc@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com; kitf@rpv.com Subject: 7/19 Abalone Cove with attachments Attachments: Ab Cove detail-0167.pdf; Ab Cove Reserve-0168.pdf, The whole Park-0169.pdf MEMO from Sunshine TO: RPV City Council RE: California Coastal Trail Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. July 19, Agenda Item E. Attached are three maps I got from the City's web site. Each one shows a bigger picture. I have added the California Coastal Trail pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian "three strings in a rope" potential corridors so that you can see how this space is not just a little "vest pocket park" next to the Abalone Cove Reserve. This is just the concept. Sorry I haven't learned how to beat my scanner into submission. A lot of lines and arrows are missing. I hope you can see how the Coastal Conservancy's report to the CA Legislature is viable. Staff continues to believe that the only way to access a park is via the motor vehicle entrance to a parking lot. This is not the way it should be. This site could be a trailhead/pit stop for the California Coastal Trail (the State of California's Millennium Legacy Trail) where all three user corridors can come together and enjoy some very basic amenities. Just because the current version of the Abalone Cove Reserve Trails Plan does not address the continuity issue doesn't mean that State level monies should not come with State level conditions attached so that this minimalist public access treasure is preserved. I don't know who designed it but the plan is fine unless the fence is going to block access to the bluff top trail. It will take a City Council action to designate bicycle and equestrian permitted use on City Parkland. If we had the matching funds back in November, we should still have them. If our City's goals as provided to our Grant Writing Consultant have changed, there should have been a public notice and a renegotiation of the contract. By the way, Boy Scout Eagle Candidates are building shade structures on Catalina Island. This can be cost effective. We can share this with the world. I say keep the application in the process. 7/19/2011 E. mus VMMS NNINS11 A T p� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ELIMINATING SECTION 17.76.050.D.4 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT BANNERS OR OTHER SIGNS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS TO BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND RE -NUMBER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.76.050.D.5 TO 17.76.050.D.4 (CASE NO. ZON2011-00007). WHEREAS, Section 17.76.050 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") sets forth various procedures and regulations regarding the provision of signage on private and public property within the City; and, WHEREAS, since 1998, the City's Development Code allowed temporary special event banners or other signs for noncommercial organizations to be placed in the public right-of-way with City approval; and, WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the City Council approved of the following three locations for the posting of 2 banners per location: Silver Spur Road and Deep Valley Drive; Hawthorne Boulevard and Locklenna Lane; and Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East; and, WHEREAS, on June 9, 2010, Staff began issuing permits for the three locations; and, WHEREAS, due to concerns raised by residents and applicants, on December 7, 2010, the City Council initiated a code amendment to eliminate the existing program that allows noncommercial organizations to place temporary banners or other signs in the City's right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, on February 8, 2011, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, and unanimously agreed not to accept Staffs recommendation to delete the temporary banner program; and, WHEREAS, on March 14, 2011, Staff mailed out 137 notices to property owners located within 500 feet of the three currently approved special event banner public right-of-way locations, and 44 notices to applicants who had received approval for temporary banners within the public right-of-way within the last calendar year; and, Ordinance No. 2011-_ Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, on March 17, 2011, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.050.D of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, the public hearing was continued to May 17, 2011 in order for all Councilmembers to be present for the hearing; and, WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the public hearing was continued to July 19, 2011 in order for all Councilmembers to be present for the hearing; and, WHEREAS, on June 30, 2011, a second notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and notices were re -sent; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Section 15061.b.3, the code amendment is exempt from further CEQA analysis as by a general rule CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and Staff believes with certainty that there is no possibility the code amendment to eliminate Section 17.76.050.D.4 and renumber Section 17.76.050.D.5 would have a significant effect on the environment; and, WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans. Specifically, the elimination of Section 17.76.050.D.4 will result in less signage and eliminate the possibility of a controversial sign being displayed. Section 3: The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area Section 4: Section 17.76.050.D.4 of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby removed, including (shown in strikethrough text for text removed): Ordinance No. 2011 - Page 2 of 4 Section 5: Section 17.76.050.D.5 of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to be re -numbered to 17.76.050.D.4 and be read as follows (bold underline text for new text and strikethrough text for text to be deleted): `5 4. Temporary signs allowed by this subsection shall be removed upon the completion of the campaign, the culmination of any of the above activities, or the expiration of any other time frame specified by this section." Section 6: The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified in Sections 4 and 5 previously shall become effective on the effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council. Section 7: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the Ordinance No. 2011 - Page 3 of 4 N- 'r.T3r.TX2.'?f=MFZ d M. W ER - = A 9-e .... .. ,_ ....... Section 5: Section 17.76.050.D.5 of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous Permits and Standards) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to be re -numbered to 17.76.050.D.4 and be read as follows (bold underline text for new text and strikethrough text for text to be deleted): `5 4. Temporary signs allowed by this subsection shall be removed upon the completion of the campaign, the culmination of any of the above activities, or the expiration of any other time frame specified by this section." Section 6: The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified in Sections 4 and 5 previously shall become effective on the effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council. Section 7: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the Ordinance No. 2011 - Page 3 of 4 decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 9: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31St day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of August 2011: Tom Long, Mayor ATTEST: Carla Morreale, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; the foregoing Ordinance No. passed first reading on July 19, 2011, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on August _ 2011, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: City Clerk Ordinance No. 2011-_ Page 4 of 4 From: Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:52 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: On Peoperty Trump Ficus Trees.doc Attachments: On Peoperty Trump Ficus Trees.doc L On Peoperty Trump Ficus Trees.... Hi Carla - Additional late correspondence for tonight's meeting regarding Trump. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message ----- From: chip zelt [mailto:chipzelt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Chip Zelt Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:48 AM To: Greg Pfost Cc: tom.long@rpv.com; anthony.misetich@rpv.com; Douglas.Stern@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com Subject: On Peoperty Trump Ficus Trees.doc To: Gregg Pfost and Honorable Mayor and the city council members: I apologizes for the lateness of this correspondence. I hope it makes it to you all in time. Sincerely, Chip and Pat Zelt p 310.377.8000 Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 19, 2011 Attn: Gregory Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Greg: Know it may be too late for late correspondence. While preparing my speech for tonight's meeting I reviewed from the City's website video of the City Councils meeting on the resolution of item#19 Revision "GG" dated 12-18-07. Found it interesting that towards the end of the councils discussion on the resolution for item# 19 (Revision "GG") that Mayor Douglas Stern asked Mike Vandergoes of the Trump organization the question" when will the Ficus trees be removed off the property". Mike stated he did not know. Well if you would like to know where these original Ficus trees went. Please find pictures taken today 7-19-11(Appendix A) that show they are still on the Trump property located south of the southerly berm. Some trees are in boxes and others are planted in the ground. Found it pretty amazing that over the past 4 years no one has raised this gross violation to our City Council's resolution on "GG". Sincerely, Chip & Pat Zelt Cc: Thomas D. Long — Mayor. Anthony M. Misetich, Mayor Pro Tem Douglas W. Stern —Councilmember Brian Campbell —Councilmember Stefan Wolowicz —Councilmember Page 1 of 3 2ef Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 APPENDIX A Please find photos taken today 7-19-11 of the Trump Ficus trees that are still on property: Page 2 of 3 at Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page 3 of 3 t q Teri Takaoka From: Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:16 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: City Staff recommendation on Trump Trees Rebuttal Attachments: Trump Trees Letter 2a-1.doc Trump Trees Letter 2a-i.doc (4... Hi Carla - This (attached) is late correspondence for tonight's meeting. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message ----- From: Chip Zelt [mailto:chipzelt@gmail.com) Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 10:29 PM To: Greg Pfost Cc: tom.long@rpv.com; anthony.misetich@rpv.com; Douglas.Stern@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com Subject: City Staff recommendation on Trump Trees Rebuttal To: Gregg Pfost and Honorable Mayor and the city council members: > Please find attached rebuttal letter to your staff recomendation to > the Rancho Palos Verdes City council regarding Revision "TT" to the > Trump National Golf Course. > Sincerely, > Chip and Pat Zelt > p 310.377.8000 1 'Dt q Y41 Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 17, 2011 Attn: Gregory Pfost Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094o Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Greg: We reviewed your staff recommendation to the City Council for "TT" to the Trump National Golf Course Project: A request to permit two rows of Ficus trees/Hedges along the western edge or the Driving Range, etc. "Deny the Applicant's request for the proposed southerly ficus hedge, but approve the Applicant's request for the proposed northerly ficus hedge, and direct Staff to bring back the appropriate resolutions memorializing this decision to the next City Council meeting." Pat and I cannot see how you can recommend approval of any view -impairing ficus hedge, and we strongly disagree with this recommendation. Your recommendation is totally inconsistent with Revision "W" conditions set forth for the approval of the driving range. These conditions state: "Landscaping within the project area shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected." Please see below: Specifically, Resolution No. 2005-62: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR REVISION "W" — DRIVING RANGE on Page 12 of 13, under Mitigation Measures #10: 1110. Aesthetics A-1: Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan that identifies the type of vegetation proposed for the driving range and surrounding areas, specifically including the southerly berm. The type of vegetation utilized shall be consistent with the allowable vegetation permitted on the subject site, as defined in the project's HCP, and shall not be of a type that would grow higher than, the ridge elevation of the southerly berm. Further, said vegetation shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly Page 1 of 3 Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 We have provided you with photographs taken from the public trail and from my home which show violations of the original conditions of approval for the Driving Range, per Resolution No. 2005-64 Page g of 15 section K #2-b: "2. Prior to installation of the permanent landscaping for the golf course and associated structures, including the driving range, the developer shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval of the clubhouse, golf course and appurtenant structures, driving range'„ parking lots, and all open space areas within the boundaries of the parcel maps and/or tract maps, roadway medians and public trails. The final landscape and irrigation plans shall conform to California State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per State Assembly Bill 325) and shall include the following: a. A minimum of eighty percent (80%) drought tolerant plant materials for all b: so We are outraged that you would even consider allowing the northern part of these ficus trees. The Trump organization agreed to these conditions, and appealed to the neighbors of its property to support these conditions, which they did. Now these recommendations would negate this agreement, essentially ignoring both the agreement and the best interests of the neighbors and the general public. These trees substantially block significant views of Catalina and the ocean on the westerly public trail at the very point the trail project was to give the public the finest open view experience. The WALL of trees you recommend also would create a tunnel or canyon effect on the trail. Most communities today are trying to do away with such areas view restricted areas because they promote unsafe public conduct. I believe the explanation provided in your report as to the height of the Wall of trees grossly misrepresents reality. "The first row, which is the more northerly row, is proposed to be 9.8' high at its northern end and gradually decreasing in height to 6.0' high at its southerly end. The second row, which is directly south and west of the row described above, is 7:7' high at its northern end and gradually increasing in height to 11.0' high at its southerly end." Keep in mind that when the southerly berm was built up, it was accompanied by increased elevations of the easterly and westerly berm. The Wall of trees you recommend would sit on top of the Westerly berm that has been graded up over the years. Page 2 of 3 3Of� Chip and Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 As you state, the first row height of trees would be at 9.8' and would gradually decrease to 6.o'. However, you failed to note that the berm increases in height from approximately o' to 4'+ higher. For the second row of trees, you failed to note the berm height grows from 4' to 7'. Therefore, as seen from the Portuguese Bend community, the northerly row of trees height would be 9.8' high to io' high, and the second row of trees would be 11.7' high at the northern end, rising to 17' at the southern end. We do not see how you came to your recommendations. Was your goal simply to placate the Trump organization in light of the ongoing lawsuit by Trump against our city of Rancho Palos Verdes? Mr. Trump does not even offer a good reason for these view -blocking violations of the original conditional use agreement, other than his desire to block his driving range customers' views of our neighborhoods. To accomplish this, he wants to deprive the public and neighboring homeowners of important scenic views. As residents, taxpayers and voters, we call upon you to protect our views, and to hold to the terms agreed to by the Trump organization in Revision "W." We also ask you require Trump to correct their current violation of these terms on the southerly berm. In summary, we strongly oppose passage of revision "TT". Do not allow Trump to plant trees that will affect not only our views but the views of the entire public community. Sincerely, Chip & Pat Zelt Cc: Thomas D. Long — Mayor. Anthony M. Misetich, Mayor Pro Tem Douglas W. Stern —Councilmember Brian Campbell —Councilmember Stefan Wolowicz —Councilmember Page 3 of 3 Teri Takaoka From: Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:17 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Disapprove New Trees on Trump Property Hi Carla - This is late correspondence for tonight's meeting. Thanks. -Greg. Sincerely, Gregory Pfost, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5228 -----Original Message ----- From: Gene Rogers (mailto:generogers@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:22 PM To: gregp@rpv.com Subject: Disapprove New Trees on Trump Property The purpose of this message is to express strong opposition to the pending request to add new trees at the west end of the driving range at the Trump National Golf Course. The requested trees would obstruct views in several directions and create a hazard for trail hikers by obscuring visibility of the trail from adjacent roads, trails and the driving range. I've been hiking these specific trails for over a half -century and have grown very attached to the trails and the views. I camped below the Trump clubhouse with the Boy Scouts in the 1950s. I surfed the area in the 1960s. I hiked there with my family during the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1990s, I was president of the Friends of Friendship Park, very close to the Trump property, and got involved with trail planning in the area. During the last decade, I served on the Board of the local chapter of the California Trails Association to promote trail access across the Peninsula.. Based on what I've learned over those years about local hiking options and appropriate design standards for trail building, the proposed trees should not be installed. The intrusion of a new grove of trees at this visual focal point will degrade views of the ocean and Catalina Island from Palos Verdes Drive and from the existing viewpoint and parking area. Adjacent property owners have existing views of the coastline, Catalina and the ocean that will be impaired- sometimes severely. Likewise, trail hikers will have their views obscured as they approach from the Drive and while they pass through the tunnel of trees that will eventually take over this vicinity. The proposal specifies two rows of Ficus trees that will grow quickly to be thick and tall. Those Ficus trees will thoroughly screen visibility of people on the trail. This screened area is a potential liability and a hazard that exposes hikers, particularly women, to the risks of harassment or even attack. For public safety reasons, landscape design techniques for modern public spaces strive to make the entire area visible to passing police cars or passers by. 0[ ;L // 7' I request that the City of RPV deny the pending request to install new Ficus trees on the driving range. Sincerely, Gene Rogers 556 Via del Monte Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 generogers@gmail.com 2 'Or A 3 �„ V i6flLOC1. IDOf 4 a $ 00.440 Mailed From 9027.. �i l �~ US POSTAGE U ®� 4-o -F �u5 ro Y. From: cathy chang [catchang@rocketmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:27 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: lezam@rpv.com Subject: 28105 Golden Meadow Dear Honorable Members for the City Council, The public hearing on which you decide on 28105 Golden Meadow is tonight. I am writing to respectfully request that you to visit our property before the public hearing tonight, if you haven't already done so. I feel that pictures do not accurately reflect the privacy impact this has on our family. Please contact me if you'd like to arrange for a time for you to visit or feel free to simply stop by our home. If no one is at home you may walk to the up the straight driveway and enter our backyard from the gate on the left. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Cathy Chang 1476 Via Coronel Palos Verdes Estates Home: (310) 377-7148 Cell: (310) 292-9242 7/19/2011 5. From: Leza Mikhail [LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:51 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Matter Regarding 1476 Via Coronel in Palos Verdes Estates and 28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes Please include the emails below as late correspondence for my item (deck ... I believe no. 5 on the agenda). Thank you. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rzncho (Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planninq-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f eUam@rpv.com room From: Leza Mikhail [mailto:LezaM@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 20119:49 AM To: 'cathy chang' Subject: RE: Matter Regarding 1476 Via Coronel in Palos Verdes Estates and 28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes Hello Cathy, You are correct in that the letter was mistakenly not included... likely due to the fact that it came in after the last meeting. I will be sure to include it in the late correspondence to the City Council. I am sure that they have received it before due to the fact that the email was sent directly to all Council Members on April 7th. I will still include it in late correspondence as a reminder to them. As for the requirement to do a structural assessment .... there was discussion regarding if there had been any structural assessment done. Staff answered that there hadn't but that if the deck railing were approved, the owner would have to prove the structural stability.to the Building Official. The Council did not require an assessment of the Orlando's for this meeting likely because a decision was not rendered and the owner have to prove the structural stability and design if the deck were approved to remain as is. They voted twice to decide on the matter. Both motions failed 2-2 and they continued the request to a date when there would be 5 Council Members without any further direction to Staff or the applicant. Thank you for reminding me about this letter. Leza Mikhail Associate Planner City of Rancho (Tacos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 7/19/2011 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam rpv.com From: cathy chang [mailto:catchang@rocketmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 20119:39 AM To: lezam@rpv.com Subject: Fw: Matter Regarding 1476 Via Coronel in Palos Verdes Estates and 28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes Leza, I didn't see the letter from John C. Teets (below) included in the staff report. Can you please see that each councilmember receives it before the meeting tonight? They may have forgotten about this letter since it was sent right after the last hearing. Also, in the last hearing I recall Councilmen Campbell asking the Orlandos to get some sort of structural assessment on the deck to see if it would withstand the load. Did they submit any this like that? If yes can you show me where I can obtain a copy of it? Thanks. Cathy ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Chris Teets <CTeets@redmtncap.com> To: cc@rpv.com; tom.long@rpv.com; anthony.misetich@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; Douglas.Stern@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com Cc: lezam@rpv.com Sent: Thu, April 7, 201112:42:10 PM Subject: Matter Regarding 1476 Via Coronel in Palos Verdes Estates and 28105 Golden Meadow Rancho Palos Verdes Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes: My name is John Christopher Teets, I live at 2004 Noya Place in Palos Verdes Estates. It has come to my attention that there was a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5 regarding a deck that was extended that allows a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes to look directly into the backyard (and more importantly, the home) of one of their neighbors, Winston and Cathy Chang who live at 1476 Via Cornel in Palos Verdes Estates. Based upon what I have learned, I believe the subject property is 28105 Golden Meadow in Rancho Palos Verdes. The issue apparently relates to a request to eliminate a 1991 condition of approval which prohibited the extension of a deck and railing beyond a certain point. It appears to me that process and bureaucracy have gotten in the way of common sense. I have been in the backyard of Winston and Cathy Chang and cannot believe that this has become an issue that has demanded so much attention and that indeed there has in fact been an actual hearing on the matter. Based upon the previous ordinance put in place, and more importantly, the blatant violation of the Chang's privacy, one would have assumed that this would have been an open and shut case. From the City's perspective, I would think there would be a variety of considerations they would have taken into account, including, but not limited to: ■ It is clear that the residents of 28105 Golden Meadow have an unobstructed view into the home of the Chang's — this is indisputable and is pure and simply the result of the extension of the deck and railing. The Chang's have three young children (ages ten, seven and three) and the notion that strangers have complete visible access into their home is a blatant violation of the Chang family's privacy — presumably one could site basic constitutional privacy protections that would crystalize this issue for the panel that is deciding the issue. I am by no means an attorney, but am somewhat of a constitutional scholar and am confident there are a variety of property/privacy issues 7/19/2011 at hand here (specifically, embodied in the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Bill of Rights) ■ Secondly, there has to be a liability issue the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is taking into account as it relates to their decision. In addition to obvious visible access said deck and railing provide to the Chang's residence, by definition physical access to the property is also enhanced. What if the Chang's were robbed from this location, or even worse, something were to happen to one of the Chang's children by an intruder well positioned to scout the property and enter via this "deck"? Should the Chang's now be put in a position where they have to worry about whether or not the residents of 28105 Golden Meadow are at home or who their guests may or may not be? ■ Also, the basic issue of comfort in one's home comes into question. What if this was your home? What if someone had unobstructed visual access into your home, and more importantly, your children? Would you feel comfortable? Would you feel safe? These seem like basic rights one should be afforded within their own home and presumably something the Council should be trying to protect. ■ In addition, we are not talking about major structural changes to the property of 28105 Golden Meadow. It seems to me the fix is quite simple and affordable, not that economics should supersede the more important risks and issues noted above. ■ Finally, this issue could become a very slippery slope in terms of property and privacy rights for the City and I am not sure setting such a precedent will ultimately enhance the property values (and tax revenue) for the City. In fact, I am sure it won't. It should be noted that I am not one to draft letters to city authorities. In fact, this is my first. But the fact that this has become an issue at all is truly concerning, I would also be extremely disappointed to find out that those voting on this issue have not ALL visited both properties before rendering a decision — this would seem to be the most basic level of appropriate due diligence and would seemingly provide some level of liability mitigation if the City or residents in question ever became subject to a much more serious liability related to the properties. This seems like a basic decision between the accommodation of one citizen versus the safety and privacy of another. If I were a member of the Council, I certainly know where I would lean. apologize in advance for taking up your time, but do appreciate your consideration. Respectfully yours, John C. Teets 7/19/2011 Page 1 of 2 Leza Mikhail From: Sil Orlando [Silorlando@oyhfs.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:10 PM To: Leza Mikhail Subject: FW: Easements Was able to getthe below information for you on the easements issue. Sit Cz&rota, aesw Executive Director Optimist Youth Homes & Family Services 6957 No. Figueroa St. P.O. Box 41-1076 Los Angeles, Ca. 90041-1076 (323) 443-3127 Visit our website at: www.o 12y fsorg DONATE TO OYHFS EASILYBY CLICKING ON THIS LINK. http://www.oyhfs.or /secdirectdonation.html --- On Wed, 7/13/11, Nicol, Scot (TRG) <.Scot.Nicol@progressivetitle.com> wrote: From: Nicol, Scot (TRG) <Scot.Nicol@progressivetitle.com> Subject: Easements To: "adrianaorlando@yahoo.com" <adrianaorlando@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2011, 12:55 PM thanks Scot, on that one on golden meadow theres 2 easements the north 5 feet for storm drain and the rear 6 feet for utilities Scot Nicol Progressive Title Company 310.529.5286 Scot.nicol progressivetitle.com<mailto:Scot.nicol@progressivetitle.com> "carpe diem" This electronic mail message transmission contains information which may be Confidential and/or Privileged. The information is intended to be for the sole use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. 7/19/2011 (aFC�- 61� Page 2 of 2 If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately. This Message, and any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under federal or state law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy the e-mail and all attachments. 7/19/2011 7/7/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. Hearing July 19,2011 To members of the City Council, We are responding to your recent letter to inform you that we do not think that the owners of the above mentioned property should have to move their deck railing back. The neighbor who complained is being unfair in his request to have the rail moved back. The view into his yard from the end of the deck and from 10 feet back is exactly the same. We hope you will support our request that the current owners be allowed to leave the railing where it is now as the city did permit this in the first place. Please contact us if you need any further information. Sincerely, Name: �� .� � W—de- Address: 3zt ':� o5D 'V ` ' [ 6 J JUL 1.5 2011-- COMMUNITY 011:COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7/7/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. Hearing July 19,2011 To members of the City Council, We are responding to your recent letter to inform you that we do not think that the owners of the above mentioned property should have to move their deck railing back. The neighbor who complained is being unfair in his request to have the rail moved back. The view into his yard from the end of the deck and from 10 feet back is exactly the same. We hope you will support our request that the current owners be allowed to leave the railing where it is now as the city did permit this in the first place. Please contact us if you need any further information. Sincerely, Name: Address: RECEIVE® AlL 1 �. a } 20�f COMM�N�'Y OE�ELOp flEPgRrMENT MEMT 7/7/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. Hearing July 19,2011 To members of the City Council, We are responding to your recent letter to inform you that we do not think that the owners of the above mentioned property should have to move their deck railing back. The neighbor who complained is being unfair in his request to have the rail moved back. The view into his yard from the end of the deck and from 10 feet back is exactly the same. We hope you will support our request that the current owners be allowed to leave the railing where it is now as the city did permit this in the first place. Please contact us if you need any further information. Sincerely,4- Name: Address: 81'r� d r' IMCE1VEC JUL 15 2011 CORIWIJNrry ELOPINENT pEpAN?MENT S 7/7/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. Hearing July 19,2011 To members of the City Council, We are responding to your recent letter to inform you that we do not think that the owners of the above mentioned property should have to move their deck railing back. The neighbor who complained is being unfair in his request to have the rail moved back. The view into his yard from the end of the deck and from 10 feet back is exactly the same. We hope you will support our request that the current owners be allowed to leave the railing where it is now as the city did permit this in the first place. Please contact us if you need any further information. Sincerely, Name: /r%�� L 1 Address: �-'/ 9 ku 9/t/31 p4n> RECEIVED JUL 15-2011' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6/20/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. To whom it may concern, As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck. We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their walls and ceiling. We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before completing the work that they did. Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the end of the deck and from 10' back from the end is no different at all. In actuality, they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a consideration. Feel free to contact us if you need any further information. Thank you. Sincerely, Name: y G Address: �'j`` 6/20/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. To whom it may concern, As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck. We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their walls and ceiling. We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before completing the work that they did. Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the end of the deck and from 10' back from the end is no different at all. In actuality, they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a consideration. Feel free to contact us if you need any further information. Thank you. Sincerely, Name: Tvkk Address: ��v, CR, gon'r 6/20/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. To whom it may concern, As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck. We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their walls and ceiling. We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before completing the work that they did. Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the end of the deck and from 10' back from the end is no different at all. In actuality, they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a consideration. Feel free to contact us if you need any further information. Thank you. Sincerely, �V-�/Ut-e> Name: Address: 7arl�?:i F® (Z ai4- s 6/20/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. To whom it may concern, As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck. We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their walls and ceiling. We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before completing the work that they did. Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the end of the deck and from 10' back from the end is no different at all. In actuality, they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a consideration. Feel free to contact us if you need any further information. Thank you. Sincerely Name: Address: ��U OVv qD2--7-'S- S 6/20/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV; Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. To whom it may concern, As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck. We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their walls and ceiling. We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before completing the work that they did. Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the end of the deck and from 10' back from the end is no different at all. In actuality, they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a consideration. Feel free to contact us if you need any further information. Thank you. Sincerely, �, �,, Name: , Address: s 6/20/11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning, Building and Coder Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RPV, Ca. 90275 Re. 28105 Golden Meadow Dr. To whom it may concern, As neighbors of the Orlandos we support their request to allow the second story deck railing to be able to remain installed around the perimeter of their deck. We are well aware of the expenses incurred by the Orlandos due to the fact that the former railing was set back from the far side of the deck causing considerable water leakage into their walls and ceiling. We also know that they secured all necessary permits from the city before completing the work that they did. Standing on the deck there is absolutely no privacy issue with the neighbors as visibility from the end of the deck and from 10' back from the end is no different at all. In actuality, they hardly ever go out on to that deck so privacy should not even be a consideration. Feel free to contact us if you need any further information. Thank you. Sincerely, �( OQ Name: U Ko a,8 Address: t.L. r-fA)' ' qo r S I A� RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JULY 18, 2011 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 19, 2011 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Email from Nancy Parsons; Email exchanges between: Staff and Nancy Parsons; Staff and Kathy Liberman; Staff and Jerene Tussey; Mayor Long and Marge Carter E Emails from: Dena Friedson; Sharon Yarber; Eva Cicoria; 2 Emails from: John Freeman; Sharon Yarber; Email exchange between Staff and Sharon Yarber 7 Email from Don Richardson Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale W:WGENDX2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110719 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:51 AM To: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: City Tree Decision of July 5th, 2011 From: Nancy Parsons [mailto:nancyparsons@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:42 AM To: CC@rpv.com Cc: Marge Carter; MikRobOS@aol.com Subject: City Tree Decision of July 5th, 2011 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers, I am writing to you regarding the outcome of the City Council hearing on the Berry HillNia Cambron trees, held Tuesday July 5th, 2011. A week has passed, and I remain dismayed and troubled at this turn of events. Over the past 18 months, I and my fellow appellants (the original appellants of the case), have spent literally hundreds of hours in our endeavors to save these trees, facing a labyrinthine gauntlet of obstacles, and systematically overcoming each one. In the short time allotted to us in the "public comments" section of the hearing, it was impossible to lay out our case, and explain how a complicated and alarming sequence of actions by the City most likely affected the outcome. The hearing rules which allotted the view seekers 39 minutes vs. 9 (plus 2) for us, was very unbalanced, so I am hoping you will all take the time to read this letter. On March 2nd, 2010, Mike O'Sullivan, Marge Carter, and I appealed a decision by the City involving 2 CTRP applicants (Marinovich,Yousefpour), and 7 (not 10) trees. Trees 1-3 were excluded as not significant from these two properties. Our appeal involved trees 4-10. Rules of appeal clearly state that only issues raised in an appeal may be addressed in that appeal. Our original appeal letter is on file in the reports, where you are welcome to read it. Nowhere are trees 1-3 mentioned. The rebuttal statement made by Mrs Marinovich about not wanting to spend tens of thousands of dollars on repeated appeals regarding trees 1-3 was completely and patently untrue. The time for her or the Yousefpours to appeal was at the point of this first decision from which they were excluded. It would have cost her $2225.00, the same amount we paid. She had no idea we were appealing the other trees at the time, so could not have been foreseeing any future sequence of hearings. The Marinoviches and Yousefpours accepted this decision regarding trees 1-3 after that first 15 day period expired. During our first PC hearing some other neighbors did step up and say that some of the City trees were impairing their views as well, but they had been discouraged from filing CTRPs citing delays in processing additional applications etc, and the result would be the same. Obviously the City had pre judged the outcome. After the public comments were closed, the PC members had much discussion back and forth, and one mentioned involving some of the other neighbors up above. Staff apparently interpreted this discussion as direction for them to add other applications to our appeal. We did not realize that this was happening until many weeks later. According to PC regulations (PC Resolution 2007-48 (1.10) "Direction to Staff': "Any explicit direction to Staff shall come through the Chairperson or as a result of a consensus of the Planning Commission by formal motion." Neither of these things occurred during the hearing, so the City basically took this action of their own accord. You are welcome to listen to the archives or read the minutes of the hearing to verify that this is true. It wasn't until months later, after requesting all correspondence between the City and the applicants, that I found out that the City had in fact solicited other applicants, coming up with two. They were given a filing deadline of 5:30pm June 1 st, 2010. When one them missed the deadline, City Staff contacted them 10 days after the deadline, 7/18/2011 �j and accepted a CTRP application on the 11th day past the deadline. In this way, without our knowledge or consent, 2 applicants and 3 trees were added on to our appeal. So, direction to Staff and missed deadline issues aside, in what legal world is it acceptable to add 2 people and 3 trees to an appeal, completely changing the parameters of the case? I ask you, Gentlemen, are there any among you who would accept this scenario in any legal action in which you were involved? I would have accepted dealing with the Morrison property as a separate issue. The Marinovich/Yousefpour claim on trees 1-3 would have been dead because they did not appeal it. So how is it they were still able to hold sway over the Council, claiming their views were impaired by these trees? In the matter of the sidewalks, this issue had been previously addressed to Public Works, as you know, and was discounted. Can a resident just keep asking the same question until they get the reply that they want? Were not the Planning Staff and Commission being held to the same standard to adhere to the code as the Council? I think Mr Wolowicz got it right that all City trees and old neighborhood sidewalks have a certain amount of movement and damage. I think I proved with my photographs, that there is just as much damage on upper Berry Hill closer to the applicants, as there is around trees 1-3. I appreciate that Mr Wolowicz actually came out and had a look for himself, and I thought he was on the right track in his original motion. I was shocked when everything then turned around, as if it were just simpler to get rid of everything. I was extremely disappointed that not one Council member even asked to see my property on the site map, to understand why these trees are so important to my family and my property. My property is sandwiched between two intersections, and these trees provide shade and form the view from my front window. They were part of the reason I was attracted to my property when we purchased it. I agreed to take on the financial burden of adopting all three of these trees because I didn't want to trust them to anyone who might not live up to the agreement to trim them properly. I was shocked at one statement that these trees are also unsightly. This opinion is certainly well outside the mainstream. Lacing of Canary Island pines is a common practice, and they can be seen all over the southland. I have never heard anyone say they were unsightly. The "unsightliness" of the other trees was a known and accepted risk factor, the payoff being that, with patience, in 5 years we would have attractive trees again. Now, let's face it, none of us in the neighborhood will ever see the replacement trees look like anything but saplings. There are some 15 year old trees in the neighborhood that are still staked. I do think trees 1-3 reasonably met all the criteria. I know there are ordinances to adhere to (I know many of them verbatim now), but the the rules should have been followed starting 2 years ago, then if the outcome was the same, at least it would have been a level playing field. This process was was anything but. It was a continuing series of double jeopardies for the trees which I don't think anything could have survived. I believe there may have been some misinterpretation of the view ordinance itself, which requires the "...pruning of dense foliage or tree growth...". It does not require that all foliage that crosses in to the ocean frame be eliminated. Also, the fact that trees 1-3 were eliminated from 2 properties due to periphery in the view, and were the same degree of periphery in the third property, was completely ignored. This factor is specifically provided for in the view ordinance. It is really very tragic to lose trees that are so important to my property and neighborhood, for so little gain for others. I don't think that was the original intent of the view ordinance. I believe this is why so many RPV residents have started a backlash against the draconian interpretation of the ordinance. And just so you do not think I am being hypocritical, trying to deny someone a view, I am in the exact same situation with the privately owned trees across the street, which partially block my ocean view. Somehow I managed to survive 15 years, enjoying my view, oblivious to the fact that I should be demanding more. Yes, there are bigger problems in the world, but this decision directly affects the quality of life in my home and neighborhood on a daily basis. The process, and I have only touched on some of the missteps, was a bureaucratic nightmare which somehow left us worse off than the original decision. My sense of fairness and justice has really been shattered by these proceedings. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. 7/18/2011 Z 0 3 Regards, Nancy Parsons email: nancvparsonsO_cox.net 7/18/2011 From: Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:49 AM To: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: CTRP 2008-00031 Attachments: Notice of Decision for 7-5-11 CC Decision. pdf From: Amy Trester [mailto:amyt@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 20119:24 AM To: 'Nancy Parsons' Cc: 'Marge Carter'; MikRobOS@aol.com; 'Joel Rojas'; 'Greg Pfost'; Tom Odom'; 'Nicole Jules'; 'Emilio Blanco'; 'Carla Morreale' Subject: RE: CTRP 2008-00031 Hello Nancy - Thank you for your email. I was out of the office on Friday and just received it this morning. I did mail a notice last week with City Council Resolution 2011-50 that was adopted at the July 5th City Council meeting regarding the decision on CTRP2008-00031. However, as it sounds like you have not yet received it, I have attached a copy of the notice and City Council Resolution 2011-50 to this email as well. I believe you came in on Friday and picked up a copy of the July 19th memo and attached resolution that is on the consent calendar for the July 19th City Council meeting. This memo and resolution is related to the additional trimming for CTRP No. 178. \ Regarding the minutes from the July 5th hearing, I have inquired with the City Clerk and she informed me that the minutes from the July 5th meeting are currently being worked on, and will be put on the August 2nd City Council agenda as draft minutes to be approved. She also informed me that if the draft minutes are approved at the August 2nd meeting, they will be available on the City's website by the end of that week, or by August 5th Regarding your question about the time frame for this project, please note that I am working with Public Works Staff on a draft timeline for the tree removal/replacement/replanti ngs/street repair, most directly with Tom Odom, Deputy Director of Public Works. From my discussions with Tom, I believe that part of that timeline will be for us to set up a time to come out and meet with. the neighborhood to obtain input on the project, including tree types, planting locations, etc., of course before anything removed. We will coordinate with you, Marge and Barbara in regards to scheduling this visit. I will also distribute this draft timeline as soon as it is complete. Thank you and please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.conL/rpv amytRDrpv.com - (310) 544-5228 From: Nancy Parsons [mailto:nancyparsons@cox.net] Sent: Friday, July 15, 20113:32 PM To: Amy Trester Cc: Marge Carter; MikRobOS@aol.com Subject: CTRP 2008-00031 7/18/2011 Hi Amy, Thank you for the info on the other adopted City trees. I did not see anything on the City Council consent calendar regarding CTRP 2008-00031, and I have not received anything in the mail. (I saw the info for CTRP 178.) Will there be any report issued, with minutes from the hearing? Also, what is the time frame for the tree removal? Since the neighbors wish to have input on the "beautification plan", I expect we will have ample notice before it is scheduled. I will be out of town until Thursday, Jul 21 st, but will pick up emails. Thank you. Regards, Nancy Parsons email: nancy arsons@cgox.net 7/18/2011 C!TY OF RANCHO 13ALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 12, 2011 Interested Party Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject- July 5, 2011 City Council Decision on Appeal of P.C. Resolution 20111-18 — (City Tree Review Permit 2008-00031) Dear Interested Party, On July 5, 2011, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution No, 2011-50, which approved the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 2011-18, thereby finding that Tree Nos. 1 -10 shall be removed and replaced with 24 -inch box size trees. A copy of City Council Resolution 2011-50 is enclosed with this letter. At this same meeting, the City Council also voted to adopt Staffs recommendation to dismiss the appeal of the Planning Commission's Concurrence with the Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No. 178 (P.C. Resolution 2011-17) as the additional tree trimming that was being recommended to 7 of the 10 trees for the benefit of the applicant of City Tree Review Permit No. 178 became a moot point after the approval of Resolution 2011-50. Staff is now bringing back a resolution for adoption on the consent agenda at the July 19, 2011 City Council meeting for the dismissal of the appeal of P.C. Resolution 2011- 17. Please note that you may access the report and resolution for this item on the City's website, http://www.palosverdes.coMLrpvj by clicking on the link that reads: "CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA". This report and resolution will be available online by Friday, July 15th. If you cannot access the City's website to view the report and attached resolution and wish to have a physical copy mailed to you, please contact me at (310) 544-5228 or via email at amyarpv.com. Thank you. Sincerely, k Amy Trester Associate Planner Enclosures: City Council Resolution 2011-50 CC: File Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Greg Pfost, Deputy Community Development Director Tom Odom, Deputy Public Works Director 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. RANC;HO PALLS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL. PLANNINGORPVCOM/ WM1VPAIOSVERDESCOM/RF)V 48 City Council Resolution 2011-50 July 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Carol Lynch, City Attorney Virginia Leon, 30413 Via Cambron Current Resident, 7369 Berry Hill Drive Nancy Parsons, 7361 Berry Hill Drive Jerene Tussey, 30303 Via Cambron Current Resident, 30311 Via Cambron Mr. & Mrs, Perez, 30317 Via Cambron Current Resident, 30327 Via Cambron Tim Rosseno, 30405 Via Gambron Mr. & Mrs. Gane.ko, 7313 Via Collado Larry Marinovich, 7315 Berry Hill Drive Joseph Yousefpour, 7306 Berry HIII'Drive Marjorie C. Cartier, 7307 Via Collado Steve Allen, 7301 Via Collado J.P. Agronick, 7300 Via Collado Patrick C. O'Brien, 7310 Via Collado Mr, & Mrs. Levander, 30429 Via Cambron Mrs. Barbara VSullivan, 30466 Via Cambron Norma CrooK 30451Via Cambron Jean OBrien, 30438 Via Cambron Frederic Whitson, 30441 Via Cambron D. Slutsky, 36445 Via Cambron R.C. Hoskins, 30436 Via Cambron Janice Spivey, 30456 Via Cambron Kay B. Schoof, 30423 Via Cambron Mr. & Mrs. Fooks, 30457 Via Cambron Phillip Alley, 7336 Berry Hill Drive Donna Butler, 30462 Via Cambron Stu Thomson, 30463 Via Cambron Ewan White, 7303 Berry Hill Drive Mr. & Mrs. Liberman, 7318 Berry Hill Drive Mr. 4 Mrs. Wiggins, 7321 Berry Hill Drive Jim Morrison, 7284 Berry Hill Drive Mr. & Mrs. Galvin, 7333 Berry Hill Drive Roola ZuIll, 7346 Berry Hill Drive Karen & John Jordan, 7302 Via Collado 4 C)� 0 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 20'1'1-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OVERTURNING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011-18 WHICH REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF ONE CITY TREE AND THE TRIMMING OF NINE CITY TREES TO ELIMINATE THE SIGNIFICANT VIEW IMPAIRMENT CAUSED BY THE TREES TO FOUR PROPERTIES AND INSTEAD REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF ALL TEN TREES. WHEREAS, on October 16, 2008, Mr. Joseph Yousefpour and Mr. Larry Marinovich, owners of property located at 7306 and 7315 Berry Hill Drive, respectively, (herein "the Applicants,"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"), filed an application requesting approval of a City Tree Review Permit ("Permit") to restore a view from their properties that is significantly Impaired by ten (10) City -owned Canary Island Pine Trees, located in the public right-of-way on Via Cambron, adjacent to $0405, 30327 and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado, and in the public right-of,.way on Via Collado, adjacent to 7313 Via Collado, and on Berry Hill Drive adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and, WHEREAS, On May 28, 2009, pursuant to the Code provisions governing the processing of City Tree Review Permits, the Director made a preliminary determination, finding that the ten (10) Canary Island Pine Trees significantly impair the view from the applicants' viewing areas and approved CTRP2008-00031, requiring the removal of the ten (10) Trees. The> City of Rancho Palos Verdes mailed to surrounding residents this preliminary determination of approval and Notice of Decision approving a request to remove the Trees because they significantly impair the ocean and Catalina Island view from the Viewing areas of the applicants located at 7306, and 7315 Berry Hill Drive, and, WHEREAS, during the period from May 2009 through August 2009, several residents of Via Cambron and Via Collado who received the Director's preliminary determination of approval and several who did not, submitted correspondence commenting on this preliminary report; and, WHEREAS, on February 12, 2010, the Director determined that the issues raised by these residents did not constitute grounds under the City's ordinance to warrant an administrative denial of the City Tree Review Permit application, and issued a Final Notice of Decision for Tree Nos. 4- 10, with the modifications of eliminating Tree Nos. 1-3 from the application and allowing the potential adoption of Tree Nos, 5, 7 and 10. This Final Notice was mailed to the original 14 residents who received the preliminary staff report, the applicants, and all other residents who submitted comments on the preliminary staff report; and, WHEREAS, on March 2, 2010, Mrs. Nancy Parsons, Ms. Marjorie C. Carter, and Mr. Michael O'Sullivan submitted an appeal to overturn the Dlrector's decision; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on April 8, 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2010, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission hearing on April 27th, 2010, the Planning Commission modified Staff's recommendation, recommending that all seven Trees be trimmed down out of the Catalina Island View (horizon level) as viewed from the Marinovich viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive, with the exception of Tree No. 4, (if the residents directly adjacent to Tree No. 4 continued to object to its adoption). The Planning Commission stated that adoption agreements must be prepared prior to the Trees being trimmed, and that after the Trees are 5 0 � a trimmed, Staff should schedule the item to return to the Planning Commission. At this follow-up meeting, the Planning Commission would determine if the trimming eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicant's viewing areas, and if not, could require one or more of the trimmed Trees to be removed. The Planning Commission also stated that if there were additional applicants who withdrew from the initial application process, they should be allowed to have their views assessed after the trimming is completed as well. Staff was to make the revisions to the Resolution and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting for formal approval; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the Planning Commission recommendation at the April 27th meeting, Staff realized that there were two issues with the Planning Commission direction that would require additional work by Staff to resolve. Staff drafted a memo to the Planning Commission, requesting that Staff be allowed to delay bringing back the Planning Commission's revised resolution for formal approval. These two issues were 1) how to address views from other potential applicants' properties under this same application, (Le., review the views prior to after the initial trimming), and 2) that Municipal Code Section 17.76.100.F.1.c.iv requires that the abutting neighbor must agree in writing when the tree directly abutting their property is proposed to be adopted, and Staff only had the written disagreement of one abutting resident. The Planning Commission received and filed this report on May 11, 2010; and, WHEREAS, after noticed issued on November 25, 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 14, 2010, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard at the December 14, 20 10 meeting and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the matter, heard public testimony and gave Staff direction regarding Staff's recommendations and requested that the resolution containing the amended recommendation be brought back to the Commission for review and approval at the next Planning Commission meeting; and, WHEREAS, a resolution was presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 11, 2011 for the approval of CTRP2008-00031, as amended, and this Resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-0'1j was approved and signed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, P.C. Resolution 2011-01 was not appealed within the 15 -day appeal period and so was made final at 5:30prn on January 26, 2011; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.80-120 of the Municipal Code, and P.0 Resolution 2011 -01, the appellants and other contributors to the appeal fee had the full cost of the appeal ($2,255, 00) refunded to them within 30 days of the January 11, 2010 meeting; and, WHEREAS, per Condition No. 6 of P.C. Resolution 2011 -01, signed and notarized adoption covenants for Tree Nos. 1-10 were submitted to Staff by 12:00pm on February 15, 2011; and, WHEREAS, per Condition No. 9 of P.C. Resolution 2011-01, on February 14, 2011 and February 23, 2011, the City had a biologist inspect Tree Nos. 1 -10 to determine whether there was an active nest(s) in any of the trees. The biologist identified one nest in Tree No. 8, but this nest was not active; and, WHEREAS, as no active nests were found in Tree Nos. 1-10, per the requirements of Condition No, 9 of P.C. Resolution 2011-01, the City's contracted tree trimming company, West Coast Arborists, Inc., completed the trimming of Tree Nos. 1 -10 on February 17, 18 and 24, 2011; and, Resolution No. 2011-50 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, in February 2011, Staff observed the Views and took photographs of the trimmed trees from the applicants' viewing areas; and, WHEREAS, per Condition No. 8 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-01, Staff scheduled a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if the tree trimming as described above has eliminated the significant view impairment for the four applicants; and, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was issued on March 24, 2011 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a draft Resolution was presented to the Planning Commission for approval and signature at the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2011; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Planning Commission Resolution 2011-18 on April 12, 2011, which stated, among other things, that the trimming of the ten trees had eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicants' properties; and, WHEREAS, an appeal of P.C. Resolution 2011-18 was submitted on April 27, 2011 by Mr. Larry Marinovich, property owner at 7315 Berry Hill Drive, Mr. Joseph Yousefpour, property owner at 7306 Berry Hill Drive, Mr. James Morrison, 7284 Berry Hill Drive; and, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was issued on June 16, 2011 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and a draft Resolution was presented to the City Council for approval and signature at the City Council meeting of July 5, 2011, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, the Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive, 7315 Berry Hill Drive, 7284 Berry Hill Drive and 7333 Berry Hill Drive have a view of the Ocean and Catalina Island, Section The Applicants viewing area at 7306 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17,02.040 of the Cit)(s, Development Code, is from the living room/dining room. The Applicant's viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room. The Applicant's viewing area at 7284 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the dining area next to the kitchen. The Applicant's viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room. Section 3: The completion of the initial trimming by the City of the ten (10) City -owned, and privately -adopted Canary Island Pine Trees located on Via Cambron, Via Collado & Berry Hill Drive has eliminated the significant view impairment from the four applicant's properties located at 7306, 7315, 7284 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive. Section 4: Based on new information obtained from the Public Works Department that the trees are indeed damaging the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, the City council determines that Tree Nos. 1-10 are indeed damaging the public right-of-way and thus per Municipal Code Section 17,76.100,F,I.o.iii, cannot be adopted and trimmed and thus must be removed and replaced. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work required Resolution No. 2011-50 Page 3 of 4 -T of Z) to restore the Applicants' view does not include the removal of scenic and mature Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects; Figure 41). This finding, demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. Since the subject Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan, the environmental impacts due to removal are insignificant. Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information presented at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's approval of P.C. Resolution 2011-18, thereby finding that Tree Nos. 1-10 be removed and replaced with 24 -inch box size trees, the variety and number of which shall be determined by the Public Works Department. Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 51h day of July 2011. /s/ Thomas D. Lonq Mayor Attest: /s/ Carla Morreale City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 1, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2011-50 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on July 5, 2011 Resolution No. 2011-50 Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 2 Amy Trester From: Amy Trester [amyt@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:24 AM To: 'Nancy Parsons' Cc: 'Marge Carter'; 'MikRobOS@aol.com; 'Joel Rojas; 'Greg Pfost'; 'Tom Odom'; 'Nicole Jules'; 'Emilio Blanco'; 'Carla Morreale' Subject: RE: CTRP 2008-00031 Attachments: Notice of Decision for 7-5-11 CC Decision.pdf Hello Nancy - Thank you for your email. I was out of the office on Friday and just received it this morning. I did mail a notice last week with City Council Resolution 2011-50 that was adopted at the July 5th City Council meeting regarding the decision on CTRP2008-00031. However, as it sounds like you have not yet received it, I have attached a copy of the notice and City Council Resolution 2011-50 to this email as well. I believe you came in on Friday and picked up a copy of the July 19th memo and attached resolution that is on the consent calendar for the July 19th City Council meeting. This memo and resolution is related to the additional trimming for CTRP No. 178. \ Regarding the minutes from the July 5th hearing, I have inquired with the City Clerk and she informed me that the minutes from the July 5th meeting are currently being worked on, and will be put on the August 2nd City Council agenda as draft minutes to be approved. She also informed me that if the draft minutes are approved at the August 2nd meeting, they will be available on the City's website by the end of that week, or by August 5th Regarding your question about the time frame for this project, please note that I am working with Public Works Staff on a draft timeline for the tree rem oval/repl acement/replanti ngs/street repair, most directly with Tom Odom, Deputy Director of Public Works. From my discussions with Tom, I believe that part of that timeline will be for us to set up a time to come out and meet with the neighborhood to obtain input on the project, including tree types, planting locations, etc., of course before anything removed. We will coordinate with you, Marge and Barbara in regards to scheduling this visit. I will also distribute this draft timeline as soon as it is complete. Thank you and please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/Mv amytCcDrpv.com - (310) 544-5228 From: Nancy Parsons [mailto:nancyparsons@cox.net] Sent: Friday, July 15, 20113:32 PM To: Amy Trester Cc: Marge Carter; MikRobOS@aol.com a 7/18/2011 Page 2 of 2 Subject: CTRP 2008-00031 Hi Amy, Thank you for the info on the other adopted City trees. I did not see anything on the City Council consent calendar regarding CTRP 2008-00031, and I have not received anything in the mail. (I saw the info for CTRP 178.) Will there be any report issued, with minutes from the hearing? Also, what is the time frame for the tree removal? Since the neighbors wish to have input on the "beautification plan", I expect we will have ample notice before it is scheduled. I will be out of town until Thursday, Jul 21 st, but will pick up emails. Thank you. Regards, Nancy Parsons email: nark arsons(ftox.net .2 0E 7/18/2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 12, 2011 Interested Party Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: July 5, 2011 City Council Decision on Appeal of P.C. Resolution 2011-18 (City Tree Review Permit 2008-00031) Dear Interested Party, On July 5, 2011, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 2011-50, which approved the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 2011-18, thereby finding that Tree Nos. 1-10 shall be removed and replaced with 24 -inch box size trees. A copy of City Council Resolution 2011-50 is enclosed with this letter. At this same meeting, the City Council also voted to adopt Staff's recommendation to dismiss the appeal of the Planning Commission's Concurrence with the Director's Interpretation Review of the Conditions of Approval of CTRP No. 178 (P.C. Resolution 2011-17) as the additional tree trimming that was being recommended to 7 of the 10 trees for the benefit of the applicant of City Tree Review Permit No. 178 became a moot point after the approval of Resolution 2011-50. Staff is now bringing back a resolution for adoption on the consent agenda at the July 19, 2011 City Council meeting for the dismissal of the appeal of P.C. Resolution 2011- 17. Please note that you may access the report and resolution for this item on the City's website, http://www.oalosverdes.com/rpv/ by clicking on the link that reads: "CURRENT CITY COUNCIL. AGENDA". This report and resolution will be available online by Friday, July 15th. If you cannot access the City's website to view the report and attached resolution and wish to have a physical copy mailed to you, please contact me at (310) 544-5228 or via email at amyt(@-roy.com. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy " Trester Associate Planner Enclosures: City Council Resolution 2011-50 CC: File Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Greg Pfost, Deputy Community Development Director Tom Odom, Deputy Public Works Director 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERGES, CA 90275-5391 PI ANNING & GODE ENFORCEMENT EMSION (310) 544 5228 J BUIE DING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265.7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL PLANNIN(;G)RIMUM/ WWWPALOSVERDESCOM/RW ©- City Council Resolution 2O11 -5U July 12,2O11 Page 2 of 2 Carol Lynch, City Attorney Virginia Leon, 30413Via Cmmbnnn Current Resident, 7369 Berry Hill Drive Nancy Parsons, 7301 Berry Hill Drive JenmneTussey, 3O3O3Via Ca,nbnon Current Resident, 3U311Via Connbnmn Mr. & Mrs. Perez, 3D317Via Cambpmn Current Resident, 3O327Via Canmbnon Tim Roaaeno.3U4O5Via Cambnon Mr. & Mrs. Qmnaho' 7313Via Collado Larry K8mrinovioh.7315Berry Hill Drive Joseph Yoummfpour.730SBerry Hill Drive Marjorie O.Carter, 73O7Via Collado Steve Allen, 7301 Via Collado J.P.Agronioh.73U0Via Collado Pothoh C.O^Bhen`731OViaCollado Mr. & Mrs, Levondor.3O429VioCambnon Mrs. Barbara C>'SuUixan.3D4G8Via Oamnbnon Norma Crook, 3D451Via Oannbnon Jean O'Bhen,38438Via Cambpon Frederic Whitson, 3O441Via Camnbnon D. 8|utahy, 3O445Via Cambnon Fl.C.Hoskins, 3O435Via Oamnbnun Janice Spivey, 3O458Via Cambnon Kay B.8choof,3O423Via Combnon N1c & Mrs. Fooko, 3O457Via Cumbnon Phillip Alley, 7336Berry Hill Drive Donna Butler, 3U4G2Via Cammbnon Stu Thomson, 3O463Via Cornbnon Ewan White, 73O3Berry Hill Drive Mr. & Mrs. Liberman, 7318Berry Hill Drive Mr. & Mrs. Wiggins, 7321 Berry Hill Drive Jinn K0orr|mon, 7284Berry Hill Drive Mr. & Mrs. Go|vin, 7333 Berry Hill Drive Roo|oZuUi734MBerry Hill Drive Karen & John Jordan, 7302 Via Collado CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES OVERTURNING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011-18 WHICH REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF ONE CITY TREE AND THE TRIMMING OF NINE CITY TREES TO ELIMINATE THE SIGNIFICANT VIEW IMPAIRMENT CAUSED BY THE TREES TO FOUR PROPERTIES AND INSTEAD REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF ALL TEN TREES. WHEREAS, on October 16, 2008, Mr. Joseph Yousefpour and Mr. Larry Marinovich, owners of property located at 7306 and 7315 Berry Hill Drive, respectively, (herein "the Applicants"), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"), filed an application requesting approval of a City Tree Review Permit ("Permit") to restore a view from their properties that is significantly impaired by ten (10) City -owned Canary Island Pine Trees, located in the public right-of-way on Via Cambron, adjacent to 30405, 30327 and 30317 Via Cambron and 7313 Via Collado, and in the public right-of-way on Via Collado, adjacent to 7313 Via Collado, and on Berry Hill Drive adjacent to 30303 Via Cambron in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and, WHEREAS, On May 28, 2009, pursuant to the Code provisions governing the processing of City Tree Review Permits, the Director made a preliminary determination, finding that the ten (10) Canary Island Pine Trees significantly impair the view from the applicants' viewing areas and approved CTRP2008-00031, requiring the removal of the ten (10) Trees. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes mailed to surrounding residents this preliminary determination of approval and Notice of Decision approving a request to remove the Trees because they significantly impair the ocean and Catalina Island view from the viewing areas of the applicants located at 7306, and 7316 Berry Hill Drive; and, WHEREAS, during the period from May 2009 through August 2009, several residents of Via Cambron and Via Collado who received the Director's preliminary determination of approval and several who did not, submitted correspondence commenting on this preliminary report; and, WHEREAS, on February 12, 2010, the Director determined that the issues raised by these residents did not constitute grounds under the City's ordinance to warrant an administrative denial of the City Tree Review Permit application, and issued a Final Notice of Decision for Tree Nos. 4- 10, with the modifications of eliminating Tree Nos. 1-3 from the application and allowing the potential adoption of Tree Nos. 5, 7 and 10. This Final Notice was mailed to the original 14 residents who received the preliminary staff report, the applicants, and all other residents who submitted comments on the preliminary staff report; and, WHEREAS, on March 2, 2010, Mrs. Nancy Parsons, Ms. Marjorie C. Carter, and Mr. Michael O'Sullivan submitted an appeal to overturn the Director's decision; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued on April 8, 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duty noticed public hearing on April 27, 2010, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission hearing on April 27h, 2010, the Planning Commission modified Staffs recommendation, recommending that all seven Trees be trimmed down out of the Catalina Island view (horizon level) as viewed from the Marinovich viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive, with the exception of Tree No. 4, (if the residents directly adjacent to Tree No. 4 continued to object to its adoption). The Planning Commission stated that adoption agreements must be prepared prior to the Trees being trimmed, and that after the Trees are trimmed, Staff should schedule the item to return to the Planning Commission. At this follow-up meeting, the Planning Commission would determine if the trimming eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicant's viewing areas, and if not, could require one or more of the trimmed Trees to be removed. The Planning Commission also stated that if there were additional applicants who withdrew from the initial application process, they should be allowed to have their views assessed after the trimming is completed as well. Staff was to make the revisions to the Resolution and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting for formal approval; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the Planning Commission recommendation at the April 27 ih meeting, Staff realized that there were two issues with the Planning Commission direction that would require additional work by Staff to resolve. Staff drafted a memo to the Planning Commission, requesting that Staff be allowed to delay bringing back the Planning Commission's revised resolution for formal approval. These two issues were 1) how to address views from other potential applicants' properties under this same application, (i.e., review the views prior to after the initial trimming), and 2) that Municipal Code Section 17.76.100.F.I.c.iv requires that the abutting neighbor must agree in writing when the tree directly abutting their property is proposed to be adopted, and Staff only had the written disagreement of one abutting resident. The Planning Commission received and filed this report on May 11, 2010; and, WHEREAS, after noticed issued on November 25, 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duty noticed public hearing on December 14, 2010, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard at the December 14, 2010 meeting and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the matter, heard public testimony and gave Staff direction regarding Staff's recommendations and requested that the resolution containing the amended recommendation be brought back to the Commission for review and approval at the next Planning Commission meeting; and, WHEREAS, a resolution was presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of January 11, 2011 for the approval of CTRP2008-00031, as amended, and this Resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -01) was approved and signed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, P.C. Resolution 2011-01 was not appealed within the 15 -day appeal period and so was made final at 5:30pm on January 26, 2011; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.80.120 of the Municipal Code, and P.0 Resolution 2011 -01, the appellants and other contributors to the appeal fee had the full cost of the appeal ($2,255.00) refunded to them within 30 days of the January 11, 2010 meeting; and, WHEREAS, per Condition No. 6 of P.C. Resolution 2011-01, signed and notarized adoption covenants for Tree Nos. 1 -10 were submitted to Staff by 12:00prn on February 15, 2011; and, WHEREAS, per Condition No. 9 of P.C. Resolution 2011-01, on February 14, 2011 and February 23, 2011, the City had a biologist inspect Tree Nos. 1 -10 to determine whether there was an active nest(s) in any of the trees. The biologist identified one nest in Tree No. 8, but this nest was not active; and, WHEREAS, as no active nests were found in Tree Nos. 1-10, per the requirements of Condition No, 9 of P.C. Resolution 2011-01, the City's contracted tree trimming company, West Coast Arborists, Inc., completed the trimming of Tree Nos. 1 -10 on February 17, 18 and 24, 2011; and, Resolution No. 2011-50 Page 2 of 4 L=�� WHEREAS, in February 2011, Staff observed the views and took photographs of the trimmed trees from the applicants' viewing areas; and, WHEREAS, per Condition No. 8 of P.C. Resolution No. 2011-01, Staff scheduled a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of determining if the tree trimming as described above has eliminated the significant view impairment for the four applicants; and, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was issued on March 24, 2011 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a draft Resolution was presented to the Planning Commission for approval and signature at the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2011; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved Planning Commission Resolution 2011-18 on April 12, 2011, which stated, among other things, that the trimming of the ten trees had eliminated the significant view impairment from the applicants' properties; and, WHEREAS, an appeal of P.C. Resolution 2011-18 was submitted on April 27, 2011 by Mr. Larry Marinovich, property owner at 7315 Berry Hill Drive, Mr. Joseph Yousefpour, property owner at 7306 Berry Hill Drive, Mr, James Morrison, 7284 Berry Hill Drive; and, WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was issued on June 16, 2011 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and a draft Resolution was presented to the City Council for approval and signature at the City Council meeting of July 5, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: As defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, the Applicants at 7306 Berry Hill Drive, 7315 Berry Hill Drive, 7284 Berry Hill Drive and 7333 Berry Hill Drive have a view of the Ocean and Catalina Island. Section 2: The Applicant's viewing area at 7306 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room/dining room. The Applicants viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room. The Applicant's viewing area at 7284 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the dining area next to the kitchen. The Applicant's viewing area at 7333 Berry Hill Drive, as defined by Section 17.02.040 of the City's Development Code, is from the living room. Section 3: The completion of the initial trimming by the City of the ten (10) City -owned, and privately -adopted Canary Island Pine Trees located on Via Cambron, Via Collado & Berry Hill Drive has eliminated the significant view impairment from the four applicant's properties located at 7306, 7315, 7284 and 7333 Berry Hill Drive, Section 4: Based on new information obtained from the Public Works Department that the trees are indeed damaging the public right-of-way including streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, the City council determines that Tree Nos. 1-10 are indeed damaging the public right-of-way and thus per Municipal Code Section 17.76.100.F.1.c.iii, cannot be adopted and trimmed and thus must be removed and replaced. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is categorically exempt under Class 4 of that section because the work required Resolution No. 2011-50 Page 3 of 4 to restore the Applicants' view does not include the removal of scenic and mature Trees as identified by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects; Figure 41). This finding, demonstrates that the decision complies with the provisions of CEQA because the decision does not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts. Since the subject Trees are not considered to be scenic or mature Trees as identified in the City's General Plan, the environmental impacts due to removal are insignificant. Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information presented at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission's approval of P.C. Resolution 2011-18, thereby finding that Tree Nos. 1-10 be removed and replaced with 24 -inch box size trees, the variety and number of which shall be determined by the Public Works Department. Section 7: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5h day of July 2011. /s/ Thomas D. Long Mayor Attest: /s/ Carla Morreale City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 1, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2011-50 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on July 5, 2011 City Clerk Resolution No. 2011-50 Page 4 of 4 0 M. Page 1 of 1 Amy Trester From: Amy Trester [amyt@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:49 PM To: 'Nancy Parsons' Cc: 'Greg Pfost'; 'Joel Rojas' Subject: RE: Adopted City Trees Attachments: CTRP Tree Adoption Cases -Per Nancy's Request.doc; Map for CTRP2008-00004.jpg; Map for CTRP2008-00005.jpg Hi Nancy - Please see the attached list per your request below. I have also attached maps for two cases where the tree location description in the Staff Report wasn't very clear. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/Mv amyt@rpv.com - (310) 544-5228 From: Nancy Parsons [mailto:nancyparsons@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 201111:41 AM To: Amy Trester Cc: Marge Carter; MikRobOS@aol.com Subject: Adopted City Trees Hi Amy, Could you please provide me with a list (address and specific location) of all City trees that have had adoption covenants entered in the past 5 years. (I need to be able to identify which City tree was adopted in each case.) Thank you. Regards, Nancy Parsons email: nancyparsons@cox.net 7/18/2011 x CTRP Tree Adoption Cases: 1. CTRP No. 242 -California Pepper tree located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property at 4125 Miraleste Drive 2. CTRP No. 247- Pine tree located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property at 4807 Browndeer Lane and the two Carrotwood trees located in the public right-of- way adjacent to the property located at 4817 Browndeer Lane 3. CTRP2008-00004-The three (3) view impairing trees (city trees) are in the public right-of-way on Palos Verdes Drive East between 28111 Palos Verdes Drive East and 2615 Sunnyside Ridge Road and abutting the property located at 2636 Sunnyside Ridge Road. (See attached map) 4. CTRP2008-00005-13 Eucalyptus trees & 5 Aleppo Pine trees located in the public right-of-way adjacent to 28056 Palos Verdes Drive East and 2601 Sunnyside Ridge Road. (See attached map) 5. CTRP2009-00007- New Zealand Christmas tree located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property at 5002 Silver Arrow Drive 6. CTRP2009-00032- Ash tree located in the public right-of-way, adjacent to 21 Packet Road 7. CTRP2009-00034-Holly Oak tree is located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property located at 2078 Noble View Drive 8. CTRP201 0-00001 -Pepper, Coffee Berry and Pittosporum trees in the public right-of- way adjacent to 6441 Via Colinita 9. CTRP201 0-00011 -Pepper tree located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property located at 5314 Montemalaga Drive Page 1 of 1 Amy Trester From: Amy Trester [amyt@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:00 AM To: 'Kathy Liberman' Subject: RE: tree removal You're welcome Kathy. Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/Mv am t a_rpv.com - (310) 544-5228 From: Kathy Liberman[mailto:kathyliberman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 20117:28 PM To: Amy Trester Subject: Re: tree removal thank you Amy for the heads up. And for everything along the way. Have a good weekend. Kathy On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Amy Trester <amyt4Vv com> wrote: Hi Kathy - I am currently working on a timeline with Public Works for all the work including tree removal that is scheduled to occur on Berry Hill, Via Cambron & Via Collado. When we spoke at the City Council meeting I stated that I believed we would be able to remove the trees within a couple months and it looks like that will still happen. The timeline hasn't been finalized but it currently looks like the tree removal will most likely occur sometime in September, or approximately 2 months after the City Council Decision. I will send you the proposed timeline once it is completed as well. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv amyt(o)rov.com - (310) 544-5228 7/18/2011 Pagel of 4 Amy Trester From: Amy Trester [amyt@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:33 AM To: 'jltrpv@aol.com' Cc: 'Joel Rojas' Subject: RE: Jerene Tussey Residence 30303 Via Cambron, R.P.V. CA 90275 Hello Ms. Tussey - I have worked extensively with this tree crew, and I had one project this year where a very large pine tree was actually hanging directly over the roof of a house and they were able to use ropes to carefully lower down the portions of the tree they trimmed, thus avoiding all damage to the house and its roof. I know they will take the same care in avoiding damage to your property and any other properties adjacent to the trees. Please also note that before they will remove a tree they will have the utility companies mark the location of any nearby underground utilities, so they don't damage them. I hope this information helps. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/Mv amyt ccD-rpv.com - (310) 544-5228 From: jltrpv@aol.com [mailto:jltrpv@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:19 AM To: amyt@rpv.com Subject: Re: Jerene Tussey Residence 30303 Via Cambron, R.P.V. CA 90275 7-18-11 Hello Amy, Thank you for answering my letter. It makes me nervous the way you and Joel say you will take "every reasonable precaution" meaning to me that you will be careful but accidents could and probably will happen. All the other big trees that they are removing that I can see are not right up next to their homes. Again, my three trees are right next to my home and some things are hanging over my property. I am hoping that they will take "every precaution" possible. And I am still worried about the underground things in the area, and my sprinkler system. If I had lots of money I wouldn't even care about that, but I live on my social security which isn't much. I do appreciate your information as to the work date. I will be here, I hope. Thanks Again, Amy. 7/18/2011 Page 2 of 4 Sincerely, Jerene L. Tussey (310) 541-4801 -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Trester <amyt@rpv.com> To: jltrpv <jltrpv@aol.com> Cc: 'Joel Rojas' <joelr@rpv.com>; 'Tom Odom' <tomo@rpv.com> Sent: Mon, Jul 18, 2011 9:08 am Subject: FW: Jerene Tussey Residence 30303 Via Cambron, R.P.V. CA 90275 Hello Ms. Tussey - I just wanted to reiterate Joel's statements below that the tree crew will take every reasonable precaution to ensure the tree removal goes smoothly and safely. As Joel stated below, please feel free to contact Tom or myself should you have any questions and please also note that I will keep you in the loop for the timeline on the project. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Trester, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. palosverdes.com/rpv amyt@rpv.com - (310) 544-5228 From: Joel Rojas [mailto:joelr@rpv.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 20115:37 PM To: jltrpv@aol.com Cc: 'Amy Trester'; 'Tom Odom' Subject: RE: Jerene Tussey Residence 30303 Via Cambron, R.P.V. CA 90275 Dear Jerene Tussey While I can see that you are very worried about the upcoming tree removal, please rest assured that the trees are going to be removed by professional crews that are employed by the City with much experience in tree removal throughout the City. Many of the trees that they remove in their daily work are as big or bigger as the trees near your property. I also have to disagree with your statement that the tree crews don't care if something is damaged. They very much do care if something is damaged and thus will take all reasonable precautions to ensure the tree removal goes smoothly. Amy Trester is coordinating the tree removal with Deputy Public Works Director Tom Odom and thus I have copied both with this response. I'm sure they will alert the crew foreman of your concerns. Please follow up with Amy and/or Tom if you have any other questions or concerns. Sincerely, Joel Rojas Community Development Director From: jltrpv@aol.com [mailto:jltrpv@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 20113:57 PM Cr 7/18/2011 Page 3 of 4 To: joelr@rpv.com Subject: Fwd: ]erene Tussey Residence 30303 Via Cambron, R.P.V. CA 90275 7-17-11 CC: Mr. Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Mr. Rojas - Please read my letter to Amy Trester - Thank You CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD., RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 ATTN: AMY TRESTER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER RE: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2011-50 AMY - I'M TERRIFIED HELLO AMY, THIS IS NOT A JOKE - I AM TERRIFIED AND NEED TO TALK WITH YOU AND TELL YOU MY CONCERNS. MY HOME IS ON THE CORNER OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST AND BERRY HILL. MY ADDRESS IS 30303 VIA CAMERON, AND ON THE BERRY HILL SIDE OF MY PROPERY ARE THE THREE TREES THAT THE CITY HAS DECIDED TO CUT DOWN. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT, BUT I AM SO CONCERNED WITH THE REMOVAL THAT I CAN HARDLY SLEEP AT NIGHT WORRYING ABOUT THIS. THESE TREES ARE SO BIG AND HIGH THAT WHEN THE MEN CUT DOWN THESE TREES I AM SCARED TO DEATH AT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO HANDLE THIS JOB. THESE TREES ARE VERY CLOSE TO MY HOME, AND MANY BRANCHES ARE OUT OVER MY PROPERTY. AND IF THERE ARE ANY MISTAKES, OR THEY ARE CARELESS IN ANY WAY, THESE TREES COULD FALL ON MY HOUSE VERY EASILY. THEY COULD COMPLETELY DAMAGE MY ROOF, MY FIREPLACE, MY WOODEN FENCE SURROUNDING THE CORNER AND EXTENDING ALONG THE PROPERTY. ALSO MY TREES FORMING A WINDSHIELD ALONG THIS SIDE OF MY PROPERTY WOULD COME DOWN AND MY CHAIN LINK FENCE DAMAGES OR KNOCKED DOWN. WHEN THE MEN CUT DOWN MR. WEST'S PINE TREE ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME (FACING MY FRONT DOOR) THEY WERE CARELESS AND THE TREE FELL ACROSS VIA CAMBRON AND ONTO MY PROPERTY AND COLLAPSED KILLING MY TREE OUT IN FRONT. THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED. BUT THESE VERY HIGH TREES ARE RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOME AND IF THEY DON'T TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS THERE COULD BE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE CUTTERS TO CUT A LITTLE AT A TIME AND HAVE ROPES ATTACHED TO LOWER THE TRUNKS AND BRANCHES TO THE GROUND. IF THEY DON'T DO THAT I WILL HAVE SERIOUS DAMAGES FOR SURE. ALSO, MY GAS LINES, SEWER LINES AND PIPES, ARE ALONG THIS AREA, AND WHEN THEY TRY TO REMOVE THE STUMPS THEY WILL CUT INTO ALL OF THIS. THERE ARE SO MANY IMPORTANT THINGS UNDERGROUND RIGHT IN THE EXACT PLACE WHERE THEY WILL BE REMOVING THESE TREES. ALL THIS COULD TURN OUT TO BE A TRAGEDY LEAVING ME WITH SO MUCH DAMAGE THAT I CAN'T STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT. IT SEEMS THERE IS A TINY BIT OF DAMAGE ON THE CURB - A CRACK - THAT COULD EASILY BE REPAIRED. THE LOGICAL SOLUTION FOR THE CITY AND MYSELF IS TO TOP THE TREES - EVEN HALF WAY DOWN - REPAIR THE CURB AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. WHEN THE CITY DID THE REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT WORK ON THE CORNER, THE CITY SAID THEY WOULD PUT MY SPRINKLER SYSTEM BACK TOGETHER, THEY DUG UP QUITE A BIT OF PIPE FROM MY SPRINKLER SYSTEM THERE IN THAT PARKWAY, BUT IT WAS NOT CONNECTED BACK PROPERLY AND SO IT DOESN'T WORK AT THAT END OF THE PARKWAY. NOW WITH ALL THE TREE REMOVAL, THE CITY 7/18/2011 Page 4 of 4 WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUINING MY ENTIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. I HOPE THEY WILL REPLACE THIS FOR ME. AGAIN, I CAN'T IMAGINE THE CITY WANTS TO GO TO ALL THIS TROUBLE AND EXPENSE TO TAKE EVERYTHING OUT, RUIN LORD KNOWS WHAT, DAMAGES MY HOME, ETC. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT FIGHTING THE CITY'S DECISION, BUT YOU NEED TO BE FORWARNED AND YOU NEED TO TELL THESE TREE REMOVAL PEOPLE THE DANGERS TO ME AND ALL THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, WHICH WOULD TURN OUT TO BE SO DANGEROUS. BUT I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU HOW WORRIED I AM BECAUSE THOSE TREE REMOVAL EMPLOYEES DON'T CARE IF SOMETHING IS DAMAGED. AFTER WHAT THEY DID TO MR. WEST'S PINE TREE AND THE VERY DANGEROUS ACCIDENT THEY HAD, PLEASE PLEASE INFORM THE COMPANY AND THE EMPLOYEES TO BE CAREFUL AND TAKE ALL THE PRECAUTIONS POSSIBLE. I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT IF SOMEONE FROM THE CITY COULD TELL ME WITH CONFIDENCE THAT I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ALL THE DAMAGES THAT ARE SO POSSIBLE. IT IS MAKING ME SICK TO MY STOMACH. PLEASE AMY, TELL ALL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ABOUT MY CONCERNS. ALL THIS COULD END UP COSTING THE CITY A GREAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. WHEREAS, IF THEY JUST TOP THE TREES AND FIX THE CRACK IN THE CURB, IT WOULD ALL BE SO MUCH EASIER AND ECONOMICAL FOR EVERYONE. MY HOME PHONE NUMBER IS (310) 541-4801. ALSO I NEED TO KNOW WHAT DATE THEY ARE DOING ALL THIS WORK. I NEED TO BE HERE TO WATCH WHAT IS GOING ON. THANK YOU, AMY. 1 HOPE TO TALK WITH THE POWERS THAT BE ABOUT ALL THESE CONCERNS. I WILL SEND CC'S TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS THERE AT CITY HALL. EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONSIDER THIS. SINCERELY, JERENE L. TUSSEY HOMEOWNER 30303 VIA CAMBRON, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA. 4 OF (--I 7/18/2011 Page 1 of 3 Amy Trester From: Joel Rojas Doelr@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:54 AM To: 'Amy Trester' Subject: FW: street tree Hearing 7.5.11 fyi From: Tom Long [mailto:tomiong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 20116:29 PM To: palosverdeslady@cox.net Cc: clehr@rpv.com; joeir@rpv.com Subject: Re: street tree Hearing 7.5.11 Dear Marge, It would be easier to answer your questions in a phone call so I would encourage you to call me. I thought we answered them at the meeting but I recognize meetings can sometimes be confusing as we jump back and forth among members. When the council sits on a matter such as this it must apply the ordinances as they are written. And what was at issue was the street tree review ordinance that was on one of the screens throughout much of the discussion. If street trees significantly impair a view (and that point was not contested because it was not appealed to the council) they can only be adopted if all three of the findings can be made. And no, the ordinance does not provide for a vote of the residents on those findings, it requires the council to make them. Imagine if we had such a vote. Who gets to vote? Just those closest to the trees? How close? What about the taxpayers who have to pay for the damage to public property caused by the trees- -that is all of us. Do we have a city wide vote everytime there is an issue with a tree? A neighborhood wide vote? In any event, the city ordinance is clear --the councilmembers are required to look at the facts and make their best judgment --that is the only vote provided for. We did our best. We did not all agree and surely some residents did not agree with us (that is always the case in matters such as this). Although I note that after the meeting one defender of the trees admitted to me that they were "unsightly" and that most people didn't want to keep them AND that the real issue here was the threat to other trees in the future. But that is tomorrow's issue. I am sorry you are disenchanted with city government. I stand ready to try to explain this further to you. I am sorry to say that it appears that American education on civics issues is deficient if the explanation we have provided for our decision cannot be understood as rational. I can understand that you may not like the ordinance and that you feel it should be studied and possibly amended. That might be a good thing to do when we have time. But again, what we were charged with Tuesday night was to apply the law as it exists, not to bend it to satisfy the majority on a petition or the majority in a room. Indeed when we take our oath of office we promise to uphold the law all the time, not just when it is "comfortable" to so so or when a majority in the room or on a petition agree with us. As important as this issue is to you I sumbit that there are many, many far more important issues facing city government that will much more affect the value of your property and the suitability of this community as a place to live if they are not properly taken care of. As difficult as the issues relating to J_7/18/2011 t� J Page 2 of 3 your tree are to you they do not keep me awake at night. On the other hand the concern that storm drain or slope failures or other infrastructure problems (such as San Ramon canyon and the threat to the switchbacks) could destroy property and property values do keep me awake. So does the worry over all the threats by the destructive minority of litigous residents and businesses (such as Donald Trump) we have. One really bad judgment in court or one really bad natural disaster could wipe us out. Keeping all the balls up in the air with only about $1.25 (one dollar and tenty-five cents) per resident per day (only about 6 cents on the dollar of your property taxes go to the city) to provide all city services is quite a challenge for staff and the city and I worry about it all the time and will do so even after I am out of office. This is a case where the blissful ignorance I once had in assuming everything was assured will never come back to me. Nothing is assured. I too am disenchanted with city government because it cannot and does not provide the very high degree of assurance of personal safety and property protection I would like to see all residents have and this causes me concern. And my concern has very little to do with pine trees. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and giving me the opportunity to address them from my perspective. I apologize if my perspective seems irrational to you but it is something that has just grown on me over the years. Tom Long Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message ----- From: <palosverdeslady@cox.net> Sent 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM To: tom.long@rpv.com, b.camp@cox.net, Douglas.Stern@rpv.com, stevew@rpv.com Cc: "Amy Trester" <amyt@rpv.com> Subject: street tree Hearing 7.5. 11 --I am extremely disappointed, even dismayed, at the decision reached at last evening's Hearing. Our street tree case has been mismanaged on several different levels. We have been involved in this case for over two years ! The trees were trimmed to satisfy the view requirements. We have submitted notarized covenant documents. Why were we led on, believing that if we adopted the trees, they would be secure? All this time, we believed that this was a View Ordinance case - now to discover, at the last minute, it is all about the sidewalks. Had we known that it was a sidewalk issue, we would have conducted a much different campaign to save the trees. We, most likely, would have offered to pay for all sidewalk repair in order to save the trees. Instead, we were blind sided and were not given a chance. I spoke to the Public Works representative when he was reviewing the situation in our neighborhood last week. He said that fixing the root problem was a very simple procedure. I also didn't appreciate the cavalier discussion about the appearance of the trees. You completely discounted the Petition signed by a majority of the residents. Did you see our other Petition dated 12-8-10 requesting the opportunity for adoption of the trees? Subsequently, the trees were OK'd for adoption. Does not the preference of the majority carry any weight in your decision making? I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes for 43 years - Abbottswood, Oceanaire and now Via Collado (29 yrs) My four children have attended grade school, intermediate school and High School on the Peninsula. I have been active in many community endeavors and have been a voting resident. But, now I am disenchanted with City government. Please answer the following questions- is our street tree case a view restoration case or a public works case? If it's a sidewalk maintenance case, why were we not apprised of this early on, and why did Public Works change their evaluation in such a short time span? 7/18/2011 �� Page 3 of 3 I sincerely hope that all of you, or even one of you, will be able to supply a rational explanation to the above concerns. We certainly deserve it. Marge Carter 7307 Via Collado (310) 377-2791 7/18/2011 Amy Trester From: palosverdeslady@cox.net Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:32 AM To: tom.long@rpv.com; b.camp@cox.net; Douglas.Stern@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com Cc: Amy Trester Subject: street tree Hearing 7.5.11 --I am extremely disappointed, even dismayed, at the decision reached at last evening's Hearing. Our street tree case has been mismanaged on several different levels. We have been involved in this case for over two years ! The trees were trimmed to satisfy the view requirements. We have submitted notarized covenant documents. Why were we led on, believing that if we adopted the trees, they would be secure? All this time, we believed that this was a View Ordinance case - now to discover, at the last minute, it is all about the sidewalks. Had we known that it was a sidewalk issue, we would have conducted a much different campaign to save the trees. We, most likely, would have offered to pay for all sidewalk repair in order to save the trees. Instead, we were blind sided and were not given a chance. I spoke to the Public Works representative when he was reviewing the situation in our neighborhood last week. He said that fixing the root problem was a very simple procedure. I also didn't appreciate the cavalier discussion about the appearance of the trees. You completely discounted the Petition signed by a majority of the residents. Did you see our other Petition dated 12-8-10 requesting the opportunity for adoption of the trees? Subsequently, the trees were OK'd for adoption. Does not the preference of the majority carry any weight in your decision making? I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes for 43 years - Abbottswood, Oceanaire and now Via Collado (29 yrs) My four children have attended grade school, intermediate school and High School on the Peninsula. I have been active in many community endeavors and have been a voting resident. But, now I am disenchanted with City government. Please answer the following questions- is our street tree case a view restoration case or a public works case? If it's a sidewalk maintenance case, why were we not apprised of this early on, and why did Public Works change their evaluation in such a short time span? 1 sincerely hope that all of you, or even one of you, will be able to supply a rational explanation to the above concerns. We certainly deserve it. Marge Carter 7307 Via Collado (310) 377-2791 ff 0�- Page 1 of 1 From: dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:51 PM To: cc@rpv.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com Cc: kitf@rpv.com Subject: Item E on Consent Calendar -- July 19, 2011 -- Abalone Cove Shoreline Park To All City Council Members and Kit Fox -- From Dena Friedson Please remove Item E from the Consent Calendar and reconsider the Staffs recommendation. Abalone Cove Shoreline Park is already protected by Project Number 06-00299 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Funds were granted to Los Angeles County in 1973 with the same restrictions that are described in the Staff Report. The proposed improvements to the 3.69 acres seem attractive and consistent with the OGALS' requirements. Hopefully, the City will proceed with this current request. 7/15/2011 From: sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:44 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Carolyn Lehr Subject: Abalone Cove Dear Council Members, Abalone Cove Shoreline Park is already subject to the LWCF restriction that the property is to be used only for public, outdoor recreation. If the pending grant application were approved, and such funds were used to enhance the park as currently contemplated, the property will not become any more burdened by restrictions than already exist; hence the staff s rationale for withdrawal of the application, as appears on Tuesday's agenda, is erroneous and unjustified. LWCF funds were used for the County's acquisition of the property, the restrictions on outdoor recreation were imposed at that time, and the City agreed to assume all of the obligations and restrictions at the time it acquired the property from the County. Therefore, I urge you to reject staffs recommendation and allow the grant application to proceed and not be withdrawn. Thank you. Sharon Yarber 7/18/2011 LE From: cicoriae@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 5:56 PM To: kitf@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: CC agenda item requesting witthdrawal of grant application for Ab Cove Attachments: Response—Letter to_State.20101119.pdf Kit and Members of City Council, Back when Save Our Shoreline sent a letter to the Dept of Parks outlining our reasons for opposition to erecting a large building in Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, we referenced the LWCF restrictions on the Park. In their rebuttal to our letter, city staff acknowledged that those restrictions apply to the Park. (See page 3 of Carolyn Lehr's letter, attached.) It doesn't make sense to me to ask City Council now to withdraw the current grant application in order to avoid restrictions that are already on the property. Moreover, if city staff has in mind something other than "public, outdoor recreation" for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park; this warrants a public hearing and this item should not be relegated to the consent calendar. Unlike the grant application that Save Our Shoreline opposed (that being the one proposing indoor classrooms for education at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park), the grant application at issue is for improvements to the Park that are right in line with the "outdoor recreational uses" for which the land was purchased. (Note that the attached letter also acknowledges such intent.) The current grant application represents a step forward, abiding by our commitments for this Park, following our General Plan, our Coastal Specific Plan, and our zoning ordinances, and all with community support. That, it seems to me, is the direction we ought to be going. Eva Cicoria A p(- `3 (�o 7/18/2011 E , STEFAN WOLOWICZ, MAYOR THOMAS D. LONG, MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN CAMPBELL, COUNCILMAN ANTHONY MISETICH, COUNCILMAN DOUGLAS W. STERN, COUNCILMAN November 19, 2010 California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services Attn: Sandra Berry 1416 9th Street, Room 918 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: Rancho Palos Verdes Application #N1-19-006 Abalone Cove Nature Education Center Dear Ms. Berry, This letter serves as the City's response to the letter sent by Ms. Eva Cicoria on behalf of Save Our Shoreline, dated October 5, 2010, to the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (see Attachment A). The Abalone Cove Nature Education Center grant request is to construct a 5,900 square foot facility with interactive displays and classrooms, renovated public restrooms, and site improvements including habitat restoration and interpretive signage. The Nature Education Center would be sited in City parkland on the outer boundary of a large existing parking lot. In the letter, Ms. Cicoria references the City of Rancho Palos Verdes application for the Nature Education Facilities Program, Abalone Cove Nature Education Center (ref. #Nl- 19-006), and makes statements throughout her letter citing various inconsistencies with the proposed improvements at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park and City planning documents. At the October 19, 2010 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to respond to the claims made by Ms. Cicoria. Regarding the inconsistencies Ms. Cicoria references, please see the City's responses below: 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275.5391 / (310) 544-5205 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW,PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV (':�$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2 j- 30 Page 2 November 19, 2010 1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the mission of the California Department of Parks and Recreation to inspire and to protect its most valued natural and cultural resources. As stated in the California State Parks Mission Statement, To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high- quality outdoor recreation. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not find the proposed nature center to be inconsistent with the mission of the Department. The goal of the proposed development is to create a center where visitors of all ages can learn about the diverse ecosystems on the Peninsula, and through this educational experience, promote environmental stewardship. As also stated on the Department's website: The California State Parks contains the largest and most diverse natural and cultural heritage holdings of any state agency in the nation. The State park units include: underwater preserves, reserves, and parks; redwood, rhododendron, and wildlife reserves; state beaches, recreation areas, wilderness areas, and reservoirs; state historic parks, historic homes, Spanish era adobe buildings, including museums, visitor centers, cultural reserves, and preserves; as well as lighthouses, ghost towns, waterslides, conference centers, and off-highway vehicle parks. These parks protect and preserve an unparalleled collection of culturally and environmentally sensitive structures and habitats, threatened plant and animal species, ancient Native American sites, historic structures and artifacts... the best of California's natural and cultural history. The statements highlighted in bold text from the California Department of Parks website describe some of the very same amenities being proposed at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. This park site is rich with natural resources which include the marine life at the tide pools in the Ecological Reserve, the connection to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, the various species of flora and fauna, and the magnificent views. The proposed improvements to the trail system, existing parking lot and the proposed education center do not seem to be inconsistent with other amenities found in other areas of the State. While many residents familiar with this site may be knowledgeable about the unique resources which can be observed at this park site, other visitors may require additional educational experiences to fully appreciate the resources and amenities of this park. The uses proposed for the 79.16 -acre site are consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Passive -Recreational. -3� dF 3 U Page 3 November 19, 2010 2. The proposed project is inconsistent with land use plans for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park that designate the site for open space passive recreation. In 1973, the County of Los Angeles purchased 57 acres of what is now part of the proposed project area in Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. The County purchased this land with the intent to develop it for outdoor recreational uses. The County acquired the land using a grant through the federal government pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. As a requirement of receiving the grant money, the County entered into a "Project Agreement" (See Attachment B) with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, which is attached for reference to this letter. The property remained under County ownership until 1988, when it was transferred to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency. The City has since formally accepted the transfer and obligations of the pre-existing Project Agreement. Nothing in the agreement prohibits the construction of a building to be used for nature education and recreation purposes. As an example, the City of Rancho' Palos Verdes also agreed to similar terms when the City entered into an agreement to accept a Land and Water Conservation grant which was used for the development of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC). The PVIC is a facility which explores the natural history of the Peninsula with emphasis on the migration of the Pacific gray whale. This use was not found to be inconsistent with the Land and Water Conservation Fund guidelines. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan provides goals and policies intended to shape the future of the City. The General Plan is divided into elements that are integrated into functional relationships. Recreational activity 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. Recreational activity areas can be either private or public. In terms of the Land Use Element, according to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map the project site is designated as Recreational - Passive. Land uses designated as Recreational — Passive are described as follows: Recreational -Passive facilities are mostly 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. Environmental impacts should be low. In 1981, and then again in 1998, the City's decision makers determined that the construction of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC) building and the expansion of this same building at Lower Point Vicente is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Passive -Recreational. In fact, in 1998, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 98-30 making the required findings of facts for Conditional Use Permit No. 200 which includes the finding for consistency with the City's General Plan (see Attachment Q. In L4 6'--3�' Page 4 November 19, 2010 making this finding, it implied that structures used for educational purposes, rather than structures used for active recreation like gymnasiums or indoor sports fields, is consistent with the General Plan. The uses proposed at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park are similar to those uses approved at Lower Point Vicente. Moreover, the City's Development Code for the Open -Space Recreation (OR) zoning district, in which the subject property is designated, states under the development standards (see Section 17.34.050) that structures (emphasis added) in the open space recreation district shall comply with the following: • Minimum Lot Size. No lot shall be created with an area of less than one acre, except that the planning commission may permit a smaller lot or may rezone a smaller lot to the open space recreation district upon finding that such smaller lot will provide for an open area which is to be used by the general public or a group of property owners. • Building Height. Institutional buildings erected in the city shall have a building height not greater than sixteen feet and shall not exceed one story, except with the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission, pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits). • Lot Coverage. Lot area covered by buildings or structures shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of the total lot area. • -Parking. Parking spaces for private uses shall be provided as required by the planning commission. Such requirement shall be based on the requirements of this title for uses similar to the proposed use. (For parking area development standards, see Chapter 17.50 (Nonresidential Parking and Loading Standards). Based on the above development standards for the OR zoning district, it too implies that structures are permitted in open space recreation areas. Moreover, the proposed project covers approximately 0.002% of the total 79.16 acre site and the proposed building does not exceed 16 -feet in height as measured from existing grade. In regards to the proposal, the Project does not propose to change the current land use, but rather, proposes to expand the recreational and educational facilities for the public's use. The proposed building will operate as an educational center and the existing grounds will be improved and will continue to be used for passive recreational use. The General Plan also lists examples of passive recreational uses as "nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc." Trails, areas for nature study and amenities for picnicking are all features of the proposed project. The proposed education center would be a recreational resource similar to the PVIC. Thus, although a new facility is proposed and the intensity of recreational and educational use on the site would be increased, the overall use itself would not be substantially changed. S J-- 3 C Page 5 November 19, 2010 Based on the foregoing discussion, it is Staff s opinion that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Open Space — Passive. 3. The project summary in the application does not paint an accurate picture of the larger context of the project. The proposed project summary captures exactly what staff has included as part of the project which includes the following amenities: a Nature Education Center, educational/interpretive signage, parking lot improvements, improved restrooms, landscaping and habitat restoration, construction of exhibit galleries and installation of classroom A/V hardware. While there are other nature centers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, this site offers a unique learning experience given its proximity to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and the Ecological Reserve. Visitors can experience the various terrestrial and marine ecosystems of the Preserve and the tide pools, learn about the flora and fauna native to the Peninsula, and learn about their role in preserving these delicate habitats. 4. Nature education and environmental stewardship needs for this region would be better served with a more minimalist, outdoor format including interpretive signage and a webcam. The City's proposed Project has the overriding goal to demonstrate challenges to the habitat and the urgency of environmental stewardship. As the site is currently used, the visitors wade through the tide pools crushing shellfish and collecting shells and sea life which may disturb the marine ecosystem. The City experiences frequent problems with poachers in the tide pools. Not only would the Abalone Cove Exhibit in the Nature Education Center help the public understand how these behaviors damage the marine habitat, but the presence of an administrative office for the City's park rangers will discourage any harmful behaviors. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Exhibit will explain how the landscape suffers from degradation, will feature displays on locally threatened wildlife, and through education, visitors will learn how to be respectful of this resource. The Sustaining the Earth Exhibit will encourage visitors to not only think of the Palos Verdes landscape surrounding them, but how to implement environmental stewardship to benefit their local communities and global environment. The proposed webcam and interpretive signage is only a small part of the overall vision for the proposed educational programming. Through the development of an educational facility and program, the City hopes to encourage environmental stewardship. 5. Current educational opportunities at the site focus on the unique, outdoor experience, and future educational opportunities may be enhanced by a webcam � S-, 3(-P Page 6 November 19, 2010 on the site without the adverse impacts of a large building and substantial pavement and hardscape. The proposed educational program has many different components which will work in conjunction to provide a well-rounded experience for all individuals. The primary component of the educational experience will still be the hands-on outdoor experience in the park, at the tide pools and on a hike through the Preserve. However, the outdoor experience will be richly supplemented by the educational programming offered through the Nature Education Center. The physical presence of the building will also offer supporting amenities such as a central gathering place, a food concession area, small gift shop, classroom gathering space, restrooms, and central staffed information area. It provides a public safety component through the addition of space for the Sheriff's deputies and the City's park rangers. The ratio of proposed building structure to open space will be 0.002%, which is far less than what is required by the City's 10% building lot coverage requirement for the open space zoning district. 6. The project proposal was hastily produced, suffers lack of public input, and will suffer from significant public opposition to this fundamental change to the unique character of this natural resource. If the grant funding is approved, the project will be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and the City's adopted CEQA Guidelines. This process includes requirements for public comment periods and public hearings, so there would be several opportunities for the public to comment on the project. In conclusion, the City wanted to ensure that some of the statements made in Ms. Cicoria's letter were addressed with factual information and supporting documentation. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding the information that has been presented, please contact Sara Singer, Senior Administrative Analyst at (310)544-5204. Sincerely, G&A�4_OA&� Carolyn Lehr City Manager Enclosures Page 7 November 19, 2010 Cc: Eva Cicoria, Save Our Shoreline Patty Keating, Chief, California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carol Lynch, City Attorney Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development Ara Mihranian, Deputy Director of Community Development Sara Singer, Senior Administrative Analyst e Af- 3 CP ATTACHMENT A OCT 13 2010 Eva Ciooda (310)547»5689 28981 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 October 5, 2010 Califonrrle Department of Parks and Recreation Office d grants and Local Services Attn: Sandra Berry, Supervisor 1416 9th St. Rm. 918 Sacramerdo, CA 95814 Re: Ref #N1-19-006; Abalone Cove Nature Education Facility Grant Application Dear Ms. Bary, Enclosed ane 2,076 petition signatures (1,467 paper petition signatures plus 609 online petition signatures) opposing the Nature Education Facility Grant mon sUWmitW by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (ref. #N1 -19.M per City star to build a 5,900 square foot nature center to Abalone Cove Shorefine Park. Not knowing whether the Application would progress fbm the review phase to evaluation, Save Our Shoreline continued its efforts to inform the public about the Grant Proposal after submitting our Initial letter and set of petition signatures on July 31, 2010. As you can we from the number of signatures and the comments of signers, the public shares our concern that the building is unne©essary and Inappropriate for this site and the Application should be denied. We would like to point out a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the City's proposed project and we want to highlight some competing considerations. • The proposed project is inconsistent with the mission of the California Department of Parks and Recreation to inspire and to prated its most valued natural and cultural resources. • The proposed project is Inconsistent with land use plans for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park that designate the site for open space passive recreation. + The project summary presented In the Application does not paint an accurate picture of the larger context of the project: It Is not necessary or desired, because the site Is currently well used and theta are already five indoor nature centers within a nine mile stretch of this coastline. Nature education and environmental stewardship needs for this region would be better served with a more minimalist, outdoor format including interpretive signage and a webcam, whereas the Proposed building and its intarfor contents at this: site would send conflicting messages regarding our stewardship responsibilities and protecting our natural resources. + Current educational opportunities at the este focus on the unique, outdoor experience, and future educational opportunities may be enhanced by a web cram on site without the adverse impacts of a large building and substantial pavement and hardscape. • The project proposal was hastily produced, suffers from lack of public input, and will suffer from significant public opposition to this fundamental change to the unique character of this natural resource. ' �� 3 (P 10-2 ................... .... ..... .......... . .................... . ATTACHMENT A �_�:�:�.�.•,�.�:���``''�.'��,��"�`.�.'` "The mission of California State Department of Parks and Recreation is to provide for the health, JM"M. and +education of the people of Cassliiomla by helping to preserve the state's extrsaordinary biological diventy, and creating opportunities for hig"udity outdoor mor inion " : raaphosis wWedJ This openWi tep sexists as an ever -diminishing natural resource within a ~ distahes from one of the wand's largest allies. No matter how educational or Inspiring the contents of a building at No site might be, they cannot replace what would be lost by Inserting a large building In the middle .of the bluff top. The vista stretches from Portuguese Point out to Catalina Island and up the taxa. Indeed, tlts vista is orae of ft as as ns to On Perdrisuls. Daily conmutem and decrial vis ors-drMrq along ft aasorkt ms*W (Pates Verdes Otte South); thousands of visshon to the b+each,,We pools and plate areas at alone Cove, as well as artists setting up their easels, all have been Insptsod by this tate df wild coast. Inc,orussiss rxrdMN& Larid Lin Elam The proposed buitdliv •and toda pe are ineensistertt with Land and Waiter Conservation Fund requirements for Abalone. Cove Shomline Perk and Ranco, Palos Versies planning documents for this site. When los AWbs Cassrty*st a rlrVd-tho prtVerty, (ure-half of tfte.purchase prise was provided by the Land and VOW Coraasraervasi ion Fund with the apecific corrdilion that the land be used for outdoor recre ion in pa"Ok r. Number : to yaw do�sat.) Won the land was transUn,e to liar tho P Yeti s„ tha City ftm* amopted tints aagmement. The Rancho Polos Vel GerWolf4an, Gored Plan NIM Open SpW Recreation Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning. 1410p all 00 ftnoWAbs** Cove as; V� lite . "co with a sato-cultural overlay. The C3enerel pian t os pe era l�ri add. naftnao tiMoatly unstructured in order to n allow nar►tufsl to fswt�a w tl tai anatsunt of �►� diasharfbalsnce. The Open Space Recar'eas►tion Zwdfig Orftanae pro;*Wes for arareas of oar reavandpn, prartcuiariy for park and recreation purposes it dam not Include buildir igas. LaK the Clay's recently adoptsstd Coast Vision Plan does not Inge any building at Abalone hove Shoreline Dark. BOW S.uss M The Gram Guidelines indicate that the project summary In the grand application "is to facilitate the Department's unsdersanding of the proposed project within Its Ismer context." The City's Application aptly describes Abalone Cove In the lar4or ca*ma (in the opening obifement of its project summary) as "an area of... w9aii Iveviews of the Padft.Cicean arrtong +a3cartaa se and asphalt of urbanized Los Angeles! How ironic: that the City proposes to add a targe building and hassrdscape. Abalone Cove is a natural treasure and the fact that it is on the border of vast urban sprawl unoerscores the urgency of leaving it as Obse to to naWral state, as possible. 1Marry of the current visitors to Abalone -COW are from urbanized neighboring ssareas. They, like most of us, visit Abalone Cove for a particular type of experience away from concrete and asphalt sknd buildings. Their attraction to this place should serve as further justification for minimizing the disturbance of nature at Abalone Cove. The Project Summary statemerrt that the Park is underutilized Is Inaccurate. By the City's own admission (page 25 of the Grant Application), the Park has 20,000 visitors annually. Those visitors presumably paid a fee to park at Abalone Cove; others park on nearby City streets and walk to the Cove. Moreover, these numbers don't reflect the thousands of people who enjoy the vista when driving along the coast or those who linger awhile at the viewing area just southeast of the proposed building site. Last, the Project Summary paints a misleading or inaccurate picture of the availability of other sites nearby for the public to learn about the unique flora and fauna in the area. There are five existing nature centers In the vicinity. The Pt. Vicente interpretive Center is an indoor museum and is well known for its whale C o of 3 U 10-3 - ......... ..... .. ............ I ....... .. ... . .... ... .. . ... ...... - . .. ..... .. ..... ATTACHMENT A watching activities. Indoor exhibit areas at Ladera Undo Nature Center feature eXOMPIOS of flora, fauna and other materials found on the Palm Verdes Peninsula. While Point Nature Center, only 6.2 miles from Abalone Cove, though In Los Angola, has Indoor and outdoor displays of coastal sage and other native plants. The Cabrillo Marine Aquarium provides exciting exhibits of ocean life. I Z,=,, -- I 10- 1 Z M11 r= 7 7 i!T- nW!-:1 7=7 =7 i MU- = To be clear, and 0001000 that, me $1001 We$ of mairl Can be dot* protect tide o where be mare appropriate in for to visitore. the . harm that to 06 can 41140 to i the way of education Indbor,kill 460M. no dot would distract from urban Inland areas. At atimer when :of our well grade the Stri-ftres should be limited -lo rostrooms. Onmyonintoyplob.0 sign -age, paired with a patrolling park ranger presence and wobbarn, would vv*0 thin .nood.for h0totweducetion, white 11mmetno the attention of visitors to the bluff, beach, *W tide 4.110 1 - . .�. 000wortwt-W 16 #00ttatt here --exploring the sights, sounds, and smalls of natuWa ricth bdirrarai y In a a able, roiponili�te way. Educational opportunities that the City proposes for outside the building are listed on page 31 of the Application. They Include many of the things that the Application describes In other partk underscoring that the building contents will either be duplicative of outdoor Information or Inappropriate at this site. An exception to this is the Installation and monW. no of the tide pools by web cam. On that point, we don't object to the CIVe plans. Stratogles and Methods on pap 36 Indicates an outreach program incorporating web cam feed will be developed to take to clossrooms and elsewhere. These types of opportunities that the City's Application outlines for of -$fte education make sense. The Application indicates that teachers 01mll receive materials prior to the visit for suggested In -class acdvfties before and after a visit.' Then why have Indoor classrooms on site at Abalone Cove? Better to loam material suited for the classroom at school and save the time at Abalone Cove for outdoor education. We take Issue with the City's repeated statements thatAbalone Cove Shoreline park is 9 City's most e "th s sustainable choice" for the 5,900 square foot facility. The site Is close to the tide pools of Abalone Cove [ t J- 3 (D 10-4 ATTACHMENTA......:.........................................:..,...............,..... ,.,.,.......,...:...,...:...........,.>.....,.......,,.,,.....:...::...,......... Ecological Reserve. That much is true. Should the fact that there is already a parking lot there be justification for adding a building? And once there is a building, will that justify Yet more develolxnsnt to °improve access"? N the parking capacity proven Insufficient to handle the additional traffic to the elle on busy summer weekends, will the response be to pave over even more of the bluff top? A fundamental planning concept for any naknI area of importance is to consolidate the infrastructure in one location. This makes sense from a malnienance and operating cost perspective. It also relieves stress on unspoiled locations. Other locations a short distance from Abalone Cove already have the Infrastructure for indoor nature education, The proposed exhibit for `Sustaining the Earth" is out of place here. Why invest in such an important theme at a location on the edge of the Peninsula, far from the public that would benefit from the Information? Better to put up that type of display in a more centralized urban location. Protect Readiness As stated above, the City's proposal to build at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park suffers from lack of public support and will encounter significant hurdles if It were to be approved by the Department. It does not comply with the City's General Plan and zoning and seeks a fundamental grange to RPV's public parkland. Page 6 of the General Plan slates, "Careful planning and management of a natural environmental resource must be comprehensive and anticipatory in order to preclude irreversible and Irre ievable commitments of this resource made on a plecemeal and e)godkmt basis at future dates.' The City Council gave authority to proceed with completing and submitting the Grant Application at the Council meating of June 1, ?.+01{i. A drdit of the Application was not available for review by City Council Members or the public until just prior to the "noting and several members sold they had not had time to review IL At that meeting, and through June, residents objected to the building proposal and offered alternative ideas that would be consistent with City planning documents. The final proposal was completed just prior to the July 1 submission deadline and Is, at best, a +r onoepkial outline of the proposed building project. Just two years apo, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted its "Coast Vision Plan.` The Coast Vision Plan repmwits over two years of planning, inducting considerable rable s hours and public input. The Plan Is touted on the Ch y wobske as "an inform clonal planning document for the City's coastal areas ... with public access, interpretive materials, recreational amenities, and other f fillies to improve the experience of the coast and open space for residents of and visitors to the Peninsula.' The P loYs goal was to "identify program, design and linkage concepts for the entire area' yet, OgUbM in the Vision Plan is there mention of a nature education center, or any building for that matter, In Abalone Cove or at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. The Coast Vision Plan for Abalone Cove identifies now park amenities with picnic tables, shade features, benches, trash receptacles, an ADA accessible bluff -top trail, and trail signage. A program to remove Invasive species and plant low -profile shade trees Is contemplated. There IL The Vision Plan does identify other locations for nature education within the City. It Identifies cower Point Vicente (1.7 rWk* up the road from Abalone Cove and the site of Point Vicente Interpretive Cerner) as a key location for connecting the community to the ocean and land. The Vision Plan Identifies an area referred to as "Gateway Park" immediately adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Reserve (m the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) as the site for connecting the community to the Preserve. This vision contemplated an outdoor education center at that location, immediately adjacent to the largest and most frequently vlsft ftlked swath of preserve lands --the contiguous reserves of Forrestal, Portuguese Hand, Upper Filliorum, and Twee Sisters. The plan was for an outdoor pavilion and interpretive signage to edUcate the visiting public about the value of Coastal Sage Scrub and the publiri s role In protecting and restoring k. t 2 o F 7 CO 10-5 ATTACHMENT A i That plan would reach 50,000 annual visitors to #* Preserve, most of whom are unlikely to hike or ride their bikes or horses dawn the road to Abalone Cove to learn about Coastal Sage Scrub and stewardship. Abalone Cove Shoreline Park fulfils a unique function on the coasfime as it is. Yes, it would benefit from Improvements to parking, restrooms, Interpretive signage and trails. But a large buidding would unnecessarily after lbs character and is not what to public wants for Phis site as evident limn the response to Save Our Shoreline's petition drive. Once again, we request that you decry the Rancho Palos Verdes Nature Education Facilities Grant Application. cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carolyn Lehr, City Manager Very truly yours, R, 4 r4 I OL e, �'" Eva Clco ria, for Save Our Shoreline 3 co 10-6 5 ATTACHMENT A .aG a a ri. L. s N u C Q !1p C S2 a� N C. 0 a .c QN Q O 0 oa .a c a I � o�- -3 (P ti r N L Q w :C V T3 C f� N it `Cf a a Gi a; C CL` m c to in I � o�- -3 (P ti r 64-15.99 15-83 ID • P•83 A •s. ATTACHMENT B ' STATE OF CALII?ORNIA " Daparooment of Parks and Recreatiaa AMENDMEINT TO PROJECT AGREEMENT Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Project Name: ___ Ablone CM Beach Acguiftn. Amendment No. Mi$AuMddWMtoPtqedAgreen=tN*.06-40299_ is hereby made and agreed upon by the State Liaison Offs= for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and by the Co;r.S; of Las Angeles Participant pursuant to the Land and Fater Conservation Fund Act of 1%5, 78 Stat. 897 (1964), and the, Federal/State, Project Agreement. Tie State i i alsbn O$iaer and Participant, in mutual consideration of the promises made herein and in the agroemunt of which this is an amendment, do promise as follows, The County of Los Angeles hareby transfers all obligations imposed on the County by the terms of said agreema d to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby accepts said transfer and thereby accepts all of the participants obligations under the terms and conditions of said agreement. In all other respects, the Project Agreement of which this is an amendment, and the plans and specifications relevant thereto. shall remain in fail force and effect. In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this amendment as of the date entered below. caunw-d1a &WO Participant STATE LIAISON OFMCER Director, Department of Parks don Director Of -Beaches all harbors Title Date MAYOR Title DSie May 19, 1999 Date -.5--- g,5-- T -? APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEWITT W. CLINTON CO COUNSEL By; Francis E. Scott Principal Deputy County Counsel 1,5 J- 3(-p ATTACHMENT B f, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Parks and Recreation PROJECT AGREEMENT --LOCAL PARTICIPANT Land and Ilater Conservation Fund Program APR 29 1999 Project Title Abalone Cove Beach Acquisition Participant County of Los Angeles project No. 06-00299 Project Period 6-30-73 to 10-1-77 Period Covered by Agreement 6-30-73 to 10-1-77 Project Scope: The.County of Los Angeles will acquire 57± acres of sandy beach and upland to be later developed for public outdoor recreation. A•private beach -club holds a lease to a portion of the proposed acquisition. No relocation costs are involved. Stage Covered .by This Agreement Complete Project Cost: Total Estimated Direct Project Cost (as shown in Project Proposal) $ 2,800,000 (; Surcharge --State Administrative Assessment 2 % of line (1) $ 56,000 t! Total Project Costs Eligible for Federal Funding $_ 21856=000 (? Federal Participation --50% of line (3) or 50% of actual costs t•Aiichever is the lesser. $ 1,428,000' (ti The attached contract terms i�k•`i:�i'�; 8 pages are made a part of and incorporated i nco his Agreement.�r ATTEST: JAh1i S S. MIZC*� t '3 ;?':',j^ ** * County of Los Angeles PART I C I PAW E OF THE n D OF wUPFRVI OR a % ,; . ''^` �, `!/, t•3h i tkt.'f0li3�tA +Y% SPATE DEPARTMENT • OF +PARK§''A�ID 'RECREATION Title CHAIRMAN. BOARD QF SUPe?..YI-,pRS y `-rte V V 11 T,Y PiRECUR 1 ate FEB 1 5 1974 by by 1 tfi t 1 condltiM %t Ixemptivn Adtnlnistra . 3 have been; impttled a ihb mp1 nh'.. tevlew y the Depa<lment of anenoe�. ' s Date DEC i 1 1973 ofA ' y Title Date & �� r.. An•...,..•..••r •...... �...r� .. ... v•.>: u.Y..x. . s x �. )... ..r..r. •�v. J. r.v .� ♦ v ...v .. vu r r n. u.w S Mn .. rr,.v� ,n r.. r.nv n.... r r..v n .ry .. ... .•. r r ew. v ..v ..v. r . r.. v i w S. •n..v. r. x.. i .r .. ATTACHMENT B CONTRACT TERIIS The State Liaison Officer for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the COUNTY Or LOS ANGELES , hereinafter referred to as the Participant, mutually agree to perform this agreement in accordance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 78 Stat. 897 (1964). The State of California hereby promises, in consideration of the promises made by the Participant herein, to accept appropriated Federal Funds for the purposes of the Project and disburse the same to reimburse the Participant 50 percent of the eligible Project cost not to exceed 50 percent of the direct Project cost shown in this agreement; except for a 2 , percent surcharge of administrative costs to be applied to the total estimated direct Project costs as shown above. The surcharge is to be deducted from the reimbursements received from the Federal Government applicable to this Project. It is understood by the parties hereto that this agreement shall not obligate State of California funds for the Project costs described herein. The Participant hereby promises, in consideration of the promises made by the Liaison Officer herein, to execute the Project stage described herein, in accordance with the terms of this agreement. Aly disbursement hereunder shall not be made unless and until, funds therefore are received by the Liaison Officer from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The following special Project terms and conditions were added to.this agreement before it was signed by the parties hereto and any deviations from or changes in the Project shall be accomplished only through written consent of the parties concerned: The Participant will permanently display in a conspicuous place a bronze plaque which acknowledges Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance. The plaque will be provided by the State Department of Parks and Recreation and its installation by the Participant will be required upon initial development of the property. The Participant agrees to comply with the terms and intent of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act o'f 1970, 84 Stat. 1894 (1970) and California's Braithwaite Act, Chapter 1574, Statutes of 1971 and related statutes. 'ATTACHMENT B' A,• DEFINITIONS 1. The term "BOR" as used herein means the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, United States Department of the Interior.. 2. The term 'Director" as used herein means the Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, or any representative lawfully delegated the authority to act for such Director. 3. The term "Liaison Officer" as used herein means the California Director of Parks and Recreation, or other State officer as designated by the Governor from time to time and authorized by the State Legislature. 4. The term "Manual" as used herein means the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Manual. (Outdoor Recreation Grants -in -Aid Manual) 5. The term 'Guide" as used herein means "Procedural Guide, Part 1- -Appli-cation Procedures and Part 11 --Fiscal Procedures" issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation. 6, The term "Project" as used herein means the project or project segment, which is the subject of this agreement as defined in the project proposal. 7. The term "Project Proposal" as used herein means the form and all supplemental attachments used to describe and estimate the cost of a planning, acquisition, or development project filed with the Liaison Officer in support of an application for federal financial.assistance. 8. The term "State" as used herein means the State of California and/or its official representative, the Department of Parks and Recreation. 9. The term "Participant" as used herein shall mean the recipient of the federal funds to be disbursed in accordance with the terms of this agreement. 10. The term "Federal Funds" as used herein means those monies made available by the United States of America as matching money for projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 78 Stat. 897 (1964). B. PROJECT EXECUTION' 1, The Participant shall at no cost to the State execute, complete, operate. and maintain the approved Project in accordance with the Manual, the Guide, the Project Proposal, and the plans and specifications applicable, which documents are on file in the office of the Liaison Officer and made a part hereof. Failure to render satisfactory progress or to complete this or any other project which is the subject of Federal assistance under this program to the satisfaction of the Director or Liaison Officer may be cause for the suspension of all obligations of the United States and the State under this agreement. 2. The Participant shall indemnify the State of California and its officers, agents and employees against and hold the same free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, and/or expenses of liability due to, or arising out of, either id whole or in part, whether directly or indirectly, the organization,'development, construction, operation, or maintenance of the Project. -3- 4- 3 c e LP r ATTACHMENT B••{f'' '•� 3. In the event of default by the Participant which default is not cured by the Participant within .thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from the Liaison Officer, the State may in addition to any other remedies take posses- sion of the Project and construct, operate or maintain the Project as the State may deem necessary to fulfill requirements of the Federal Government, and the Participant agrees to reimburse the State for any costs or expenses incurred by the State thereby. 4. Construction contracted for by the Participant shall meet the following requirements: (a) Contracts for coftstruction in excess of $10,000 shall be awarded through a process of competitive bidding. Copies of all bids and a copy of the contract shall be retained for inspection by the Director or Liaison Officer. (b) The Participant shall inform all bidders on contracts for con- struction in excess of $10,000 that Federal Funds are being used to assist in construction. (c) Written change orders to contracts for construction in excess of $10,000 shall be issued for all necessary changes in the facility. Such orders shall be made a part of the project file and shall be kept available for audit. (d) The Participant agrees to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1464 and Executive Order No. 11246 and shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, into all construction contracts the following provisions; "During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows: "(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. "(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertise- ments for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, religion, sex, or national origin. -4- LP Ts--i•.usiV tii�))ht)hpra+5a5'fa5ti5nktif0)itt'+ .: ::: - , r A'15 NWi1s YY%liKSytijTYli551iaisiTti\•k\tVi5a5rttiri:ar�lrq•:jT]jri " - ' u:A:o,`,;w'daA.L•.\LV „s. s.'r. ...> 5ua:..yTT)>u:..Ori..S•.tt...Giriiasi,x•iiisi3&dt 5i'..,i�na.5�„. •,u5ii .,S.T,)...n,., ,. -ATTACHMENT B "(3) Thi 'Y:1 .etor will send to each in or ,repre- - sentative of workers with which he has a Ctixlec sive bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency contracting officer, advising the labor union or workers' representative of the contractor's commit- ments under Section 202 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in con- spicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. 11(4) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Execu- tive Order No. 13.246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary, of Labor. "(5) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the contracting agency and the Secretary of Labor For purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. "(6) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the con- tractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures autborized in Execu- tive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 13246 of September 24, 1.965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as other- wise provided by lay. "(7) The contractor will include the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract, or pur- chase order as the contracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncom- pliance: Provided, however, That in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States." -5- LP 2Q 3� ATTACHMENT B (e) The Participant shall: (1) comply with the above provisions in construction work carried out by itself= (2) assist and cooperate -actively with the BOR and the Secre- tary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and suhgontractors with the above contract provisions and with the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor; (3) obtain and furnish to the BOR and to the Secretary of Labor such information as they may require for the super- vision of such compliance; (4) enforce the obligation of contractors and subcontractors under such provisions, rules, regulations and orders; (5) carry out sanctions and penalties for violation of such obligations imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the Secretary of Labor or the BOR pursuant to Part 11, Sub- part D, of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965; and (6) refrain from entering into any contract with a contractor debarred from Government contracts under Part 11, Subpart D, of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965. S. The Participant shall secure completion of the work in accordance with the approved construction plans and specifications, and shall secure compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. 6. The Participant shall permit periodic site visits by the Liaison Officer and/or Director to ensure work progress in accordance with the approved Project, including a final inspection upon Project completion. 7. In the event funds should not be available for future stages of the Project, the Participant shall bring the Project to a point of usefulness agreed upon by the State and BOR. 8. All significant deviations from"the Project proposal shall be sub- mitted to the Liaison Officer prior to approval. 9. The acquisition cost of real property shall be based upon the appraisal of a competent appraiser. The reports of such appraisers shall be available for inspection by the Liaison Officer upon request. 10. Development plans and specifications shall be available for review by the Liaison Officer upon request. 11. If any tract or parcel of, or interest in, real property subject to being purchased under the provisions of this agreement, but 'not identified herein, is found by the.Director for any reason not to be suitable for Federal assistance, all obligations of the United States hereunder shall cease as to such Parcel, tract or interest. -6- -2-( dF 3U LP -ATTACHMENT R (.7. C. PROTECT COSTS Disallowances. The Participant aqr: immediate monetary restitution for any disallowances of costs or expen • -.authorized activities which are disclosed through audit or inspectia:; .tntatives of the Liaison Officer or the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation: Project•easts eligible for assistance determined upon the basis of the criteria set forth in the Manual and G D. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. The Participant shall promptly s:• reports and in such form as the Liaison Officer may request. 2. Property and facilities acquired ?ed pursuant to this agreement shall be available for inspection by the r. nd the Liaison Officer. 3. Interest earned on funds grantees `a this agreement shall not be available for expenditure by the Partic shall be disposed of according to instructions issued by the Director. E. PROJECT TERMINATION 1. The Participant may upon written the Liaison Officer unilater- ally rescind this agreement at any time p.• e commencement of the Project. After Project commencement, this agreement ascinded, modified, or amended only by mutual agreement. A proic be deemed commenced when the Participant makes any expenditure or incus. '.igation with respect to the Project. 2. Failure by the Participant to co: the terms of this agreement or any similar acreement may be cause for rasion of all obligations of the United States or the State hereunder. 3. Failure by the Participant to c= the terms of this agreement shall not be cause for the suspension of tions of the United States or State hereunder if, in the judgment of -tor, such failure was due to no fault of the Participant. In such came. punt required to settle at minimum costs any irrevocable obligations ? incurred shall be eligible for assistance under this agreement. A. Because the benefit to be derives '*cited States from the full compliance by the Participant with the ter, s agreement is the preserva- tion, protection, and the net increase in ity and quality of public outdoor recreation facilities and resourct re available to the people of the State and of the United States, and such benefit exceeds to an immeasurable and unascertainable extent Vof money furnished by the United States by way of assistance under t• of this agreement, the Participant agrees that payment'by the Pa: to the United States of an amount equal to the amount of assistance L rider this agreement by the United States would be inadequate compensa _he United States for any breach by the Participanttof this agreemen .1articipant further agrees, therefore, that the appropriate remedy in of a breach by the Partici- pant of this agreement shall be the•specif. ;-mance of this agreement. -7- 22 af- SCS' LP `'ATTACHMENT B"` ,;�• ' ; F. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 1. No official or employee of the State or Participant who is authorized in his official capacity to negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or to take part in such decisions regarding a contract or subcontract in connection with this Project shall have any financial or other personal interest in any such contract or subcontract. 2. No person performing services for the Participant in connection with this Project shall have a financial or other personal interest other than his employment or retention by the Participant, in any contract or subcontract in connection with this Project. No officer or employee of such person retained by the Participant shall have any financial or other personal interest in any real property acquired for this Project unless such interest is openly disclosed upon the public records of the Participant, and such officer, employee or person has not participated in the acquisition for or on behalf of the Participant. 3. No member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any -share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit to arise hereupon, unless such benefit shall be in the form of an agreement made with a corporation for its general benefit. 4. The Participant shall be responsible for enforcing the above conflict of interest provisions. G. HATCH ACT No officer or employee of the Participant whose principal employment is in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part pursuant to this agreement shall take part in any of the political activity prescribed in the Hatch Political Activity Act, 5 U.S.C. 118 k, with the exceptions therein enumerated. H. FINANCIAL RECORDS 1. The Participant shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, docu- ments, and records, and shall make them available to the state and/or BOR for auditing at reasonable times. Such accounts, documents, and records shall be retained by the Participant for three years following project termination. 2. The Participant may use any generally accepted accounting system, provided such system meets the minimum requirements set forth in the Manual and the Guide. I. USE OF FACILITIES 1. The Participant shall not at any time convert any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement to other than a public outdoor recreation use without the prior approval of the Liaison Officer and the Director. 2. The Participant shall maintain all property so as to appear attractive and inviting to the public. Sanitation and sanitary facilities shall be main- tained in accordance. with applicable State and local public health standards. Properties shall be kept reasonably safe for public use. Fire prevention, -a- -2- 3 g_ 23 dC his' IP ATTACHMENT B lifeguard and similar(` activities shall be maintained at levels reasonable to prevent loss of the lives of users. Buildings, roads, trails and other struc- tures and improvements shall be keret in reasonable repair throughout their estimated lifetime so as to prevent undue deterioration. All maintenance and operations shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the Manual and the Guide. 3. The participant shall not discriminate against any nerson on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the use of any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this agreement, and shall comply with the terms and intent of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352 (1964), and of the regulations promulgated pursuant to such Act by the Secretary of the Interior and contained in 43 GFR 17. 4. The Participant shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence. J. MANUAL The Participant shall comply with the policies and procedures set forth in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Manual and the Guide. Said Manuals are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this agreement; and are on file with the parties hereto. m FE -9- CHMENT B NTY 'OF LOS ANGk"-- . &A •;;/-Pd 02P,0WMT OF DFAGIES •.. 2200 27RA?t0 fVi1N�!! M+OMi: • •', ; �; MAN14ATTAN •CACH. CALIFORNIA 90224 542.A102 � •" "2.1811 4 Irl-Tz oa A°O August 30, 1973 weesu+er •NONt iri • :1:: :. Nfll. Hon. Boerd of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Hall of Administration :As Angeles, CA 90012 Gantlemern: P330LIJTION APPROMIG EMCUTIOX OF AMMUTT STAB PSS AND" MCREATIO+i COiaTACT, NM -.MM 05-00299. On Jure 27, 1972, your boar;1 approved filing of an application for acquisition of "Abalone Cove and upland properties. On August 14th, the California State Department of Parks and Recreation notified the Department of Beaches that the application had been approved and funds totaling $1.4 million will ba gr=ated. Ln order t2 implement Vhis program, the agreements with the state mist now be, executed. The execution of tuts contract will provi da the Federal financial assistance to the County. The cost of the acquisition is estimated to be 22.8 millier. of ;:rich $1.4 milli -)n will be provided from Vie Land and 'Water Conservation Fund Frogrm�, Bureau of Outdoor. Recreation, Department of Intericer. • T7M:`^: L•I�e��.w•>1 f'tV+w�ia O!+o al;*r+if1; x-,,%,%pA irr thp.. C;ta.i.ffornia 1►epp—r- ttieto of Parks and Recreation. The County portion of the acquiktior.funds is incluoel in the 1913/74 budget. IT IS, THE -;WORE, T11 T TEM. BOARD: Adopt the attached resolution. -approving the contrGct and authorize and direct the chaIrmen to execute the attached copies of that agreement with the Califor:iia Dapartment of Parks and Recreation. Respectfully submitted, Dict, -''itzl;.^s Director Dr -:JF: -If .1 Actachments M 2 s J: 3(.P ATTACHMENT, B RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES APPROVING AND PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION FOR PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND, PROJECT NO. 06-00299, ABALONE COVE ACQUISITION BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESOURCES AGENCY, DEPARTMENT or PARKS AND RECREATION WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles is desirous of acquiring fifty-seven acres of sandy beach and upland on the Palos Verdes Penninsula for development as a public beach; and WHEREAS, the United States Government has made available the sum of $1,,400,,000 under provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 for the acquisition of said beach and uplands; and WHEREAS, in order to receive said funds,, it is necessary that the County of Los Angeles enter into an agreement with the State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Project Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A between the County of Los Angeles -and the State of California, the terms of which ptovision is made for federal reimbursement of an amount not to exceed $1,,400,000 under provision of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 for the acquisition of Project No. 06-00299,, Abalone Cove Acquisition, as described below: The acquisition by the County of Los Angeles of fifty-seven acres of sandy beach and upland on the Palos Verdes Penninsula to be developed for public outdoor recreational use is hereby approved in all respects. 2. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby authorized and directed to execute five copies of said Project Agreement. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on the 11th day of December, 1973. APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOHN H. LARSON County Counsel By ssistant County Cnuns u ATTEST: JAMES S. MIZE EXECUTIVE OFFICER - CLE 11 All OF "SUPIRVISPORS, BY. Uty C P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 98-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 200, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 143, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1893, FOR A 7,437 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER INCLUDING OTHER SITE AMENITIES LOCATED AT 31501 PALOS VERGES DRIVE WEST WHEREAS, on October 9, 1897, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Coastal Permit No. 143, and Grading Permit No. 1993, to allow the construction of a 7,437 square foot addition to the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center, an outdoor amphitheater, teaching terraces, walls and fences, 139 new parking spaces, driveways, new landscaping, and other amenities to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Site located at 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project has been submitted and adopted as found In P.C. Resolution No. 9&29; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 8, 1998, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section: That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this titre or by conditions imposed under this section to Integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because the total lot coverage, which includes the existing and proposed portions of the interpretive center structures, terraces, and amphitheater area makes up only 1.3% of the total site area, and Is therefore consistent with the lot coverage requirements of the Open Space Recreation district standards which require that the total lot coverage of all buildings and structures not exceed 10% of the total lot area. Additionally, although the Open Space Recreation district does not establish any required setbacks for buildings, the proposed project will be located well away from other surrounding land uses and Palos Verdes Drive West. Additionally, the owner Is also proposing various aesthetic improvements to the site that will also be compatible with the existing Interpretive Center. Section 2: That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to cavy the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use as the traffic study prepared for the project concluded that although the project will generate sonpe additional traffic to the area 2 -7 eF 3 C -Q f ATTACHMENT C roadway system, the amount of additional traffic will be insignificant and can be handled adequately by the existing roadway system. Section 3: That, in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because given the central location of the proposed structure, large distance between the structure and adjacent properties, and relatively quite use of the facility by visitors, the only potential issue effecting adjacent properties would be the proposed request for an increase in building height and how that request may effect views from adjacent properties. However, since a majority of the proposed structure would be constructed at a slightly lower height than the existing structure, only a small portion would exceed the height of the existing structure, and the proposed addition will be relatively Insignificant as viewed from neighboring uses that are well over 500' away from the proposed addition as their primary view is more directly west than towards the south over the site, there will be no significant impairment to existing views. Section 4: That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan, as the proposed interpretive center addition is consistent with the uses permitted within the Open Space Recreational zoning district and Is therefore consistent with the Zoning Code and the Recreational/Passive land use designation of the General Pian. Section 5: That, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Natural, Socio/Cultural, and Urban Overlay Control Districts. Section 6: That conditions necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed as the proposed project has been designed and conditioned through this Resolution and the mitigation measures defined within the Mitigated Negative Declaration so that the proposed project will not cause an impact to the health, safety and general welfare of the site nor surrounding area residents. For example; the proposed project is setback a great distance from the property lines, therefore reducing any impacts to neighboring lots, the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) requires that exterior lighting be low intensity and directed downward, and potential noise and air quality impacts resulting from the construction activities have been mitigated through the MMP. Section 7: That the proposed development is in conformance with the coastal specific plan as the project site is located within Subregion 2 of the Coastal Specific Plan, and in reference to Subregion 2, the Specific Plan indicates, 'This Subregion's character Is that of an attractor/generator to the vast majority of the populace which resides outside the Peninsula" (Page 52-5). The proposed project is in conformance with this statement as the proposed project will improve the existing "attractodgenerator" use of the existing interpretive center and provide a resource for those persons residing on and off of the peninsula. Additionally, the project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan policy to "Facalitate justifiable coastal -dependent development in a manner that is compatible with he City and surroundings, while allowing a posifive ublization of coastal resources" (Page U-18), as the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the existing surroundings at the subject site, and consistent with the policy that Indicates, "Provide mitigating measures where possible to control surface runoff that might P.C. Resolution No. 98.30 Page 2 of 10 28of- 3(P ATTACHMENT C F �► i be degrading to the natural environment" (Page N-46), as the proposed project includes the installation of a new drainage system that will focus the on-site drainage into one system instead of allowing the drainage to flow freely over the bluff edge, where it currently erodes the bluff face and causes damage to the marine environment as a result of the urban type pollutants associated with the run-off. Section A: That the proposed development, which is located between the sea and the first public road, is in conformance with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act as the proposed project only involves the construction of an addition to an existing structure and other site Improvements and will not impede any existing trails or access points, but Instead will actually allow for greater public use and access of the site as additional parking spaces are being constructed. Section 9: The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined In Section 17.96 of this title because given the large site, focused grading areas, and purpose of the proposed project, the proposed project grading does not exceed that which, is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Section 10: The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties because although a small portion of the proposed structure will protrude into a very small portion of existing views of the ocean, the Impairment Is so slight given the distance between the proposed stricture and neighboring uses that the proposed grading does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. Seadon 11: The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural because the proposed contours will still maintain the general configuration and sloping character of the natural contours between Palos Verdes Drive West and the Bluff face. ctio 12: The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography because, although the proposed project will change the existing natural contours to create a level building pad and parking lot, the proposed man made slopes adjacent to the proposed addition, at the sides of the parking lot and within the parking lot will blend into the natural topography which is in the form of small gently sloping hills. Section 13: The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside because although the proposed project does not include any new streets, it does include a parking area and service driveway, both of which blend into the natural contours and character of the existing site. Section 14: The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because as identified in the P.C. Resolution No. 9"0 Page 3 of 10 -q dF 3(.0 ATTACHMENT C biological analysis, the subject construction sites do not contain any sensitive plant or wildlife habitat. Section 18: The Grading conforms to all of the standards within Development Code Section 17.76.040E except for "8b. No finished slopes greater than thirty-five percent shall be created, except at the point of vehicular access adjacent to driveway, as per subsection (e)(8)(0 of this section". and "8c. Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the director or the Planning Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary". The proposed project deviates from standard (b) because there are some slopes that will be created that are 2:1 or 50%, and deviates from standard (c) because the project will have areas where the depth of a fill or cut exceeds five feet. However, these deviations are permitted because a. criteria of No's. 1 through 7 have been met; and b. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of this section.(17.76.040); and c. The departure from the standards in criteria No. 8 do not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the, limitations upon other properties in the vidnity; and d. The departure from the standards of criteria No. 8 are not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. Section 16: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.56.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following September 8, 1998, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 17.: For the foregoing reasons and based on the Information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 200, Coastal Permit No. 143, and Grading Permit No. 1993, thereby approving the construction of a 7,437 square foot addition to the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center, an outdoor amphitheater, teaching terraces, walls and fences, 139 new parking spaces, driveways, new landscaping, and other amenities to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Site located at 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part thereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. P.C. Resolution No. 98-30 Page 4 of 10 ,-� a a- Av ATTACHMENT C vote: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 1998, by the following AYES: Ccommissioners Paris, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Cartwright, and Chairman Clark. NOES: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Alberio, Lyon, and Slayden. Lawrence E. Clark Chairman Joel ojas, AICP Dire or of Pl. , uiiding and e Enforcement; and, Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 98 - Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT C EXHIBIT ►'A►' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 200, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 143, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1993, POINT VICENTE INTERPRETIVE CENTER 1. Ali construction shall be completed in substantial conformance to the plans approved by the Planning Commission on September 8, 1998, 2. This approval is for the construction of a 7,437 square foot addition to the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center, an outdoor amphitheater, teaching terraces, walls and fences, 139 new parking spaces, driveways, new landscaping, and other amenities to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Site, 3. These approvals shall expire one year from the date of this action unless application for building permits is made. Extensions of up to one year may be granted by the Planning Commission if requested prior to expiration. 4. The development shall comply with all mitigation measures found in the Mitigated Monitoring Program as adopted through P.C. Resolution No. 98-29. Conditional Use PennkNo. 200 5. The building setbacks shall not be less than 95' to the west property line, 512' to the east property line, 560' to the northern property line, and 480' to the southern property line. 6. The maximum height of the proposed facility shall not exceed 30'-8" as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, and 22'-0" from the highest elevation of existing grade to be covered by the structure. Prior to installation of roof sheathing, Ridge Height Certification shall be submitted by the developer. 7. Parking and security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall conform to City requirements within the Development Code. Fixtures shall be shielded so that only the subject property is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto neighboring properties. P.C. Resolution No. 98-30 Page 6 of 10 132 k 13 (-P ATTACHMENT C 8. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, all block wall fences shall be composed of a decorative material such as siumpstone. 9. During construction activity, the contractor shall protect the existing Botanical Garden as much as possible. A chain link fence will be installed around the construction area to restrict equipment and employees to the immediate construction area. Any plant species destroyed in the Garden in conjunction with project construction will be replaced in another location near the Center upon completion of the project. Although some existing plants will have to be removed to allow for the expansion of the Center, those plants shall be replaced with plants in-kind. The contractor shall work with the California Native Plant Society to replace said plants removed during construction and to re-establish the Garden in the Immediate vicinity of the Center. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, the contractor shall minimize potential impacts to the soil by taking all feasible precautions to prevent pollution by construction waste, and minimize soil compaction and loss of suitable soil for re -planting areas. Graig Permit No. 1993 10. Grading activity shall be limited to a total of 10,679 cubic yards of cut, 389 cubic yards of fill, and 10,260 cubic yards of export. The applicant may also clean and grub the site of existing landscaping. 11. An as -graded soils and geologic report, complete with geologic map, will be submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils engineer In accordance with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and the recommendations of the Director of Public Works and/or City Engineer. 13. Grading activity on the site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards. 14. Graded slopes shall be properly planted and maintained. Plants shall be selected that are capable of developing deep root systems. Watering shall be done on cycles that will promote deep rooting. Watering shall be diminished or stopped just prior to and during the rainy season. 15. All manufactured slopes shall be contour graded. 16. The use of a rock crusher is not permitted on the site. 17. Ali drainage swales and any other on -grade drainage facilities, including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color, as deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. P.C. Resolution No. 98-30 Page 7 of 10 3 3 oc— 3 Ccs , ATTt1CHMENT C 16 18. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permits, and subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, a haul route permit shall be obtained by the contractor to move earth material off of the site. Additionally, the contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets which may be damaged during development of the site, Including, but not limited to, the designated haul truck route. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the contractor shall post a bond, cash deposit or combination thereof, in an amount sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets and appurtenant structures as a result of this development In addition to providing a bond or cash deposit, the developer shall pay for a pavement analysis of the streets to be used as the designated haul truck route prior to the start of construction and at completion of construction. The developer shall provide compensation for any loss of pavement life along the designated haul truck route as a result of this development. 19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit an Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The Storm Water Pollution Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall incorporate by detail or reference appropriate post -construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to: a. implement, to the maximum extent practicable, requirements established by appropriate govemmental agencies under CEQA, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, local ordinances and other legal authorities intended to minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies; b. Maximize to the maximum extent practicable, the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water Into the ground; c. Minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the amount of storm water directed to impermeable areas; d. Minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, parking lot pollution through the use of appropriate BMPs, such as retention, infiltration and good housekeeping. e. Establish reasonable limits on the clearing of vegetation from the project site Including, but not limited to, regulation of the length of time during which soil may be exposed and, in certain.sensitive cases, the prohibition of bare soil; and, f. Provide for appropriate permanent controls to reduce storm water pollutant load produced by the development site to the maximum extent practicable. Further, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall contain requirements to be adhered to during project construction. These practices should: P.C. Resolution No. 96-30 Page 6 of 10 -�C( a� SU ATTACHMENT C (a. Include erosion and sediment control practices; (b. Address multiple construction activity related pollutants; (c. Focus on BMPs such as source minimization, education, good housekeeping, good waste management, and good site planning; (d. Target construction areas and activities with the potential to generate significant pollutant loads; (e. Require retention on the site, to the maximum extent practicable, of sediment, construction waste, and other pollutants from construction activity; (f. Require, to the maximum extent practicable, .management of excavated soil on site to minimize the amount of sediment that escapes to streets, drainage facilities, or adjoining properties; (g. Require, to the maximum extent practicable, use of structural drainage controls to minimize the escape of sediment and other pollutants from the site; (h. Require, to the maximum extent practicable, containment of runoff from equipment and vehicle washing at t construction sites, unless treated to remove sediments and pollutants. 20. The hours of operation for construction and grading activities shall be limited from Monday to Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. No work on-site, equipment or vehicles shall be permitted before or after the hours indicated. No truck queuing or warming up of equipment or vehicles shall occur before 7:00 a.m.; flagmen shall be used during all construction activities as required by the Director of Public Works. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a final grading plan shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and City Geologist. This grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering, geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. 22. A note shall be placed on the approved grading plan that requires the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement approval of rough grading prior to final clearance. The Director (or a designated staff member) shall inspect the graded sites for accuracy of pad elevations and created slope gradients. The developer or their designee shall provide certification for all grading related matters. P.C. Resolution No. 98-30 Page 9 of 10 �r DF- 3 (o 23. All of the recommendations made by the Director of Public Works and the City Geologist during their on-going review of the project shall be incorporated into the approved grading plans. 24. Unless otherwise provided in these conditions of approval or permitted by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, the project shall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City's grading ordinance (Chapter 17.50 Grading). N:IGROUPTLANNINOIRESOSWCIRECP143.RES 3(eaF3(p P.G. Resolution No. 98-30 Page 10 of 10 • From: John Freeman Orfree@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:58 PM To: 'Abigail Harwell' Cc: cc@rpv.com; Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Staff Report Special Event Banners in the City's Rights-of-way Abigail, thank you for the notice. I would like to point out one inadvertent error in the wording of the staff report. On page 2-6, next to last paragraph, it says: "John Freeman, of the Pacific View Homeowners Association, wrote with concern of sign proliferation in the City. Mr. Freeman believes that the use of banners by non-profit organizations to publicize and the need to protect the City's parks are two separate issues. He supports a non -profit's need to advertise their events, but does believe the placement of the signs at City parks is in compliance with the General Plan. Mr. Freeman states that commercial areas would be a better location for the placement of banners." I have underlined the error. The staff report should say "...but does NOT believe the placement ... Please be sure this is corrected for your staff report, and in any other applicable minutes as well. Thank you, John Freeman Pacific View Homeowners Association From: Abigail Harwell [mailto:Abigai[H@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:17 PM To: 'Abigail Harwell' Cc: janejones-pv@juno.com; kellyblankbates@yahoo.com; SunshineRPV@aol.com; jrfree@cox.net; momofyago@gmaii.com; brmstreitfeld@hotmail.com; srichardson@pvld.org; avona@pvplc.org; pen people@easyreader. info; rosiejpk@msn.com; kgould@pvld.org; keri@palosverdeschamber.com; egriggs@stoltzusa.com; rebisimon@aol.com; drsue@cox.net; 'AGENT' Subject: Staff Report Special Event Banners in the City's Rights-of-way Below is a link to next Thursday's (7/19) City Council Agenda. The event banner program code amendment is item #2 on the agenda, and if you click on the link for that item, it will take you to the Staff Report presented to the Council. http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-07-19/ Feel free to contact me with any questions at (310) 544-5228 or abigailh@rpy.com. Abigail Harwell Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www. palosverdes. com/rpvv 7/14/2011 Q Page 1 of 1 From: sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:21 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Carolyn Lehr; pc@rpv.com Subject: Banners Dear City Council, I request that you deny the staff recommendation for a total ban on banners of non-profit organizations in the public rights-of-way. The opportunity to communicate with the public about important events at a nominal cost is an important function that the banners provide to residents and the organizations. Our neighboring cities all permit such public communication. Surely we can craft regulations as to location, size, color, font and signage materials so that we can have banners that are not an unsightly blight on the area, yet preserve this important means of communication. Since we have never had any problems with content, I do not think that anticipatory censorship of speech is warranted. Please adopt the Planning Commission stance and direct staff to develop a plan for appropriate banners. Thank you. Sharon Yarber 7/15/2011 cz From: Abigail Harwell [AbigailH@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:43 AM To: 'Teri Takaoka; 'Carla Morreale' Subject: FW: Staff Report Special Event Banners in the City's Rights-of-way FYI Abigail Harwell Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:27 AM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Re: Staff Report Special Event Banners in the City's Rights-of-way Thank you. I will check it out. I guess I missed it. Glad it was included. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Abigail Harwell <AbigailH oxpv.com> wrote: Ms. Yarber In looking through the City Council Staff Report, I believe your e-mail from February 3, 2011 to the Planning Commission is on Attachments Page 2-21: 3 http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-07- 19/RPVCCA_CC_SR 2011 07_19_02_ Temp _Banner _Event%20part%201.pdf Let me know if you have any additional comments or questions. Abigail Harwell Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@ mail.com] f Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 10:15 AM To: Abigail Harwell Subject: Re: Staff Report Special Event Banners in the City's Rights-of-way Abigail, My correspondence to the Planning Commission is not included in the public comments. Please add them. I am opposed to an outright ban, but support imposing regulations as to size, font, color, materials, but not content. Unless and until we actually have a problem with content, which has apparently never happened in the City, we do not need to anticipatorily censor speech. On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Abigail Harwell <Abi aiIH a rDv.com> wrote: Below is a link to next Thursday's (7/19) City Council Agenda. The event banner program code amendment is item #2 on the agenda, and if you click on the link for that item, it will take you to the Staff Report presented to the Council. 7/18/2011 C o Z a r http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/cilycouncil/agendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-07-19/ Feel free to contact me with any questions at (310) 544-5228 or abigailh _,rpv.com. Abigail Harwell Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv 7/18/2011 2 0 C-- 2- From: M and D Richardson [medon@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 8:59 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: citymanager@rpv.com Subject: Open Position Recruitment- July 19 Agenda Dear Mayor Long and Members of the City Council: In regards to Agenda Item 7 of the July 19 City Council meeting, I am writing to request that you direct staff to proceed immediately with the recruitment process of the four open positions identified (Option 2), rather than delay open position recruitment until the adoption of a revised pension program and/or require city staff to perform any additional research in response to Councilman Campbell's information requests. As stated in a previous e-mail to the Council on this topic, I believe doing so will have minimal fiscal impact and ensure that necessary staffing is achieved in a timely manner, maintaining and even improving the generally high level of service provided to the community. Conversely, postponing recruitment will result in an estimated 5 -month delay, creating a very real risk of lower productivity, service level deterioration, and delayed progress on major projects. At the July 5 meeting, Councilmember Campbell, who had been notified nearly a month earlier that the item would be on the agenda (Page 7-8), expressed surprise at the issue's inclusion and cited the holiday weekend as his sole reason for being unable to prepare a presentation arguing for freezing recruitment. The Council elected to grant a courtesy continuance. Having read the report for the July 19 meeting, I am concerned that Councilmember Campbell may request a second continuance. As part of their ongoing email exchange regarding this agenda issue, City Manager Lehr asked Councilmember Campbell on July 1, "Did you have any questions or comments (other information needed) on the staff report?" Three minutes later, Councilmember Campbell replied, "Nothing needed from staff as you already gave me the job details I asked for." (Page 7-108) Earlier that day, Councilmember Campbell had requested the item be continued to July 19 for the reasons listed above.(Page 7-103). Beginning on July 5 and continuing through July 13, Councilmember Campbell changed his position, requesting increasingly detailed information that he suddenly deemed absolutely essential for his presentation and yet appears to have no bearing on the question at hand. Putting aside the notion that any responsible Councilmember would conduct significant preliminary research on a topic prior to even requesting it be considered for placement on the agenda, Councilmember Campbell has had six weeks from the time of his initial request to prepare his argument. For a matter as straightforward as this, and in light of Councilmember Campbell's own July 1 statement, that is more than enough time. No further continuance is warranted and any request for one should be denied. These positions are important. They are in the budget. There is no justification for any further delay in the prompt recruitment and filling of them. Please direct staff to proceed with recruitment. Please also find staff's responses to Councilmember Campbell's inquiries sufficient. Finally, a personal comment. It has been a while since the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes have had to witness bullying of staff by an ill-tempered, uninformed City Council member. It remains a singularly unwelcome behavior. Sincerely, Don Richardson 1