20120717 Late CorrespondenceITEM 4.San Ramon Canyon Stabilization Project -Financing Alternatives (3
Min)
Safety is always a higher priority than any other project.San Ramon Canyon
is a higher pl"iority than "Millions of dollars of updates and replacements for
existing City buildings"and "More than $5 million of pal'k improvements'.I
was under the impl'ession that the council had directed staff to discontinue
efforts on public buildings ie.City Hall replacement yet it seems staff
continues to pursue this "stopped"pl·oject.I'm sure the residents can
appreciate the San Ramon UI"gency and forgo for the time being any Park
enhancements.
Although the l"Oadway projects and other storm drain projects are important,
they are not as UJ'gent as San Ramon.
Should debt financing be the only altemative,I'm sure the residents would
support San Ramon before any City Hall or Park improvements given the
ehoice.
I urge the council to focus on real urgent needs I'athel"than desil·es.
ITEM 7.Consideration of Performance Audit Proposals
How is this audit any different than the recent Management Partners effort?
It was also conducted with interviews of staff and has yet to be completely
implemented.FOI'example -The six sigma program lavishes in never -never
land.The new process relies on staff interviews just as the pl'evious effort.
Do you expect any changes from Management Partners I"ecommendations?
How often does the city need to spend tax dollal's on studies?Thyer are more
important campaign promises that need attention.Let's get on with the city's
real business.
Ken Dyda
RECEIVED FROM 1M,(\'
AND MADE A PART OF THE REC RD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF;ru,I~11,'2.01')'
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ~
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
From:Ara Mlhranian
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 4:40 PM
To:Teresa Takaoka
Subject:fIN:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.pal05verdes.com/rov
Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail?
ThiS e-mail message contains informi'lUon belonging to tile City of RancllO Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidcnliiJl
and/or protected from disclosure.Tile information is intcnded only for usc of the individual or enlity named,Uniluthorizcd
disscminatlOn,distribution,or copyll1g 15 strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or an=not an intended reCipient,
please notjfv tile sender immediately.Thank you for YOlir assistance and cooperation.
From:T1mm,Gary@Coastal [mailto:Gary.T1mm@coastal.ca.gov]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 1:59 PM
To:Ara Mlhranlan
Cc:Del Arroz,John@Coastal;Engel,Jonna@Coastal;Joel Rojas
Subject:RE:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
Hi Ara,
Neither John nor I have the time right now to review the permit conditions for Terranea but I know
that we signed off on a landscaping plan for condition compliance and I recall reviewing that a
year ago.I will stick with my response from last year.Also,once an area is planted with coastal
sage scrub it becomes habitat and is likely ESHA based on the presence of gnatcatchers in the
area.Irs very unlikely that we would support the removal or destruction of coastal sage scrub
habitat and it would certainly require the submittal of an amendment to the permit by Terranea or
Lowe Enterprises even if the City takes an action to require additional trimming.As I said
previously we would not support an amendment request and would likely reject it outright.The
City couid also submit an LCP amendment to ailow additlonai trimming but I don't believe
Commission staff would support that either.
Additionally,the protection of public views to and along the coastline is an important Coastal Act
objective but view protection is secondary to habitat protection under the Coastal Act.I hope this
helps.
Gary E.Timm
I of tf
Coastal Program Manager
South Coast District,Long Beach
California Coastal Commission
562-590-5071
gtimm@coastal.ca.gov
From:Ara Mihranian [mallto:AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 8:12 AM
To:Timm,Gary@Coastal
Ce:Del Arroz,John@Coastal;Engel,Jonna@Coastal;Joel Rojas
Subject:FW:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
Good morning Gary,
Below is the latest email message to the City Council requesting that they continue tonight's item
to allow additional time for Coastal Staff to review its Conditions because its being
misinterpreted.Can you provide some additional insight to some of the statements below?I plan
on responding because there are some inaccurate statements,such as the bird breeding season
referenced in the adopted resolution.
Thank you,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rov
.Ji Do you really need to print this e·mail?
111is e-mail message contains information belonging La the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which rnay be privileged,conndential
and/or protected from disclosure.The informatIon 15 intended only for use of the indiVidual or entity n.lmed.Unauthorized
dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly protlibitecl.If you received Ulis email in error,or [Ire nOl an Intended recipient,
please notify the sender immedi''ltC!ly.Tlll1nk you for your assistance ilnd cooperation.
From:Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 7:23 AM
To:City Council
Ce:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
July 16,2012
Dear RPV Mayor Misetich and City Council members,
Regarding the view corridor along Palos Verdes Dr.So.,over the past year the native
plants block the public's view of the ocean and Catalina most of the time.I drive a
standard sedan,not an SUV and the view is obstructed.I anl very disappointed that the
plants are allowed to grow 30"high though the buildings were required to be built low.
Today I see that the plants have been trimmed way down since I drove by last
Wednesday,but they will quickly grow up again long before the next required quarterly
trimming.Therefore,most of the time there is view impairment caused by the location
of the 30+"high plants.I suggest a continuance and review of this item including
location &species of plantings.
Coastal Commission Special Condition No.7.8.6 states:
"The applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South that provide food and
cover for wildlife,including gnatcatchers,migration between the nearby offsite habitat areas to the
northeast and northwest under consideration for inclusion in the City's Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP)program as depicted in Exhibit 24.Species outside of expected
shade canopies shall be predominantly coastal sage scrub plants.Tree canopies shall be limited
to ten percent of the area.All plant materials shall be native to the Palos Verdes Peninsula."
There seems to be a misinterpretation of what the Coastal Commission intended.That is,
the LOCATION of the native plants.This Condition indicates that native plants should
be installed that connect the Terranea development to the native habitat area on the .
northwest end,and native plants should be installed that connect the wildlife corridor on
the northeast end to Terranea for migration,food and cover.It does not state planting
should extend the entire length of the northern boundary of the property all along
PVDr.So.opposite the Salvation Am1y property where there is not native habitat.
The Coastal Commission approved the RPV Coastal Specific Plan which clearly
identifies Palos Verdes Drs.South and West as a public viewing station TO BE
PROTECTED.(See pages C-ll and C-12).All new developments in the coastal zone
must be analyzed for view impairment and that's why Ocean Front Estates,Terranea and
other new property developments are limited in height.Therefore,in my opinion it is
unlikely that the Coastal Commission intended to contradict themselves by requiring
view-obstructing foliage all along the Terranea northern property line on Palos Verdes
Dr.South,while at the same time requiring the buildings'heights to be low so a not to
impair the public's view from the Drive.Doesn't the stricter Coastal Specific Plan take
precedence?
Do you believe the Coastal Commission meant to contradict itself?
Now there is a contradiction between the the Coastal Specific Plan and implementation of
the Special Condition for Terranea landscaping.The structure heights do conform to the
Coastal Specific Plan.This revised landscaping does not.It cost Terranea a considerable
amount to revise.and now costs the resort a considerable amount to trim back.Do we
know if the wildlife is even using this high-traffic area?
3 oF'i
There seems to have been a misinterpretation of the Condition.This issue of WHERE
needs a review and clarification.Ifthere are some tall plants in limited areas,but
otherwise the plants are low in height along the Drive,then the public still has their view
and the wildlife has their protection.The problem now is the LOCATION of view-
blocking plants all along the northern boundary of Terranea.As it stands,the current
interpretation imposes an unfair burden on the Terranea resort to trim all those plants
every 3 months down to 30 inches and impairs the public's view most weeks of the year.
I don't think trimming has harmed any plants.I wonder it any gnatcatchers have been
anywhere near these bushes because of the traffic situation?!!This is a problem that
needs to be reviewed and fixed.
I support protection of the wildlife,and contributed time,money &effort to acquire the
Portuguese Bend Preserve.I congratulate the City and Lowe's Enterprise for the
Terranea Destination Resort development.However,I think some landscaping mistake
was made here which needs to be addressed.
The RPV Resolution passed July 5,20 II states the bird breeding season as September I
through February 14,while today's staff report for this items states February IS through
August 3 I.Which is it?
I would request that you continue this matter for interpretive review and clarification,not
just for us now,but for the future generations and for any other coastal developments
which may look to Rancho Palos Verdes for an example oflandscaping in the coastal
zone.
Thank you for all you do for RPV!
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
JULY 17,2012
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No,
B
C
2
4
6
Respectfully submitted,
G~~-c
esa Takaoka
Description of Material
Corrections to Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Meeting of May 8,2012
Email exchange between:Staff and Edward Stevens;Staff
and Jessica Leeds;Staff and Lenee Bilski;Emails from:
Sunshine;Todd Majcher;Lenee Bilski;Edward Stevens
Emails from:Don Reeves;Barry Hildebrand;Cjrouna;Jim
Jones
Powerpoint Presentation from Tim Schaefer of Magis
Advisors
Email from Noel Park
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color pagels)were submitted
through Monday,July 16,2012**,
W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agenda9.20120717 additions revisions to agenda.doc
Approved by PC
June 26,2012
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 8,2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m.at the Fred Hesse
Community Room,29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Tomblin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTENDANCE
Present:
Absent:
Council members Brooks,Campbell,Duhovic,Knight,Mayor Misetich.
Commissioners Gerstner,Leon,Lewis,Nelson,Tomblin,Vice Chairman
Emenhiser,and Chairman Tetreault.
None
Also present were City Manager Lehr,City Attorney Lynch,City Clerk Morreale,
Community Development Director Rojas,Associate Planner Kim,and Associate
Planner Seeraty.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was unanimously approved as presented.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director Rojas reported that at their May 1st meeting the City Council directed that the
Planning Commission develop a permit process to allow hedges over 42 inches in
height in the front yard setback.
Director Rojas distributed several items of late correspondence for agenda item NO.1
and four letters of late correspondence for agenda item NO.2.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
I o~l8
1.Discussion of the City Council Rules of Procedure and proposed
Commission protocol
Director Rojas presented the staff report,giving a brief background of how this joint
meeting came about and the materials provided in the staff report.
Mayor Misetich stated the items being discussed will be the Rules of Procedure and the
proposed Commission and Committee protocols,and that the subcommittee is looking
for feedback and input from the Commission and the public.He noted that it has been
questioned as to why the City Council is looking at the Rules of Procedure and Protocol
and he explained that,unlike other cities,this City has never had any type of code of
conduct for its Council,commission,and committee members.He felt it was good
practice to have guidelines for conduCt of a person holding a position in the City.In
regards to the Rules of Procedure,he explained how the current rules do not address
the volume of any given agenda and how agendas will be prepared.
He noted that the subcommittee has already received feedback
from the public and the Commission and much of what they have heard is worthwhile to
consider.He also mentioned that Councilman Duhovic has suggested taking the time
normally allotted for a closed session and utilize that time to discuss future agenda
items.This meeting would be open to the public and would allow the Council to decide
the priority of agenda items that should be on the agendas.Mayor Misetich explained
that he would like to now ask the Commission for their feedback,starting with the
protocols and specifically item No.17 which seems to be the Commission's biggest
concern.
Commissioner Nelson began by reading No.17.He felt that the way No.17 is currently
worded is basically a gag order and did not know where it fits into the freedom of
speech.He felt City Attorney advice is needed.He also noted that there are some
Commission or Committee members who have a profession of speaking before other
bodies,and at times noting what they do for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is part of
that speech.He did not think it would be a good use of City Council time to have to
authorize perhaps seven or eight of these allowances to speak every time the Council
meets.
Commissioner Leon agreed with Commissioner Nelson,adding that item No.17
overstates what we need as a City.He felt that perhaps having others not represent
themselves in a comment as representing the majority of the City would be a better
2 o~It)
statement,but to actually withhold the information that one is on a Commission or
Committee is overzealous.
Commissioner Gerstner explained that it is part of his profession to regularly speak to
senior people in other cities.He felt that the protocol,while well intentioned,over
accomplishes what the Council is trying to accomplish.He felt the Council may be
trying to make sure there is no perception by the other people that one is representing
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.He did not think the solution is to specifically require
a certain statement or the lack of a statement in order to accomplish that.He felt it was
important to have a rule with common sense enforcement such that it doesn't gag those
who are trying to not misrepresent themselves as members of the City and representing
City ideas,but by the same token allow one to speak to these people in a manner that
doesn't make one seem like a fool.He stated it would be very inappropriate and
unprofessional if every time he spoke to a client he had to make the disclaimer.He
would support a rule that could be enforced and more based in a common sense
solution.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser stated his service to the City is done out of a love for the City
and an opportunity to serve its citizens.He acknowledged that he serves at the will of
the City Council,and that general guidelines are a good thing.However,he had
concerns with item Nos.14, 16,and 17 and their interpretation.In item No.14 he
questioned if staff is needed to follow the Commissioners around at various community
meetings.In item No.16 he questioned ifthere is really a chance an individual member
can make commitments that will bind the City to some action.As an example,he
questioned if members of the Commissions or Committees actually give up their right to
write a letter to the editor about issues of concern to them.In regards to item No.17,he
questioned if members of the Commissions or Committees forgo the right to make
presentations to other bodies and to mention their service with the City,and also
questioned what impact that would have on the professionals who serve on the
Commissions and Committees.
Chairman Tetreault began by stating his understanding of No.17 was in response to a
complaint from a member of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council after a member of this
City's Traffic Commission offered a comment at the Rolling Hills Estates Traffic and
Safety Committee meeting.He asked what the perceived problem was with that and
how does the proposed protocol correct that situation.
Mayor Misetich felt it was an explanation of clarity.However,he felt the way the rule is
written it could restrict people from having the ability to speak to outside agencies as an
individual.He also felt that many of the comments from the Commission in regards to
this have merit and he agrees with them.He noted the Chairman has made
suggestions on how it may be better written,and that is why the Council is here for that
feedback.The City Council certainly does not want to restrict your free speech rights,
and that was not the intent.The recommendations on how that may be better written
are certainly welcome
'3 o-t l8
Councilman Knight stated that to help answer the question,the City Council did receive
a letter from the City in question on the particular incident being talked about that
specifically asked us,did this individual represent the position of the City or not.So it's
not a perceived,it wasn't a,could this happen or could it not,we got a letter from them
asking us that,so it's was a real situation.
Councilwoman Brooks thanked the Commission for their input.As a fellow
subcommittee member along with the Mayor she pointed out the following:The
feedback that we have gotten,both from you,other members of the Commission,
members of the public,members from other committees has really been a very positive
force for us to produce a document,that I believe in the end,we did not intend for it to
become something of the magnitude that it is turning out to be.But I do believe that in
the end we'll probably have a stellar document that can be a prototype for other cities to
follow.So,this is a learning experience for all of us and we are looking for your
feedback,your critique,your input and,Chairman Tetreault,you have submitted a
number of suggestions that the subcommittee has been looking at and the wording is
and the way you address these is very well put and we will be taking all this testimony
and be able to present something to the Council and work together with the Council and
we really appreciate your input.But I did just want to point out that the letter
concerning,it was as Councilman Knight pointed out,this was a letter from somebody in
Palos Verdes Estates not Rolling Hills Estates.The Rolling Hills Estates issue was
something else.But the Palos Verdes Estates issue had to do with a member of the
Traffic and Safety Commission from the Mayor,it is letter from the Mayor so it is a
matter of public record,bringing it to our attention,and actually the goal here really was
to be discrete about this in a professional manner so that we could really move forth
because all these individuals are,we believe they're good at the job they do,and the
problem is that now it has been brought to this level so it makes us have to point out
specific examples.But,this individual had appeared three times before the Palos
Verdes Estates Traffic and Safety Committee within the last year and at two of those
appearances identified himself as a member of the RPV Traffic and Safety Commission.
So,reading from the letter,they say while PV Estates certainly respects the right of
every citizen to address the Council or our Committees and Commissions in any matter
of concern I believe it is inappropriate for an individual to refer to his position within
another jurisdiction.Such reference could be interpreted as representing an official
position of that City,or could imply by virtue of his position,that his comments should be
given greater weight than other members of the public.He goes on to say that he
assumes this member was acting on his own without the knowledge and approval of our
Council and if he's mistaken then a communication to their government pursuant to our
direction,please let him know.This is where we as Council members,gentlemen,it's a
little different than it might be for you in the Planning Commission role,but as City
officials representing an elected body we have to represent all the cities on the hill.
Together we work,we comingle funds through transportation agencies,we work with
the PV Transit with Palos Verdes Estates,we work with the regional sheriff on three of
our cities,so we do have a variety of issues that sort of put us sometimes in a
compromising situation that we might not otherwise be in.And because we share the
same school district,we share the same library,we share the same land mass,there is
l..(of-16
a venue in which we need to,the request is to have an underlying respect for each
others rules of government.And so,that is the basis for this.
Mayor ProTem Campbell asked Councilwoman Brooks if there was any detailed
information as he was a little bit at a loss as to exactly what was said by this person in
front of the Palos Verdes Estates Committee.He stated the following:I mean do we
know exactly what was said.And number two,was there any other comment or
response back from an official of that City besides that one letter.And was he acting on
behalf of their entire City Council or just as an individual.
Councilwoman Brooks answered that to her knowledge he was.She stated the
following:His name is signed here and I know that the City Manager and the City
Manager's city government they work well together,they have to work well together
because very often we as Council members,some of us here,you know work in other
jobs outside and do not have the time to attend all these activities and meetings.But
this is actually an example but the point here is to have an underlying respect and that's
what we're seeking to do,but I do think that the wording that Commissioner that
Chairman Tetreault has provided gives us a good basis by which to follow.Plus,there
are several other people who have stepped forward with cumulative verbiage as well as
Commissioner Lewis.So I do think that this is a learning experience for all of us and I
would like for us to look at it that way.
Mayor Misetich really appreciated Chairman Tetreault's recommendation.Not only was
he able to critique the item but he was able to provide his recommendation,which is
most helpful.
Chairman Tetreault stated that the Mayor made kind of an example of something he
might do,such as go himself to the Harbor Commission and provide some public
comment before the Harbor Commission.He stated the following:The issue was
whether or not he should identify himself as being mayor of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes when he did so.I dare say,you are probably recognizable at the Harbor
Commission as being the Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes as so,but that illustrates a
point.They may know,on the Commission,that you are the Mayor for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes,the other people in the audience perhaps may not know that.
And so,if you don't disclose who you are,and they don't acknowledge who you are,
and then there is something going on there.There is a lack of communication and a
lack of transparency in the room.And so,I believe that,especially in an era where
we're looking for the greatest level of transparency that the idea that we are not going to
be transparent about something,that we are going to be restricted from being able to
disclose a fact about ourselves and perhaps about our background and about our
experience.You know,our Traffic Safety Commissioner that we're speaking of,the
former Chair,knows his stuff.He's been on our Traffic Safety Commission for a
number of years.He probably had some very good input to give to the people who
were addressing an issue regarding traffic safety in the city of Palos Verdes Estates.
For him not to say that,for him not to say he has that experience,for them not to know
that about him really waters down the weight of his comments.I think everyone is well
served in the room when we have these public forums like this to have as much
information as possible as long as its germane,it isn't violating any issues regarding
confidentiality,it isn't a violation of the public trust,it does not harm anyone,and it's
made very,very clear the person is speaking as a private citizen,I think the burden is
very high upon any governmental entity to try to restrict speech in this matter.That is
why I made the recommendation that I did which has been given to you,has been
passed out to you as part of late correspondence.Actually,not late correspondence but
it is addition to the revisions and amendments to the agenda.
Mayor Misetich felt the Chairman's comments were well taken.He stated the following:
I think that if Rancho Palos Verdes adopts a protocol that allows an individual to go
ahead and identify themselves and also state whether they are there in an official
capacity or not,or as an individual,I think we have a document then to point to for our
fellow government bodies that somebody may appear in front of.That way we can say,
look the person is acting within our guidelines that we have,and that's the way it is.Of
course we want to be as fair as possible on this.The comments are well taken,and
thank you for those.
Councilman Knight asked Chairman Tetreault for clarification.He stated the following:
You make an argument that maybe that the Committee and Commission members
should always mention who they are so the audience could understand their position or
authority or whatever.I want to make sure I understand,is that your intention or if they
were to mention they were part of the committee then they need to say they are
speaking as an individual.
Chairman Tetreault felt there was a time and place for that.He stated the following:If I
were to appear before the Palos Verdes Estates Traffic and Safety Committee and to
talk to them about a traffic safety issue,my position on the Planning Commission is of
no relevance to that at all.But if I were to go to one of the other,like Rolling Hills
Estates or PV Estates and they wanted to revive the issue of having a European Village
concept up at Peninsula Center and I wanted to speak to them from a planning
standpoint,well then my position as being a Planning Commissioner would be relevant.
Councilman Knight asked the Chairman if he was comfortable with disclosure being at
the discretion of the individual.He stated the following:You don't want to put it into the
rules that they always have to mention it,you just are saying if they were mention it then
they need to declare they are speaking as an individual unless otherwise authorized.
Chairman Tetreault stated a certain amount of discretion is required here.He stated the
following:If I were to go to some governmental agency and testify regarding something
that has nothing to do with my experience as being on a Planning Commission,for me
to gratuitously state that I'm on the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes would be inappropriate.
Councilman Knight wanted to be clear that Chairman Tetreault's recommendation is not
to always require that in terms of the rules,but just leave it at the discretion,but if they
do mention that,then to be clear as to whether they are authorized or not to speak.
Chairman Tetreault stated that was correct.
Councilwoman Brooks asked the Chairman to read his suggested wording for item No.
17.
Chairman Tetreault stated his recommendation was to replace protocol No.17 with the
following:If a member of a City Commission or Committee who testifies before an
administrative body of a governmental agency outside the City identifies himself or
herself as a member of a City Commission or Committee,that member must also state
the he or she is not appearing or testifying in any official capacity or is representing the
views or opinions of the City unless that member is providing such testimony as an
official representative of the City as authorized by the City Council.He questioned if this
should then be expanded to apply to the City Council.
Mayor Misetich stated it would apply to the City Council as well.
Commissioner Lewis agreed with the proposed revisions by Chairman Tetreault.He
wanted to throw a couple of items out there on this point.He stated the following:Item
1,there has been a discussion about another issue involving a sister city.There's been
a lot of discussion about what,why these rules came into being and why we're here at
this point.One of the reasons is my understanding is that my law firm filed a lawsuit
representing a party who wanted to sue a sister city on the hill,and I was informed by a
member of City Council that was inconsistent and incompatible with my services on
Planning Commission and I was pressured to,pressure was put on me concerning my
filing of that law suit.I believe that is one of the reasons we are here today adopting
these rules.That said,I'm happy with what Commissioner Tetreault has proposed for
rule No.17.I don't think,as he's put it,that would impinge on my right to represent
clients.I think it's important that our City Council adhere to many of the campaign
promises that were made in terms of encouraging citizen involvement.And if you want
to encourage citizens to come up here and volunteer their time,volunteers need to
know that the City Council and the City has the volunteers'back and that they're not
going to be surrendering their First Amendment right,they're not going to be
surrendering their right to make a living,and they're not going to be pressured
inappropriately if activities that do not affect their services on a Commission are
conducted.One other issue,I do not know,but I suspect that there's more than just a
letter about our Chair from the Traffic Commission coming to speak.I imagine there
were phone calls,there were discussions,there was pressure put to bear on each of the
five of you.For my part,if my law suit increased that pressure,I'm sorry and I apologize
for that.But,one possible solution to that pressure that you all felt,that discomfort,is
instead of putting in a new rule,is to turn around and look at that mayor or that council
member from another jurisdiction and say,look I'm proud of the residents of my City.
I'm proud of the volunteers and the diversity of thought of the people who come up and
7 o~lB
volunteer and serve in our City.And perhaps there needs to be a little less sensitivity
from the sister cities,a little less,my gosh is Jeff Lewis representing the city of RPV
when he's filing a law suit or is it just Jeff Lewis making a living and representing a client
who had a case.So,I would encourage each of you,when it comes time to vote on
item No.17,when you're thinking about possible solutions instead of just looking at the
rules maybe consider in the way you interact with sister cities,acting in a way that will
build the public trust and encourage those sister cities to maybe back off a little bit and
have a little more respect for individuals who come up and volunteer their time.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell was troubled hearing that Commissioner Lewis was
pressured by a Council person in Rancho Palos Verdes regarding what he does for a
living.He stated the following:That shouldn't happen.My own opinion is that when
you volunteer to serve on one of our Commissions or Committees that you should be
encouraged to be active out in the community,you should be encouraged to speak in
front of Homeowners Associations and other professional groups,we should be proud
and we should support and encourage free speech and a diversity of opinions when
they're out there.I'm also troubled about what I heard regarding the former Traffic
Safety Chairman and what was supposedly said according to one letter which we still
haven't heard from a former sister city mayor as to whether or not he was writing that
letter.I think it is on their City letterhead.Is he writing that letter I presume then on
behalf of their entire City Councilor is he writing it as an individual?If so much has
been made out of this testimony in front of a sister city Traffic Safety Committee we
should know more details about that before we just throw one of our citizens under the
bus and just assume that the hearsay and gossip that we hear is necessarily true.'
That's the only example I have heard that's the driver behind this entire protocol
process that has eaten so much of our time and effort and has caused so much
consternation amongst our valuable volunteers in the community and as each day goes
by more and more regular citizens are becoming aware of this.So I think as a Council
we have to be very respectful,very careful as to just how many rules that we try to
burden our residents,particularly those most valuable ones when it comes to the ones
that want to volunteer to help the City be a better place,as all of you have and as all of
the Council members have.
Mayor Misetich stated to Commissioner Lewis that it certainly is not the committee's
intent to ostracize somebody for how they make their living.He stated the following:
mean,you can make your living however you want to as long as,I guess it's legal.I
mean,that is not the intent of the protocols.The protocols are,as I mentioned to
Chairman Tetreault,some guidelines that we can point to to our fellow cities and in fact,
do as you say.We're proud of our citizens for doing what they do,we're proud of our
citizens for speaking out,we have a set of guidelines,they're within the guidelines,and
it is not infringing on their free speech rights or doing anything that is illegal in your
jurisdiction.They have a right to come and speak at any public body and there should
be no problem with that.At least it sends a communication that we do have our
Commissioners acting within the guidelines.And so,certainly again,there is no
reference to how someone would make their living.
Duhovic stated he would like to ask something.He stated the following:
Something is troubling me and I debating whether or not to bring it up,but I've
heard it from more than one individual,and I'm not one to usually jump into the fray with
respect to rumor mills,gossip,etc.etc.But there was a pretty significant accusation
made with respect to the Mayor's letter from Palos Verdes Estates,and I heard it from
more than one person,and I want the record to be clear for the citizens of Rancho
Palos Verdes.The insinuation is that a Rancho Palos Verdes City Council person
asked for that letter.Very troubling to me.This is a very serious accusation and I for
one am going to go on record that I did not ask for that and I think it would be
appropriate for every person that didn't ask for it to go on record with that so we can
move forward and dispel with that rumor.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell stated he did not ask for it.
Mayor Misetich stated that he also did not ask for the letter.He stated the following:
The letter was sent forth,it was a communication between their Mayor to our City
Council.I mean,every one of you got a copy of it,did you noll
Councilman Duhovic stated he got a copy of it.The question to him is what the
genesis of the letter and the timing of the letter.
Councilwoman Brooks interjected.She stated the following:We broached this issue as
a result of challenges that this new Council was facing,and as I mentioned earlier we
have neighboring cities that we have to work with.There may be some dissention on
this Council with this issue,and there is a subcommittee addressing this issue,I'm not
sure that this is the proper venue for us to be addressing this,but these members
knowing that we were on this subcommittee together came forward to our City through
the City Managers and through each other,and contacted me and contacted the City
Manager and they let us know that this was taking place.This placed them,they felt,in
a precarious position of trying to exert influence.Now the question is this,you Mr.
Lewis do not abridge,your First Amendment rights are not abridged in your right to step
forward and sue the city of Rolling Hills Estates on their EIR.That is your right to do so.
And your website prominently displays that you are a member,have been on the Traffic
Commission and are now on the Planning Commission.The issue that came before the
members of the Rolling Hills Estates City Council concerning input,since you're
bringing this up,had to do primarily with the fact that you have every First Amendment
right to speak as you wish,but asking this City Council when there are so many people
who are so qualified to do these jobs that come before and step forward in the public,
do we look at that,do we want to look at that as an asset or a liability.And so that's an
issue that we're addressing.Many cities address this issue in a code of conduct.The
City of Rolling Hills Estates ten years ago was faced with,I would say what they would
identify now as a rogue council member and it created the need for a lot of research to
go into creating what they now have as their code of conduct.We the subcommittee
looked at various cities,starting with Santa Ana with protocols,and we came back
looking at Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates.And Rolling Hills Estates did
a lot of work,but the work that you gentlemen are doing to help to make this better,
qo~I'b
helps to make this a better document.But the politicizing of this event,I believe,is
completely out of line because this Council needs to make this decision about how
we're going to address this issue.This is a Council issue.
Councilman Duhovic stated that he felt this was a pretty important question and it's
being dismissed.He stated the following:With all due respect to Councilwoman
Brooks,she doesn't think this is an important , I think it is an important question
and is the appropriate forum.When a letter is presented,I'd like to know for the record
if somebody asked for the letter.I think the question is germane and if people don't
want to answer that's fine,let the record reflect that people didn't answer,that's fine.
Councilwoman Brooks stated the following:If Councilman Duhovic is asking this
question I will point out that yes,I did speak with the Mayor and I did hear from other
people and they came to me first.
Councilman Duhovic stated the following:The question was did you ask for a letterl
Councilwoman Brooks stated the following:When this individual told me about this I
said are you interested in putting this in writing.He said yes I will put this in writing
gladly.That is your answer.
Commissioner Tomblin echoed the rest of the Commissioners and thought what the
Chair put forward in terms of his writings he fully agreed with.He also agreed with
Councilman Duhovic's comments.
Chairman Tetreault asked the members of the subcommittee if it was their intent,
through any of the proposed protocols,to prevent a member of any Commission or
Committee from representing the interest of a client that has a claim against a
neighboring city.He stated he couldn't see anything that specifically addressed that
and nothing spoke to it specifically,but he could make,as a lawyer and he was paid to
do so,he could play with protocol Nos.4 and 15.He stated No.4 represents work for
the common good of the City and notfor any private interest or personal gain and No.
15,is to support and when necessary work to improve intergovernmental relationships
between this City and other neighboring cities,the City of Los Angeles,the State of
California,and the Federal Government.He stated the following:One could argue that
representing the interests of a client while suing one of our neighboring cities may
violate one of those two protocols.My question is,is it the intent of the ad hoc
subcommittee to prevent or to somehow sanction any member of a Committee or
Commission of the City if they do engage in that type of professional work.
Mayor Misetich felt he already answered that question when he was speaking to
Commissioner Lewis.He stated that:It's not the intent of the subcommittee to chastise
somebody on how they make their living,as long as they make it legally.
Councilwoman Brooks stated that with a lot of the submissions made by Chairman
Tetreault,that those very may well end up as part of the document,including the
10 tP--/0
removal of the termination word,because the Municipal Code addresses how people
serve.She stated the following:The Mayor serves at the pleasure of the Council and
every Committee and Commission serves at the pleasure of the Council.There are a
lot of redundancies and I have to say that when Councilman Duhovic submitted a
compilation including his own,they gave a good bare bones document to work with.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell asked Chairman Tetreault the following:If something
happens such as what we're talking about tonight where a former chair of the Traffic
Safety Commission irritated a member of City Council in the neighboring city,do you
think it's appropriate,just going forward,do you think it's appropriate that the City
Council get involved in this or would it be more appropriate for that Commission or
Committees own leadership to take a look at this first.My own viewpoint is,these
Commissions and Committees have got Chairmen and Vice Chairmen,and unless you
ask for our input on an individual situation that allegedly happened,that we should
respect that leadership and for whatever reason you want our input afterwards or the
Council always has that ability to step in.But I'm of the opinion that we should respect
that leadership and let them settle this internally amongst themselves rather than reach
out to other city officials and ask for letters and make such a public issue out of
something when we still don't know what happened or what was said,or whether or not
this former mayor of a neighboring city was acting on his own or if he was acting on
behalf of the whole City Council.
Chairman Tetreault answered the following:The Mayor Pro-Tem being a veteran of the
military,it has to basically with your pay grade.If a member of City Council makes a
complaint to our City Council,I do not think a member of the City Council would make a
complaint to me directly regarding the conduct of another Commissioner if a
Commissioner went before that City Council.But if that were to happen,I would
probably give a call to our City Manager as well as to our Mayor and ask for some
advice as to what to do with that,only because I'm jumping levels.But if a Planning
Commissioner went before another Planning Commission and that Chair had issue with
what it was one of the Commissioners did and called me up,well then yes,we would
probably take care of it within ourselves I would think.But with full disclosure,I would
always disclose this information and the communication I had with another city official
with staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell replied as follows:Being he is a former military officer,but as
an example and to use the military,not that we are but as a comparable example,it this
came to me about one of my subordinate units where something happened,I would turn
it over to that subordinate's leader and ask him to look into it.I wouldn't reach down
into every single situation when something like that came up.It's a different style.
Much of what is being proposed here in these protocols I think is unnecessary.Much of
what is proposed,in my opinion,is not respectful of the position of not just Planning
Commissioners,but as leaders in this community.By definition,you're more than
Planning Commissioners,you are leaders.There are many more qualified people that
apply for these positions to volunteer as you have than we will ever be able to appoint to
the Planning Commission.My own personal viewpoint diverges a bit from the ad hoc
If of-18
Committee of Mayor Misetich and Councilwoman Brooks in that I am fully supportive of
your example language that you put forth out there.
Councilman Duhovic referred to Commissioner Gerstner's comments about making
disclosures during phone conversations with clients in other cities.He did not think this
was the intent of the subcommittee,but asked Commissioner Gerstner if he was
disinclined to give a disclaimer when speaking at a public venue.
Commissioner Gerstner answered that he agreed with Chairman Tetreault's comment
that to the extent that you represent yourself as a Commission member of Rancho
Palos Verdes,it is important to state under what pretense you are giving your testimony.
He stated the following:However,if you don't stand there and represent that you're that
I don't think it's necessary to have a disclaimer.If the City is Beverly Hills or Mill Valley
or Newport Beach or something like that and I'm representing a client in a Planning
Commission situation,I normally wouldn't represent myself as a member of this
Planning Commission and therefore wouldn't look to have a disclaimer.With regards
to phone calls and other things like that,I see how things sometimes start as small
pieces and they grow.You all are still working on these rules and what I was trying to
encourage was that it not grow into something like that.I was speculating that was 'a
possibility.But with regard to representing myself or other clients in front of other cities,
I don't have a problem with the disclaimer but I would prefer to restrict it to when I
represent myself as a member of this Commission not just because I was standing
there.
Councilman Duhovic asked if is the purpose of the disclaimer to state that you're not
representing yourself as a member of the Commission.
Commissioner Gerstner responded with the following:The disclaimer is that if you say
I'm a member of the Planning Commission it's then to be clear under what capacity
you're speaking.But if you just don't bring that up and the people listening don't know,
then I don't know if it's all that necessary to have the disclaimer.In certain cities you're
so distant from it,it would be like testifying in front of congress in Washington and
making a point that you're a member of the Planning Commission of Rancho Palos
Verdes and at the same time saying you're not speaking for that government body,like
they would care.And so,I think there is a time and place for it and a certain amount of
discretion is necessary,and I think that just by being here we've earned a certain
amount of that discretion and trust and respect,and if I misstep I expect to be
reprimanded.But I expect to be given that latitude to fail as part of the trust that I get
just by having the position.
\'Z.of-If:>
Mayor Misetich then moved on to the proposed Rules of Procedure.He noted that No.
5 has received much attention,and asked the Planning Commissioners for their input
on the item.He also asked for input on the question of whether or not to allow a public
speaker to donate their time to another speaker.
Commissioner Nelson spoke on item No.5,and strongly suggested the City Council
guarantee the rights of the minority.He noted that for years the City Council has had 3-
2 votes on items,and he did not think the two dissenting votes never seem to be truly
represented.He urged the Council to make sure the minority has the opportunity to put
something on the agenda without the approval of a majority of the City Council.
Mayor Misetich asked Commissioner Nelson if having the ability for two members
agreeing to put an item a future agenda during the Future Agenda Items section of the
agenda be sufficient.
Commissioner Nelson felt that was sensible.
With respect to the agenda,Commissioner Leon felt there are two premises that one
needs to make;the first being there is full transparency associated with putting items on
the agenda,and the other that the rights of the minority be maintained.Having two
members propose an agenda item would tend to bring up issues that are relevant and
possible of full Council support.He cautioned that could bring up Brown Act issues,in
that one Councilmember may want to put an item on the agenda,speak to another
Councilmember about the item that may not support it,and then not be allowed to
speaker to another Councilmember about that possible item.He supported the idea of
having a standing agenda item of discussing future agenda items in an open forum,as it
would allow an avenue to discuss a minority item openly with all of the Council
members.With respect to public speakers,having a general guideline of three minutes
is good.However,he felt at times it is very appropriate for public speakers to band
together and have a single presentation which may take more than three minutes in
order to be effective.In such instances,the Mayor or Chairman may listen to the
arguments and rationales and make a decision,as opposed to having a fixed guideline
which binds the speaker to three minutes.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed that having a general three minute rule works well,with
the Mayor or Chairman having the discretion to make a determination on how extra time
will be given.In regards to setting the agendas,he agreed that discussing future
agenda items in a public forum definitely makes a big difference,and needs to public.
He also felt the minority needs to be supported and any two people should be able to
put something on the agenda.If the concern is that two people tend to put something
on the agenda meeting after meeting,that will be a self correcting problem.Either the
people trying to put something on the agenda will begin to look foolish for trying to put
something foolish on the agenda over and over,or the three who take it off the agenda
week and week for having done that.He did not think the City Manager,or any person
that was not elected,should have the power to veto anything that goes on the agenda.
1:S a~,e
He added that he was questioning what problem the City Council was trying to solve by
adding this guideline.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell felt that was a good point,as much has been made about a
particular Council meeting where he placed three items on the agenda by one Council
member.However,all three of those items had support from one other Council
member.He noted that nothing that he is aware of has ever put on an agenda by a
single Council member.He applauded the Commission for raising the question of what
problem is trying to be solved.
Councilman Knight felt that there has been some misunderstanding of the difference
between having the ability to place something on the agenda and actually the practical
matter of where it will go on the agenda.He supported the idea of having at least two
Council members supporting an item to be put on the agenda.In terms of where that
item is placed on the agenda,that is where the City Manager and Mayor come into play.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed that the City Manager needs to manage that part of the
process.
City Manager Lehr appreciated the comments and noted that she does not consider
herself a gate keeper,but rather an administrator.She noted that several times in the
past one Council member has provided her with a staff report to include in the agenda
for the next available Council meeting,which she has always done.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser had comments regarding NO.5.He felt that,as written,it
seems to give the City Manager,the Mayor,and a majority of the Council members
control over which items can be added to the City's agenda.While he agreed the rights
of the minority are important,he felt the quality of the City's government is driven by the
quality of the debate,and what emerges from the debate should be tempered and
strengthened by both the minority and majority opinion.If only the City Manager,the
Mayor,and the majority opinion rules it gives a watered down version of governance for
the City,and we end up with tepid options.
Councilwoman Brooks pointed out that the old rule states only that the agenda shall be
prepared in accordance with the preparation procedure as directed by the City
Manager.In consultation with the Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tem each agenda item shall
include an estimate of time that should be required for the City Council to review,
consider,and take actions regarding the agenda item.She stated the subcommittee is
looking to bring this rule up to date and is getting good feedback on the issue.
Chairman Tetreault agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments in regards to
public speakers time,noting that it has worked very well for the Planning Commission
over the eight years he has served and it has been very fair to the public.In regards to
NO.5 he felt that,whether it was its intention or not,it does create the position of
gatekeeper in the City Manager.If a Council member wishes to place an item on the
agenda there is a procedure to do so,which is to go through the Mayor or City
l'irk-Ie
Manager.However,both have the ability to decline.In that case,it will go to a vote
with the full City Council and needs a majority vote to be placed on a future agenda.He
felt this procedure does shut out the minority.He stated that he was in favor of
language stating any City Council member can put an item on a future agenda without
the need of a second.He felt that the ability to put an item on an agenda could
possibility be the most powerful and important role a City Council member could have.
He felt that the solution to the problem is not preventing individual members of the City
Council placing items on an agenda,but rather to stage these items on agendas as
appropriate with the proper staff reports and priority.
Commissioner Lewis stated he distributed in advance of the meeting a list of questions
that he felt have been mooted,in a large part,by comments made by the Mayor.He
had concerns about the minority not being able to have issues agendized,however it
sounds as if the subcommittee have taken to heart some of the comments from the
public and the Planning Commission.
Mayor Misetich asked Commissioner Lewis if he was in favor of two Council members
having the ability to put an item on a future agenda.
Commissioner Lewis stated that staff has a finite amount of time and resources,and as
long as there is a permanent place on the agenda where any council member can ask
for a second he is satisfied.He did not think staff should be using their time to prepare
staff reports for items on agenda that could not get a second.He also felt that if a
Council member is bearing staff with ten silly,nonsense items,or ten meritorious items
that he is insisting be put on a single agenda with minimum notice,the public should
know about this.He encouraged the City Council to review the last three or four
meetings under this new section NO.5 and compare what has been agendized to the
City Council's goals and see how it has been working.
Commissioner Tomblin discussed the speakers three minute rule,noting that when he
was Chairman of the Planning Commission it was helpful to have the discretion to
expand that public speakers time when appropriate.In regards to setting agenda items,
he read from the Palos Verdes School Board protocol on the subject,which says the
agenda shall be set only with the approval of the Board President and the
Superintendent.Because of the problems he felt this caused,he was very passionate
in his opinion that the City Council would want to embrace the idea of allowing at least a
minority of two have the ability to place an item on the agenda.
Mark Wells stated the current City Council adopted a set of rules of procedure on
December 20,2012.In March 2012 the City Council adopted another set of rules of
procedure.Now in May the City Council is looking to adopt another set of rules of
procedure.He felt that City Council members and Commission and Committee
members are very intelligent volunteers and know what they should and should not say
and how they represents the residents of the City.He asked what is so wrong with the
wheels of government in the City that Council members feel they need to reinvent the
wheel so often.He felt that the Council got it right in March and it is time to move along
to other more important items.
David Kramer stated he has served six years on the Traffic Safety Commission,three of
those years as Chairman of that Commission.He stated that he mentioned his title and
background because he thought it had relevance and he hoped it provides a sense to
the City Council about his background,and that perhaps he has a bit more knowledge
about some of the issues being discussed.He explained that early this year he went to
the city of Palos Verdes Estates and spoke to their Traffic Safety Committee.On two
occasions he identified himself by name and position in the City,and made it very clear
that he was speaking as an individual.He stated there was no way anyone present in
that room could have construed that he was in any way representing the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.With all due respect,he felt the former mayor of Palos Verdes Estates
was very much out of line when he wrote the letter to the City.He stated the former
Mayor was not at the meeting,and he felt the letter was an attempt to bully him,to quiet
him,and to prevent him from speaking to the city on a topic he feels he knows
something about.He stated that he used all due respect when he spoke to the Traffic
Safety Committee,and he makes no apologies for what he said.He respectfully
requested that item No.17 of the protocol be stricken and be replaced with the
language that was proposed by Chairman Tetreault.
Mayor Pro Tem Campbell thanked Mr.Kramer for his years of service to the City,
adding that he thought what happened to him was deplorable and unfair.He applauded
him for going before a public hearing and speaking what he knew to be the truth.He
felt that the City Council should defend their citizens in such situations.
Mayor Misetich was encouraged that Mr.Kramer wants to embrace the changes
suggested by Chairman Tetreault.He felt the language would make a big difference to
many people and would be important for other jurisdictions to know the City has a set of
protocols and the Commissioners and Committee members are operating within those
protocols.
Councilwoman Brooks also thanked Mr.Kramer for stepping forward,noting that she
did everything she could not to say his name.She stated Mr.Kramer has done an
outstanding job on the Traffic and Safety Committee.However,the City was faced with
this issue and challenge and she felt they're reaching a consensus on how to address it
in the future.
Ken Delong commented on No.5 of the rules of procedure.He felt that whatever may
have been done in the past,it is the elected officials that need to be in charge.He
therefore supported the changes suggested by Councilman Duhovic.However,he felt
the protocol however needed quite a bit of work.He pointed to Section C of the
protocol,and stated that the responsibility outlined in that section belongs to the voters.
Joe Locascio stated he is the current Chairman of the Traffic Safety Commission,and
would like to address some comments as the Chairman and some comments as an
individual resident of the City.He stated that the Traffic Safety Commission has a
meeting scheduled for May 21 st at which time they plan to discuss the protocol and rules
of procedure and return their comments to the City Council.He commended the
Planning Commission for their review of the documents.He was extremely concerned
about any elected official that would abrogate their responsibilities to the City Manager
or other non-elected employee.He stated that giving the City Manager responsibility
and authority that should be maintained within the elected City Council is a travesty and
misuse of the trust placed in the Council by the City.Finally,as a Commission member,
he found it a violation of his First Amendment right with regard to any attempt to curtail
or restrict his speaking,identifying his credentials,or earned experience in addressing
an issue that pertains to area of expertise.
Lowell Wedemeyer was happy to seethe suggestion for additional ways a single
Council member can place an item on an upcoming agenda and applauded having a
future agenda item category on the agenda.He asked if it would be feasible to allow
each City Council member to submit to the City Manager a list of requested future
agenda items,which could then be transmitted as part of the meeting protocol in
advance.
City Attorney Lynch commented that there would be no Brown Act violation with such a
procedure,as the full City Council would be receiving the information as part of the
Future Agenda Item portion of the agenda or as part of the study session idea.She
noted that any study session would be a fully noticed public meeting open to all,just like
any other Council meeting.
George Zugsmith stated he is the Vice President of the Mediterranea HOA,but is
speaking as an individual.He did not understand what the City Council was trying to
accomplish.He felt that the City has something in place that has worked for 40 years,
and he has never heard of a rogue elected or appointed official in this city that has ever
claimed to be speaking on behalf of the City when in fact he wasn't.He felt it was more
important to spend time on issues affecting the City rather than on these issues.Lastly,
he agreed with the individuals who have suggested that no one but an elected official be
vested with the authority,jurisdiction,or power to control an agenda.
The Mayor thanked the Planning Commission and members of the public for their
comments.
Councilman Duhovic moved that the City Council adjourn,seconded by
Councilman Knight.
Mayor Pro Tern Campbell asked if he could first asked a question of the Chairman,
however the Mayor noted that there had already been a motion and second to adjourn.
The City Council adjourned at 9:34 p.m.by a vote of (3-2)with Council members
Duhovic and Campbell dissenting.
\{CJ~18
Attest:
City Clerk
W:\Cily Council Minules\2012\2012050B CC &PC JNT MTG .doc
16 o~16
Mayor
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 5:22 PM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Joel Rojas;Teresa Takaoka;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
Thank you for taking the time out of your schedule today to meet with me.
Based on our meeting,it is my understanding that by emailing you the coastal conditions (under a
separate email because scanning the document is taking some time),along with what I showed you were
available on the City's website,that you are no longer seeking additional documents.If my understanding
is incorrect please let me know what documents you are still requesting.
Once again,thank you,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosvel.des.com/rpv
J:i Do you really need 10 prinllhis e-mail?
This e-mail message contains informatlon belonging to the Ctty of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged.confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The information Is intended only for use of the Individual or entlty named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying Is strictly prohibited.rr you received this email in error,or are not an intended rcdpientf please notify the sender
Immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 10:24 AM
To:Ara Mihranian
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
I will try to be there at 3pm.
I would appreciate hard copies copies of all the information or email
copies so that I can study them at home &put all the pieces together
with my team.
Thanks
Ed
From:Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpv,com]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 B:41 AM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Gary Timm;John Del Arroz
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
7/16/2012 I of 3
Mr.Stevens,
In light of your request below,I would like to suggest we meet here at City Hall (rather than at Pelican Cove Parking Lot)today
at 3pm so that I can show you the original City Council Conditions (adopted in 2002),the City Council certified EIR (including
the Biological Section),the 2002 City Council approved plans,the Coastal Conditions and the final Coastal Commission
approved project plans that were accepted by the City Council on October 7,2003 based on the modifications adopted by the
Coastal Commission in 2003.Please confirm that you will be able to meet me at City Hall today at 3pm.
As for the requested contact information at the Coastal Commission,the City's representatives at the Long Beach office
(South Coast District 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach,CA 90802)are as follows:
•Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager
•John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analysts
They can be reached at 562-590-5071.
I agree that it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal Commission's condition be obtained and
utilized for the Council's consideration as it relates to the City's coastal view corridor and coastal sage scrub habitat.As such,
I have copied coastal staff listed above on this email so that they are aware of your request and can chime in.
Let me know if you have any further requests before we meet at 3pm today.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/mv
J:;,Do you really need 10 prinllhis e-mail?
This c·mail message contains information belonging la the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,whIch may be privileged,confIdential and/or protected from disclosure.The
Information is Intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.(f you received tills
email in error,or arc not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.netl
Sent:Sunday,July 15,2012 9:57 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher @LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri
Haack@destinationshotels.com
Subject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting conditions along Palos
Verdes Drive South in front of the Terranea property. The requirement is only that connectivity for
wildlife habitat be provided between those portions in the northwest and northeast areas of the
property that are adajcent to City owned lands that were under consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.
It does NOT require habitat be planted all along the northerly length of the property between the
northwest and northeast corners thereof.Staff is misinterpreting the condition and the Coastal
Commission needs to weigh in on this before Council makes any findings or decisions on Tuesday.
7/16/2012
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at each end of the
property where the wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a map of the NCCP areas since the
NCCP is specifically referenced in the special condition.No NCCP in that area?No need for native coastal
scrub.I do not believe that NCCP areas are adjacent to the Terranea property all along the length of the
northerly boundary.The maps will confirm if my recollection and understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any changes to those
conditions and who requested them,and any correspondence to or from the Coastal Commission and
the City,any arborist,other government agencies (such as Fish &Wildlife,and Fish &Game),any
requests in writing from the Coastal Commission,and who the contact person is at the Coastal
Commission with their direct telephone number &email address.Please consider this a Public Records
Act request.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan says this is
supposed to be a view corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South across the land to the
ocean.
The Coastal Commission condition from your email 7.B.6 just says that coastal sage scrub is to be
planted,it did not specify that 30 inch plants need to be planted.There are different varieties of coastal
sage scrub that do not grow high and therefore would never have to be trimmed.I can remember the
only one who specified the 30 inch height was Terranea's Biologist and the City immediately jumped on
it and agreed with the biologist and completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any waves with Terranea
over this issue,but it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal
Commission's condition be obtained and utilized before a decision is made that will have long term
impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,regardless of what inconvenience that will cause.Since
this issue is up for consideration on Tuesday,I would appreciate it if you would send to me the above
requested information,or so much of it as is immediately available,not later than the end of the
business day on Monday,July 16th.At a minimum,please provide to me immediately the contact
information of the person(s)most knowledgeable at the CC about this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of the Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
7116/2012
From:jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.netj
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 1:33 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:Re:PN:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Please provide to the council for tonight's meeting.Thank you
--------Original Message --------
Subject:Re:FW:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Date:Tue,17 Ju12012 13:28:38 -0700
From:jessica <jessboopiakox.net>
To:Ara Mihranian <AraMlalrov.com>
CC:Timm,Gary@Coastal <Garv.Tiriunlalcoastal.ca.gov>,Joel Rojas <JoelRlalrpv.com>,
Majcher,Todd <trnajcherIalLOWEENTERPRJSES.com>,cclaJ.rov.com <cclalrov.com>
Ara,Thank you for all the information ..it is very helpful.
It appears that I missed all of this as it was evolving,however,there are a few things I
know:
1.The Coastal Specific Plan intended to protect our views across the land to the ocean
2.The Coastal Specific Plan also intends to protect species of birds and butterflvs that
are close to extinction,and other species
3.Coastal Sage Scrub enables endangered species to have a place to forage and hide
4.Coastal Sage Scrub (per the Coastal Specific Plan),serves the protection of these
endangered animals and other birds and animals best in "undisturbed"land such as
inaccessible areas of the coastal bluffs and canvons,natural ravines and drainage canvons
(see Coastal Specific Plan pages N29 thru N32)
5.Most of Coastal Sage Scrub have been heavily impacted bv off-road vehicle use,
nearbv pedestrian use,etc.(see CSP page N32)
In conclusion:1)Is the intent to not protect the views of the public?,2)Is the intent to have
coastal sage scrub in an area where cars f1v bv at 40+miles per hour?,3)Is the intent to
have Coastal Sage in an area that not only does not protect the endangered species,and
other species of wildlife,hut threatens them by bicyclers,pedestrians,automobiles?
The answer has to be,NO! NO! NO!
I hope that vou all sit back,take this moment to reflect and postpone this issue until
further investigation can be done.Mavbe a committee of concerned citizens and concerned,
interested agencies,and private interests can come together and make this work.Evervone
mav meet and decide this current plan is the best,but at least everyone will be heard!
I know that everyone who has been involved in the past,and everyone who is involved now.
wants the best for this area of our coastline,a very special part of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Terrenea has added a beautiful addition to what we call "home"and visitors come from
far and wide to enjoy;let's make it the best for all.Please protect our views,our coastline
and our natural resources.
Thank vou again Ara for taking the time to provide the helpful information.
Sincerelv,
Jessica Leeds
On 7/17/2012 10:05 AM,Ara Mihranian wrote:
Hi Jessica,
I thought you might find the following information helpful in answering some of your questions.
According to Coastal Condition No.3.AA,Zone C,the Roadside Enhanced Native Planting Zone is
defined as a strip of coastal sage scrub and "accent trees"adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South from
Point Vicente Fishing Access Parking Lot (now referred to as Pelican Cove Parking Lot)to the entry road.
Attached is a 2011 letter (taken from the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report thalis available on the
City's website under the Terranea Homepage)from Terranea's biologist that includes a map that
identifies Habitat Zone C,as well as Habitat Zones A and B.I have also attached an excerpt of the
landscape plan for the general area in question.I have the entire landscape plan that includes the plant
palette,approved by the Coastal Commission,available to view.Let me know if you would like to stop by
City Hall to review the landscape plan.
I will let Mr.Timm respond to your inquiry as to whether he has been to the property.But I can tell you
that I have met him at the site on a few occasions over the past few years.Lastly,as reported in the June
21,2011 City Council Staff Report,in response to Terranea's request to increase the height of the
roadway and median vegetation from 12-inches to 30-inches,City Staff consulted with the PVPLC's
Biologist (Ms.Danielle Lefer)and the Coastal Commission's biologist (Ms.Joanna Engel),who indicated
that the coastal sage scrub should be maintained at a height of at least 36-inches to 40-inches to provide
adequate habitat for dispersal,but that 30-inches is reasonable in order to protect views.The following is
a link to the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/terranea/RPVCCA SR 2011 06 21 05 Terranea Review Ins
tallation Of Pelican Sculpture.pdf
I hope the above provides you with further insight regarding this matter.Please do not hesitate to contact
me with any further questions.
Take care,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palo5verdes.com/rnv
J:i Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender
immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.netl
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 2:27 PM
To:Ara Mihranian;CC@rpv.com
Cc:Timm,Gary@Coastal
SUbject:Re:PN:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Ara,
Thank you so much for forwarding the Coastal email.In reviewing some of the documentation,I
think there is confusion as to the location of the 30"sage scrub.My take is (and let me clarify ..I
have not had an opportunity to read everything)that the location to be planted with 30"coastal
sage is not in the median and adjoining PV Drive.The location,as I see it,is on the bluff.This is
not a bluffi
Again,I think it would be wonderful to have more time for the public to review this information.
These issues come up quickly and the staff reports do not come out until the Thursday night of
even Friday before a Tuesday council meeting.That does not allow the public to have time
(some are working!)to go to City Hall (which is closed on the weekend!)to the Planning
Department,or access the information on line (assuming one is computer savvy!)and look the
proper information up.I know the fact that the staff report does not come out until late Thursday
or Friday before the Tuesday meeting is not your doing;you are only following the city's rules,
however,for the public,I think the staff report should come out a week before the meeting to
allow the public more time!!!!
Why not continue this item,allow the public to meet with you,with the proper papers,maps,
view corridor data and try and figure this out so everyone has a chance to review.After
reviewing the documentation,maybe a site visit would be appropriate.
Have the people who protect the gnatcatchers and blue butterfly ever weighed in on this?
Has Gary Timm been out to the Terrenea site to verify that this is indeed is the intended location
the Coastal Commission is referring to?
Again,you always are a caring planner,and that is truly appreciated by the public (at least this
public!),however,I would like to see if all the parties that have a stake in this are involved in the
proper manner.Site visits are always good.
I an1 copying this to the City Council in hopes that we would get a postponement on this issue.
I will cc Gary Tinun also for his information.
Best Regards,
Jessica Leeds
In regards to the staff report
On 7/16/2012 1:46 PM,Ara Mihranian wrote:
Hi Jessica,
I thought you might find this email from Gary Timm helpful in understanding the Coastal Commission's
position regarding this matter.The email message from Mr.Timm has been forwarded to the City Council
and Mr.Stevens.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rnv
.J:i Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The infoonation is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender
immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:Timm,Gary@Coastal [mailto:Gary.Timm@coastal.ca.gov]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 1:12 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Del Arroz,John@Coastal;Engel,Jonna@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Hi Ara,
Our position has not changed from last year (as stated in my e-mails that you reference in the e-mails
received today).Any reduction in the trimmed height of the sage scrub to less than 30 inches would be
inconsistent with the Commission's conditions of approval for the Terranea Resort and Commission staff
would not support an amendment request to reduce the height any further.
Gary E.Timm
Coastal Program Manager
South Coast District,Long Beach
California Coastal Commission
562-590-5071
gtimm@coastal.ca.gov
From:Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 11:02 AM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Timm,Gary@Coastal;Del Arroz,
John@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In addition to my reply below,I also want to remind you that the July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report
included an email excerpt from Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager,that stated Coastal Commission
Staffs position regarding the height of the roadway and median vegetation pursuant to "Zone C"of the
Habitat Enhancement Area for Terranea,as follows:
Hi Ara,
I'm glad it went well.If at some future time the Council decides to allow the sage
scrub to be trimmed to a height of less than 30 inches please contact us.That
would threaten the viability of the CSS and I believe that would trigger an
amendment to the Commission's COP which we would not support.Thanks for
keeping us in the loop.
The July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report is posted on the City's website under the Terranea homepage
at the following link:
htlp:/Iwww.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncilJagendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-07-
05/RPVCCA SR 2011 07 05 C Terranea.pdf
I will see you at 3pm.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.comlrov
rJ:i Do you really need 10 prinllhis e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender
immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 8:38 AM
To:'ezstevens@cox.net'
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;'Gary T1mm';'John Del Arrol'
SUbject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In light of your request below,I would like to suggest we meet here at City Hail (rather than at Pelican
Cove Parking Lot)today at 3pm so that I can show you the original City Council Conditions (adopted in
2002),the City Council certified EIR (including the Biological Section),the 2002 City Council approved
plans,the Coastal Conditions and the final Coastal Commission approved project plans that were
accepted by the City Council on October 7,2003 based on the modifications adopted by the Coastai
Commission in 2003.Piease confirm that you will be able to meet me at City Hall today at 3pm.
As for the requested contact information at the Coastal Commission,the City's representatives at the
Long Beach office (South Coast District 200 Ocean gate 10th Floor Long Beach,CA 90802)are as
follows:
•Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager
•John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analysts
They can be reached at 562-590-5071.
I agree that it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal Commission's
condition be obtained and utilized for the Council's consideration as it relates to the City's coastal view
corridor and coastai sage scrub habitat.As such,I have copied coastal staff listed above on this email so
that they are aware of your request and can chime in.
Let me know if you have any further requests before we meet at 3pm today.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palo5verdes.com/rov
rJ]Do you really need 10 prinllhis e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The infOlTTlation is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender
immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.netJ
Sent:Sunday,July 15,2012 9:57 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISE5.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com
Subject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting
conditions along Palos Verdes Drive South in front of the Terranea property.The
requirement is only that connectivity for wildlife habitat be provided between those
portions in the northwest and northeast areas of the property that are adajcent to City
owned lands that were under consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.It does NOT
require habitat be planted all along the northerly length of the property between the
northwest and northeast corners thereof.Staff is misinterpreting the condition and the
Coastal Commission needs to weigh in on this before Council makes any findings or
decisions on Tuesday.
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at
each end of the property where the wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a
map of the NCCP areas since the NCCP is specifically referenced in the special
condition.No NCCP in that area?No need for native coastal scrub.I do not believe that
NCCP areas are adjacent to the Terranea property all along the length of the northerly
boundary.The maps will confirm if my recollection and understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any
changes to those conditions and who requested them,and any correspondence to or
from the Coastal Commission and the City,any arborist,other government agencies
(such as Fish &Wildlife,and Fish &Game),any requests in writing from the Coastal
Commission,and who the contact person is at the Coastal Commission with their direct
telephone number &email address.Please consider this a Public Records Act request.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan
says this is supposed to be a view corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South
across the land to the ocean.
The Coastal Commission condition from your email 7.B.6 just says that coastal
sage scrub is to be planted,it did not specify that 30 inch plants need to be
planted.There are different varieties of coastal sage scrub that do not grow high and
therefore would never have to be trimmed.I can remember the only one who specified
the 30 inch height was Terranea's Biologist and the City immediately jumped on it and
agreed with the biologist and completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any
waves with Terranea over this issue,but it is imperative that a correct interpretation
and application of the Coastal Commission's condition be obtained and utilized before a
decision is made that will have long term impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,
regardless of what inconvenience that will cause.Since this issue is up for
7 of 8
consideration on Tuesday,I would appreciate it if you would send to me the above
requested information,or so much of it as is immediately available,not later than the
end of the business day on Monday,July 16th.At a minimum,please provide to
me immediately the contact information of the person(s)most knowledgeable at the CC
about this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of
the Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
From:
Sent:
Ara Mihranian [AraM@rpv.com]
Tuesday,July 17,2012 10:06 AM
To:jessica
Cc:Timm,Gary@Coastai;Joel Rojas;Majcher,Todd;cc@rpv.com
Subject:RE:FW Terranea City Meeting Juiy 17
Attachments:LPS-1 01.pdf;0695-2a.ltr.pdf
Hi Jessica,
I thought you might find the following information helpful in answering some of your questions.
According to Coastai Condition No.3.A.4,Zone C,the Roadside Enhanced Native Planting Zone is
defined as a strip of coastal sage scrub and "accent trees"adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South from
Point Vicente Fishing Access Parking Lot (now referred to as Pelican Cove Parking Lot)to the entry road.
Attached is a 2011 letter (taken from the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report that is available on the
City's website under the Terranea Homepage)from Terranea's biologist that includes a map that
identifies Habitat Zone C,as well as Habitat Zones A and B.I have also attached an excerpt of the
landscape plan for the general area in question.I have the entire landscape plan that includes the plant
palette,approved by the Coastal Commission,available to view.Let me know if you would like to stop by
City Hall to review the iandscape plan.
I will let Mr.Timm respond to your inquiry as to whether he has been to the property.But I can tell you
that I have met him at the site on a few occasions over the past few years.Lastly,as reported in the June
21,2011 City Council Staff Report,in response to Terranea's request to increase the height of the
roadway and median vegetation from 12-inches to 3D-inches,City Staff consulted with the PVPLC's
Biologist (Ms.Danielie Lefer)and the Coastal Commission's biologist (Ms.Joanna Engel),who indicated
that the coastal sage scrub should be maintained at a height of at least 36-inches to 40-inches to provide
adequate habitat for dispersal,but that 3D-inches is reasonable in order to protect views.The following is
a link to the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planninglterranealRPVCCA SR 2011 06 21 05 Terranea Review Ins·
I hope the above provides you with further insight regarding this matter.Please do not hesitate to contact
me with any further questions.
Take care,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/mv
.J;Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contaIns Information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.TIle Information Is intended only for use of the Individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strIctly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an mtended recipient,please notify the sender
Immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.netj
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 2:27 PM
To:Ara Mihranian;CC@rpv,com
Cc:Timm,Gary@Coastai
7/17/2012 /of /0 c.
Subject:Re:FW:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Ara,
Thank you so much for forwarding the Coastal email.In reviewing some of the documentation,I think there is
confusion as to the location of the 30"sage scrub.My take is (and let me clarify ..!have not had an opportunity to
read everything)that the location to be planted with 30"coastal sage is not in the median and adjoining PV Drive.
The location,as I see it,is on the bluff.This is not a bluff!
Again,I think it would be wonderful to have more time for the public to review this information.These issues come
up quickly and the staff reports do not come out until the Thursday night of even Friday before a Tuesday council
meeting.That does not allow the public to have time (some are working!)to go to City Hall (which is closed on the
weekend!)to the Planning Department,or access the information on line (assuming one is computer savvy!)and
look the proper information up.I know the fact that the staff report does not come out until late Thursday or Friday
before the Tuesday meeting is not your doing;you are only following the city's rules,however,for the public,I
think the staff report should come out a week before the meeting to allow the public more time!!!!
Why not continue this item,allow the public to meet with you,with the proper papers,maps,view corridor data and
try and figure this out so everyone has a chance to review.After reviewing the documentation,maybe a site visit
would be appropriate.
Have the people who protect the gnatcatchers and blue butterfly ever weighed in on this?
Has Gary Timm been out to the Terrenea site to verify that this is indeed is the intended location the Coastal
Commission is referring to?
Again,you always are a caring planner,and that is truly appreciated by the public (at least this public!),however,I
would like to see if all the parties that have a stake in this are involved in the proper manner.Site visits are always
good.
I am copying this to the City Council in hopes that we would get a postponement on this issue.
I will cc Gary Timm also for his information.
Best Regards,
Jessica Leeds
In regards to the staff report
On 7/16/2012 1:46 PM,Ara Mihranian wrote:
Hi Jessica,
I thought you might find this email from Gary Timm helpfUl in understanding the Coastal Commission's position
regarding this matter.The email message from Mr.Timm has been forwarded to the City Council and Mr.
Stevens.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
7/17/2012 ~of II)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/mv
r/]Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from
disclosure.The information is intended only for usc of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly
prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immedIately.Thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
From:Timm,Gary@Coastal [mailto:Garv.Timm@coastal.ca.gov]
Sent:Monday,July 15,2012 1:12 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Del Arroz,John@Coastal;Engel,Jonna@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Hi Ara,
Our position has not changed from last year (as stated in my e-mails that you reference in the e-mails received
today).Any reduction in the trimmed height of the sage scrub to less than 30 inches would be inconsistent with
the Commission's conditions of approval for the Terranea Resort and Commission staff would not support an
amendment request to reduce the height any further.
Gary E.Timm
Coastal Program Manager
South Coast District,Long Beach
California Coastal Commission
562-590-5071
gtimm@coastal.ca.gov
From:Ara Mihranian [mallto:AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,July 15,2012 11 :02 AM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com:Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;l1mm,Gary@Coastal;Del Arroz,
John@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In addition to my reply below,I also want to remind you that the July 5.2011 City Council Staff Report included
an email excerpt from Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager,that stated Coastal Commission Staffs position
regarding the height of the roadway and median vegetation pursuant to "Zone C"of the Habitat Enhancement
Area for Terranea.as follows:
Hi Ara,
I'm glad it went well.If at some future time the Councif decides to allow the sage scrub to be trimmed to
a height of less than 30 inches please contact us.That would threaten the viabifity of the CSS and I
believe that would trigger an amendment to the Commission's COP which we would not support.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
The July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report is posted on the City's website under the Terranea homepage at the
following link:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citvcou ncillagendas/20 11 Agendas/Meeting Date-20 11-07-
05/RPVCCA SR 2011 07 05 C Terranea.pdf
I will see you at 3pm.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
7/17/2012 3 of /6
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rov
.J:i Do you really need 10 print Ihis e-mail?
nlis e·mail message contains information belongmg to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from
disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying Is strictly
prohibited.If you received ttlls email in error,or are not an Intended recipient,please notiFy the sender Immediately.Thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Monday,July 16,20128:38 AM
To:'ezstevens@cox.net'
cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;'Gary l1mm';'John Del Arroz'
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In light of your request below,I would like to suggest we meet here at City Hall (rather than at Pelican Cove
Parking Lot)today at 3pm so that I can show you the original City Council Conditions (adopted in 2002),the City
Council certified EIR (including the Biological Section),the 2002 City Council approved plans,the Coastal
Conditions and the final Coastal Commission approved project plans that were accepted by the City Council on
October 7,2003 based on the modifications adopted by the Coastal Commission in 2003.Please confirm that
you will be able to meet me at City Hall today at3pm.
As for the requested contact information at the Coastal Commission,the City's representatives at the Long
Beach office (South Coast District 200 Oceangate 1Dth Floor Long Beach,CA 90802)are as follows:'
•Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager
•John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analysts
They can be reached at 562-590-5071.
I agree that it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal Commission's condition be
obtained and utilized for the Council's consideration as it relates to the City's coastal view corridor and coastal
sage scrub habitat.As such,I have copied coastal staff listed above on this email so that they are aware of your
request and can chime in.
Let me know if you have any further requests before we meet at 3pm today.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosvel.des.com/rnv
.J:i Do you really need to print this e-mail?
Tills c-mall rnessage contains information belonging to the City of Ranctlo Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from
7/17/2012
disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly
prohibited.If you received this email in error,or arc not an Intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.netl
Sent:Sunday,July 15,2012 9:57 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg PFost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com
SUbject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting conditions
along Palos Verdes Drive South in front of the Terranea property.The requirement is only
that connectivity for wildlife habitat be provided between those portions in the northwest and
northeast areas of the property that are adajcent to City owned lands that were under
consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.It does NOT require habitat be planted all along the
northerly length of the property between the northwest and northeast corners thereof.Staff
is misinterpreting the condition and the Coastal Commission needs to weigh in on this before
Council makes any findings or decisions on Tuesday.
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at each
end of the property where the wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a map of the
NCCP areas since the NCCP is specifically referenced in the special condition.No NCCP in that
area?No need for native coastal scrub.I do not believe that NCCP areas are adjacent to the,
Terranea property all along the length of the northerly boundary.The maps will confirm if my
recollection and understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any changes
to those conditions and who requested them,and any correspondence to or from the Coastal
Commission and the City,any arborist,other government agencies (such as Fish &Wildlife,
and Fish &Game),any requests in writing from the Coastal Commission,and who the contact
person is at the Coastal Commission with their direct telephone number &email address.
Please consider this a Public Records Act request.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan says
this is supposed to be a view corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South across the
land to the ocean.
The Coastal Commission condition from your email 7.B.6 jUst says that coastal sage
scrub is to be planted,it did not specify that 30 inch plants need to be planted.There are
different varieties of coastal sage scrub that do not grow high and therefore would never
have to be trimmed.I can remember the only one who specified the 30 inch height was
Terranea's Biologist and the City immediately jumped on it and agreed with the biologist and
completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any waves
with Terranea over this issue,but it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application
of the Coastal Commission's condition be obtained and utilized before a decision is made that
will have long term impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,regardless of what
7/17/2012 5 of /0
inconvenience that will cause.Since this issue is up for consideration on Tuesday,I
would appreciate it if you would send to me the above requested information,or so much of
it as is immediately available,not later than the end of the business day on Monday,July
16th.At a minimum,please provide to me immediately the contact information of the person
(s)most knowledgeable at the CC about this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of the
Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
7/17/2012
REA1Eif1BER
Ifyoufolward tllis,please remove email
addresses before you send it on,and use tile
BCC area wilen sending to several people at alice.
Be Kind to YOll,.Email Friends
e
.-------.,----.---Malchl,ne·S • I I 10 I,'.;.!
,-:j
~t _
''''I<hlina·SH Sht 1.02
,,
:...·
<··
~
·
ii I111111111111111111111 m~~m'
;~1I11I111I1111111111111 mmr~i
TarrDnaa Rellort Hotel
loft'•••po ,"'Pl .
GLENN LUKaS ASSOCIATES
Regulatory Services
June 9,201 I
Todd Majcher
Vice President
Long Point Development,LLC
100 Terranea Way
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 .
SUBJECT:Compliance with the Coastal Bluff Scrub Conservation and Restoration Plan at
Terranea Resort,City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Los Angeles County,California
Dear Mr.Majcher:
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate resource agency conditions that are intended to:(I)maintain
and enhance the native character of the existing coastal bluff and (2)provide a means of
integrating preserved areas and enhancement areas into the overall landscape plan for the
Terranea Resort.These specific resource agency conditions are found in Coastal Development
Permit No.A-S-RPV-02-324,Conditional Use Permit NO.2 IS,Grading Permit No.2229,
Variance No.489,and Tentative Parcel Map No.26073.Specific Ranch Palos Verdes City
conditions include Condition of Approval 76,Condition of Approval 77,and Condition of
Approval 78.All of these conditions have been met through implementation of the Long Point
Resort Hotel Biological Resources Management Program,prepared by Natural Resources
Consultants,dated September 28,2005.
The recent request by the public to reduce the height of planted vegetation along Palos Verdes
Drive South to 12 inches above ground level is inconsistent with the intent of the resource
agency conditions listed above.The planted area along Palos Verdes Drive South is referred to
in the BRMP is Plant Zone C -Native Plant Transition Area [Exhibit I].Plant Zones A &B
consist of preserved and enhanced coastal bluff scrub habitats on site.For background,the
federally-listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califarnica califarnica)has
been known to occupy habitat to the north of the Resort.As conditioned by the Coastal
Development Permit,the intent of Plant Zone C is to "provide food and cover for wildlife,
including the California gnatcatcher,which may use this re-created habitat in dispersing between
nearby off-site habitat areas to the northwest and northeast that are under consideration for
inclusion in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)program."
The vegetation in Plant Zone C comprises coastal bluff scrub species (predominantly Eriogonum
cinereum)and native coastal sage scrub plants (predominantly Artemisia califarnica),both of
29 Orchard •
Telephone:(949)837-0404
Lake Forest •California 92630-8300
Facsimile:(949)837-5834
Todd Majcher
Long Point Development,LLC
June 9,2011
Page 2
which are currently at maturity levels that provide suitable foraging habitat and cover for the
California gnatcatcher.Trimming these plants to 12 inches from the ground would reduce the
opportunity for successful foraging and remove cover provisions altogether,which would be out
of compliance with the intent of the resource agency conditions listed above.If trimming must
occur for safety or other essential cause,a minimum plant height for maintaining foraging and
cover opportunities in this area would be 30 inches from the ground and most importantly,
trimming should only occur outside of the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 -
August 30).
Should you have any questions,please contact me at (949)837-0404 x34.
Sincerely,
GLENN LUKaS ASSOCIATES,INC.
Thienan Ly Pfeiffer
Regulatory Specialist
s:0695-2a.ltr.doc
r
CD
lC
CD
N N ::sNaa.a a
::J::J::J
'"'"
;;
'"~0 IJl
,"»z•mxor
2:
of It)/D
_ _ a
From:Ara Mihranian [AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 1:00 PM
To:Lenee Bilski
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Joel Rojas;Timm,Gary@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
Attachments:LPS-1 01.pdf;0695-2a.ltr.pdf
Hi Lenee,
I thought you might find the following information helpful in answering some of your questions.
Pursuant to City Condition No.79:
In order to maintain views from Palos Verdes Drive South,the trimming of the
coastal sage scrub located within the Coastal Commission's designated Zone C
Roadside Habitat Enhancement Area,as described in Condition No_78 and 100,
shall be conducted during the non-breeding bird season (September 1 through
February 14).In the event trimming of the coastal sage scrub is required to
maintain views during the bird breeding season,a qualified biologist shall inspect
the vegetation to determine that no nesting birds exist in that area immediately
prior to and during the trimming.
Based on the above condition,Terranea is not required to trim the vegetation in Zone C quarterly as you
state in your email,but as frequently as required to maintain views from Palos Verdes Drive South.
However,the July 17,2012 City Council Staff Report indicates that "during the past year,the
roadway vegetation was trimmed by Terranea's maintenance crews on at least four
different (quarterly)occasions throughout the year."
In regards to "location,"according to Coastal Condition No.3.A.4,Zone C,the Roadside Enhanced Native
Planting Zone is defined as a strip of coastal sage scrub and "accent trees"adjacent to Palos Verdes
Drive South from Point Vicente Fishing Access Parking Lot (now referred to as Pelican Cove Parking Lot)
to the entry road.Attached is a 2011 letter (taken from the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report that is
available on the City's website under the Terranea Homepage)from Terranea's biologist that includes a
map that identifies Habitat Zone C,as well as Habitat Zones A and B.I have also attached an excerpt of
the landscape plan for the general area in question.I have the entire landscape plan that includes the
plant palette,approved by the Coastal Commission,available to view_Let me know if you would like to
stop by City Hall to review the landscape plan.
As for concerns that the Coastal Conditions may contradict itself,Coastal Condition 7.C.1 refers to view
corridors,and specifically states:
Planting will maintain views from Palos Verdes Drive South and to and along the
bluffs and shall be consistent with the preservation of public views through the
view corridors identified in the certified LCP for the project site.
As reported in the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report,in response to Terranea's request to increase
the height of the roadway and median vegetation from 12-inches to 30-inches,City Staff consulted with
the PVPLC's Biologist (Ms.Danielle Lefer)and the Coastal Commission's biologist (Ms.Joanna Engel),
who indicated that the coastal sage scrub should be maintained at a height of at least 36-inches to 40-
inches to provide adequate habitat for dispersai,but that 30-inches is reasonable in order to protect
views.The following is a link to the June 21,2011 City Council Staff Report:
http://www.paiosverdes.com/rpv/planning/terranea/RPVCCA SR 2011 06 21 05 Terranea Review Ins-
1can tell you first hand that I spent numerous hours at the Coastal Commission office in Long Beach
reviewing the landscape plan and plant palate with Pam Emerson,the Staff Analyst at the time.Careful
attention was given by Ms.Emerson to ensure that the applicant's landscape plan complies with the
Coastal Commission's conditions.Based on the amount of review that occurred regarding the landscape
7/17/2012
plans.including at City Hall with members of the public concerned with biological resources,I do not think that the landscape
plans were "rubber stamped"by coastal Staff as some may believe.
Lastly,to clarify your comment regarding some confusion with the reference to the bird breeding season,to clarify,Exhibit B to
Council adopted Resolution passed on July 5,2011 states that the non-breeding bird season is September 1 through February
14,not the bird breeding season as you note in your email message below (see above Condition No.79).Moreover,the July
17,2012 City Council Staff Report correctly reports:
Because of the sensitive habitat,any trimmings during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15th
through August 31 st)can only occur after the vegetation is surveyed by a biologist for active nests.
I hope the above clarifies some questions you raise and provides you with further insight regarding this matter.Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Take care,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rov.com
www.palosverdes.com/mv
J:i 00 you really need to print this e-mail?
n,is e-mall message contains informaUon belonging to the Cily of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.Tile
information Is intended only for use of the individual or entily named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this ematl
III error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 7:23 AM
To:City Council
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
July 16,2012
Dear RPV Mayor Misetich and City Council members,
Regarding the view corridor along Palos Verdes Dr.So.,over the past year the native plants block the public's view
of the ocean and Catalina most of the time.I drive a standard sedan,not an SUV and the view is obstructed.I am
very disappointed that the plants are allowed to grow 30"high though the buildings were required to be built low.
Today I see that the plants have been trimmed way down since I drove by last Wednesday,but they will quickly
grow up again long before the next required quarterly trimming.Therefore,most of the time there is view
impainnent caused by the location of the 30+"high plants.I suggest a continuance and review of this item
including location &species of plantings.
Coastal Commission Special Condition No.7.B.6 states:
"The applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South that provide food and cover for wifdlife,including
gnatcatchers,migration between the nearby offsite habitat areas to the northeast and northwest under consideration for
inclusion in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)program as depicted in Exhibit 24.Species outside of
expected shade canopies shall be predominantly coastal sage scrub plants.Tree canopies shall be limited to ten percent of
the area.All plant materials shalf be native to the Palos Verdes Peninsula."
7/17/2012
There seems to be a misinterpretation of what the Coastal Commission intended.That is,the LOCATION of the
native plants.This Condition indicates that native plants should be installed that connect the Terranea development
to the native habitat area on the northwest end,and native plants should be installed that connect the wildlife
corridor on the northeast end to Terranea for migration,food and cover.It does not state planting should extend the
entire length of the northern boundary of the property all along PVDr.So.opposite the Salvation Army property
where there is not native habitat.
The Coastal Commission approved the RPV Coastal Specific Plan which clearly identifies Palos Verdes Drs.South
and West as a public viewing station TO BE PROTECTED.(See pages C-II and C-12).All new developments in
the coastal zone must be analyzed for view impairment and that's why Ocean Front Estates,Terranea and other new
property developments are limited in height.Therefore,in my opinion it is unlikely that the Coastal Commission
intended to contradict themselves by requiring view-obstructing foliage all along the Terranea northern property line
on Palos Verdes Dr.South,while at the same time requiring the buildings'heights to be low so a not to impair the
public's view from the Drive.Doesn't the stricter Coastal Specific Plan take precedence?
Do you believe the Coastal Commission meant to contradict itself?
Now there is a contradiction between the the Coastal Specific Plan and implementation of the Special Condition for
Terranea landscaping.The structure heights do conform to the Coastal Specific Plan.This revised landscaping does
not.It cost Terrane a a considerable amount to revise.and now costs the resort a considerable amount to trim back.
Do we know if the wildlife is even using this high-traffic area?
There seems to have been a misinterpretation of the Condition.This issue of WHERE needs a review and
clarification.If there are some tall plants in limited areas,but otherwise the plants are low in height along the Drive,
then the public still has their view and the wildlife has their protection.The problem now is the LOCATION of
view-blocking plants all along the northern boundary of Terranea.As it stands,the current interpretation imposes
an unfair burden on the Terranea resort to trim all those plants every 3 months down to 30 inches and impairs the
public's view most weeks of the year.I don't think trimming has harmed any plants.I wonder it any gnatcatchers
have been anywhere near these bushes because of the traffic situation?!!This is a problem that needs to be reviewed
and fixed.
I support protection of the wildlife,and contributed time,money &effort to acquire the Portuguese Bend Preserve.
congratulate the City and Lowe's Enterprise for the Terranea Destination Resort development.However,I think
some landscaping mistake was made here which needs to be addressed.
The RPV Resolution passed July 5,20 II states the bird breeding season as September I through February 14,while
today's staff report for this items states February 15 through August 31.Which is it?
I would request that you continue this matter for interpretive review and clarification,not just for us now,but for the
future generations and for any other coastal developments which may look to Rancho Palos Verdes for an example
of landscaping in the coastal zone.
Thank you for all you do for RPV!
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
7/17/2012
r-----------.-----.--..-..--..--------..-.-.-------.---.-----.----------,
e
1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIm~m~'
II11I11111111111111111 millim f
Torr.nOD Ro.ort Hotol
GLENN LUKaS ASSOCIATES
Regulatory Services
June 9,2011
Todd Majcher
Vice President
Long Point Development,LLC
100 Terranea Way
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
SUBJECT:Compliance with the Coastal Bluff Scmb Conservation and Restoration Plan at
Terranea Resort,City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Los Angeles County,California
Dear Mr.Majcher:
The purpose of this letter is to reiterate resource agency conditions that are intended to:(I)maintain
and enhance the native character of the existing coastal bluff and (2)provide a means of
integrating preserved areas and enhancement areas into the overall landscape plan for the
Terranea Resort.These specific resource agency conditions are found in Coastal Development
Permit No.A-5-RPV-02-324,Conditional Use Permit No.215,Grading Permit No.2229,
Variance No.489,and Tentative Parcel Map No.26073.Specific Ranch Palos Verdes City
conditions include Condition of Approval 76,Condition of Approval 77,and Condition of
Approval 78.All of these conditions have been met through implementation of the Long Point
Resort Hotel Biological Resources Management Program,prepared by Natural Resources
Consultants,dated September 28,2005.
The recent request by the public to reduce the height of planted vegetation along Palos Verdes
Drive South to 12 inches above ground level is inconsistent with the intent of the resource
agency conditions listed above.The planted area along Palos Verdes Drive South is referred to
in the BRMP is Plant Zone C -Native Plant Transition Area [Exhibit I].Plant Zones A &B
consist of preserved and enhanced coastal bluff scmb habitats on site.For background,the
federally-listed threatened coastal California goatcatcher (Polioptila cali/arnica cali/arnica)has
been known to occupy habitat to the north of the Resort.As conditioned by the Coastal
Development Permit,the intent of Plant Zone C is to "provide food and cover for wildlife,
including the California goatcatcher,which may use this re-created habitat in dispersing between
nearby off-site habitat areas to the northwest and northeast that are under consideration for
inclusion in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)program."
The vegetation in Plant Zone C comprises coastal bluff scmb species (predominantly Eriogonum
cinereum)and native coastal sage scmb plants (predominantly Artemisia cali/arnica),both of
29 Orchard •
Telephone:(949)837-0404
Lake Forest
5 of-7
•California 92630-8300
Facsimile:(949)837-5834
Todd Majcher
Long Point Development.LLC
June 9,2011
Page 2
which are currently at maturity levels that provide suitable foraging habitat and cover for the
California gnatcatcher.Trimming these plants to 12 inches from the ground would reduce the
opportunity for successful foraging and remove cover provisions altogether.which would be out
of compliance with the intent of the resource agency conditions listed above.If trimming must
occur for safety or other essential cause,.a minimum planrheight for maintaining foraging and
cover opportunities in this area would be 30 inches from the ground and most importantly.
trimming should only occur outside of the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15-
August 30).
Should you have any questions.please contact me at (949)837-0404 x34.
Sincerely,
GLENN LUKOS ASSOClATES.INC.
Thienan Ly Pfeiffer
Regulatory Specialist
s:0695-2a.ltr.doc
~
:0
15
:E
~
,n-0:<D U z«(•<Il <Il <Il 51'0 c c c
0 0 0 ~"s::::N N N IQI
~Cl ~QI
...J •~
From:
Sent:
To:
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Monday,July 16,2012 7:17 PM
cc@rpv.com;Ara Mihranian;EZStevens@cox.net; papnbob1@cox.net;leneebilski@hotmail.com;
momofyago@gmail.com
Subject:July 17,2012 RPV City Council re:Terranea
Attachments:May 18,2012 trails future position statement.doc
July 16,2012
MEMO from Sunshine
TO:RPV City Council and Ara Mirhanian.
RE:Terranea habitat foliage height in the view corridors.
Hi Ara,
Thank you for letting me participate in your meeting with Ed Stevens and Bob Mucha.
We all now have a clear understanding of how this problem came to be.The next
step is to not let it happen again.
If the TRAILS DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA (D&M matrix)had been
adopted when it was first recommended (2003),it would have prevented the problem.
This is another reason to adopt it now so that we don't have to depend on Staff's
memory.
Consider the PRISM columns.If the Palos Verdes Drive West Trail had been
specified as a TYPE 5 trail,the planting on each side of the trail tread would have
been selected as something that naturally grows no more than six inches high.Since
the Terranea plant pallet is being referenced for future developments,I sure hope
there are a few such on it.
For fiXing Terranea,I suggest attrition.There are several places where there are
gaps in the roadside planting.Low growing plants should be used to fill in these gaps
and any future ones which occur.Fire hydrants should be kept more accessible,too.
Simple as that.
Nice to hear that Todd is still around.How are you two progressing on the application
to the CA Coastal Commission to install the California Coastal Trail insignias?
One other thing.I understand why the Pt Vicente Fishing Access had to have a new
name.What was the process for choosing Pelican Cove?On the Peninsula's
canyons and landmarks map it is called M.T.Cove.That is what Mary Thomas,
RPV's first Director of Recreation and Parks preferred to be called.I do believe she
has been dead for more than five years.So has Judd Goodspeed.Goodspeed Point
is the one where they take the whale census.M.T.Cove would be perfectly nice for
the cove between Goodspeed Point and Point Vicente.
I truly hope that this exercise has gotten the USGS to take Marineland off of their
maps.
It isn't just "trail naming"in the Open Space Subcommittee's recommendation.The
first responders need better documentation to find where people need to be rescued.
The PV Preserve maps are almost useless for that purpose.The Lomita Sheriff's
Mounted Posse has started working on a trail map of their own.Adopt a few policies
and volunteers will do all the work.
7/17/2012 c
RE:The future of trail development and maintenance 05/18/2012 Page 1 of 2
Position Statement
CTA .Palol Verdel Chapfer
10 L1METREE LANE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
gA 90275-.5909
Direct questions to the above or
Sunshine 310-377-8761
There are three "E'''s in the."treadlightly"truism for developing sustainable trails
through "to be improved"private property,public lands,rights of way (ROW)and
nature preserves.Of particular importance is the order in which the "E"'s are
introduced for funding with tax dollars.Engineering,Education,then,Enforcement.
Historically,the conversion of "social"trails into well maintained "public"trails has
been poorly implemented.This need not be so.In the long run,it is less expensive
to do it right at the onset of an opportunity.Get a better return on the investment.
First is Engineering.The first step in any design endeavor is an agreement of the
objectives.Scope of work,Start points (Point A)and destinations (Point B)must be
established.The long term criteria for every trail corridor must be established to be
uniform between each Point A and B.It is not feasible,nor appropriate,that every
trail be ADA compliant.(Americans with Disabilities Act architectural standards.)
Second is Education.Like Driver Education,every new trail user needs to be
taught trail use etiquette.It is a matter of safety.Simple things like those going
down hill should yield to those coming up appear to have been forgotten.
Third is Enforcement.Most of the time,"peer pressure"is effective and free.As
with paved roadways,trail user conflicts will occur whenever someone behaves
rudely,i.e.unsafely or not in the best interest of the community at large.Every legal
regulation effort to control human behavior such as banning a certain type of use,
will result in the expense of additional education (proliferation of signage),some sort
of penalty on the offender and the expense of expediting the punishment.
Given the rather universally agreed upon opinion that off-road circulation is a desired
public amenity,every agency should start with funding the Engineering up front.It
is even more cost effective when the trail engineering is included with some other
high priority,i.e.funded "public work"like storm drain repair.
Following is a suggestion of a trail developmenUmaintenance criteria which if
universally adopted by everybody from the Secretary of Agriculture (National
Forests)and the Secretary of the Interior (National Parks Service)on down,would
save us all a lot of grief and money in the effort to have public access to trails.
Share it,adopt it by resolution or policy,use it,make it your "matrix"for the future.
RE:The future of trail development and maintenance 05/18/2012 Page 2 of 2
This is a concise specification from which trail management authorities can choose
and assign to a master plan application an ultimate objective and avoid repeated
environmental impact studies,reports etc,when funding becomes available for
actual improvement or repair of a trail by contract or by volunteers.
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA*
"TYPE"is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE GRADE PRlSM"TREAD'"
Averaqe Maximum Distance+Vertical Horizontal Minimum Width
1 3%5%30'12'8'5'
2 5%10%100'15' 12'8'
3 5%15%100'15' 10'8'
4 10%15%++'100'12'8'6'
5 10%18%++'100'12'6'4'
6 10%20%++100'12'5'3'
7 15%20%++100'12'4'2'
These "guidelines"are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi-use trails"unless posted otherwise.The "TYPE"is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use "wants and needs"from one destination to another.+++For instance:
TYPE 1-Wheelchairs.(ADA compliant)
TYPE 2 -Large emergency vehicles and trailers.(Fire Department compliant)
TYPE 3 -Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
emergency vehicles.(Reduce user conflicts)
TYPE 4 -Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 -Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 -Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7 -Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Note:Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones
should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism".Any hardscape (such as a
driveway)that crosses a trail tread should have an anti-skid surface.Vertical
obstructions (such as curbs and water bars)should be no more than six inches high.
*A criterion is a standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
**A trail "prism"is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread.Nothing
higher than six (6)inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2)linear
feet along the trail.The trail tread need not be centered in the prism particularly
for "line of sight",big old tree,and/or "safety triangle"considerations.
***The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side.
+There should be a level distance of at least eight (8)feet or a level turnout
before and after any instance where the trail tread reaches the maximum
grade for the maximum distance.
++Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination,
it must meet the A to B average for the trail TYPE.(User expectation signage.)
+++A "destination"is a trailhead,vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE
can change without leaving someone having to backtrack,unintentionally.
30f3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
ImageOOl.jpg (16
KB)
Majcher,Todd [tmajcher@LOWEENTERPRISES.com]
Monday,July 16,2012 5:22 PM
ezstevens@cox.net;Ara Mihranian
cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Terri
Haack@destinationshotels.com
RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
image001.jpg
Mr.Stevens,
I hope this email finds you well.·
I am writing in response to your recent emails regarding the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat
provided in the City median adjacent to Terranea.I think it is important that I provide
some additional information and perhaps some insight into the projects timeline and
corresponding approvals.
In August 2002 the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes approved the development of
Terranea.In September 2002,the project was appealed to the California Coastal
Commission.During the following year we responded to the concerns of the Commission,
worked with the local community and amended the project accordingly.In June 2003,the
CCC approved the revised project and adopted additional conditions of approval to address
concerns related to Public Trails and Parks,Parking,Management and Maintenance
(Operations)of the Resort Hotel,Landscaping t Pest Management,Signs,Lighting t Geology,
Erosion Control,and Water Quality and specifically the Restoration and Enhancement of
Habitat Areas and Site Landscaping.
In October 2003 the City Council reviewed the Coastal Commission's final approved project,
adopted conditions of approval,and included the new Conditions as a part of the final
City Council conditions of approval.
It should be noted that with the adoption of the Coastal Commission's additional
conditions it was noted by Staff that there could be instances in which the City's
conditions and the Coastal Commission's conditions both address a particular aspect of the
project.Consequently,the Terranea Conditions of Approval No.7 states that "in the
event that a condition of approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any mitigation
measure for this project t this stricter shall govern.1f
Prior to the 2002 appeal the center median and adjacent City Right of Way,was not
considered part of the approved project.However,with it's 2003 approval,the Commission
required the submittal of a Habitat Enhancement Management Plan which,contrary to the
Cityt s Conditions of Approval adopted in 2002 t also required that a significant portion of
the site be re-vegetated with coastal bluff scrub.This included the addition of CSS
Habitat Restoration Areas along Palos Verdes Drive South in the center median and City
Right of Way for the project frontage adjacent to Terranea.
In several meetings with both Coastal Staff and Biologists we were told that the intent of
this revision was to increase the ecological integrity of the CSS Habitat,increase the
linear footage of ecologically important edge conditions and provide a link to the City's
NCCP.As directed,we revised our plans and included this into the CSS Habitat
Restoration Areas;at considerable cost to the project.
In 2007 we began construction on Terranea and completed CSS planting in 2009.Three years
later we are almost at 80%coverage and far exceeding the goals set forth in our
Biological Management Plan.Detailed annual reports documenting the maintenance and
analysis of these areas have been submitted to both the Coastal Commission and City Staff.
1
( 0 f-6l.,c
We remain very proud of this accomplishment.
Last year,pursuant to the adopted amended conditions,we began trimming the CSS Habitat
along Palos Verdes Drive South in the center median and along the City Right of Way to a
height of 30".It should be noted that pruning the habitat was not discussed in the
original Coastal Commission approval because pruning CSS is not an ideal condition for
habitat.However,per the above noted Council action and with the agreement of the CCC
Biologist,Dr.Jonna Engel,we now prune quarterly to insure concerns regarding view
obstructions are addressed.It should be noted that Dr.Engel had recommended a minimum
height of 36 11 -40 11 but compromised to 30".Additionally,to insure that trimming does not
impact the integrity of the habitat or species found within,our biologists are present
during pruning activity and landscaping crews are trained accordingly.All of this work
is not without a significant expense to Terranea.
We remain committed to protecting the environment that defines Rancho Palos Verdes.While
this includes the preservation of views and view corridors it also includes the
preservation of our CSS Habitat;both of which remain a requirement in the Conditions of
Approval for Terranea.
We are hopeful that this email can provide you with "additional insight into the approval
of Terranea and perhaps describe the significant work and efforts we have provided to
address the ongoing needs and concerns of the Community,City Council,California Coastal
Commission and other regulatory agencies involved in the review and approval of Terranea.
It remains a very complicated project with several years of review,analysis and approvals
woven into it's history.
We are available to meet and answer additional questions you may have or walk the areas in
question.
Sincere regards,
J.Todd Majcher
Vice President
Lowe Destination Development
and
Terri A.Haack
Executive Vice President and Managing Director Terranea Resort
-----Original Message-----
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent:Sun 7/15/2012 9;56 PM
To;RPV Planning
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost RPV City Manager RPV Carolynn Petru:;Jerry
Duhovic@hotmail.com;Majcher,Todd;Terri Haack®destinationshotels.com
Subject;Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting
conditions along Palos Verdes Drive South in front of the Terranea property.The
requirement is only that connectivity for wildlife habitat be provided between those
portions in the northwest and northeast areas of the property that are adajcent to City
owned lands that were under consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.It does NOT require
habitat be planted all along the northerly length of the property between the northwest
and northeast corners thereof.Staff is misinterpreting the condition and the Coastal
Commission needs to weigh in on this before Council makes any findings or decisions on
2
Tuesday.
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at each
end of the property where the wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a map of
the NCCP areas since the NCCP is specifically referenced in the special condition.No NCCP
in that area?No need for native coastal scrub.I do not believe that NCCP areas are
adjacent to the Terranea property all along the length of the northerly boundary.The maps
will confirm if my recollection and understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any changes
to those conditions and who requested them,and any correspondence to or from the Coastal
Commission and the City,any arborist,other government agencies (such as Fish &Wildlife,
and Fish &Game),any requests in writing from the Coastal Commission,and who the contact
person is at the Coastal Commission with their direct telephone number &email address.
Please consider this a Public Records Act request.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan
says this is supposed to be a view corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South
across the land to the ocean.
The Coastal Commission condition from your email 7.B.6 just says that coastal
sage scrub is to be planted,it did not specify that 30 inch plants need to be planted.
There are different varieties of coastal sage scrub that do not grow high and therefore
would never have to be trimmed.I can remember the only one who specified the 30 inch
height was Terranea'S Biologist and the City immediately jumped on it and agreed with the
biologist and completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any waves with
Terranea over this issue,but it is imperative that a correct interpretation and
application of the Coastal commission1s condition be obtained and utilized before a
decision is made that will have long term impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,
regardless of what inconvenience that will cause.Since this issue is up for
consideration on Tuesday,I would appreciate it if you would send to me the above
requested information,or so much of it as is immediately available,not later than the
end of the business day on Monday,July 16th.At a minimum,please provide to me
immediately the contact information of the person(s)most knowledgeable at the CC about
this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of the
Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
3
From:Lenee Bilski [Ieneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 7:23 AM
To:City Council
Cc:Ara Mihranian
Subject:Terranea Resort July 17,2012
July 16,2012
Dear RPV Mayor Misetich and City Council members,
Regarding the view corridor along Palos Verdes Dr.So.,over the past year the native plants block the
pubilc's view of the ocean and catalina most of the time.I drive a standard sedan,not an SUV and the
view is obstructed.I am very disappointed that the plants are ailowed to grow 30"high though the
bUildings were required to be built low.Today I see that the plants have been trimmed way down since I
drove by last Wednesday,but they will qUickly grow up again long before the next required quarterly
trimming.Therefore,most of the time there is view impairment caused by the location of the 30+"high
plants,I suggest a continuance and review of this item including location &species of plantings.
Coastal Commission Speciai Condition No.7.B.6 states:
"The applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South that provide food and cover for
wildlife,including gnatcatchers,migration between the nearby oftsite habitat areas to the northeast and
northwest under consideration for inclusion in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)
program as depicted in Exhibit 24.Species outside of expected shade canopies shall be predominantly
coastal sage scrub plants.Tree canopies shall be limited to ten percent of the area.All plant materials
shall be native to the Palos Verdes Peninsula."
There seems to be a misinterpretation of what the Coastal Commission intended.That is,the LOCATION
of the native piants.This Condition indicates that native plants should be instailed that connect the
Terranea development to the native habitat area on the northwest end,and native plants should be
instailed that connect the wildlife corridor on the northeast end to Terranea for migration,food and
cover.It does not state planting should extend the entire length of the northern boundary of the
property ail along PVDr.5o.opposite the Salvation Army property where there is not native habitat.
The Coastal Commission approved the RPV Coastal Specific Plan which clearly identifies Palos Verdes
Drs.South and West as a public viewing station TO BE PROTECTED.(See pages C-11 and C-12).All new
developments in the coastal zone must be analyzed for view impairment and that's why Ocean Front
Estates,Terranea and other new property deveiopments are limited in height.Therefore,in my opinion it
is unlikely that the Coastal Commission intended to contradict themselves by requiring View-obstructing
foliage all along the Terranea northern property i1ne on Palos Verdes Dr.South,while at the same time
requiring the buildings'heights to be iow so a not to impair the public's view from the Drive.Doesn't the
stricter Coastal Specific Plan take precedence?
Do you believe the Coastal Commission meant to contradict itself?
Now there is a contradiction between the the Coastal Specific Plan and implementation of the Special
Condition for Terranea landscaping.The structure heights do conform to the Coastal Specific Plan.This
revised landscaping does not.It cost Terranea a considerable amount to revise.and now costs the resort
a considerable amount to trim back.Do we know if the wildlife is even using this high-traffic area?
There seems to have been a misinterpretation of the Condition.This issue of WHERE needs a review and
clarification.If there are some tall plants in limited areas,but otherwise the plants are low in height
along the Drive,then the public still has their view and the wildlife has their protection.The problem
now is the LOCATION of view-blocking plants all along the northern boundary of Terranea.As it
stands,the current interpretation imposes an unfair burden on the Terranea resort to trim ail those
plants every 3 months down to 30 inches and impairs the public's view most weeks of the year.I don't
think trimming has harmed any plants.I wonder it any gnatcatchers have been anywhere near these
bushes because of the traffic situation?!!This is a problem that needs to be reviewed and fixed.
7/17/2012 J Df ;J.c
I support protection of the wildlife,and contributed time,money &effort to acquire the Portuguese Bend Preserve.I
congratulate the City and Lowe's Enterprise for the Terranea Destination Resort development.However,I think some
landscaping mistake was made here which needs to be addressed.
The RPV Resolution passed July 5,2011 states the bird breeding season as September 1 through February 14,while today's
staff report for this items states February 15 through August 31.Which is it?
I would request that you continue this matter for interpretive review and clarification,not just for us now,but for the future
generations and for any other coastal developments which may look to Rancho Palos Verdes for an example of landscaping
in the coastal zone.
Thank you for all you do for RPVI
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
7/17/2012
From:ezstevens@cox.net
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 12:41 PM
To:cc@rpv.com;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;CityManager;Carolynn Petru
Subject:Re:Terranea City Meeting July 17
City Council,
I am concerned that everyone may have taken the easy way out to enhance the area along PV DR.S.
for the GNATCATCHERS to have a place to nest.
As I stated previously I cannot believe that Terranea's Biologist,City &Coastal commission
biologist think that gnatcatchers are really going to nest were the traffic is whizzing by at 30 to 60
miles/hr.,along with the public walking,golfers &bikes.I bet when the biologists came out to observe
the trimming this past year there is no sign of any nests,this should have been a consideration for review
at this meeting.
I know that looking for a report on nesting was not a part of this meeting.
The original agreement &amendment's only stated that native coastal sage scrub was to be planted
from the approved palate of native sage scrub I do not know at this stage whether all the parties have
adapted &signed this final resolution amendment.
[This was sent by Ara]
The July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report is posted on the City's website under the Terranea homepage
at the following link:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citvcouncil/agendas/20 11 Agendas/Meeti ngDate-2011-07-
05/RPVCCA SR 2011 07 05 C Terranea.pdf
Ara has highlighted the revisions on page 35 -41
Here is my view
Page C-36 Exhibit "C"of resolution No.2002-34 shall be planted with suitable locally
native plants and grasses.Revised per City resolution No.2011-xx on july 5,2011 that the
Coastal Commission just rubber stamped without looking at the Zone 'c 'that was recommended by the
Terranea Biologist &accepted as gospel by the City &OK by Gary Timm of the Coastal Commission
staff.
I think that this was done incorrectly without the Coastal commission doing a more thorough study of the
issue and without coming out for a site visit.The approved palate of plants gave no reference to the
exact height of plants to be planted along the curb
I am just trying to save what little of the Coastal View Corridor is preserved for Future generations to
enjoy.
PS:Terranea's Gardeners did a wonderful job in trimming the shrubs on the North side of PV DR.S.
along the guard rail &also along the curb of PV DR.S some of the plants along the parallel DG walking
trail need to still be trimmed.
A suggestion For possible fixing this situation,I suggest attrition.There are several places
where there are gaps in the roadside planting.Low growing plants should be used to fill in these gaps
and any future ones which occur.Fire hydrants should be kept more accessible,too.Simple as that.
PS:Have you or your staff noticed a lot of dead animals that have been run over lately along PV DR.S in
Also I can remember reading in the Coastal commission report that once the native plants have been
established all the water sprinklers are to be turned off &removed as Trump has done for their
native habitat areas &the entire habitat areas to survive on their own as up in the unmanaged Preserve
areas.
7117/2012 /of d...c
front of the Terranea resort.
I still say Zone 'C'should never have been suggested as an enhancement area for native shrubs for the animals.
1 know that you just want to forget about this issue &move forward
Sincerely Ed
7/17/2012
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 1:01 PM
To:Teresa Takaoka
Subject:FW:FYI Here is an email response I sent to Todd Majcher OF Terranea -City Meeting July 17
Please include this as late correspondence.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/mv
J:i Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender
immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 12:23 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
SUbject:FYI Here is an email response I sent to Todd Majcher OF Terranea -City Meeting July 17
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 12:14 PM
To:Todd Majcher @LOWEENTERPRISES.com
SUbject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Todd,
I appreciate the time &effort you took to answer my concerns.I am well aware of all the time
&money that you have spent in building your wonderful resort.I worked for one of the firms that did the
original Geotechnical study so I am well aware of what it took to build your resort.I retired in 2005.
I am not upset with you or your firm,I am just concerned that everyone may have taken the
easy way out to enhance the area along PV DR.S.for the GNATCATCHERS to have a place to nest.
As I stated preViously I cannot believe that your Biologist,City &Coastal commission biologist
think that gnatcatchers are really going to nest where the traffic is whizzing by at 30 to 60 miles/hr.,
along with the public walking,golfers &bikes.I bet when the biologists came out to observe the
trimming this past year there is no sign of any nests,this should have been a consideration for review at
this meeting.
I know that looking for a report on nesting was not a part of this meeting.
The original agreement &amendment's only stated that native coastal sage scrub was to be planted
from the approved palate of native sage scrub I do not know at this stage whether all the parties have
adapted &signed this final resolution amendment
7/17/2012 c
[This was sent by Ara]
The July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report is posted on the City's website under the Terranea homepage at the folloWing link:
htto:llwww.palosverdes.com/rov/citvcouncil/agendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-07-
05/RPVCCA SR 2011 07 OS C Terranea.pdf
Ara has highlighted the revisions on page 35 -41
Here is my view
Page C-36 Exhibit "C"of resolution No.2002-34 shall be planted with suitable locally native plants and
grasses.Revised per City resolution No.2011-xx on july 5,2011 that the Coastal Commission just rubber stamped
without looking at the Zone 'C 'that was recommended by the Terranea Biologist &accepted as gospel by the City &OK by
Gary Timm of the Coastal Commission staff.
I think that this was done incorrectly without the Coastal commission doing a more thorough study of the issue and without
coming out for a site visit.The approved palate of plants gave no reference to the exact height of plants to be planted
along the curb
I am just trying to save what little of the Coastal View Corridor is preserved for Future generations to enjoy.
PS:Your Gardeners did a wonderful job in trimming the shrubs on the North side of PV DR.S.along the guard rail &also
along the curb of PV DR.S some of the plants along the parallel DG walking trail need to still be trimmed.Thank You
A suggestion For possible fixing this situation,I suggest attrition.There are several places where there are gaps
in the roadside planting.Low growing plants should be used to fill in these gaps and any future ones which occur.Fire
hydrants should be kept more accessible,too.Simple as that.Also I can remember reading in the Coastal commission report
that once the native plants have been established all the water sprinklers are to be turned off &removed as Trump has done
for their native habitat areas &the entire habitat areas to survive on their own as up in the unmanaged Preserve areas.
P5:Have you or your staff noticed a lot of dead animals that have been run over lately along PV DR.S in front of your resort.
I still say lone 'C'should never have been suggested as an enhancement area for native shrubs for the animals.,
I know that you just want to forget about this issue &move forward
Sincerely Ed
-----Original Message----
From:Majcher,Todd [mailto:tmajcher@LOWEENTERPRJSES.coml
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 5:22 PM
To:ezstevens@cox.net;RPV Planning
Cc:cc@rov.com;Greg Pfost RPV ;City Manager RPV Carolynn Petru:;Jerry Duhovic@hotrnail.com;Terri
Haack@destinationshotels.com
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
I hope this email finds you well.
I am writing in response to your recent emails regarding the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat prOVided in the City median adjacent
to Terranea.I think it is important that I provide some additional infonmation and perhaps some insight into the projects
timeline and corresponding approvals.
In August 2002 the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes approved the development of Terranea.In September 2002,the
project was appealed to the California Coastal Commission.During the follOWing year we responded to the concerns of the
Commission,worked with the local community and amended the project accordingly.In June 2003,the CCC approved the
revised project and adopted additional conditions of approval to address concerns related to Public Trails and Parks,Parking,
Management and Maintenance (Operations)of the Resort Hotel,Landscaping,Pest Management,Signs,Lighting,Geology,
Erosion Control,and Water Quality and specifically the Restoration and Enhancement of Habitat Areas and Site Landscaping.
In October 2003 the City Council reviewed the Coastal Commission's final approved project,adopted conditions of approval,
and included the new Conditions as a part of the final City Council conditions of approval.
7117/2012
It should be noted that with the adoption of the Coastal Commission's additional conditions it was noted by Staff that there
could be instances in which the City's conditions and the Coastal Commission's conditions both address a particular aspect of
the project.Consequently,the Terranea Conditions of Approval No.7 states that "in the event that a condition of approval is
in conflict or is inconsistent with any mitigation measure for this project,this stricter shall govern."
Prior to the 2002 appeal the center median and adjacent City Right of Way,was not considered part of the approved project.
However,with it's 2003 approval,the Commission required the submittal of a Habitat Enhancement Management Plan which,
contrary to the City's Conditions of Approval adopted in 2002,also reqUired that a significant portion of the site be re-
vegetated with coastal bluff scrub.This included the addition of CSS Habitat Restoration Areas along Palos Verdes Drive
South in the center median and City Right of Way for the project frontage adjacent to Terranea.
In several meetings with both Coastal Staff and Biologists we were told that the intent of this revision was to increase the
ecological integrity of the CSS Habitat,increase the linear footage of ecologically important edge conditions and proVide a link
to the City's NCCP.As directed,we revised our plans and included this into the CSS Habitat Restoration Areas;at
considerable cost to the project.
In 2007 we began construction on Terranea and completed CSS planting in 2009.Three years later we are almost at 80%
coverage and far exceeding the goals set forth in our Biological Management Plan.Detailed annual reports documenting the
maintenance and analysis of these areas have been submitted to both the Coastal Commission and City Staff.We remain
very proud of this accomplishment.
Last year,pursuant to the adopted amended conditions,we began trimming the CSS Habitat along Palos Verdes Drive South
in the center median and along the City Right of Way to a height of 30".It should be noted that pruning the habitat was not
discussed in the original Coastal Commission approval because pruning CSS is not an ideal condition for habitat.However,
per the above noted Council action and with the agreement of the CCC Biologist,Dr.Jonna Engel,we now prune quarterly to
insure concerns regarding view obstructions are addressed.It should be noted that Dr.Engel had recommended a minimum
height of 36"-40"but compromised to 30".Additionally,to insure that trimming does not impact the integrity of the habitat
or species found within,our biologists are present during pruning activity and iandscaping crews are trained accordingly.All
of this work is not without a significant expense to Terranea.
We remain committed to protecting the environment that defines Rancho Palos Verdes.While this includes the preservation
of views and view corridors it also includes the preservation of our CSS Habitat;both of which remain a requirement in the
Conditions of Approval for Terranea.
We are hopeful that this email can proVide you with additional insight into the approval of Terranea and perhaps describe the
significant work and efforts we have proVided to address the ongoing needs and concerns of the Community,City Council,
california Coastal Commission and other regulatory agencies involved in the review and approval of Terranea.It remains a
very complicated project with several years of reView,analysis and approvals woven into it's history.
We are available to meet and answer additional questions you may have or walk the areas in question.
Sincere regards,
J.Todd Majcher
Vice President
Lowe Destination Development
and
Terri A.Haack
Executive Vice President and Managing Director Terranea Resort
-----Original Message-----
From:ezstevens@cox.net [ma i1to:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent:Sun 7/15/2012 9:56 PM
To:RPV Planning
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost RPV;City Manager RPV carolynn Petru:;Jerry Duhovic@hotrnaiLcom;Majcher,Todd;Terri
7/17/2012 3 of 1-
Haack@destinationshotels.com
Subject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting conditions along Palos Verdes Drive South
in front of the Terranea property.The requirement is only that connectivity for wildlife habitat be provided between those
portions in the northwest and northeast areas of the property that are adajcent to City owned lands that were under
consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.It does NOT require habitat be planted all along the northerly length of the property
between the northwest and northeast corners thereof.Staff is misinterpreting the condition and the Coastal Commission
needs to weigh in on this before Council makes any findings or decisions on Tuesday.
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at each end of the property where the
wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a map of the NCCP areas since the NCCP is specifically referenced in the
special condition.No NCCP in that area?No need for native coastal scrub.I do not believe that NCCP areas are adjacent to
the Terranea property all aiong the length of the northerly boundary.The maps will confirm if my recollection and
understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any changes to those conditions and who
requested them,and any correspondence to or from the Coastal Commission and the City,any arborist,other government
agencies (such as Fish &Wildlife,and Fish &Game),any requests in writing from the Coastal Commission,and who the
contact person is at the Coastal Commission with their direct telephone number &email address.Please consider this a Public
Records Act request.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan says this is supposed to be a view
corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South across the land to the ocean.'
The Coastal Commission condition from your email7.B.6 just says that coastal sage scrub is to be planted,it did not
specify that 30 inch plants need to be planted.There are different varieties of coastal sage scrub that do not grow high and
therefore would never have to be trimmed.I can remember the only one who specified the 30 inch height was Terranea's
Biologist and the City immediately jumped on it and agreed with the biologist and completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any waves with Terranea over this issue,but it is
imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal Commission's condition be obtained and utilized before
a decision is made that will have long term impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,regardless of what inconvenience
that will cause.Since this issue is up for consideration on Tuesday,I would appreciate it if you would send to me the above
requested information,or so much of it as is immediately available,not iater than the end of the business day on Monday,
July 16th.At a minimum,please proVide to me immediately the contact information of the person(s)most knowledgeable at
the CC about this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of the Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
7/17/2012
From:Don [dreeves895@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,201210:54 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
SUbject:The Budget
Good Morning
Have not spent as much time as I should on the budget but r do not see any response to my previous
input in the budget.While I always compliment staff on the preparation of a budget document,I truly miss
the humorous 5-year "going out of business"projections prepared by Dennis -Peter Gardiner was the
only one who recognized it as a sham for supporting the 4 tax and spenders on the council with him.
Although one can debate some of the details,the projected reserves are about $25M -as you know or
should know,CC Restricted is where the extra $5-BM per year in revenue goes.
All of you said you were "Fiscal Conservatives"and I believed at least 4 of you.Some even used myoid
campaign slogans "Common Sense"and "Needs not Wants"but actions speak louder than words to coin
a phrase and I am disappointed.
Some of us pay a SD User Fee so that "wants"like the Preserve ($500,000+),PVIC ($100,000+),Ch.33
($100,000+),View Ordinance ($300,000+),etc.can be funded.
Tonight you will be presented by a staff recommendation to continue and increase the SDUFee - a one
year moratorium would be a significant proof of "philosophy"
However,my guess is that you will not take that step and at some point will even be encouraged to
pursue a Sewer Tax -something we already pay for eg inspection,maintenance,repair and replacement.
So far,this council has been about show not substance but not as dangerous as previous ones.It was a
pleasure to at least put a Sunset on the SDUFee and defeat Mr.Clark's attempt to increase the TOT and
the attempt to create an undefined or restricted charter city (I see where Charter City won the lawsuit so
this issue is certainly open to a common sense discussion).
This is a defining moment for this council.
Have a nice day,
Don
dreeves895@aol.com
7/17/2012
From:bjhilde@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,201212:11 PM
To:CC@rpv.com
Cc:DReeves895@aol.com;ken.delong@verizon.net
SUbject:Item 2 on Agenda tonight
Dear Mayor and CC,
The annual "WE won't be able to fix storm drains without the fee (AKA TAX)"plea is up
for a vote tonight.I urge you to vote this outrageous TAX down.It seems that we were
promised a yearly progress report which has never materialized.Oh!there is a financial
report of dollars spent,but no comprehensive detail report of how many drain lines were
re-Iined,or replaced,or major project percent of completion.Until such a report is
presented,the folks who pay user fees (TAXES)for this supposed work are being
cheated of knowledge concerning tasks that they were asked to pay for.Therefore,you
should vote "NO"on this item.For your information I am NOT one of the
geographically-determined indentured slaves to this TAX.
Sincerely,
Barry Hildebrand
3560 Vigilance Drive
RPV,CA 90275
310-377-0051
7/17/2012 a..
From:cjruona@cox.net
Sent:Tuesday,July 17,2012 12:11 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Storm Drain User FeelTax
Based on reserves &projected revenues is this necessary?Just asking.
cjr
7/17/2012
~.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Councilmembers:
jjbanjo@juno.com
Tuesday,July 17,2012 3:22 PM
cc@rpv.com
The Annual Water Quality Tax
It will show your leadership,moral courage and fiscal realism to vote against THIS COMING
YEAR'S tax tonight.
No other single move you can make NOW will gain as much public approval as such a vote in
these hard times.Reserves are adequate to cover expenses for THIS YEAR'S needs.
IlChord ll -ially,Jim 0==#<:jjbanjo@juno.com:>
Jim Jones Tel/Fax:(310)831-3372
1
I "f II
I
~of II
....-...N
VI
~OJ E
~..c ~......,QJ
•+..J
OJ ""0
...
""0 ""0 +..J
U C OJ c c
c ro ......,ro QJ
ro V'l ro c ....E
""0 ~0 VI
OJ 0)+..J >-.-u ro
~.-OJ
......,
u U QJ 0-
0)......,ro 0-QJ
>-0 C Q......VI ~.->-0
I-u Q..OJ E .+..J ~>-
m OJ ~u 0-~.-ro
UJ 0 >ro OJ ro u QJ u
Q..~0-c::
0 OJ E ..c ro E ...V1~.
""0 ......,u 0 l:))...
V'l ro 0
u.OJ OJ V'l +..J C Qj .::l
~>
0 ..c ~0)~..0 0 -----0
V'l OJ QJ U ""0 <l::...0 V1
UJ V'l ""0 ""0 QJ QJ rn
OJ ~ro
-0 Q..
.-QJ QJ ~2:
V').-V'l =>ro u ~~N
:::>......,c =>=>+..J ..........,C 0 +..J +..J U 0
V'l 0 =>=>=>N
UJ OJ OJ U 4-4-~9
~.Q..E c +..J
C >-VI VI VI......,,,
.-......,-0 OJ 0 >->-VI
-..c >:t:+..J
a:=......,c OJ V'l C C +..J
.-~0 .-..0
a.$""0 ~u =>=>QJ
E ~Q..OJ E E ""0
0 V'l E ~E ""0 E E QJa:=0 OJ ..c......,>-=0 0a..-0 ..c +..Juu
a.c u c ro ......,S N
QJ QJ ....
<C OJ ~OJ
......,...0 0.-..c ..c
N
..c ~..c Q..""0 +..J +..J ..c ~
UJ S 0 S ro c "'>2-
::c >-u <C "'>"'>::>-,
l-•••
3 of 1/
.J:::
~
'--
--
III
U
l:C ~.....'#.&"'C
Z 0 0
OJ
0 U
0 +-'+-'
Ul Ul .l:III
II:I ..-~l:Ul "'C rl OJ ---.._2 ~l:0 Ul :::+-'
Ul LU III -OJ l:0
U c..~+-'
::>a.+-'........en
LLJ ra '#.•
z 0 .......OJ c..-OJ
0 -c Ul l:
c..LU +-'>Ln -..III
>U OJ c..l:..."Ul ::...
>..0 OJ
LU ..+-'OJ OJ .-0
0::0 ...E Ul 0 +-'$.
I-0:::>c..OJ III OJ
0
Ul ...
I c..>-...III O"l >
LU >-III ra OJ 0 O"l :+-'
I-III +-'c..-.s:\,!).
«--III _.Q u I'Y'l +-'
m ...OJ
LU 0 ~III III ~OJ +-'c..
LLJ -I -=l:+-'--E >~
III l:l:III 0 0
E
C :E «OJ >Ul .Q .Q 0...ra «ra ra U
Z III
C OJ ...
0 z +-'OJ "'C
0 III ...s:...+-'+-'>-OJ u
:?1 II:I 0 0 0
...c
':p --
+-'l:>-~Vl~
:?1 z u E --l:0'"...
0 OJ >-:::s::OJ -0
OJ OJ ~-~III Ul :::OJ Vl
~s::...'>
0
...OJ
OJ 0 OJ "'C s::...•Ul U
c..OJ III --<{
U ~.s:c..-
+-'III o ....s:ra OJ Vl
>...u -..
...l .....+-'>-::ra 01
0 al 0 "'C c.."'C ...+-'-Ul
I'll
0 OJ ra l:s::OJ -c '#.OJ
~
~+-'0 ra :5=~-~
N
...l 0 "'C .s:..2 u co rl
«OJ l:OJ rl -~0
>"~-~-N
I-0::0 &Ul I'Y'l +-'9
LU
Ul E --,f 0 OJ
"'C +-'-+-'c..
U.z ...--III III +-'~-E
LU I'Y'l l:><~~OJ 0
0 CJ -::J ra .....Ul ~.Q 0
M +-'::::::>"'C ra U
Z
0
III
III
III
CLI
Ul LU >-
U
III 0
I-CLI ....-".:
...
~::>u c.
0 :::l
al ...u CLI Cl N
~0::c.CLI ....s::rl
Ul ~",i:j 0
l-ra "'C ".:N
<>....
:?1 0 CLI III ~~...Cl CLI
C."'C ...CLI 2:-
0 c.CLI CLI "'C =>
«....s::....,
n.s::
U rI -
::>
N "J.M
5 of II
~of II
74-1/
Co
~
.::::::
Cj of II
/0 ef-/J
II of II
Sent:
To:
Cc:
7/17/2012
From:NOEL PARK [noel@jdcorvette.com]
Tuesday,July 17,2012 12:36 PM
'LeslieChapin';'RPV City Council'
'Akhtar Emon';'Bert Nastanski';'Dorothy Weeks';'Jim Moore';'Joe Chidley';'Sharon Fair';'Willam Quan';Carolyn
Lehr
Subject:RE:Hesse Park Trails Improvements
I just wan to say that I totally agree with the suggestions of my neighbor Les Chapin attached regarding
consideration of Option 3.Lacking the $2 million plus required to build out Option 2,it would seem the
responsible thing to do to do an interim project as he suggests to provide better stewardship of this
priceless property.
In the past our HOA proposed a neighborhood project to do landscaping with volunteer labor and a
Community Beautification Grant to purchase the plants.At our last Board meeting it was clear that
enthusiasm remains for doing so.Previous Council members have mentioned that the Community
Beautification program has been placed on hold and will be reconfigured.I suggest that Hesse Park
would be a perfect place to implement such a reconfiguration.
I lived for many years in San Pedro and was very involved in the early development of the White Point
Nature Preserve.Before the Land Conservancy was able to secure its funding sources and begin its
restoration efforts,the local people were able to accomplish a LOT through volunteer labor and the City of
Los Angeles'Community Block Grant program.If the City of Los Angeles,arguably one of the most
bureaucratically hidebound institutions on the planet,could do it,I have to believe that the clearly more
agile City of Rancho Palos Verdes could do the same.Let's try to work together and be creative to make
progress in the face of these difficult financial times.
Best Regards,
Noel Park
6715 EI Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes 90275
(310)377-4035 home
(562)413-5147 cell
--------
From:LeslieChapin [mailto:les.alice@cox.net]
Sent:Friday,july 13,2012 4:57 PM
To:RPV City Council
Cc:Akhtar Emon;Bert Nastanski;Dorothy Weeks;Jim Moore;Joe Chidley;Noel Park;Sharon Fair;
Willam Quan
Subject:Hesse Park Trails Improvements
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Les Chapin and my wife Alice and I reside at 6710 Verde Ridge Road where we have
lived for thirty four years.Our home is on the south side of Verde Ridge Road and the north
side of Hesse Park "Trails".We look out our kitchen window straight at the Trails lower
entrance and the mostly unused volley ball court.Each and all of the City Council members and
city staff members are invited to our home individually or collectively,at their convenience,to
view the Trails from this perspective.A phone call or an Email to be sure either Alice or I are at
home are all that is required.
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes staff recommendation (Option 2)to improve the Trails by
replacing the basketball and tennis courts with a picnic area reduces the total price of the
improvement by $120,000,plus unidentified grading and construction costs.These
I S-2-
modifications takes the total price for Hesse Park Trails improvements from $2,770,041 to $2,650,041.The
original cost projections the neighborhood heard were $1,000,000 for the park improvements which has
increased to a $2.7M figure.This costs have apparently moved the planned Hesse Park Trails improvements to an
"Unfunded"category which curtails any trails improvements well into 2013 and probably beyond.
I suggest the City Council leave the door open for a Trails scaled down beautification project (Option 3).The
project should specifically focus on only improving the trails and especially landscaping the park.The park is
atrociously unattractive for trails users and the neighborhood.The neighborhood is available to assist with
specifically identifying those improvements that should go forward,maybe a portion of the $100,000 to improve
the trails and the $280,00 for landscaping.The total project needs to be immediately and drastically downsized or
this city owned property will continue to be terribly unattractive.Simply improve the trails and add some limited
landscaping in the near term.
I plan on attending and speaking at the City Council meeting on the 17th of July to address item 6 on the agenda.
And for Councilman Campbell's information:I served with the 11th "Airborne"Division,1954 to 1957!
Les Chapin
6710 Verde Ridge Road,
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca,90275
310-377-1139
les.alice@cox.net
2-o{:Z.
7/17/2012
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 16,2012
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 17,2012 City Council meeting:
Item No.
C
6
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Emails from:Sandie Nelson;Jessica Leeds;Email to City
Council from Staff;Email exchanges between:Staff and
Edward Stevens;Staff and Jessica Leeds
Email from Leslie Chapin
W:V\GENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendaS20120717 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternom.doc
From:Nelsongang@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,July 10,2012 12:20 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:TMajcher@LoweEnterprises.com;thaack@destinationhotels.com
Subject:July 17 Mtng:Terranea Vegitation Trim Item:Support
Attachments:120712TerraneaCC.pdf
Council,
We tried to get this done in time to make your Council packet but apparently this item is already a 'wrap.'
So below is what Sea Bluff HOA submitted in support of Terranea Resort and our Staff Report.
With a RPV date stamp,this also attached as a pdf that you will see again as 'late correspondence.'
Just wanted you to know of our support.
Sandie Nelson
Board member
310-544-4632
Ara Mihranian
Project Planner
Community Development Department
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.,
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Sea Bluff Homeowners Association
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
July 10,2012
Subject:Terranea Resort -July 17,2012 City Council Meeting on Roadway Vegetation
Ara,
As 'Terraneighbors'Sea Bluff HOA directly borders Terranea Resort.It has been our pleasure to support
Terranea Resort's efforts since 1999.
And,in regard to tonight's review of Terranea's requirement to trim native plantings to 30"along PVDS
and in the median we would like to support your Staff recommendation.At this time Sea Bluff has
absolutely no issue with this trimming and appreciate the opportunity to let you and our Council know.
Sincerely,
Sandie Nelson
Board Member
7/10/2012 c
Ara Mihranian
Project Planner
Community Development Department
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.,
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Sea Bluff Homeowners Association
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
July 10,2012
RECEIVED
JUL 10 2012
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Subject:Terranea Resort -July 17,2012 City Council Meeting on Roadway
Vegetation
Ara,
As 'Terraneighbors'Sea Bluff HOA directly borders Terranea Resort.It has been
our pleasure to support Terranea Resort's efforts since 1999.
And,in regard to tonight's review of Terranea's requirement to trim native
plantings to 30"along PVDS and in the median we would like to support your
Staff recommendation.At this time Sea Bluff has absolutely no issue with this
trimming and appreciate the opportunity to let you and our Council know.
Sincerely,
d~~
Sandie Nelson
Board Member
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
jessica Uessboop@cox.nel]
Monday,July 16,2012 1:34 PM
city council;Ara Mihranian
Timm,Gary@Coaslal
City Council Meeting July 17 Terrenea
Dear City Council Members,Mayor Misetich:
Regarding the Terrenea vegetation that is blocking or will block the views of the
ocean of those who walk l jog,bike and travel Palos Verdes Drive South/West,I think there
is a tremendous amount of confusion regarding the intent of the Coastal Commission,our
Coastal Specific Plan view corridors,and what constitutes coastal sage.
This is an extremely important issue as it has always been the intent of our City and its
founding fathers to protect what is so precious to all of us,both residents and visitors
to our beautiful city,and that is our coastline!The reason visitors have been coming to
Palos Verdes is our coastline.
I do not think we should take this issue lightly.
Let's make sure we have enough time to meet and confer with the proper people,and the
Coastal Commission surely would be on the top of the list.Also,there might need to be
consultation with Fish &Wildlife and Fish &Game,and other government agencies,and
those people and agencies who need to be counted in on this as there is wildlife to be
protected in this area.I don't think,although I surely am no expert,that the intent was
to have 30 11 coastal sage in a median with cars whizzing by at 50 or so miles an hour.I
would think that the gnatcatcher and blue butterfly,two protected species,should not be
enticed by the coastal sage planted in that area;it's not a very safe area for them.
Also,there are small wildlife that need to be able to run through or jump over the
vegetation to protect themselves from other larger wildlife and from the cars,and 30 lt
tall hedges may not be the best for them.All of this requires the right agencies to voice
their knowledge and experience.
All the government agencies appear to be short staffed,so it might be good to delay any
decisions to a further time to allow everyone sufficient time to weigh in on this issue.
Most things benefit from a proper review.
Please protect our coastline.
Thank you for your service to our beautiful community.
Sincerely,
Jessica Leeds
1
Honorable Mayor,Members of the City Council,and Mr.Stevens,
The email message below was received minutes ago from Gary Timm,Coastal Program
Manager,reiterating the Coastal Commission Staffs position regarding the height of the roadway
and median vegetation fronting Terranea,also known as Zone C of the Landscape Plan.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rnY
~Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This c-moil messilge contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Vr:rdl."s,which may be privileged,confidential
(\nd/or protected from disd05lJre.The InforrnaiJon 15 intended only for use of HIe individual or entity named.UnCluthorized
dissemination,distribution,or copying is SLrictly prohibited,If you received UllS email in error,or are not all intended reCIpient,
please notify Ihe sender Immediately.Thank yOll ior yOlJr assistance clnd cooperation.
From:Timm,Gary@Coastal [maiito:Gary.Timm@coastal.ca.gov]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 1:12 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Del Arroz,John@Coastal;Engel,Jonna@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Hi Ara,
Our position has not changed from last year (as stated in my e-mails that you reference in the e-
mails received today).Any reduction in the trimmed height of the sage scrub to less than 30
inches would be inconsistent with the Commission's conditions of approval for the Terranea
Resort and Commission staff would not support an amendment request to reduce the height any
further.
Gary E.Timm
Coastal Program Manager
South Coast District,Long Beach
California Coastal Commission
562-590-5071
gtimm@coastal.ca.gov
10 f I
From:Ara Mihranian [AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,July 16,201211:02 AM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Gary Timm;John Del Arroz
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In addition to my reply below,I also want to remind you that the July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report
included an email excerpt from Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager,that stated Coastal Commission
Staffs position regarding the height of the roadway and median vegetation pursuant to "Zone C"of the
Habitat Enhancement Area for Terranea,as follows:
Hi Ara,
I'm glad it went well.If at some future time the Council decides to allow the sage scrub to be
trimmed to a height of less than 30 inches please contact us.That would threaten the viability of
the CSS and I believe that would trigger an amendment to the Commission's COP which we
would not support.Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
The July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report is posted on the City's website under the Terranea homepage
at the following link:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2011 Agendas/MeetingDate-2011-07-
05/RPVCCA SR 2011 07 05 C Terranea.pdf
I will see you at 3pm.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.oalosverdes.com/rnY
.J:i 00 you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains Information belonging lo the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or
protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended redpient,please notify the sender
Immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 8:38 AM
To:'ezstevens@cox.net'
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;'Gary Timm';'John Del Arroz'
SUbject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In light of your request below,I would like to suggest we meet here at City Hall (rather than at Pelican
Cove Parking Lot)today at 3pm so that I can show you the original City Council Conditions (adopted in
2002),the City Council certified EIR (including the Biological Section),the 2002 City Council approved
plans,the Coastal Conditions and the final Coastal Commission approved project plans that were
7/16/2012 f af3 c
accepted by the City Council on October 7,2003 based on the modifications adopted by the Coastal Commission in 2003.
Please confirm that you will be able to meet me at City Hall today at 3pm.
As for the requested contact information at the Coastal Commission,the City's representatives at the Long Beach office
(South Coast District 200 Oceangate 10lh Floor Long Beach,CA 90802)are as follows:
•Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager
•John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analysts
They can be reached at 562-590-5071.
I agree that it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal Commission's condition be obtained and
utilized for the Council's consideration as it relates to the City's coastal view corridor and coastal sage scrub habitat.As such,
I have copied coastal staff listed above on this email so that they are aware of your request and can chime in.
Let me know if you have any further requests before we meet at 3pm today.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rov
.J:i Do you really need to print this e-mail?
TIllS e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The
information 15 intended only For use of the Individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this
email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.netj
Sent:Sunday,July 1S,20129:57 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher @LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri
Haack@destinationshotels.com
SUbject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting conditions along Palos
Verdes Drive South in front of the Terranea property.The requirement is only that connectivity for
wildlife habitat be provided between those portions in the northwest and northeast areas of the
property that are adajcent to City owned lands that were under consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.
It does NOT require habitat be planted all along the northerly length of the property between the
northwest and northeast corners thereof.Staff is misinterpreting the condition and the Coastal
Commission needs to weigh in on this before Council makes any findings or decisions on Tuesday.
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at each end of the
property where the wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a map of the NCCP areas since the
NCCP is specifically referenced in the special condition.No NCCP in that area?No need for native coastal
7/16/2012 Ol of 3
scrub.I do not believe that NCCP areas are adjacent to the Terranea property all along the length of the
northerly boundary.The maps will confirm if my recollection and understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any changes to those
conditions and who requested them,and any correspondence to or from the Coastal Commission and
the City,any arborist,other government agencies (such as Fish &Wildlife,and Fish &Game),any
requests in writing from the Coastal Commission,and who the contact person is at the Coastal
Commission with their direct telephone number &email address.Please consider this a Public Records
Act req uest.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan says this is
supposed to be a view corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South across the land to the
ocean.
The Coastal Commission condition from your email 7.B.6 just says that coastal sage scrub is to be
planted,it did not specify that 30 inch plants need to be planted.There are different varieties of coastal
sage scrub that do not grow high and therefore would never have to be trimmed.I can remember the
only one who specified the 30 inch height was Terranea's Biologist and the City immediately jumped on
it and agreed with the biologist and completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any waves with Terranea
over this issue,but it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal
Commission's condition be obtained and utilized before a decision is made that will have long term
impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,regardless of what inconvenience that will cause.Since
this issue is up for consideration on Tuesday,I would appreciate it if you would send to me the above
requested information,or so much of it as is immediately available,not later than the end of the
business day on Monday,July 16th.At a minimum,please provide to me immediately the contact
information of the person(s)most knowledgeable at the CC about this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of the Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
7/16/2012
From:Ara Mihranian [AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,July 13,2012 3:59 PM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com
Subject:RE:RPV meeting July 17 =The battle continues for the Public's future generations to enjoy the Open Coastal View
Corridor in front of Terranea
Mr.Stevens,
I am available to meet with you Monday afternoon ...just let me know when.I can meet you at the Pelican
Cove Parking Lot (formerly known as the Fishing Access Parking lot).
I also want to point out to you that the coastal commission,not the City Council,imposed additional
iandscape conditions on the project,increasing the Habitat Enhancement Area established by the City to
include the entire coastal bluff top,the area in and around the Palos Verdes Drive South parkway and
median,and along the northern end of the golf course adjacent to the roadway.The purpose of the
Coastal Commission's increase to the Habitat Enhancement Area was to protect the fiora and fauna
along the coastal bluff top and to enhance the connectivity to the coastal sage scrub habitat located at
Upper Point Vicente portion of the City's NCCP Preserve (around the City's Civic Center),currently
known as the Alta Vicente Reserve.The Coastal Commission indentified this area as "Zone C -
Roadside Enhanced Habitat Native Planting Zone"per Coastai Commission Speciai Condition No.7.8.6
which states:
The applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South that provide food
and cover for wildlife,including gnatcatchers,migration between the nearby offsite habitat
areas to the northeast and northwest under consideration for inclusion in the City's
Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)program as depicted in Exhibit 24.
Species outside of expected shade canopies shall be predominantly coastal sage scrub
plants.Tree canopies shall be limited to ten percent of the area.All plant materials shall
be native to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
When the project was approved by the City Council in 2002,it was envisioned that the roadway and
median landscaping would be ornamental plantings similar to other coastline deveiopments.As SUCh,the
vegetation in this area was restricted to a maximum height of 1-foot to help protect views for motonsts
along Palos Verdes Drive South.However,as noted above,the Coastal Commission subsequently
imposed Condition No.7.8.6 on the project which required the landscaping along the roadway and
median to be coastal sage scrub.In speaking to wildlife biologists on this issue,coastai sage scrub will
not thrive nor be considered viable habitat for the dispersal and foraging of the California gnatcatcher if it
is limited to 1-foot in height.The applicant's biologist indicated last year that "trimming these plants to 12
inches from the ground wouid reduce the opportunity for successful foraging and remove cover provision
altogether,which would be out of compliance with the intent of the resource agency conditions listed
above."Thus the applicant's biologist recommended that if trimming is to occur,"a minimum plant height
for maintaining foraging and cover opportunity in this area would be 3D-inches from the ground and,most
importantly,trimming should only occur outside of the California gnatcatcher breeding season (February
15 through August 30)."At the time Staff consulted with PVPLC and Coastal Commission biologists who
concur that the coastal sage scrub shouid be trimmed no less than 3D-inches in height to provide
adequate habitat for dispersal.
As indicated in the Juiy 17 th Staff Report,the Coastal Commission Staff informed the City last year that it
would not support an amendment to the Coastal Conditions to reduce the trimming height to less than 30-
inches.I can provide you with that correspondence on Monday when we meet.
Lastly,Staff understands that the Council's directive last year was to review the effectiveness of this
Condition as it relates to the trimming and views,not to assess the biological value and viability of the
coastal sage scrub,as it relates to nesting gnatcatchers.
I will see you on Monday.Have a nice weekend.
Ara
7/13/2012 I of 5 c
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/roY
.Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains InformatIon belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,whictlmay be privileged,confidential and/or protected frorn disclosure.The
Information is intended only for use of Ule individual or entily named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this
email in error,or are not an intended recipient.please notify the sender immedialely.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent:Friday,July 13,2012 3:31 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;carolynn Petru;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Todd Majcher @LOWEENTERPRISES.com
Subject:RE:RPV meeting July 17 =The battle continues for the Public's future generations to enjoy the Open Coastal View
Corridor in front of Terranea
Dear Ara,
I just read the staff report,&there is no follow up on how many Gnatcatchers are nesting along the busy roadway
since the biologist recommended a 30 inch height.Also no follow up showing the migration area was at the far end of the
west public parking lot that was in the Terranea environmentally report.
Also the majority of the general public do not drive large SUV'S OR City pickup trucks so that when we drive by in our
standard cars it is difficult to view the Open Coastal View Corridor.Also the 30 inch height is really 36 inches above the
roadway.
I did not see a copy of the Coastal staff report recommending the 30 inch height increase.For over the 5 to 6 years during
construction &even when Marinland was operating &eventually closed there was no natural vegetation growing along the
curb to block the Open Coastal View Corridor for the general public to enjoy.This area along PV Dr S HAS BEEN OPEN FOR
THE 45 YEARS that I have been a resident here &it is a shame that we should have to be discussing this issue that one of
the reasons the City of RPV was formed was to protect the Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to enjoy.
I would like to take a walk with you on Monday afternoon around 2:30 -5 pm as I have a doctor's appointment Monday
morning or any time on Tuesday THAT YOU ARE AVAILABLE.
Sincerely Edward Stevens
From:Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpv.com]
Sent:Friday,July 13,2012 11:24 AM
To:ezstevens@cox.net;cc@rpv.com;Carolynn Petru;Greg Pfost
Cc:Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Majcher,Todd
Subject:RE:RPV meeting July 17 =The battle continues for the Public's future generations to enjoy the Open Coastai View
Corridor in front of Terranea
Dear Mr.Stevens,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the height of the roadway vegetation along the frontage of Terranea as it
relates to the City's view corridors.
The July 17 th City Council Staff Report will be posted on the City's website today and I encourage you to read the Staff
Report.If after reading the Staff Report you would like to further discuss this matter,I would be happy to meet you at the site
prior to Tuesday's Council meeting.Just let me know when you are available.
Take care.
Ara
7113/2012
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.pal05verdes.com/mv
JoJ Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains informatJon belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The
information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copyIng is strictly prohibited.If you received this
email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender ImmedIately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mallto:ezstevens@cox.netl
Sent:Wednesday,July 11,20128:21 PM
To:Ara Mihranian;cc@rpv.com;Carolynn Petru;Greg Pfost
Cc:Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com
Subject:RPV meeting July 17 =The battle continues for the Public's future generations to enjoy the Open Coastal View
Corridor in front of Terranea
Subject:The battle continues for the Public's future generations to enjoy the
Open Coastal View Corridor in front of Terranea
Dear Ara,
Here we are another year has gone by &we are still trying to resolve this very important
issue.
I know you have been very busy this year.I have to complement you &your staff for really doing
a great job for RPV.
I included a copy of our last year's communication.I hope that you will have time to read &
study the issue with Terranea's biologist Thienan Ly Pfeiffer &with Terri &Todd.[still cannot believe
that the Gnatcatchers really have built any nests along the curb ofPV Dr.S.&along the center
Medium.Did the biologist take the time to really see if any nests were built in this area?
I walk the area a couple times a month as I live across the road from Trump &it is very easy for
me to walk to Terranea,I rarely see any birds along the curb or the center divider with the cars
whizzing by every few minutes at 40 to 6d miles/hour.I walk in the mornings when most of the
birds should be out and about.
Please examine all the data with the biologist's report,like I stated previously that the
Biologists were doing what they thought was what the Coastal Commission wanted TO SEE &
HEAR.The Biologist did not even follow their own findings Please have the biologist Thienan Ly
Pfeiffer review Special condition 7 which states that the Migration zone is at the far West end parking lot as per the
original map that she prepared for the Coastal Commission.Page 5-85 of the staff report does not state 30 inch
shrubs are needed &also states to protect the Publics open coastal view corridor.
The original construction agreement with the City &Terranea {the Coastal Commission received
7/13/2012 3 ..f-S
a copy}stating that the foliage along PV DR.S.was to be only 18 inches above the road 01'12
inches above the curb.
I do not think I am being unreasonable in trying to protect the open Coastal View corridor for
future generations to enjoy,also this will help expose the open beauty of this world class Resort for
all to enjoy for many years.
I think the 30inch agreement is totally out of line with the original Biologist &City reports.
See you at the meeting next week.
Sincerely
Edward Stevens
Resident for over 45 years
ps:I want to Thank you for trimming the center divider shrubs to the same
height as the Metal Guard rail.
From:EZStevens [mailto:ezstevens@cox.netl
Sent:Wednesday,August 03,2011 7:46 AM
ToAra
Subject:RE:I lost the battle for the Public's future generations to enjoy the Open Coastal View Corridor
Hi Ara.
Take a look at this Link of the awesome open view before TeITanea was opened
along PV Dr S.&it will make you feel awful at what happen to a magnificent &
awesome Open View of the Public's Coastal View Corridor that will now be lost forever
to gnatcatchers.The gnatcatchers will never nest next to cars going by a 50 miles an
hour.so that Terranea could be built showing that they are planting native habitat for
the gnatcatchers without really studying the whole environment along PV Dr S.When
only the far west end Public parking Fishing lot area is the only real possible Migration
area for the Gnatcatchers.
Please have the biologist Thienan Ly Pfeiffer review Special condition 7 which states that the
Migration zone is at the far West end parking lot as per the original map that she prepared for the
Coastal Commission.Page 5-85 of the staff report does not state 30 inch shrubs are needed &also
states to protect the Publics open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to enjoy.
You can also use this link to travel the full 7 miles ofPV Dr S &see how the
uncontrolled growth is turning the Public's view into A -PEEK - A -BOO -View.
h.t1p://www.vpike.com?e=33.742078.-118.399056:100.93
Thanks for taking the time to read this,maybe you can clear this up before
next year.
Sincerely Edward Z Stevens
PS:If you get a chance walk along the Coastal trail from the sandy beach area
of Terranea to the far west parking lot &see how the native shrubs are blocking
the view for Guests.It has now turned into A -PEEK - A -BOO -VIEW.You
want the guests to go home &brag to their friends that they had a great stay &
7/13/2012 4 o~:;
the view was to die for.JULY 17,2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING -FOLLOW UP REPORT
ON ROADWAY VEGETAnON
On July 17,2012,the City Council will receive a follow-up report on the effectiveness of the Council
approved Condition that increased the maximum height limit to 30-inches for any vegetation that
grows along the median and parkway of Palos Verdes Drive South along the frontage of the Terranea
Resort.
The July 17th City Council Staff Report will be posted on the City's website on or after July 12,2012.
A list-serve message next week will announce its availability.
Inquiries should be directed to Ara Mihranian,Project Planner,at 310-544-5228 or via email at
aram@rpv.com
7/13/2012 5 of 5
From:jessica [jessboop@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 2:27 PM
To:Ara Mihranian;CC@rpv.com
Cc:Timm,Gary@Coastal
Subject:Re:FW:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Ara,
Thank you so much for forwarding the Coastal email.In reviewing some ofthe documentation,I
think there is confusion as to the location of the 30"sage scrub,My take is (and let me clarify ..1
have not had an opportunity to read everything)that the location to be planted with 30"coastal
sage is not in the median and adjoining PV Drive.The location,as I see it,is on the bluff.This is
not a bluff!
Again,I think it would be wonderful to have more time for the public to review this information,
These issues come up quickly and the staff reports do not come out until the Thursday night of
even Friday before a Tuesday council meeting.That does not allow the public to have time
(some are working!)to go to City Hall (which is closed on the weekend!)to the Planning
Department,or access the information on line (assuming one is computer savvy!)and look the
proper information up.I know the fact that the staff report does not come out until late Thursday
or Friday before the Tuesday meeting is not your doing;you are only following the city's rules,
however,for the public,I think the staff report should come out a week before the meeting to
allow the public more time!!!!
Why not continue this item,allow the public to meet with you,with the proper papers,maps,
view corridor data and try and figure this out so everyone has a chance to review.After
reviewing the documentation,maybe a site visit would be appropriate.
Have the people who protect the gnatcatchers and blue butterfly ever weighed in on this?
Has Gary Timm been out to the Terrenea site to verify that this is indeed is the intended location
the Coastal Commission is referring to?
Again,you always are a caring planner,and that is truly appreciated by the public (at least this
public!),however,I would like to see if all the parties that have a stake in this are involved in the
proper manner.Site visits are always good.
I am copying this to the City Council in hopes that we would get a postponement on this issue.
I will cc Gary Timm also for his information.
Best Regards,
Jessica Leeds
In regards to the staff report
On 7/16/2012 I :46 PM,Ara Mihranian wrote:
Hi Jessica,
I thought you might find this email from Gary Timm helpful in understanding the Coastal
Commission's position regarding this matter.The email message from Mr.Timm has been
forwarded to the City Council and Mr.Stevens.
7/16/2012 /of S c.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rov
~Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message cOlltains Information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from
disclosure.The Information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly
prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended reclplent,please notify the sender Immediately.Thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
From:Timm,Gary@Coastal [mailto:Garv.Timm@coastal.ca.gov]
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 1:12 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:Del Arroz,John@Coastal;Engel,Jonna@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Hi Ara,
Our position has not changed from last year (as stated in my e-mails that you reference in the e-mails received
today).Any reduction in the trimmed height of the sage scrub to less than 30 inches would be inconsistent with
the Commission's conditions of approval for the Terranea Resort and Commission staff would not support an
amendment request to reduce the height any further.
Gary E.Timm
Coastal Program Manager
South Coast District,Long Beach
California Coastal Commission
562-590-5071
gtimm@coastal.ca.gov
From:Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM@rpv.coml
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 11:02 AM
To:ezstevens@cox.net
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES,com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;Timm,Gary@Coastal;Del Arroz,
John@Coastal
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In addition to my reply below,I aiso want to remind you that the July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report included
an email excerpt from Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager,that stated Coastal Commission Staffs position
regarding the height of the roadway and median vegetation pursuant to "Zone C"of the Habitat Enhancement
Area for Terranea,as follows:
Hi Ara,
I'm glad it went well.If at some future time the Council decides to allow the sage scrub to be trimmed to
a height of less than 30 inches please contact us.That would threaten the viability of the CSS and I
believe that would trigger an amendment to the Commission's COP which we would not support.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
The July 5,2011 City Council Staff Report is posted on the City's website under the Terranea home page at the
7116/2012
following link:
http://www.palosverdes.comlrovlcitycouncillagendasI2011 AgendasIMeetingDate-2011-07-
051RPVCCA SR 2011 07 05 C Terranea.pdf
I will see you at 3pm.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
w\Yw.palosverdes.com/rov
rJ]Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains infomlation belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged.confidential and/or protected fTOrn
disdosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying Is strictly
prohibited.If you received Ulis email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify Ule sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
From:Ara Mihranian
Sent:Monday,July 16,2012 8:38 AM
To:'ezstevens@cox,net'
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg Pfost;Carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com;'Gary Timm';'John Del Arroz'
Subject:RE:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Mr.Stevens,
In light of your request below,I would like to suggest we meet here at City Hall (rather than at Pelican Cove
Parking Lot)today at 3pm so that I can show you the original City Council Conditions (adopted in 2002),the City
Council certified EIR (including the Biologicai Section),the 2002 City Council approved plans,the Coastai
Conditions and the final Coastal Commission approved project plans that were accepted by the City Council on
October 7,2003 based on the modifications adopted by the Coastal Commission in 2003.Piease confirm that
you will be able to meet me at City Hall today at 3pm.
As for the requested contact information at the Coastal Commission,the City's representatives at the Long
Beach office (South Coast District 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach,CA 90802)are as follows:
•Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager
•John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analysts
They can be reached at 562-590-5071.
I agree that it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application of the Coastal Commission's condition be
obtained and utilized for the Council's consideration as it relates to the City's coastal view corridor and coastal
sage scrub habitat.As such,I have copied coastai staff listed above on this email so that they are aware of your
request and can chime in.
Let me know if you have any further requests before we meet at 3pm today.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
7/16/2012 3 of S
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/roY
.J:i 00 you really need to print this e-mail?
Tllis e-mail message contains information belongmg to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from
disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized disseminatton,distribution,or copying is strictly
prohibitec1.IF you received ttlls email in error,or are not (In Intended recipient,please notify the sender Immediately.Thank you for your assistance
and cooperation.
From:ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.netl
Sent:Sunday,July 15,20129:57 PM
To:Ara Mihranian
Cc:cc@rpv.com;Greg PFost;carolynn Petru;Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com;Todd Majcher
@LOWEENTERPRISES.com;Terri Haack@destinationshotels.com
Subject:Terranea City Meeting July 17
Dear Ara,
The City staff has misinterpreted the Coastal Commission imposed planting conditions
along Palos Verdes Drive South in front of the Terranea property.The requirement is only
that connectivity for wildlife habitat be proVided between those portions in the northwest and
northeast areas of the property that are adajcent to City owned lands that were under
consideration for inclusion in the NCCP.It does NOT require habitat be planted all along the
northerly length of the property between the northwest and northeast corners thereof.Staff
is misinterpreting the condition and the Coastal Commission needs to weigh in on this before
Council makes any findings or decisions on Tuesday.
I remember seeing a NCCP map of that area and the only habitat areas are located at each
end of the property where the wildlife corridors are located.I would like to see a map of the
NCCP areas since the NCCP is specifically referenced in the special condition.No NCCP in that
area?No need for native coastal scrub.I do not believe that NCCP areas are adjacent to the
Terranea property all along the length of the northerly boundary.The maps will confirm if my
recollection and understanding are correct.
Please send me complete copies of the Coastal Commission original conditions,any changes
to those conditions and who requested them,and any correspondence to or from the Coastal
Commission and the City,any arborist,other government agencies (such as Fish &Wildlife,
and Fish &Game),any requests in writing from the Coastal Commission,and who the contact
person is at the Coastal Commission with their direct telephone number &email address.
Please consider this a Public Records Act request.
The Rancho Palos Verdes area has view corridors and if the Coastal Specific Plan says
this is supposed to be a view corridor,then views are protected from PV Dr.South across the
land to the ocean.
The Coastal Commission condition from your email 7.B.6 just says that coastal sage
7/16/2012
scrub is to be planted,it did not specify that 30 inch plants need to be planted.There are
different varieties of coastal sage scrub that do not grow high and therefore would never
have to be trimmed.I can remember the only one who specified the 30 inch height was
Terranea's Biologist and the City immediately jumped on it and agreed with the biologist and
completely ignored anybody else.
I understand that the staff and the Council are not interested in causing any waves
with Terranea over this issue,but it is imperative that a correct interpretation and application
of the Coastal Commission's condition be obtained and utilized before a decision is made that
will have long term impacts on our precious coastal view corridor,regardless of what
inconvenience that will cause.Since this issue is up for consideration on Tuesday,I would
appreciate it if you would send to me the above requested information,or so much of it as is
immediately available,not later than the end of the business day on Monday,July 16th.At a
minimum,please provide to me immediately the contact information of the person(s)most
knowledgeable at the CC about this issue.
And yes,I still would like to meet with you on Monday at 3:00 P.M.in front of the
Pelican Statue.
Sincerely,
Edward Stevens
REA1IMBIR
IfyoufOlward this,please remove email
addresses before yOll send it 011,and lise the
BCC area wIJen sending to several people at once.
Be Kind to YOllr Email Friends.~..
7/16/2012
From:LeslieChapin [Ies.alice@cox.net]
Sent:Friday,July 13,2012 4:57 PM
To:RPV City Council
Cc:Akhtar Emon;Bert Nastanski;Dorothy Weeks;Jim Moore;Joe Chidley;Noel Park;Sharon Fair;Willam Quan
SUbject:Hesse Park Trails Improvements
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is les Chapin and my wife Alice and I reside at 6710 Verde Ridge Road where we have
lived for thirty four years.Our home is on the south side of Verde Ridge Road and the north
side of Hesse Park "Trails",We look out our kitchen window straight at the Trails lower
entrance and the mostly unused volley ball court.Each and all of the City Council members and
city staff members are invited to our home individually or collectively,at their convenience,to
view the Trails from this perspective.A phone call or an Email to be sure either Alice or I are at
home are all that is required.
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes staff recommendation (Option 2)to improve the Trails by
replacing the basketball and tennis courts with a picnic area reduces the total price of the
improvement by $120,000,plus unidentified grading and construction costs.These
modifications takes the total price for Hesse Park Trails improvements from $2,770,041 to
$2,650,041.The original cost projections the neighborhood heard were $1,000,000 for the park
improvements which has increased to a $2.7M figure.This costs have apparently moved the
planned Hesse Park Trails improvements to an "Unfunded"category which curtails any trails
improvements well into 2013 and probably beyond,
I suggest the City Council leave the door open for a Trails scaled down beautification project
(Option 3).The project should specifically focus on only improving the trails and especially
landscaping the park.The park is atrociously unattractive for trails users and the neighborhood.
The neighborhood is available to assist with specifically identifying those improvements that
should go forward,maybe a portion of the $100,000 to improve the trails and the $280,00 for
landscaping.The total project needs to be immediately and drastically downsized or this city
owned property will continue to be terribly unattractive.Simply improve the trails and add
some limited landscaping in the near term.
I plan on attending and speaking at the City Council meeting on the 17th of July to address item
6 on the agenda.And for Councilman Campbell's information:I served with the 11th "Airborne"
Division,1954 to 1957!
les Chapin
6710 Verde Ridge Road,
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca,90275
310-377-1139
les.alice@cox.net
7/16/2012