20140304 Late CorrespondenceRPV Residents for Fair Elections
My name is Carol Moeller, my husband and I have owned a home in RPV
since 1976, and I am here to urge the RPV City Council to join the more
than 500 US cities and other jurisdictions that have passed resolutions
urging the US Congress to amend the Constitution so as to allow federal,
state, and local governments to regulate spending on elections. I know I am
not alone in believing that excessive funds are now being spent to influence
election outcomes.
With simply a sign at our Peninsula's Farmers' Market, roughly 100 RPV
resident!? asked to sign our petition urging the RPV City Council to pass such
a resolution. Although I realize that the shoppers there represent a small
number of the total RPV population, these people took the time to actually
approach us. This leads me to believe that this is an important issue for
many more of our voters.
As far as I can recollect, large spending has only occurred so far with respect
to land use and Marymount College, but as the law now stands, there is
nothing to prevent unions, corporations, or wealthy individuals from
spending large amounts of money on the election of council candidates or on
ballot measures. As a result of the Citizen's United decision, the RPV City
Council now has no power to regulate independent election expenditures by
individuals or groups, whether they have interests inside our city or not.
You all have received sample resolutions earlier, and today I left copies of
our signed petition with our city clerk. I urge you, and those signatory RPV
voices urge you, to take action.
Thank you
We, the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes request that our City Council express its disagreement with the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision and join the many cities, counties and states nationwide that
have passed resolutions urgiog Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that will help keep local
election financing local.
Name Address
Si ,,,.., ....., ... r·· , ~ 1 . :· ;" , _ ...
,:_ ,/ I· {·1'J U : :' .'.' • { ~ ; t.· I ; . :...·~ ...
·· · rr. ··1 /"(. J l'A . '-. ) .) <:; ·-1 ~ ""'-'::> t ....... ~ ""
11 ..
,• ...... ~ . ... ,. ..... , ···-"'\..j, .. ·{ ·« , • ,.,. : ·' ~ ·' l . """" ·~ .... , .......
[.. 11...' A-VA 1 :11911·
JDC.JC
E-mail and/or Phone #
~e i T7..;J[tl >7 ·
"Ji'i-~~Ci.rfl -~ ( U.jllle;·1 l.(t-at
Signature
/J. ---> /) ·7~-~-
We, the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes request that our City Council express its disagreement with the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision and join the many cities, counties and states nationwide that
have passed resolutions urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that will" help keep local
election financing local, by firmly establishing that money is not speech and corporations are not people.
Name Address E-mail andlor Phone# Signature
.. '\ ~ \:. . .... , .J:s:;1.J. ~
.l\J' 'C:.· ~/ {Ct~
361/l 3
ll
l hetiie> u.
L."~1t1 ,
We, the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes request that our City CouncU express its disagreement with the U.S.
Suprem~ Court in the Citizens United decision and join the many cities, counties and states nationwide that
have passed resolutions urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that will help keep local
election financing local by firmly establishing that money is not speech and corporations are not people.
Name Address e-mail and/or Phone # Signature
We, the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes request that our City Council express its disagreement with the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision and join the many cities, counties and states nationwide that
have passed resolutions urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that will help keep local
election financing local by firmly establishing that money is not speech and corporations are not people.
Name Address E-mail and/or Phone#
z.ce ;$° t~ "Rec.JUW'.e.~'rlN '1J-.le.., t.. 8-M ~, Ur--
f,( v c1 a '2..-, $:"'
ff'-i h..:,,·tc~ ll t·1f'4..1 t~' Fk~
.. n~:· "'
Signature
We, the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes request that our City Council express its disagreement with the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision and join the many cities, counties and states nationwide that
have passed resolutions urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that will help keep local
election financing local by firmly establishing that money is not speech and corporations are not people.
Name Address E-mail and/or Phone#
cJ,,~ )rk; /?11--
ti ff')ki I .. c ¢1"1 •
If your city does NOT have a skate park your city IS the skate park
BeJow is a growing list of Golden Cove Merchants supporting a self-
funded skate park in RPV
Tomatillo Admiral Risty
Ocean Front Urgent Care Posh Nails
O'Flaherty's Tap House Dominos
Scandia Offie's Pilates
As aka Swan Thai
We have the support of Lomita Sherriff's Department
www.skateparkpv.org
[Mm /f<J56 aeri JO rf,~ SEP 4 Z013
PLANNING & LAND USE MANAGEMENT /3-//.Sr:l-S/
MOTION ENERGY & ENVIRONIVIOEENT
CT 2 3 2Di3
Hydraulic fracturing (also known as "fracking") is an oil and natural gas extraction process that
involves the very highly-pressurized injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing a mixture of
water, sand and unreported amounts of unknown chemicals into underground geologic formations in
order to fracture the rock, thereby increasing flows to and furthering the production of oil or gas
from a well. Other unconventional highly-pressurized extraction processes called "acidizing" and
"gravel packing" involve similar techniques.
In total, fracking, acidizing, gravel packing and other associated well-stimulation practices threaten
to contaminate drinking water supplies, cost taxpayers in Los Angeles hundreds of millions of
dollars, release potent and dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and cause earthquakes.
CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER
After being injected into the ground, the chemicals used in the fracking process may leach into
groundwater supplies, contaminating drinking water for local residents. In fact, there have been more
than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to fracking sites, as well as cases of
sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water in communities
throughout the United States.
Fracking, acidizing and gravel packing of oil and gas wells are unregulated and are spurring oil
and gas extraction and exploration in California and other states, including within the City of Los
Angeles. Additionally, fracking is used in the Colorado River and State Water Project watersheds,
as well as near local Southern California groundwater aquifers, utilizing large volumes of water,
which competes for and jeopardizes regional, state, and water supplies needed by the people of Los
Angeles.
The Department of Water & Power (DWP) has stated that, because the well operators are not
required to disclose the chemicals used in :fracking, other operations and injections, it therefore does
not know all the chemicals for which DWP should be testing the City's water supplies.
Groundwater banking and storage is a critical alternative to building new surface reservoirs and
plays an essential role in moving the City of Los Angeles toward greater self-reliance on local water
resources. It is critical to the future of Los Angeles that groundwater supplies remain safe.
A FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR TAXPAYERS
Protecting the City's water supply resources from contamination is a financial ~ecessity for Los
Angeles, as treatment of contaminated groundwater resources after the fact· is costly and
identification of potential responsible parties to detennine financial liability is not always possible,
particularly in regards to unregulated activities such as fracking, aci izin el packing and
related wastewater disposal. The DWP has announced plans to build the world's largest groundwater
treatment center over one of the largest Superfund pollution sites in the United States: the San
Fernando Basin. Two plants, costing a combined $600 million to $800 million, will restore
groundwater pumping of drinking water from scores of San Fernando Valley wells that the DWP
began closing in the 1980s and ensure that other wells remain productive while curtailing the
pollution plumes steadily migrating in their direction. Additional measures to address and treat water
supplies potentially contaminated by fracking chemicals pose a tremendous financial liability for
taxpayers in Los Angeles.
Allowing activities like hydraulic fracturing, acidizing and gravel packing, which threaten to
contaminate the City's imported and local groundwater suppJies, is inherently dangerous to the long-
term safety, health, security and reliability of Los Angeles' water supplies.
UNDERMINING WORK TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CRISIS
Higher e1.11issions generated by producing, refining and burning unconventional-produced oil and
gas, and drilling and fracking for tight oil and gas can result in massive release of unregulated
emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas often associated underground with oil.
The California Public Resources Code states that "methane gas hazards ... are a clear and present
threat to public health and safety'' and that "due to the cost and complexity of methane hazard
mitigations, property owners and local governments are often unable to mitigate these hazards."
These provisions are of grave import to Los Angeles County and City. as Exploration and
Production activities has caused and is causing massive releases of methane and hydrogen sulfide
gases into communities and the atm:osphere.
Fracking in California can also thereby seriously undennine the State's efforts to address the climate
crisis by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Unregulated and unchecked
fracking must not be allowed to offset the air quality benefits of natural gas used in certain
applications.
INCUMED EARTHQUAKE RISKS
Further; all high-pressure fracking and injection creates "seismic events/' but not all are felt as
earthquakes. The United States Geological Study (USGS) reports that the number of noticeable
earthquakes (greater than a 3.0 Richter magnitude) has· increased dramatically over the past few
years within the central and eastern United States. More than 300 earthquakes above a Richter
magnitude 3.0 occurred in the three years from 2010-2012, compared with an average rate of 21
events per year observed from 1967-2000. USGS scientists have also found that at some locations
the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater into deep disposal wells.
2
The USGS has determined that fracking wastewater disposal is responsible for triggering
earthquakes in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Ohio, among other states. A magnitude 2.1 earthquake
matching the description of micro earthquakes caused by fracking wastewater disposal occurred in
the Baldwin Hills on August 27, 2013, at a magnitude and depth compatible to stated USGS
concerns about earthquakes induced by fracking.
Much of the State of California and the City, in particular, is located on top of fault lines within one
of the most active and potentially dangerous earthquake zones in the United States.
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY NEEDED
The Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 13.01, allows the City to regulate through its land use
process various activities related to oil and gas drilling and production.
The City's land use regulations for oil and gas exploration, extraction, and related operations and
activities are in need of comprehensive review to determine whether the existing zoning and land use
regulations of oil and gas exploration, extraction, and related operations and activities are sufficient
to assure public health, safety, environmental quality, and welfare~ or whether additional regulations
are necessary to address the impacts of oil and gas exploration, extraction, and related operations and
activities, including, but not limited to: hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, gravel packing, and related
wastewater disposal.
If land use applications, permit applications, or any other applications requesting approval to
conduct oil and gas exploration, extraction, production and related operations and activities within
the City limits are granted prior to the City examining the impact of such activities and taking all
steps necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, irreparable harm may be done to the
public health, safety, and welfare.
WE THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney, with the assistance of the Planning and other
relevant departments, be requested to prepare and present an ordinance to change the zoning code to
prohibit all activity associated with well stimulation, including, but not limited to, hydraulic
fracturing, gravel packing, and acidizing, or any combination thereof, and the use of waste disposal
injection wells in the City of Los Angeles, with such a prohibition to remain effective until:
o the City Council is assured that companies conducting fracking within the City of Los
Angeles, or in areas providing drinking water to the City, can mitigate the effects on
climate change. protect environmental quality and natural resources, promote commtmity
awareness, allow government access to and testing of chemicals used, anticipate and
include related older and emerging extraction technologies such as hydraulic :fracturing,
acidizing, gravel packing and al1 wastewater disposal, and require full disclosure and
testing of sites, with adequate time for public input;
3
o the City Council is assured of the long-term safety, security and reliability of current and
future Los Angeles water supplies, the overall health and safety of the people of Los
Angeles and the safety of their property from seismic or subsidence concerns related to the
exploration and production of oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons, and the maintenance
of environmental quality;
o state and federal legislation and regulations are put in place that include protections from
the adverse effects of hydraulic fracturing, gravel packing, acidizing, wastewater disposal
and related activities, consistent with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
PRESENTED BY
Councilmember, 5th District
1"')r:p l~ 20·13
' L
,,I/ b..-----i,-;;__ ~
Councilmember, l 11h District
4
CITY OF CUL VER CITY
February 27, 2014
The Honorable Eric Garcetti
Mayor
City of Los Angeles
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507
CITY HALL Tel. (310) 253-6000
FAX (310) 253-6010
JEFFREY COOPER
MAYOR
MEGHAN SAHLI-WELLS
VlCEMAYOR
COUNCILMEMBERS
JIM B. CLARKE
MICHEAL O'LEARY
ANDREW WEISSMAN
Subject: Los Angeles City Council Motion for February 28, 2014 Council Meeting -
Item #13-1152-51 Relating to Well Stimulation and Hydraulic Fracturing
Dear Mayor Garcetti:
The City of Culver City supports the above-referenced motion to amend the Los Angeles City
Zoning Code to prohibit activity associated with well stimulation and hydraulic fracturing in the City
of Los Angeles, until specific conditions are met.
As the Inglewood Oil Field, the largest urban oil field in the United States, is located within and
adjacent to Culver City and the County of Los Angeles, and is also adjacent to the City of Los
Angeles, hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses have experienced the impacts of oil
extraction. As evidenced by the number of residents who have expressed their concerns during
Culver City City Council meetings, there is significant public apprehension regarding the uncertain,
additional impacts that may have occurred or may occur in the future, as a result of well stimulation,
including hydraulic fracturing. After hearing the concerns of the public and reviewing a significant
amount of information, on July 2, 2012, the Culver City City Council adopted Resolution 2012-R057,
urging the State to place a ban on hydraulic fracturing and on the disposal of hydraulic fracturing
wastewater by injection wells, until DOGGR takes all necessary and appropriate actions to adopt,
implement and enforce comprehensive regulations concerning the practice of hydraulic fracturing
that will ensure that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected.
For the aforementioned reasons, the City of Culver City strongly supports the above-mentioned
Motion, under consideration by the Los Angeles City Council, and I appreciate the opportunity to
convey our support. Please contact me at (310) 344-8033 should you have any questions or would
like to discuss our support in greater detail.
\t~erel/:.
Jl~c~-
Mayor
Attachment: Resolution No. 2012-R057
cc: The Honorable Members of the City Council, City of Culver City
John M. Nachbar, City Manager
File No. 13-1152aS1
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to regulation of well
stimulation and hydraulic fracturing in the City of Los Angeles.
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Koretz -Bonin -et al):
1. INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning (DCP), with the assistance of the City Attorney, to
further review and develop regulatory controls over tracking in the City of Los Angeles.
2. REQUEST the City Attorney, with the assistance of the DCP and other relevant departments, to
prepare and present an ordinance to change the zoning code to prohibit all activity associated
with well stimulation, including, but not limited to, hydraulic fracturing, gravel packing, and
acidizing, or any combination thereof, and the use of waste disposal injection wells in the City of
Los Angeles, with such a prohibition to remain effective until measures are met as detailed in
Motion (Koretz -Bonin -et al).
3. CLARIFY that regulations for Motion (Koretz -Bonin -et al) concerning tracking are not to be
confused with the maintenance of general underground storage facilities and the renewable
energy projects that the City is pursuing.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has
completed a financial analysis on this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes
Support proposal: Silver Lake Neighborhood Council
Harbor Gateway North Neighborhood Council
Mar Vista Community Council
{Energy and Environment Committee waived consideration of the above matter)
Summary
At the public hearing held on February 25, 2014, the Planning and Land Use Management
Committee considered Motion (Koretz -Bonin -et al) relative to regulation of well stimulation and
hydraulic fracturing in the City of Los Angeles. Councilmembers Koretz and Bonin provided
testimony as well as members of the public. After an opportunity for public comment, the Committee
recommended that Council take the actions listed above. This matter is now forwarded to the
Council for its consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
MEMBER ~
HUIZAR: YES
CEDILLO: YES
ENGLANDER: ABSENT
SG
13-1152-S1_rpt_plum_2-25-14
2-27-14
-NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL COUNCIL ACTS-
CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 4, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached ~re revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Planning Commission Meeting Attendance
2 Emails from: Elizabeth Sax; Lenee Bilski; Edward Stevens
3 Emails from: Ravi Khosla; Lenee Bilski; Paul Tetreault
8 Memorandum and Revised Policy
Respectfully submitted,
~ 7lzMALdZ_
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 3, 2014**.
W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140304additions revisions to agenda.doc
Planning Commission Meeting Attendance
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
# of PC Meetings 22 22 21 20 4 89
Emenhiser Present 20 17 20 19 2 78
Excused Absence 2 5 1 1 2 11
Gerstner Present 17 19 21 15 2 74
Excused Absence 5 3 0 5 2 15
Leon Present 21 18 21 19 4 83
Excused Absence 1 4 0 1 0 6
Lewis Present 18 14 16 12 2 62
Excused Absence 4 8 5 8 2 27
Tetreault Present 14 19 20 16 4 73
Excused Absence 8 3 1 4 0 16
Nelson* Present 17 19 4 40
Excused Absence 1 1 0 2
Tomblin Present 20 21 18 17 3 79
Excused Absence 2 1 3 3 1 10
* Nelson appointed 2/21/2012. His first meeting occurred on 2/28/2012
~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>
Monday, March 03, 2014 8:56 PM
cc
Preserve our Precious Views!
I ask our City Council to be very mindful of our Coastal Specific Plan and
uphold what many before you have put in place to preserve RPV coastal
views so that our community will remain "Heaven on Earth" for all to . en Joy.
I grew up in. Rancho Palos Verdes, then went away in my formative young
adult years ... only to come back because there is no place like RPV. It is
paradise. Rancho Palos Verdes is a magical place with its wide open
natural spaces and views.
The thing I clearly noticed upon returning and since living here again, is
the amount of development which in some cases has gone not monitored,
and not maintained. I am not opposed to development and construction as
long as those that do so are respectful of those living and visiting here; that
means keeping landscape, shrubs and trees trimmed to preserve views.
Rod Iron fences are designed to keep animals and people out but they are
designed so views can be maintained. These open-style fences prevent
views (which developers might show in plans as a way of showing
preservation of views), when they grow trees and shrubs to cover all view
potential. I hope the City Council enforces our Coastal Specific Plan so
existing, current, new and future builders, developers and home owners
with new projects are respectful of other's rights to enjoy the views under
the plan. If while the City Council drives around RPV and notices areas
that should be included in the Coastal Specific Plan I would encourage
you to take action to preserve additional areas that will be enjoyed and
cherished by generations to come.
~.
The only way we can maintain the beauty here is for our City Council to
create rules and laws and enforce those rules, laws and guidelines that
were/are designed to keep RPV the magnificent place it's intended to be.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Sax
4022 Admirable Drive
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Monday, March 03, 2014 9:59 PM Sent:
To: cc
Cc: Leza Mikhail; Joel Rojas
Subject: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan
Dear Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers,
We need a policy decision from you regarding the Corridors Element of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan
clarifying the specific location of "viewing station" for measurement purposes.
• The Coasta'I Specific Plan (CSP) does not define a specific location of "viewng station"
• different criteria have been applied to various coastal zone projects and the Coastal Specific Plan has
not been applied consistently since 1993
• each project approved by the City that has projected into the zone above the 2-degree down arc from
horizontal has been measured from different heights: one at Sft., one at 3 ft. and another at 5'7"
• the Coastal Act states the Coastal Zone is from the seaward side of the seaward road
• one project proposed in the Coastal Zone was analyzed as viewed by traffic traveling northbound on
Palos Verdes Dr. West which is at a higher elevation than the southbound lanes, and inland, not on the
seaward side of the seaward road
• Palos Verdes Drives West and South are named as view corridors in the CSP and are primarily used by
passenger vehicles
• The CSP refers to large quantities of traffic on Palos Verdes Drive generated by the "view" that this
arterial provides to the public
• the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South and West is primarily passenger vehicles not pedestrians
• the visual corridors Figure 26 is actually depicting "vista corridors" as each one is directed toward a
specific focal point ( Santa Catalina Island , Lighthouse, etc.)
• the City has been using the term "view corridors" for those "vista corridors"
• the General Plan shows vistas and views to be preserved and enhanced (Fig. 41)
• three (3) feet above the fog line (white line/bike lane line) is the most consistent place from which to
measure the "viewing station"
Please do not simply "receive and file" the Coastal Specific Plan Agenda item.
Either define specifically the viewing station and amend the CSP or define it and give a directive to staff use
that specific definition. The City and the public deserve immediate action on this issue.
Thank you for your service to RPV!
~-
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
ezstevens@cox.net
Monday, March 03, 2014 11:35 PM
cc
Subject:
Leza Mikhail; Joel Rojas; Greg Pfost; Carolyn Lehr
RE: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan
Dear Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers,
I indorse the wonderful suggestions that have been presented by Lenee Bilski & I hope the City Council
will try to put this issue to rest to preserve the cities Open Coastal View Corridor for future generations to
enjoy.
In the 46 years that I have lived here On Conqueror DR. across from the Trump golf course I have
watched the view disappear along PV DR South & West also along Hawthorne Blvd, Crest etc.
If this is al'lowed to continue by Staff, RPV will be like San Pedro, PV Estates, Redondo Beach all the way
to Malibu with almost no open Coastal View Corridor for the Public to enjoy.
Is this how we want RPV to look in another 20 -30 years???
Sincerely
Edward Stevens
From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:59 PM
To: City Council
Cc: lezam@rpv.com; Joel Rojas
Subject: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan
Dear Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers,
We need a policy decision from you regarding the Corridors Element of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan
clarifying the specific location of "viewing station" for measurement purposes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) does not define a specific location of "viewng station"
different criteria have been applied to various coastal zone projects and the Coastal Specific Plan has
not been applied consistently since 1993
each project approved by the City that has projected into the zone above the 2-degree down arc from
horizontal has been measured from different heights: one at Sft., one at 3 ft. and another at 5'7 11
the Coastal Act states the Coastal Zone is from the seaward side of the seaward road
one project proposed in the Coastal Zone was analyzed as viewed by traffic traveling northbound on
Palos Verdes Dr. West which is at a higher elevation than the southbound lanes, and inland, not on the
seaward side of the seaward road
Palos Verdes Drives West and South are named as view corridors in the CSP and are primarily used by
passenger vehicles
The CSP refers to large quantities of traffic on Palos Verdes Drive generated by the "view" that this
arterial provides to the public
• the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South and West is primarily passenger vehicles not pedestrians
• the visual corridors Figure 26 is actually depicting "vista corridors" as each one is directed toward a
specific focal point (Santa Catalina Island , Lighthouse, etc.)
• the City has been using the term "view corridors" for those "vista corridors"
• the General Plan shows vistas and views to be preserved and enhanced (Fig. 41)
• three (3) feet above the fog line (white line/bike lane line) is the most consistent place from which to
measure the "viewing station"
Please do not simply "receive and file" the Coastal Specific Plan Agenda item.
Either define specifically the viewing station and amend the CSP or define it and give a directive to staff
use that specific definition. The City and the public deserve immediate action on this issue.
Thank you for your service to RPV!
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ravi Khosla <mail@ravikhosla.com>
Tuesday, March 04, 2014 5:52 AM
brian.campbell@cox.net; Teresa Takaoka; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Anthony
Misetich; Jim Knight; Leza Mikhail; Louie Tomaro
3344 P.V Drive today's hearing.
Dear Mayor and council members,
I am the owner of property at 3344 P.V Drive in city of RPV. I bought this lot two years ago hoping to built a house for my
family. It was a uphill battle for us to get approval from City and Planning Commission. Later the approval by PC and City
Council was appealed by Costa I Commission. It took us over a year to get it approve by Coastal Commission after major
changes to the ridge line.
I know this project is concern to lot of neighbors of RPV, some of who live over a mile from the property. There is no
neighbor who live within 500 feet of the property who have any objection with the exception on one person. In fact I
have all the immediate neighbors supporting the project.
All these people who are raising concerns were always absent from Coastal Commission hearings and City Planning
Commission hearings. Why did these people not raise their voice back in Oct of 2012 when we got the approval from PC
and City Council for much higher ridge line and now raising objection to 4 feet lower ridge line that was forced by CCC? It
looks like their request is not reasonable nor do they understand that this is costal lot and coastal approval is final.
Coastal Commission and Commissioners made sure that we follow the LCP guidelines.
I request Mayor and City Council members to physically drive to the site and see if this house is any higher than all
houses on sea side of PV Drive. Intact there is no one property that meets 2% down arc from walking pedestrian ...
Forget from 3 feet level I driving position. The house on North of the property address 3400 P.V Dr is two story house
with 5 feet higher ridge line than our proposed project. The house on the 6 Marguerite Drive is similar height as 3400
P.V Drive.
Truly speaking people who are raising voice want me to make the house that looks like Bunker House. This property at
one time had house with higher ridge line as it was built on natural existing grade. Also this lot had many big trees that
blocked views as the house on the south. All the trees were removed and new house will maintain the views.
I request Mayor and Council Members to do justice and pass this project without any further delays. Two years is long
time to carry.
Regards
Ravi Khosla
1
3.
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:46 AM Sent:
To: cc
Cc:
Subject:
Leza Mikhail; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru
CC 3/04 Agenda item No. 3
March 3, 2013
Re: Council consideration whether to appeal the Planning Commission's decision
Case No ZON2012-00141
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council members,
I support the City Council moving forward with an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of Feb. 11,
2014 to approve the Site Plan Review and the Grading Permit applications for 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
as there is substantial issue:
-the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan (G.P.) and Development Code as it would not
preserve, much less enhance, the public's view of Santa Catalina Island, a vista focal point, and of the ocean
over the proposed ridgeline ( G.P. Visual Aspects)
-no precedent was set by previously approved projects in the Coastal Zone
• according to the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), it is strong public policy of the City
to protect and preserve existing significant visual aspects, and enhance views and vistas ( G.P. pg. 190-
192)
• the G.P. Visual Aspects figure 41 shows an arrow in the vicinity of 3344 pointing to a "vista" -
probably Santa Catalina Island
• Grading Permit Finding No. 2 states the grading and/or related construction does not significantly affect
the visual relationships with nor views from neighboring properties
• there were 5 single-family residences in this vicinity on the adjacent lots predating the City's
incorporation, now only 3 remain
• previously at 3344 PVDr. West a single story 2866 sq.ft. residence was located farther down the slope -
it was demolished in 2000
• in 1998-99 a project was proposed for 3344 that included grading down 16 feet
• previously at 3300 PVDr. West there was a single story residence (app. 3900 sq ft.)
• in 1993, an application for 3300 received Planning Commission approval to demolish the 3900 sq. ft.
residence and replace it with a 2-story (13,736 sq.ft.) residence whose ridgeline is 3 ft. above the
app.horizon line as viewed from the northbound PVDrW, (which is at a higher elevation than the
southbound lanes) completely blocking the ocean view from both the southbound and northbound lanes
on PVDr West
• the CA Coastal Act says the Coastal Zone is from the seaward side of the seaward road to the ocean
• in 1993 an agreement was reached between the applicant for 3300 PVDrW and the Lunada Pointe
Homeowners' Assn. to remove all the foliage in the common area lot next to 3300 in order to restore
views of Catalina Island and the ocean across the lot-which appears to have been a way to allow
approval of the project at 3300
3
• prior to approval it was also agreed in to remove numerous trees on the lot at 3300
• in 2000 the application for a 2-story residence at #6 Marguerite Dr. was noticed as "non-appealable" to
the Coastal Commission which was an error that the Coastal Commission did not notice
• the residence approved for # 6 Marguerite Dr. was approved even though the ridgeline is above the
horizontal plane and the down-arc from the viewing level of 3 ft. higher than Palos Verdes Dr. West
• in 2000 the view analysis conducted by Staff was from a seated position in an automobile for the project
at# 6 Marguerite Dr.
• the 2012 and 2013 the application for 3344 PVDrW was publicly noticed as "non-appealable" to the
Coastal Commission which was an error that the Coastal Commission "caught" and corrected with the
City
• after Planning Commission approval in Oct. 2013 of this project for 3344 PVDrW a number of
residents filed an appeal to the City Council, but the applicant withdrew the application before the
appeal could be heard
• the plans for this proposal at 3344 PVDr West include a 10,000+ sq.ft. residence
• no direct forward photos were taken by staff of the flagging
• The RPV Planning Commission took a subjective approach when they looked at a photograph that the
property owner had taken of the flagging at 3344, estimated the height of the eye-level camera lens and
decided that that photo should be part of the record depicting the view of the "horizon" over the
proposed project
• Both project Planner Mikhail and Commissioner Tetreault stated at the PC hearing that they each had
been to the site and could not see the horizon line above the flagging (much less the ocean)
• the Planning Commission did not follow the CSP recommended course to preserve the public's view
from the seaward side of Palos Verdes Dr. West
• the Planning Commission did not follow the policy of the General Plan to protect the view for the public
for several projects in the Coastal Zone
• the City has the power to protect public view rights beyond the CA Coastal Commission's minimums
• there are 3 more houses in this area that could seek to be demolished and replaced in the future with
structures exceeding the 2-degree down arc limitation -houses whose ridgelines currently allow for
public view of the ocean over them except for the overgrowth of trees and foliage
• the claim that further grading is not feasible at 3344 is questionable as a previous application approved
in 1999 for this same site included a 16 ft. cut
• a claim that further grading is not feasible because of the regulations for a driveway is questionable
because the 1998-1999 design approved for this site had a driveway and garage
• there is no precedent set by previously approved projects that exceed the 2-degree down arc as cited by
the applicant because each project was dealt with differently:
• in 1993 the view for the project at 3300 was from northbound PVDr.West which is outside the Coastal
Zone as defined by the CA Coastal Act
• in 1999 the "viewing station" for 3344 PVDr West simply was southbound PV Dr.W
• in 2000 the "viewing station" for #6 Marguerite Dr. was 3 feet higher than the street elevation of PVDr
W. or 272.0'
• in 2001 the "viewing station" for the Yacht Harbor Dr. project was from a residence across the street on
the inland side of Palos Verdes Dr. South-again outside the Coastal Zone
• the fencing along the Drive for the Yacht Harbor project is conditioned to prohibit foliage from growing
up into the public's view and on the vacant area foliage height is limited to 6 inches to maintain the view
of the ocean and Catalina for all
• there is not sufficient foliage restrictions/conditions between the fence and the residence at 3344
PVDrWest to protect the public's view
• projects applications in the Coastal Zone before the 1993 approval for 3300 PVDr West such as
Oceanfront Estates, Sea Bluff. and the TransAmerica project were approved with height limitations not
only of structures but also of landscaping and limited foliage to maintain views of the ocean -except for
one which was approved before adoption of RPV Development Code Section 17.02.040
(i)
• feasible alternatives would preserve the view above a new residence at 3344 PVDrW for the public now
and for future generations and be consistent with City policies
Mistakes have been made. Two (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
Please uphold the spirit of the City's Founders and the General Plan.
Please vote to appeal this project.
Thank you for all you do for RPV !
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Paul Tetreault <paul@agajanianlaw.com>
Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:53 PM
CC; Jim Knight; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; 'Brian Campbell'; Anthony Misetich
Joel Rojas
FW: #2 of 2 to CC FW: CC 3/04 Agenda item No. 3
Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
On your agenda tonight is the issue of whether to appeal the Planning Commission's approval, with conditions,
of the grading permit and site plan review with regard to the property at 3344 PV Dr. West. I urge you to
appeal the PC's approval to review, de novo, the application to approve construction of a single family home on
that site.
I am aware of the many communications that you have received with regard to this item and will not repeat
what was said. What is clear is that there have been a few homes built on the ocean side of PV Drive that
without question block views of the ocean and horizon previously enjoyed by pedestrians and motorists. It is
also clear that our General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan prohibit view obstructions in certain view corridors
and state a strong policy of preserving such views outside the corridors but elsewhere along PV Drive.
The Planning Commission and City Council may exercise its discretion outside the established view corridors,
such as with regard to 3344 PV Dr. West, when analyzing view impacts. But with a history going back to the
formation of our city of treating ocean views as a public asset to be protected, we need clear guidance from the
City Council as to when to say "no" to property owners who want to build massive homes along P.V. Drive that
take away that public asset, without requiring them to show that a different design or less ambitious project can
preserve ocean views.
Each of you pledged during your campaigns for City Council to preserve the unique quality oflife that we enjoy
on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Every effort needs to be made to ensure that our view protections embodied
in our General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and Development Code are observed and enforced. Certainly,
exceptions need to be made on a case-by-case basis in the interest of fairness. But as the record currently stands
with regard to the application for 3344 PV Dr. West, the findings needed to ignore our General Plan and Coastal
Specific Plan and allow this home to be built without a showing of necessity seriously brings into doubt our
resolve as a city to protect this public asset.
The City Council needs to review this matter and clearly establish the City's direction going forward with regard
to view preservation along PV Drive.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Paul Tetreault
RPV Resident
1 3
CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE: .
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CAROLW. LYNCH, CITY ATTORNEY AND,
GENA STINNETT, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
March 4, 2014
REVISION TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING
DISCLOSURE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' EMAILS AND
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE SOLELY IN THE POSSESSION
OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER
In response to comments received from Mayor Duhovic, attached please find a
clarification and refinement of the policy. The additional language is underlined, and
creates an exception to the rule regarding what City Council members will produce to
the City Attorney's office for review in response to a public records request.
Basically, when a Council member replies to an email addressed to that Council
member's personal email address using his or her personal email address, and that
reply email is not copied to a City email address, a copy of that email need not be
produced to the City Attorney's office for review even if other "@rpv.com" email
addresses had been copied on the message that was originally sent to the Council
member's personal email address. Of course, if the Council member or someone else
subsequently sends the email chain to an "@rpv.com" email address, then the email
would be located on the City's email server and it would presumptively be a public
record.
Attachment: REVISED Draft Policy
CITY COUNCIL POLICY (Proposed)
NUMBER:
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 3/4/2014
SUBJECT: DISCLOSURE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' EMAILS AND
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE SOLELY IN THE POSSESSION OF
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT REQUESTS
POLICY:
This policy requires disclosure of non-exempt email concerning City business
that was sent to Council members through City email accounts (@rpv.com),
along with all replies from Council Members to these emails, even if the replies
were sent through or from each Council member's personal accounts. The
rationale underlying this policy for producing Council members' emails is that
emails sent to Council members through their City email accounts are
presumptively public records, and any replies or subsequent email exchanges
related to those "@rpv.com" emails are also presumptively public records.
In other words, the policy basically follows the principle that a communication
sent through City Hall is presumed to be a public record, even if only part of the
communication flowed through the City's system. Additionally, even though a
communication may be a public record, it may be exempt from disclosure under
the Public Records Act, and this policy does not require the disclosure of exempt
emails.
However, a written communication that is not sent or received through City Hall
in whole or in part, even though it is in the possession of a Council member, is
presumed to be a non-public record and is thus not subject to disclosure under
the Public Records Act.
Non-Email Communications
Individual City Council members shall produce to the City Attorney's office for
review any communication that is not an email, if it is responsive to a public
records request, the City did not retain a copy, and was:
(1) Sent to or given to the Councilmember by the City;
(2) Received by the Councilmember addressed care of City Hall; or
(3) Sent to or given to the City by the Councilmember.
The City Attorney's office will review the non-email communications to confirm
that they relate to the City's business, are not exempt from disclosure under the
CPRA, and are responsive to the request. Any non-email communication that
fails one of those tests will not be produced.
Email Communications
In the event the City receives a CPRA request seeking Council member
communications, City staff will search the City's email server for responsive
emails that went through an "@rpv.com" email address.
Council members will not produce any emails exclusively in their possession that
meet all of these parameters:
1. The email was not sent to or copied to a City email address, i.e.
"[name)@rpv.com" or "cc@rpv.com;"
'2. The email was not sent from or using a City email address, i.e.
"[name]@rpv.com";
3. The email was not routed through "@rpv.com" in any way when it was
sent or received, and
4. The email was not part of an email chain responding to an email
received through a City email address, i.e. "[name]@rpv.com" or
"cc@rpv.com."
Applying these rules, any email sent or received by a City Council member
exclusively using his home or business email address, that was never routed
through the City's email system and was never sent to, received from, or copied
to someone with a "[name]@rpv.com" or "cc@rpv.com" City email address,
would not be produced to the City Attorney's office for review, although they
would be preserved by each Council member if responsive to a public records
request. For responsive emails that are part of an email chain, every email in the
email chain must pass this test; if it does not, the Council member would provide
it to the City Attorney's office for review if the City does not already have a copyJ.
with the following exception:~
Exception: If an email is addressed to a Council member's personal email
address and is not copied to that Council member's City email address, and the
Council-member replies to the email using his or her personal email address.
then the Council member's reply would not be produced to the City Attorney's
office for review even if other "@rpv.com" email addresses had been copied on
the message that was originally sent to the Council member's personal email
address; provided, however, if the Council member subsequently sends the
email to an "@rpv.com" email address, or if the recipient of the Council member's
email sends the email chain to an "@rpv.com" email address, then the email
would be located on the City's email server and it would presumptively be a
12ublic record.
0
Further, any emails exclusively in the possession of individual City Council
members shall be produced by each City Council member for review by the City
Attorney's office, if the emails are responsive to a public records request and
meet either of these two tests:
a. The email was sent to or through the City Council email address,
"cc@rpv.com," regardless of the way it was ultimately downloaded or
received by the City Council member, the City Council member replied
using a non-City email address, and the reply email was not sent to an
"@rpv.com" email address.
b. The email was sent to or through the individual Council member's City
email address, "[yourname]@rpv.com," regardless of the way it was
ultimately downloaded or received by the City Council member, the
City Council member replied using a non-City email address, and the
reply email was not sent to an "@rpv.com" email address.
The phrase "using a non-City email address" includes email sent through the
Council member's personal or business ISP provider or email account, when it is
responding to an email sent to or through "cc@rpv.com" or
"[yourname]@rpv.com."
Because litigation could result from a public records request, City Council
Members would continue to be obligated to retain and preserve all responsive
emails in their current form and format for the time period covered by a public
records request, even if the emails do not have to be provided to the City
Attorney for review under this policy.
The policy recognizes that the City has, for the past two years, been preserving
on the City's email server all email that was sent or received through an
"@rpv.com" email address. City staff will collect email sent through the City's
email server that is responsive to a public records request.
In the event a public records request seeks City Council member email that
precedes the implementation of the email server, Council members shall work
with the City Attorney's office to produce for review any email in their possession
that went through an "@rpv.com" email address in whole or in part.
The policy also recognizes that there are various methods by which a City
Council member may access their email addressed to a "cc@rpv.com" or
"[yourname]@rpv.com" email address, and that a City Council member may reply
to that email through a non-City email address. Regardless of whether a Council
Member accesses these emails through a web interface, downloads to a home
email or business email program (e.g., MS Outlook), or receives it as a
"forwarded" message to the Council Member's home or business email address,
if it originally was sent to cc@rpv.com or "[yourname]@rpv.com", and the Council
member replies using a non-City email address, and the reply email was not sent
to an "@rpv.com" email address, these emails would be produced for review by
the City Attorney's office.
Just as with non-email communications, the City Attorney's office will review the
emails to confirm that they relate to the City's business, are not exempt from
disclosure under the CPRA, and are responsive to the public records request.
Any emails that fail one of those tests will not be produced.
BACKGROUND:
Requests for public records made pursuant to the California Public Records Act
("CPRA") have increased dramatically over the last several years. Requests for
public records often include emails and correspondence to and from City Council
Members regarding a variety of topics.
The CPRA defines local public records as follows:
"Public records" includes any writing containing information relating to the
conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state
or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. "
(Government Code Section 6252(e).)
The CPRA requires the City to disclose upon request public records that are
within the possession of the City and are not exempt from disclosure. A key
issue that often arises is whether to produce non-exempt responsive "writings"
that are solely in the possession of City Council members and are not within the
possession of the City or its Staff. The policy set forth above addresses that
issue.
The policy provides the rules that will be followed with respect to the production
of communications and documents that are within the scope of a public records
request but are solely within the possession of individual City Council Members.
This policy conforms to the decision of the Superior court in the City of Tracy
case. If the Smith v. City of San Jose case or another case is decided by the
Court of Appeal in a manner that differs from this policy, or if the Legislature
amends the CPRA to address the issue of Council emails and correspondence
that are not in a city's possession, this policy will need to be revised to comply
with the new statute or court opinion. Additionally, in the event the City Council
determines that the City should cease preserving all City email that goes through
an "@rpv.com" email address, this policy will require revision.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 3, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached· are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 4, 2014 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Materials
Public Comments Email from Acting City Manager Petru
2 Emails from: Margaret Moilov; Sunshine; Lorraine Benner
3 Emails from: Sunshine; Lorraine Benner; Ken Delong
Respectfully submitted,
ti~
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140304 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mayor & City Council -
Carolynn Petru
Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:09 AM
cc
Cory Linder; Michael Throne
Skatepark PV
I wanted to give you a heads up, especially since we have a full agenda next Tuesday night, that a representative from
Skate park PV contacted staff about speaking at the meeting. I believe the same individual sent emails to each of you
about their proposal to build a skate plaza at Point Vicente Park/Civic Center. They plan to bring a group to the Council
meeting to speak under Public Comments, along with a number audience members to show support. They have asked to
show slides and a video clip during their comments, which are being coordinated with our IT staff. Staff has also told
them about the 3-minute limit per speaker. I'm not sure how many speakers they intend to have, but it sounds like
several.
Please do not "reply all" to this message, but contact me individually if you have any questions.
Thanks!
CP
Sent from my iPad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margaret Moilov <lafree13@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, March 03, 2014 3:13 PM
cc
RE: Coastal Specific Plan Implementation
Dear RPV City Council & Staff,
The City needs to support the Coastal Specific Plan and apply its rules to everyone to avoid the ever increasing
encroachment on our public view of the ocean along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos
Verdes Drive West. I am local resident for the past 29 years and work in the community. I travel along the
water heading up Hawthorne Monday thru Friday and have noticed the slow diminished view robbing everyone
of the beauty that makes our community special. If you do not do something right now to enforce the purpose
of the Coastal Specific Plan when developers and homeowners make improvements on their property than you
are literally robbing future generation of their rights to enjoying the view that belongs to all of us. Please guide
staff and the community on the importance of this plan and add more teeth by providing staff training and
informing anyone
who gets a permit to become knowledgeable on why enforcement is important.
Ms. VMoilov
1
;( .
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
March 4, 2014
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Monday, March 03, 2014 10:40 AM
CC; Carolynn Petru
March 4, 2014 Council Agenda, REGULAR BUSINESS Item 2
Moving down-arc -0528.pdf
TO: RPV City Council and Staff
RE: Coastal Specific Plan Implementation
March 4, 2014 Council Agenda, REGULAR BUSINESS Item 2
I wrote this to the California Coastal Commission apparently to no avail.
Should you have any authority at all, please direct the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to establish Civil
Engineering level criteria so that future applicants can be informed of them prior to spending thousands of
dollars on Architects and such. The two percent down arc is just a concept without clearly defined start points
based on feet and inches above something like the mean high tide line. People who can pass the AICP test are
not taught how to do this. That does not mean they should feel free to ignore them.
I am crying "property owner abuse". People are willing to comply with Local Coastal Plans (LCP) when Staff
discloses them in a timely fashion. This property owner has every right to have become "cranky". RPV should
waive all future application fees but that is nothing compared with what these people have spent on designs
based on the RPV Staffs lack of interest in the future of the California Coastal Zone. I am so embarrassed for
my City.
Even though the March 4, 2014 "informational report" does not suggest it, I am hoping that at least a majority
of the current RPV City Council will instigate an amendment to the RPV Coastal Specific Plan which defines
all "viewing stations" as 3'-0" above the fog line on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and
Palos Verdes Drive West. Or, find some other way to direct Staff to use this criteria as the beginning of the
discussion with all future Coastal Zone/District development applicants.
Just like all of our Development Code statutes, this will not mean that special circumstances cannot be
discussed. Every large or small development proposal is a unique situation. As the RPV Coastal Specific Plan
is currently written, Staff does not have a baseline for informing prospective applicants. Please give them one.
Actually, it is the public who needs to know what our Coastal Specific Plan means to individual property
owners.
Attached is an illustration showing how not having a fixed "viewing station" location causes confusion. 3344
Palos Verdes Drive West is simply used as an example. By moving the "viewing station", the proposed
project's "projection into the two degree down-arc" changes.
See the difference? In Item 1, there is no defined "viewing station" location. In Item 2, the proposed structure
projects above the horizon. In Item 3, the proposed structure does not project above the horizon. The only
difference is the location of the "viewing station".
Either way, the proposed structure projects into the zone above the two degree down-arc. Staff should not have
the authority to negotiate "the rules" with applicants after an application has been declared "complete".
Property owners deserve a clear understanding of the rules and a clear understanding of how to go about
applying for a variance from the very start of the application process. Risk management should be in the hands
of an informed property owner.
1
·2
8
3
COASTAL TWO DEGREE DOWN ARC VIEW PRESERVATION CRITERIA
RANCHO PALOS VERDES COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN.
VIEWING STATION NOT FIXED
arc -2· ~~o~n~ ______ --'---)
view
zone1
• viewing station
3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST. COASTAL COMMISSION HEIGHT CONDITION
VIEWING STATlON3'-0" ABOVE THE BIKE LANE LINE/ ~~~c,
,o~ ~~<(,, v~<(, . ()o~ s~ ~-~!(,o"<;;, ~~<;;,, v~~ ~s" G~<;;,<;;, · o~ ~,~6, .. d ~ <o~~ · ~~~<:~<;:, oQ~ o¢'V "'~ '?i <?~o~ 1'ro'O ~ ~
--
119'-0"
SECTIONS LOOKING SOUTH
<..>< /::', l?~G~'°l?o,o. ~~ -1 i14'~ O.s-~O
6'( \
March .4, 2014
I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Benner <lorbenner@cox.net>
Monday, March 03, 2014 3:58 PM
cc
save our coastal view
Please be aware that residents want our view preserved. Please do all that you
can to make this your high priority.
Thank you
Lorraine Benner
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:26 AM
cc
3344 PV Dr. West
To: Mayor Duhovic, Council Members
Subject March 4th Council Agenda -Item 3; Should Council appeal Planning Commission decision?
This matter concerns the property at 3344 PV Dr. West.
While it is understandable that Councilwoman Brooks would seek to assist a resident, this matter has been before the
Planning Commission 3 times and approved in compliance with the California Coastal Commission decision. This matter
was appealed to the Coastal Commission and my understanding is that the Coastal Commission decision supersedes any
further action by the RPV Council. We suggest an opinion by the RPV City Attorney before spending any time on this
matter.
As I understand the situation, a limited group of RPV residents are proclaiming that the Planning Commission decision
was not in compliance with the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. My understanding is that the Planning Commission decision
strictly followed the Coastal Commission decision which did address the roof height of the proposed home at 3344 PV
Dr. West. If the limited group of RPV residents are now concerned that the RPV Coastal Specific Plan was not properly
interpreted, should not their appeal be with the Coastal Commission, not RPV?
From a Common Sense perspective, the proposed project at 3344 PV Dr. West has a very miniscule impact on ocean
views while driving on PV Dr. West. There is no parking along that section of PV Dr. West and should not drivers be
attentive to the roadway rather than staring at the ocean? There is a large home at PV Dr. West and Via Marguerite,
then an approximate two unbuildable lots and the 3344 property. Continuing southward there are two large properties
that block any ocean views and then Oceanfront. Continuing southward approximately one half of Oceanfront has an
ocean view and the other approximate half does not. Continuing there is view blockage along PVIC and the Coast Guard
station. We understand that much of the debate at the recent Planning Commission meeting concerned the camera
angle and camera height of the video depicting the impact (lack of) of the home being built at 3344 PV Dr. West. What
folly and wasted time over a miniscule event.
There are many outlooks along PV Dr. West I PV Dr. South where it is safe for travelers to stop and appreciate the
wonderful views at RPV view sites. Perhaps RPV might post signs identifying viewing sites ahead where people could
stop, legally park and while observing the wonderful views.
The Council has many issues before it and this matter should be set aside with the Council addressing the truly
important matters that are in the best interests of RPV residents.
Ken Delong
1 3