20140902 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 2, 2014
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
Closed Session
c
F
J
1
3
4
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Emails from: Matt Martin, Jim Gordon
Email from Sunshine
Emails from: Lynn Swank; Sunshine
Email from Public Works Director Throne -Update to the
Capital Improvement Program
Emails from: Sunshine; Madeline Ryan
Emails from: Sunshine; Lenee Bilski; Sharon Yarber; Jabe
Kahnke; Mike and Louise Shipman
Letter from Diane Smith
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, August 18, 2014**.
W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140819 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Carolynn Petru
Sent:
To:
Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:51 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Green Hill Closed Session
Late correspondence for the Closed Session on September 2nd.
From: Matt Martin [mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:40 AM
To: Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Carolynn Petru
Subject: Green Hill Closed Session
Dear Members of City Council and City Attorney:
In regards to the up coming meeting regarding the cease and desist letter and Green Hills' threats to continue burials in violation of their CUP, I
wanted to mention a couple of facts.
1. Based on extensive research -the whole row of approx 40 double depth lawn burials in the northwest corner of Green Hills (which are 8 feet
from the woperty line of a residential area) were never approved by any governing body of the City including the Planning Department at any
point. The Green Hills CUP has clearly had a 16 foot setback in that area since City Council took final action and approved the original CUP in
1991.
All of the burials that have already taken place in that area are direct violations of the Green Hills CUP. Is there any consequence to Green Hills for this
blatant disregard of city law and neighboring residents?
I understand the City of RPV is trying to prevent future burials in this area, but shouldn't there be consequences for all of burials already made?
As you may be aware, an internal investigation is being conducted by RPV as to how the 80 foot setback for above ground structures was changed to 8
feet without a variance, without disclosure to the public, and without explicit discussion with the planning commission. Such a dramatic amendment to
the CUP could only be approved by the City Council because RPV code states that as the case (City Council took final action on the original CUP).
2. The Mausoleum in Area 11 was NOT originally approved in the 1991 CUP and Variance due to negative impacts of neighboring residents. Proof of
this should be evident by the fact that a setback change was required in 2007 when the Mausoleum was illegally approved with the CUP revision.
3. Green Hills made multiple misrepresentations in their Master Plan Revision Submittal in 2007 with regards to the Area 11 Mausoleum. If you'd like
information on these I can provide it.
4. The long list of 'mistakes' and 'oversights' that were made with regards to the illegal approval of the Mausoleum all fall in favor of Green Hills. It's
construction, the ignoring of complaints from Vista Verde residents, the discretionary judgement that such a monstrous structure with rooftop burials and
no screen/buffering techniques "would adversely affect Lomita residents", and much more. It starts with the illegal setback change and continues to no
silhouetting of the structure being done (despite the fact that sihouetting was done for a different Mausoleum years prior).
5. Prejudicial decisions are explicitly forbidden by RPV code and may leave such actions open to change. The act of distinguishing neighboring
residential areas as "Lomita vs RPV" may be considered prejudice by some.
I want to mention that I do have compassion for individuals who were sold illegal plots by Green Hills and sympathize with this situation. The right to be
buried next to a loved one is something that Green Hills should have considered prior to selling the illegal spaces.
The idea that the City of RPV can be liable for the Illegal actions of Green Hills is something that I don't understand and I doubt is correct. The City never
approved plots to be sold in that area so the liability should on Green Hills. I've looked into state code and there seems to be plenty of situations in which
disinterring people is allowed by either the city or the cemetery. There is also likely language in the Contract which Green Hills gives to customers which
allows for disinterment in situations beyond their control.
These types of actions are indicative of the manner in which Green Hills treats their neighbors and apparently their own City. They have threatened our
quaint (mostly retirement age homeowners) with lawsuits, they've built a Mausoleum that they knew was going to adversely impact us, and they ignored
all of our concerns prior to completion. Now they are defiant to even RPV about the situation.
I hope that the City Council takes some of these facts into account when they meet for a closed session on Tuesday. Green Hills wanted to lump 5+
Mausoleums into a 100 year Master Plan and CUP and I think that is what the problem is here. These short Planning Commission City Council meetings
aren't long enough to discuss and adequately analyze such a large plan (As shown by the illegal setback change without a variance).
Green Hills shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. They want to treat the illegal Mausoleum, the illegal burials, and other construction activities as
separate projects under separate permits when it comes to enforcement -but at the same time they want to get them all approved at once and agree to
the terms of a Conditional Use Permit.
1
I urge the City Council to consider revoking the Green Hills CUP due to multiple violations, inconsistent construction activities, and a 2007 revision that
wasn't compliant with RPV Code. All of these projects should be individually applied for and analyzed by the City on a case by case basis rather than
allow something like this happen again.
Thank you
Matthew Martin
MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com
This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be
protected by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended
recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Members of the City Council
bubba32@cox.net
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:10 PM
cc
PC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolyn@rpv.com; Joel Rojas
Green Hills Violations of their CUP
During your deliberations and review this evening of Green Hills' violations of their CUP, you should be aware that in a
legal correspondence of August 6, 2014, Section 4, their attorney stated that Green Hills was in compliance with their
RPV Conditions of Approval.
That was and is a deliberate false statement.
As documented by RPV's own and Staff Report for the PC Hearing of 26 August 26th, based upon a Condominium
neighbor's complaint, on August 19th, 2014 Staff verified that Green Hills was in violation oftheir CUP, Condition no. 6,
in-groun~ interment within the required 16' setback distance from the northern property line in Area 1.
During the PC Hearing of 26th August, it was openly acknowledged by Green Hills attorney Ellen Berkowitz, that Green
Hills had in fact sold all 44 of those questioned interment plots that were in violation of the existing CUP setback
distance of 16'. Thirteen of those plots had actual burials in them , with an undisclosed number of those sold plots being
of a "companion" nature allowing interment of a spouse or family member together.
The sale an interments in those plots are all purposeful and knowing intentional violations by Green Hills of the existing
CUP Condition no. 6.
Twice before, both in 1990(&1991) and as recently as April 24, 2007, Green Hills had requested a setback reduction for
in-ground interments from 16' to 8' that were not approved nor allowed or incorporated into their CUP Condition no., 6.
Near the conclusion of the August 26, 2014 PC Hearing, Attorney Berkowitz "clarified" that these (lately-discovered)
violations of the setback requirements in the Green Hills CUP were, "inadvertent".
They were not. They were not a mistake. These interment plots were not lawfully sold or disclosed to buyers or to the
City at the time as being of an "error" or mistake! Given the history that such violations of the known setback
requirements (16') had twice been refused, and the most recent false legal statement that Green Hills was in compliance
as of August 6, 2014, gives rise to legitimate questions of serious impropriety to a multitude of impacted parties.
Your consideration of these facts and misrepresentations will be appreciated.
Jim Gordon
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Members of the City Council
bubba32@cox.net
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:34 PM
cc
PC; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas
Green Hills Violations of CUP Condition no. 6
During a review today at City Hall, a letter from Green Hills attorney of August 6, 2014 to RPV, disclosed that (Section 4)
Green Hills was not in violation of their CUP.
That as and is a false statement contradicted by an independent investigation by Staff of August 19, 2014 in which (as
contained in the rela~ed PC Staff Report for the 26th 2014 meeting), verified that Green Hills is in violation of Condition
no. 6 of a 16' required setback for in-ground interments in Area 1 along the northern perimeter of that property.
During the Meeting, another letter from Green Hills' attorney Berkowitz was revealed that acknowledged violations had
occurred _in that location, with further revelations that a total of 44 violating interment plots were sold illegally by Green
Hills in violation of CUP Condition no. 6.
Attorney Berkowitz later in that PC meeting alleged that such violations (44 in total) were "inadvertent" and presumably
a mistake. That is also false given the history that Green Hills had twice requested a reduction to an 8' setback (from 16')
for in-ground internments in 1990 and in 2007. Both requested were denied and not incorporated into the approved
Conditions of approval both times.
The illegal sales of these interment plots have financially benefited Green Hills to the detriment of many parties thereto,
including, but not limited to Rancho Palos Verdes, the purchasers and others adjoining the property.
If such sales and financial gains of these illegal and non-compliant sales were "innocent" mistakes, as later claimed by
Attorney Berkowitz, why were they not previously disclosed as such by August 6, 2014 when Green Hills wrote that they
were in compliance?
A "mistake" is not selling out the entire area of such in-ground interments when Green Hills has twice been denied such
closer setback distance. That is not a mistake. That is a calculated decision made for financial gain and public harm.
This is a serious deliberate act that should be treated accordingly by the City Council in their forthcoming deliberations.
Jim Gordon
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
August 31, 2014
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Monday, September 01, 2014 9:39 AM
CC; Carolynn Petru; Kit Fox; Dennis Mclean; Michael Throne; Cory Linder; Joel Rojas
September 2, 2014 Council Agenda Item C. Windport Canyon
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: September 2, 2014 Council Agenda Item C. Windport Canyon
As much as Staff wants it to appear that way, this is not an isolated incident. Windport Canyon is fraught with a
lack of code enf orc~ment, fiscal negligence, lack of watershed management, lack of a General Plan Land Use
Map Amendment and lack of a Zoning Map Amendment.
Slick and easy on the Consent Calendar. Council is being asked to "forgive" $43 Kin earned interest. Hey.
That is rp.y money. The City does not give that kind of money to local non-profits. (Except PVPLC.)
How many other such liens is the City not collecting when a property changes hands?
Following is a description of Google Map's policies and some questions about how RPV owned properties
should be designated. Should the southern Windport Canyon property be added to the Parks Master Plan, or
not? Who's job is it to tidy this mess?
FYI, the Google Map guy lives in Philadelphia. He used to live on The Hill. He found me to ask about trails a
lot like Lenee found me to ask about our Coastal Zone. I consume a lot of Staff Time on other people's behalf.
***
Your comment presents an opportunity to provide some background info about how colors are used on the Google map.
The Google map uses four shades of green.
--a bluish green that is used for golf courses and a few other things.
--another shade of green that is used for things like soccer and baseball fields.
--a lime green that is used for parks.
--a very pale green that is used for nature preserves and a few other things.
Due to a technical problem, the pale green color is currently not appearing on the map. But the other three shades of green can be seen
in the map below, which is part of nearby Harbor Park.
WLSt
LSl
Unfortunately, it's not possible to directly specify the colors of boundary areas.
The color is determined automatically by whatever "category" has been designated for the area.
When a boundary area is added, a "category" must be specified. There are only a limited number of categories. Examples of
categories that might be used for open land areas include Park, Nature Preserve, Woods, and Golf Course.
There is no category for "unimproved government owned land." If we want this kind of land to appear with a green color, in PV the
only practical choice we have is Park or Nature Preserve.
Some of the PVPLC reserves have category Park and appear as lime green (such as Three Sisters and Filiorum). Others have
category Nature Preserve and appear with the pale green color.
Most of the categories for PVPLC reserves were specified before I began editing, so I don't know why some were designated as Parks
and some as Nature Preserves.
As you know, PV has quite a few dedicated open space areas that are owned by homeowner associations. I thought it would be useful
to have these areas shaded green on the map. When I added them, I used category Nature Preserve which seemed closer to being
accurate than using Park.
The map below shows the homeowner association open space through which the east end of Agua Amarga Canyon runs.
I originally added it with category of Nature Preserve and it appeared with the pale green color. A paid Google editor later came
along and changed the category to Park, which produces the current lime green color.
One of more frustrating aspects of being a volunteer editor is to have a paid editor come along and mess up one of your edits like this.
0
You wrote:
The City owned portion of Windport Canyon should have its own "green"
In case you haven't seen it, I found the following document about North Windport Canyon dated 8-12-2014: http://goo.glNRdPy6
It appears the owner wants to sell the land for residential development.
As I described above, there are only two green colors available for South Windport Canyon: lime green which is used for park
land, or pale green that is used for nature preserves.
Windport currently is designated as Park and appears as lime green. If the category was changed to Nature Preserve it would appear
as pale green (assuming Google fixes the current technical problem). But my experience has been that it's very difficult to get
category changes approved. In the past, when I tried to change the category of some of the PVPLC reserves, the paid editors have
rejected my changes.
The map below shows how Windport Canyon currently appears on the map. When two different boundary areas have the same color,
my practice is to leave a small gap between them.
Adding gaps like this actually violates Google's editing guidelines. But it seems like a very sensible thing, so I do it anyway. So far,
the Google editors have not messed with my "gaps", so it seems safe to keep doing it.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RPV City Council Members:
Lynn Swank <lynn.swank@cox.net>
Monday, September 01, 2014 7:40 PM
cc
Carla Morreale
Heritage Castle Museum Consent Calendar 9/2/14
It is premature to consider this item under this evening's Consent Calendar. The broad ramifications for the
City of RPV have not been fully explored in staff's recommendation to waive fees of $15,970 for the Heritage
Castle Museum. This museum is to be built on private property zoned residential. I understand that there is a
time frame requiring a quick decision, but this museum along PVDS will impact this area for many years to
come.
The public discussion of the merits of this project and if it should even be considered by The City as part of our
General Plan needs to take place before the applicant and city move forward. Both the applicant and City
could save an extraordinary amount of time and money if such a discussion takes place place prior to donating
the fee waiver for this project.
CONSIDERATIONS
1. 1. The City has limited financial resources at this time. A project such as this is likely to require a
significant amount of staff time and public discussion that will cost the City far more than the amount
requested.
2. Does the council wish to clarify to all non-profits that in-kind money donated to non-profits is not treated
as an expenditure of taxpayer money? In the budget considerations for 2014/ 2015 there was discussion
about the expenditure of City funds to non-profits. This particular non-profit was not considered, and
therefore not approved for expenditure of City revenues.
3. 3. If this home is given historical status will The City now give that designation to all qualified homes in
RPV? What is the City's policy? Within the past decade a request was made to apply for adoption of State
Historical Heritage designation for a few homes in our City. A previous city council rejected this because the
tax revenue that would be lost to the city could not be justified in light of the financial position of the City.
4. 4. Does this museum duplicate or complement other museums or nature centers in the surrounding
coastal area? In the past decade there was a proposal for a $7,000,000 state grant to build a nature center in
Abalone Cove that created a great deal of public controversy and was ultimately rejected by the State of
California. If I recall there were at least 7 other similar interpretive, museums and education facilities in the
immediate coastal area. The same questions could be raised about this museum.
5. 5. Are the docents at PVIC going to be used as docents at this museum to ensure consistency of the
information told to the public? The City already has a significant facility, the Point Vicente Interpretive Center
o F
(PVIC), that covers the history of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the natural delights of our coast including
tide pools, whales, flora and fauna and other items. It provides education to the public and importantly both
PVPUSD children and children from the Los Angeles area. The Los Serenos docents of have received extensive
training in all subjects related to our coast and history.
6. 6. The Abalone Cove Task Force gave a report to the city council regarding the recent rescues and park
use over the summer and will be reporting to the city council on further recommendations. Parking,
congestion, safe water practices, etc. are all issues that will be considered and will surely need to be reviewed
prior to any consideration of this fee waiver and whether this project is appropriate at this location.
7. 7. What are the City plans/vision for the wonderful corridor of PV Drive South? There has been no city
council discussion of the changes to the General Plan. PVDS needs a visionary plan before we continue to add
"attractions" to this already congested area that was once considered a this rural part of our city. The Point
View Event Center, the new Terranea garden at Point View, the Coastal Trail, Improvements to Abalone Cove
Shoreline Park, The Preserve, Gateway Park for Preserve Parking and other (?),the archery range, the
Terranea Resort, the Trump golf course and facility, the light house, Point Vicente Interpretive Center,
film making and commuter and tourist traffic.
RECOMMENDATION
Remove this item from the Consent Calendar and place it on the agenda after the above considerations (and
probably others) have been addressed.
Lynn Swank
RPV Resident
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late Correspondence for Item F
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Ra.11ch0Pa.los Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kit£@rpv.co111
Kit Fox
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:05 PM
Lorna Cloke
Carla Morreale
FW: Tonight's Agenda Item F. Re: Harden House at 5500 PV Drive
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:01 PM
To: garlandk77@gmail.com
Cc: leneebilski@hotmail.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; radlsmith@cox.net; jduhovic@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell
<b.camp@cox.net>; Carolynn Petru; Kit Fox
Subject: Tonight's Agenda Item F. Re: Harden House at 5500 PV Drive
Hi Ken,
Oops. Here is as far as I got about tonight's Agenda Item F. I did blind copy Mayor Duhovic and
Council Member Campbell. I copied Lenee and Cathy. I should have copied you. I was planning on
a nice, quiet weekend working on the PV Loop Trail when the other agenda items took over. Scroll
on down for other comments on your comments.
Subject:See Council Agenda Re: HERITAGE CASTLE MUSEUM" AT 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South
Date: 8/29/2014 11 :35:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
From: [f15unshineRPV@aol.com
Reply To:
To: radlsmith@cox.net
CC: leneebilski@hotmail.com, gardner4@earthlink.net
BCC: b.camp@cox.net, jduhovic@hotmail.com
Hi Diane,
What I heard was that the Ginsberg's intended to turn the place over to the PVP Land Conservancy
as their office space/headquarters. Any museum proposal should be coming from the Rancho de los
Palos Verdes Historical Society. I am still pissed at the school district for evicting the Society's
museum in the Malaga Cove School tower in favor of the district's administrative offices.
"Villa", maybe. "Castle", stupid. It is just the "gate house". It is in the Coastal Zone. It is zoned
residential.
Staff's suggestion to waive the application fees is Consent Calendar Item F. Staff's support of this
rather reeks of Staffs support of the Annenberguation's proposal. Pass the word. Ask your F
friends on the Council to bump this item and then vote NO. There is more to this proposal than $16 K
of Staff time .... S
In a message dated 8/29/2014 10:13:21 AM. Pacific Daylight Time, radlsmith@cox.net writes:
Dear Sunshine,
I just read about the Ginsberg's new Heritage Castle Museum at 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South in the
City Council Agenda. It is weird that we were just talking about starting up a Palos Verdes Museum as
a way to preserve so many of your collections -like the history of the Palos Verdes News. I'm going to
offer to volunteer for this project. Any comments?
Diane
In a message dated 9/1/201411:19:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, garlandk77@gmail.com writes:
Sunshine,
In addition to Windport Canyon, I noticed another interesting item on the City Council agenda for September 2.
Earlier this year, we discussed the Harden House at 5500 PV Drive when I included it on my Encroachment
List.
The new owners want to convert it into a "historical museum, cultural center and event space."
The project is described in this document prepared for the Sept 2 meeting: http://goo.gl/m5rH8e
Wow. I didn't know one could see staff reports via Google. Nice to know when Staff doesn't
add the link on the Agenda.
There are two things in this document I found particularly notable.
In discussing the history of the property, the document says:
Edward Harden and his wife were friends and business associates of Frank and Narcissa Vanderlip.
As I'm sure you know, the Hardens were much more than just "friends" of the Vanderlips.
Harden's wife was Ruth Vanderlip, sister of Frank.
Frank gave 48 acres of oceanfront land to Ruth.
It's odd that the city document never mentions the name of Harden's wife, or the fact that she was a Vanderlip
and the actual owner of the land.
Local realtor Maureen Megowan has a better history of the house
here: http://mmegowan.activerain.com/post/4243613/harden-house-for-sale
The other notable thing in the city document Is this statG
f
It appears that some of the existing non-permitted structures and permitted hardscape (i.e., portions of the
driveways) may encroach upon adjacent City property (i.e., Abalone Cove Shoreline Park).
It looks like we were right about the encroachment issue, which is quite obvious from the aerial photos and lots
lines. Have you ever figured out how to shift the aerial photo under the County's property
lines? The encroachment Staff mentioned may not be the same as you are seeing. The barn,
maybe even the pool are "non-permitted" structures. Michael Lightman (a PV Loop Trail
Segment Adopter) was a rather creative property owner.
The only surprising thing is why the city never seems to have noticed it before. RPV Staff's lack of local
knowledge has ceased to amaze me.
I think this project is a great idea, but I'm not enthusiastic about the name Heritage Castle Museum.
It sounds like something you might find at Disneyland.
I would prefer a more sober name such as Palos Verdes Heritage Museum. Me, too.
What do you think about this project? Not much.
Are you familiar with the Ginsburgs who are sponsoring it? The Ginsbergs have given a lot of money to
the PVP Land Conservancy. They are pictured in almost ever issue of Peninsula People. I
don't run with that crowd.
My favorite thing about the Harden House is the view from the property. Did you know that the "big W"
everyone was trying to find in the movie /ts a Mad, Mad, Mad World was four palm trees in the
Harden's yard? Of the four, I think two are still alive.
Below is a photo I found on a real estate listing when the house was for sale.
Being completely surrounded by park land, it's hard to imagine any property in PV having a better view than
this. The view from the planned villa would have been even better. The view from the
Vanderlip's planned villa above Villa Narcissa and The Cottage would have been even better
yet. Frank Vanderlip was a young Banker when he attended the Council on Foreign Relation's
secret meeting on Jekyll Island which instigated the creation of the US Federal Reserve
Bank. He stood to make millions in the "Crash of '29". I spent years wondering why he
didn't. Elin Vanderlip explains it in her memoirs.
This view should help make it very popular as an "event space." It is a lovely event space. A few owners
back rented it out for a wedding or two every weekend. The neighbors objected to the noise,
the little old lady ignored the City's cease and desist orders until she was jailed for at least one
night.
James York has had a hard time getting a CUP for his event venue. This proposal is in the
Coastal Zone. Staff is recommending waiving the fees. (It is on the Consent Calendar which
means no public notice.) I wonder who is really getting paid .... S
Ken Garland
F
=
8 f
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Michael Throne
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:46 PM
cc
Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale; Lorna Cloke; Nicole Jules; Dennis Mclean; Kathryn
Downs
Item J -Continuing Appropriation CIP Update
20140902 Continuing Appropriate Update Rev O.pdf
Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members:
Attached please find an update on the progress of your FY14/15 capital improvement program. This is being
provide to you as additional background to Item Jon your consent calendar tonight, and it is in the same format
that you might recall seeing at the adoption of the CIP (bullet-point, just-the-facts slides). A copy will be
included with the late correspondence distributed by the City Clerk later today.
Regards,
Michael Throne, PE, PWLF
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275
310 544-5252
FY 13-14 Continuing Appropriations
Capital Improvement Program
Project Update
September 2, 2014 Public Works Department
Public Bui Id i ngs
September 2, 2014 Public Works Department
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
1
Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Restroom and
Parking Lot Improvements
• Improve Restroom Building
• Install Automated Gates with
Electronic Pay Station
• Construct ADA Parking Spaces
• Install Screening Fences Around
Equipment
• $529 ,490 Budget
• Construction Began June 2014
• Completion September 2014
9/2/2014
ADA Transition Plan Implementation -Phase 1
• Eliminate Potential Safety Hazard
and Severe Barriers to Access
• Hesse Park
• Ladera Linda Community Center
{Playgrounds Only)
• Point Vicente Interpretive Center
• Ryan Park
• $400,000 Budget
• Design Completed
• Construction Begins November
2014
• Completion February 2015
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
2
Hesse Park Multi-purpose Room
Audio/Visual Upgrade
• Improve Lighting for Public
Meeting Television Broadcasts
• Relocate, Add Projector Screens
•Adjust Dais Configuration
• $175,000 Budget
• Design In Progress
• Construction January 2014
9/2/2014
Park Sites
September 2, 2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
Concept Sketch
Public Works Department
3
Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Improvement
• Improve Access and Recreational
and Educational Experience
Consistent with General Plan
Land Use
• $665,176 Budget Includes
$332,588 State Grant
• Construction Began June 2014
• Completion September 2014
9/2/2014
Ryan Park Southern Entrance Realignment
and Parking Lot Expansion
• Realign Southern Entrance for
Safer Access
• Add 32 Parking Spaces to Upper
Parking Lot
• $799,935 Budget
• Construction Began July 2014
• Completion October 2014
9/2/2014
FY13/14 GIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
4
Trails
September 2, 2014
RPV California Coastal Trail
• Improved 2.5 miles of Coastline
Trail
• $629,041 Budget Included
$500,000 State Grant
• Completed January 8, 2014
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
Public Works Department
5
Salvation Army Trail Improvement
•Close Trail Gap Between Upper
Point Vicente Property and
Salvation Army Property Along
Peninsula Pointe Neighborhood
• $247,985 Budget
• Construction Begins June 23
• Completion October 2014
9/2/2014
Storm Water System
September 2, 2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
Public Works Department
6
San Ramon Canyon Flood Reduction Project
• Construct 4,000-ft Storm Drain
from San Ramon Canyon to
Beach, Protects PVDE, Prevents
25th St Flooding Caused by RPV
Canyon Runoff
• $19,300,000 Budget
• Construction Began April 2013
• "'96% Complete
• Completion Oct 2014
9/2/2014
Catch Basin Filtration
• Retrofit in 5-years All Machado Lake
Watershed Catch Basins
• $53,000 Budget
• Retrofits Began 2010
• Complete Retrofit of Final 40 Catch
Basins in 2014 (1-yr Early)
• Requires Ongoing Maintenance,
Cleaning
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
7
Shoreline Park Erosion Control
• Design 80% complete
• $30,000 Budget
• Construction Begins Fall 2014
• Completion Fall 2014
9/2/2014
Marguerite Open Channel
• Study Feasibility to Improve
Drainage Under Several Streets
• $400,000 Budget
• Study Began January 2014
•Completion August 2014
• Design Scheduled FY 2014-15
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
8
September 2, 2014
Master Plan of Drainage
• Update Master Plan for Drainage
System Including
• GIS Interface
• Prioritized Project List
• Valuation Schedule
• $550,000 Budget
• Completed Hydraulic Model
• Field Verification Underway
• Began November 2013
• Draft Scheduled December 2014
9/2/2014
Roan Drainage System
• Design 90% complete
• $242,500 Budget
• Construction Spring 2015
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update 9
PVDS (East of Barkentine)
• Study Feasibility to Improve
Drainage Under Several Streets
• $446,000 Budget
• Study Began January 2014
• Completion August 2014
• Design Scheduled for FY 2014-15
9/2/2014
Storm Drain Lining
• Install Corrugated Metal Pipe
Liners Citywide
• $329,000 Budget
• Project Funds Carried Forward to
FY 2015-16 for Larger Lining
Project
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
10
Storm Drain Cleaning & Video Inspection
• Project is 60% complete
• $200,000 Budget
• Expenditure of Remaining Funds
$157,734 by September 2014
9/2/2014
Sanitary Sewer System
September 2, 2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
Public Works Department
September 2, 2014
11
Sewer Capacity Projects
• Analyze Need to Increase
Capacity at 5 Locations
• If Additional Capacity is
Required, Design and Construct
Capacity lmprovement{s)
• .$1,852,000 Budget
• Design 10% Complete
• Complete Design Fall 2014
• Complete Construction Spring
2015
9/2/2014
Abalone Cove Sewer System Projects
• Analyze System Needs 75% complete
• Purchase/Install Low Pressure Pumps
$100,000
• Design Construction projects $65,000
• Retrofit Lift Stations $195,000
• Replace Low Pressure Lines $60,000
• Clean and Line Manholes $80,000
• Complete Design Spring 2015
• Complete Construction Summer 2015
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
12
Jl
Street Rights of Way and
Traffic Control Devices
September 2, 2014 Public Works Department
FY13-14 Residential Streets Rehabilitation
Project -Area 9
• Repair Concrete Sidewalks,
Curb and Gutter, Asphalt
• Install ADA-compliant Curb
Ramps
• Resurface Streets
• Update Signage and Striping
• $1,900,000 Budget
• Design Being Finalized
• Start of Construction Planned
for Fall 2014
9/2/2014 PAWS \'RRllES PR WEST
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
13
Slide 25
NJ1 Nicole-this title slide was missing. i added it. but i[m not sure
whathte proper title should be.
l\Jicole Jules, 9/2/201·1
Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian Linkage
• Install Sidewalk from Crest
Rd to PVDW with ADA-
compliant Access Ramps
• Install Drought-tolerant
Landscaping with Drip
Irrigation
• $1,300,000 Budget
• Design Completed
• Construction Begins August
2014 Subject to Federal
Authorization
9/2/2014
Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal Synchronization
• Interconnect 8 Traffic Signals
Along Hawthorne Blvd Using
Fiber Optic Cabling
• Install Pedestrian Countdown
Signals
• $800,000 Budget
• Design Completed
• Construction Begins
November 2014 Subject to
Federal Authorization
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
14
Palos Verdes Drive East Roadway Resurfacing
• Roadway Resurfacing
• Visibility Improvements
• Update Signing and Striping
• $3,200,000 Budget
• Construction Underway
•Completion October 2014
9/2/2014
Palos Verdes Drive East Bronco-Headland
Safety Improvements
• Install Safety Improvements
• Median Barrier
• Advanced High-visibility
Warning Devices
• New Guardrails
• Equestrian Crossing
• Trail Improvements
• $542,000 Budget
• Design Commences Fall 2014
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
15
Palos Verdes Drive South Bike Lanes
• Install 5-ft Bike Lanes on
Each Side of PVDS
• Modify Medians
• Refresh Landscaping
• $788,000 Budget
• Design Commences Winter
2014
9/2/2014
Palos Verdes Drive West Median
Beautification
• Improve Pedestrian Walking
Trail
• Install Drought-tolerant
Landscaping with Drip
Irrigation
• $450,000 Budget
• Design Completed
• Construction Begins October
2014 Contingent on Utility
Vault Upgrades
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
Project Limits:
2,400 ft West of Schooner
Drive to Conqueror Drive
16
Palos Verdes Drive South
Landslide
September 2, 2014
New Dewatering Wells
• One New Dewatering Installed,
Second Easement Being
Negotiated
• $170,000 Budget
• Construction/Completion of
Second Well in Fall 2014
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update @
September 2, 2014
Public Works Department
17
Reconstruct Dewatering Well
• Reconstruct One ACLAD
Dewatering
• Target Well Identified
• $70,000 Budget
• Re-Construction/Completion of
Dewatering Well in Spring 2015
9/2/2014
Landslide Drainage System Maintenance
• Re-grade and Reconnect
Drainage Pipe South of PVDS
• $25,000 Budget
• Work to Begin Following Bird
Nesting Season September
2014
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
18
Burma Road Maintenance
• Re-grade Burma Road
• $25,000 Budget
• Lack of Precipitation 2013-14
• El Nino Predictions Indicate Rain
2014-15
•Work to Begin Following This
Winter's Rains
9/2/2014
PVDS East End Realignment
• Eliminate Sharp Curves
• $530,000 Budget
• Re-design 80% Complete
• Construction Begins Spring
• Complete Construction Summer
2015
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
19
PVDS Drainage at Sacred Cove
• Establish Positive Drainage
Condition
• $200,000 Budget
• Design to Begin Fall 2014
• Construction Begins Spring
• ~omplete Construction Late
Spring 2015
9/2/2014
Storm Water Quality
Improvements
September 2, 2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
Public Works Department
20
Drainage Area Monitoring System
• Automated Stormwater
Sampling Equipment
• Installed at City outfalls
• $200,000 Carryover Budget
• Pending Completion of EWMP
• Installation in FY 14-15 or
FYlS-16 as Determined by
EWMP
9/2/2014
Storm Water Quality Improvement Project
• Specific Project to be
Determined by EWMP
• Incorporating Natural Processes
for Storm Water Treatment And
or Containment
• $200,000 Carryover Budget
• Pending Completion of EWMP
• Installation in FY 14-15 or
FYlS-16 as Determined by
EWMP
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
21
MS4 EWMP and CIMP Development
• Peninsula Agencies Planning
Effort-MOA
• Action Plan to Manage Storm
Water Quality
• Required by Regional Board (RB)
for MS4 Permit
• $160,495 Carryover Budget
• First Draft Due to RB in June
2015
9/2/2014
Storm Drain Maintenance
• Smaller Scale Rehabilitation
Projects
• Unplanned Repairs & Corrective
Actions
• Filtration Device Maintenance
• Inspections
• $330,034 Carryover Budget
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
22
PVDE San Pedro Canyon
• Improvements to Drains
Tributary to San Pedro Canyon
• Oldest Drainage Infrastructure in
the City
• Inlet and Outlet Improvements
• $7,996 Carryover Budget
9/2/2014
For More Project Information
• Visit Our Webpage
http://palosverdes.com/rpv/publicworks/
•Email Us
PublicWorks@rpv.com
• Find Us
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
• Telephone Us
310 544-5252
9/2/2014
FY13/14 CIP Project Update
September 2, 2014
23
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
August 30, 2014
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:50 AM
CC; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian
jduhovic@hotmail.com; jim_knight@juno.com; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08
@gmail.com>; mizie@cox.net; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>;
susanmswank@gmail.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com
Sept. 2, 2014 Agenda Item l, GP and ZM proposed Amendment.
TO: RPV City Council. Copy to Staff and interested parties.
RE: Sept. 2, 201.4 Agenda Item 1, GP and ZM proposed Amendment.
FYI: I have saved this on a computer file called "RPV Plan messes" as opposed to the "Peninsula Wheel Trails
Network/Spoke #2/10 Chaparral". Anyone who thinks that this proposed action will support the Council's Goal
of CityTr~il Systems Enhancement is just plain mistaken.
This proposed Amendment should correct errors in the existing General Plan Land Use Map and the existing
Zoning Map. These errors extend beyond the specific lot, 10 Chaparral. Staff has proposed several such
corrections as a part of the proposed General Plan "update". Although Staff was aware of the same error here,
they chose not to include it in the "update" public hearings. Their motivation continues to be a mystery. This
Amendment should be Staff initiated and at the City's expense.
Is this area on the NCCP map? If not, if this habitat is so "pristine" then, the NCCP needs amending before this
private property owner gets jerked around any further. That is the point of having a Natural Communities
Conservation Plan. See? RPV has a lot of "Plan messes".
It really annoys me when a private property owner is mislead by Staff because Staff has not bothered to keep "a
clean house" of current records.
!It really offends me to have to ask the Council to deny an Application simply because Staff has screwed up. Or,
have they? Is there a method behind this madness? If so, what is the objective? There must be more to it than
to permit some new guy in town (with money) to build another big house under questionable circumstances.
May you create an Alternative #3? Deny the Applicant's request without prejudice and direct Staff to initiate
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map and NCCP Map as appropriate. The existing
General Plan trails maps and RPV Conceptual Trails Plan are fine just the way they are if Staff would simply
implement them.
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello So and Ara
Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Sunday, August 31, 2014 7:48 PM
Ara Mihranian; So Kim; CC
Re: Proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment -#10 Chaparral
I am a bit concerned about relocating boundary lines and/or redesignating areas on any parcel to
accommodate development when there are questionable boundary lines. Among the numerous
documents submitted to City regarding the instability of this particular parcel by Mr. Damon Swank, owner
#7 Chaparral, are very detailed reports from geologists who offer an opposing position to development on
some areas of this parcel, especially the flat areas.
City Staff support!;i the land-use amendment to the alternative of building over an extreme slope. Let the
owner build on the area(s) that are designated Residential, go through the proper application process,
applying for variances, as needed, rather than re-zone and/or redesignate areas just to accommodate
development.
In addition to all of the problems associated with this parcel, what does the City plan to do to ensure that
the historically used trail, which now crosses the southeast portion of this parcel to access the City-owned
easement, remains open and protected for the pedestrian/equestrian access to the Rolling Hills Nature
Trail and the Peninsula Trails network, especially those living on Chaparral Lane? Will the City require a
formal dedicated easement as a condition to develop this lot?
In conclusion, I would support Alternative #2, but in reviewing Sunshine's suggestion for an Alternative
#3, I would support her submission.
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
From: So Kim <SoK@rpv.com>
To: "'mookat@schlossbros.com"' <mookat@schlossbros.com>; "Madeline Ryan (pvpasofino@yahoo.com)"
<pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:43 AM
Subject: 10 Chaparral -Sept 2nd City Council Mtg.
Morning,
Attached is the public notice for 10 Chaparral, scheduled for the 9/2 City Council meeting. Please
contact me if you would like this mailed to you in hard copy format instead.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
September 1, 2014
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Monday, September 01, 2014 11:58 AM
CC; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian
September 2, 2014 Council Agenda Item 3. Define a "Viewing Station"
TO: RPV City Council. Copy to Staff and interested parties
RE: September 2, 2014 Council Agenda Item 3. Define a "Viewing Station"
My first thought was that Staff has consumed many hours of word processing and several reams of paper just to
convince the Council to water down the purpose of having a "Viewing Station". Following is the latest
proposed Policy with a dose of strikethrough.
Then I remembered that another Council Policy will not solve the problem. Our Coastal Specific Plan's
Glossary is missing a definition of the term "Viewing Station". The City Council needs to agree on a definition
and then have it put where the people who need it can see it. The appropriate definition is hidden right there in
the proposed Policy.
"viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog
line" (painted white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle traveling lane on the seaward side of Palos
Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South.
This proposed amendment accomplishes one very important thing. Staff, other agencies and private property
owners who propose development in RPV' s Coastal Zone will be on notice to disclose how much view
obstruction they are proposing, in a consistent manner. All of the usual variance procedures will still be
available.
Your choice. Which approach is going to be more effective at preserving our coast?
POLICY:
To protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West /Palos Verdes Drive
South and the ocean in areas that are not part of an identified visual corridor, as identified
in Figure 26 of the Visual Element, the City's Coastal Specific Plan states that no buildings
should project into a zone measured 2-degrees down-arc from horizontal as measured
along the shortest distance between the "viewing station" and the coastline (Page C-12
of the Coastal Specific Plan). It shall be the policy of the City that for purposes of this
requirement, the "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog
line" (painted white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane on the
seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South 'Nhere the best
and most important vie'tv exists over the site of the proposed project which may or may
not be adjacent to the subject property line. This policy is not intended to supersede any
existing condition of approval that is more restrictive in preserving views from Palos
Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South.
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sept. 1, 2014
Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Monday, September 01, 2014 8:57 PM
cc
Ara Mihranian; Joel Rojas
CC Agenda item #3 -"viewing station definition"
Dear Mayor Duhovic, Mayor pro tern Knight, and Council members Brooks,
Campbell and Misetich,
This issue was first brought to your attention six months ago because of the lack of a definition in the Coastal
Specific Plan. The RPV Coastal Specific Plan does not specifically define the location of a "viewing station".
I suggest keeping the definition brief and simple and adding it to the Glossary:
The "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the ''fogline" (painted white line/bike lane
line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane all along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos
Verdes Drive South.
The RPV Coastal Specific Plan pg. C-9 clearly states that Palos Verdes Drive is a visual corridor -the "primary
visual corridor accessible to the the greatest number of viewers."
Fig. 26 -Visual Corridors -identifies specific "vistas" or focal points (Catalina, Lighthouses, Malibu,
Marineland [Long Point]) and the dimensions for height zone limits in those areas. The dimension for
preserving non-specific "views" is the 2-degree down-arc from horizontal as measured from the "viewing
station". pgs.C 9-12. That measurement is to determine the height limitation (above MSL) for development of
property located in the Coastal Zone between The Drive and the ocean.
Also on pg. C-9 it states that "viewing stations" are "continuous" -viewed along the public corridor of Palos
Verdes Drive" ; or localized -like from a specific turnout.
Therefore, any language that limits the continuous viewing station to one specific stationary point or that could
be interpreted as to where the "best and most important view exists" would be contrary to the intent of the
Coastal Specific Plan which assumes passenger vehicles are in motion on The Drive. Keep it simple by
approving one standard definition for the Glossary -
Definition: the "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fogline" (painted white
line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane all along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West
or Palos Verdes Drive South.
0 3
That is sufficient. The City Code already addresses the issue of stricter or more restrictive conditions or
regulations, and the other words in staff's defintion are subject to interpretation and should be removed.
The purpose is to avoid further arbitrary /subjective interpretations as to the definition of "viewing
station" and therefore the building height limitation measurements.
The Council is discussing this issue now because since 1993 each project in the Coastal Zone was dealt with
differently for different proposals by different staff members regarding protection of views. Specifically:
• in 1993 the view for the project proposed at 3300 PV DR. West was analyzed by staff 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 determined by staff to be southbound PV
Dr.West
•in 2000 the "viewing station" for #6 Marguerite Dr. was determined by staff to be 3 feet higher than the
northbound street elevation of PVDr W. or 272.0' which is outside the Coastal Zone and at a higher elevation
than the southbound lanes
•in 2001 the "viewing station" for the Yacht Harbor Dr. proposed project was determined by staff to be the
elevation of a residence across the street on the northbound side of Palos Verdes Dr. South-again outside the
Coastal Zone
Each of these determinations provided height limitations which favored the developer, not the public who lost
views as a result-all because of the ambiguity of the term "viewing station" and therefore the subjective
assessment by City staff and Commissioners. Therefore the need for a standard definition going forward.
• before the 1993 project applications in the Coastal Zone such as Ocean Trails, Oceanfront Estates, Sea Bluff,
and the TransAmerica project (Yacht Harbor Drive) were approved with height limitations not only of
structures but also of landscaping and limited foliage height in order to comply with the Coastal Specific Plan's
intent to maintain views across the properties
The City needs to avoid further subjective interpretations. Of course, there may be exceptions in individual
cases which can be addressed.
The definition (minus the problematic subjective language) should be added to the GLOSSARY of the RPV
Coastal Specific Plan rather than being a "policy" which nobody will know about and/or which may get
0
lost or overlooked. That way each member of staff and each applicant will be able to see it when looking
at the Coastal Specific Plan.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this most important issue.
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
p.s. it would be helpful to you and the public if in the future CC or PC Agendas could be sent out on the
Wednesday before a holiday weekend instead of Thursday. The listserver notice of this agenda arrived in my
mailbox at 8PM on 8/28, the Thursday night before the Labor Day weekend. I consider that late notice.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Joel Rojas
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11:09 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: CC Agenda item #3 -"viewing station definition"
From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:48 AM
To: PC
Subject: FW: CC Agenda item #3 -"viewing station definition"
To RPV Planning Commissioners:
The issue of a specific definition of a "viewing station" for analyzing development height within the RPV
Coastal Zone is No.3 on tonight's City Council Agenda -as a "policy" issue. Since the PC is first to deal
with such issues after staff, I am writing to you also .
(This issue was previously discussed by the Council on Mar. 4 and April 15, 2014 -see videos for details)
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2014 Agendas/MeetingDate-2014-09-02/index.cfm
My suggestion to Council:
Instead of a "policy" the simple definition of the viewing station should be added to the Glossary of the RPV
Coastal Specific Plan as an Amendment to the Plan.
Then the city staff and applicants will not miss it.
Policies tend to get lost in the shuffle. Nobody will know about this if it is just a "policy".
Simplified Definition: the "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fogline" (painted
white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane all along the seaward side of Palos Verdes
Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South.
That is sufficient. Nothing ambiguous or subjective.
As long as the City is preparing an amendment to the Coastal Plan (for the height of the Trump flagpole -on
Planning Commission Agenda for Sept. 9th) the City should also amend the Glossary to add the definition of a
"viewing station."
Thank you for all you do for RPV!
Lenee Bilski
From: leneebilski@hotmail.com
To: cc@rpv.com
CC: aram@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com
3
Subject: CC Agenda item #3 -"viewing station definition"
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 20:56:49 -0700
Sept. 1, 2014
Dear Mayor Duhovic, Mayor pro tern Knight, and Council members Brooks,
Campbell and Misetich,
This issue was first brought to your attention six months ago because of the lack of a definition in the Coastal
Specific Plan. The RPV Coastal Specific Plan does not specifically define the location of a "viewing station".
I suggest keeping the definition brief and simple and adding it to the Glossary:
The "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the ''fogline" (painted white line/bike lane
line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane all along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos
Verdes Drive South.
The RPV Coastal Specific Plan pg. C-9 clearly states that Palos Verdes Drive is a visual corridor -the "primary
visual corridor accessible to the the greatest number of viewers."
Fig. 26 -Visual Corridors -identifies specific "vistas" or focal points (Catalina, Lighthouses, Malibu,
Marineland [Long Point]) and the dimensions for height zone limits in those areas. The dimension for
preserving non-specific "views" is the 2-degree down-arc from horizontal as measured from the "viewing
station". pgs.C 9-12. That measurement is to determine the height limitation (above MSL) for development of
property located in the Coastal Zone between The Drive and the ocean.
Also on pg. C-9 it states that "viewing stations" are "continuous" -viewed along the public corridor of Palos
Verdes Drive" ; or localized -like from a specific turnout.
Therefore, any language that limits the continuous viewing station to one specific stationary point or that could
be interpreted as to where the "best and most important view exists" would be contrary to the intent of the
Coastal Specific Plan which assumes passenger vehicles are in motion on The Drive. Keep it simple by
approving one standard definition for the Glossary -
Definition: the "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fogline" (painted white
line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane all along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West
or Palos Verdes Drive South.
That is sufficient. The City Code already addresses the issue of stricter or more restrictive conditions or
regulations, and the other words in staff's defintion are subject to interpretation and should be removed.
The purpose is to avoid further arbitrary /subjective interpretations as to the definition of "viewing
station" and therefore the building height limitation measurements. w
The Council is discussing this issue now because since 1993 each project in the Coastal Zone was dealt with
differently for different proposals by different staff members regarding protection of views. Specifically:
•in 1993 the view for the project proposed at 3300 PV DR. West was analyzed by staff 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 determined by staff to be southbound PV
Dr.West
• in 2000 the "viewing station" for #6 Marguerite Dr. was determined by staff to be 3 feet higher than the
northbound street.elevation of PVDr W. or 272.0' which is outside the Coastal Zone and at a higher elevation
than the southbound lanes
•in 2001 the "viewing station" for the Yacht Harbor Dr. proposed project was determined by staff to be the
elevation of a residence across the street on the northbound side of Palos Verdes Dr. South-again outside the
Coastal Zone
Each of these determinations provided height limitations which favored the developer, not the public who lost
views as a result-all because of the ambiguity of the term "viewing station" and therefore the subjective
assessment by City staff and Commissioners. Therefore the need for a standard definition going forward.
• before the 1993 project applications in the Coastal Zone such as Ocean Trails, Oceanfront Estates, Sea Bluff,
and the TransAmerica project (Yacht Harbor Drive) were approved with height limitations not only of
structures but also of landscaping and limited foliage height in order to comply with the Coastal Specific Plan's
intent to maintain views across the properties
language would promote a continuation of the same problem: subjective interpretation.
The City needs to avoid further subjective interpretations. Of course, there may be exceptions in individual
cases which can be addressed.
The definition (minus the problematic subjective language) should be added to the GLOSSARY of the RPV
Coastal Specific Plan rather than being a "policy" which nobody will know about and/or which may get
lost or overlooked. That way each member of staff and each applicant will be able to see it when looking
at the Coastal Specific Plan.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this most important issue.
Sincerely,
Lenee Bilski
p.s. it would be helpful to you and the public if in the future CC or PC Agendas could be sent out on the
Wednesday before a holiday weekend instead of Thursday. The listserver notice of this agenda arrived in my
mailbox at 8PM on 8/28, the Thursday night before the Labor Day weekend. I consider that late notice.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
momofyago@gmail.com
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:03 PM
cc
Carolynn Petru
Item 3 on Agenda
I concur with the position set forth by Lenee Bilski that the definition of "viewing station" should be as she wrote it, and that the CSP
should be revised to add the definition rather than adopt a "policy". Residents are entitled to certainty rather than subjectivity.
Sharon Yarber
Sent from my Verizon 4G L TE Tablet
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jabekahnke@cox.net
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:25 PM
CC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Viewing Station Definition
Honorable Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro Tern Knight, and Council Members Brooks, Campbell and Misetich:
I write in full support of Lenee Bilski's message to you of 9/1/14 that "Viewing Station" be incorporated in our Coastal
Specific Plan's stated Definitions. I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes since 1988 and I have grown weary of revisiting
the view issue over and over again. Let's try to establish a clear standard for the benefit of all, including those wishing to
build in the coastal zone.
I also wonder if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has the capacity and right to negotiate view preservation concessions
from the Trump National Golf Course Project when it applies for extensions of the continued temporary opening of the
driving range and of the Development Agreement and Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, why it does not do so. If this is an
option, why does the City not use the leverage it has to better safeguard the public view from Palos Verdes Drive South
across the project? Revision ODD on the September 16 City Council Agenda represents more than the SOth request for
Revisions from the developers.
Surely the City can secure concessions by mutual agreement with the developer. How many extensions of the
temporary opening, the development agreement and the tentative tract map have been approved?
What has the City requested from the developer in exchange? I would be interested in sharing my thoughts on potential
areas for negotiation to safeguard the public view.
Sincerely,
Jabe Kahnke
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mike and Louise <mandlinrpv@msn.com>
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:09 PM
cc
Item #3 Regular Business
Sent:Tuesday 09/02/2014 3:57 PM
To: City Council (cc@rpv.com)
Ara (aram@rpv.com); Joel Rojas Goelr@rpv.com)
RE: Agenda "Regular Business #3
Sept. 2, 2014
Dear Mayor Duhovic, Mayor pro tern Knight, and Council members Brooks,
Campbell and Misetich,
We just found out that on the agenda tonight is a topic that has been most important to us through the years
which is the protection of the scenic ocean views all along Palos Verdes Drive South, as the Coastal Specifics
intended.
We had no idea that there were discussions last Spring on this subject and we hope that you will consider this
late letter. While catching up and reading emails from neighbors there seems to be new confusion regarding the
term "viewing station". There was never any doubt in our mind, and in the minds of previous City
Representatives we conversed with, that P.V. Dr. South was considered a "continuous viewing station" and not
to be limited to a single turnout (as often created when views are already obstructed on either side).
Therefore we strongly support a letter sent to you be Ms. Lenee Bilski and are hopeful that your Council will
only re-enforce the original intent of the RPV Coastal
Specifics.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and for all that you do.
Mike and Louise Shipman
PS: Not to confuse the issue but we feel compelled to mention that we have witnessed several near misses
coming in and out of the turnout in front Conqueror Dr. Unfortunately many viewers dart in and out
unexpectedly and some even do illegal u-turns.
0 3
Diane Smith
2704 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
H: (310) 547-3856 E: radlsmith@cox.net
By Email
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
August 31, 2014
Subject: Staff Report to City Council September 2, 2014-Code Amendment
Initiation Request (CAIR) To Improve Citywide Outdoor Lighting
Regulations for Exterior Lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320).
Dear Leza,
I have taken a close look at the September 2, 2014 Staff Report to our City Council
regarding Code Amendment Initiation Request (CAIR) To Improve Citywide Outdoor Lighting
Regulations For Exterior Lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320). Please consider my following
suggestions.
1. Reference to Marymount
The exterior lighting at Marymount' s East Parking Lot is still undergoing review and I have
requested an extension of time for this review well past the November 2, 2014 time change so
that the halo effect, if any, of the student vehicle headlights combined with existing overhead
lights can be studied.
Marymount students have just recently resumed classes for the fall and the exterior parking lot
lights are now on. The present exterior lighting is not acceptable to downslope residents as you
can see by my attached Exhibit A comparing of our view of the moon at 9:00 p.m. with the
parking lot lights turned on, against our view of the moon without parking lot lights two days
later at 10:00 p.m.
When the time changes, November 2, 2014, there will be more students leaving classes at night
and the effect of their vehicle headlights, combined with overhead lights, will give a more
accurate assessment of the halo effect, if any. I have asked that the time for the City Council can
review the Marymount East Parking Lot be extended for one month after the time change so that
we can all fairly assess the exterior light impact. For instance, it may be decided to reconfigure
the parking lot to have the cars face Marymount windows instead of resident windows.
4
(Marymount has yet to indicate where the public will park to attend their public Grow Garden
located in the east parking lot - a use and effect that was never considered by the City Council
during the EIR process.)
2. Topography -Reference to Lumens
We are not a flat land city. Our city primarily includes hillside topography. Consideration of
light overspill to downslope residents is therefore extremely important.
I have consulted an exterior lighting expert who explained to me that our city should not omit
wattage and should consider:
"Wattage -the amount of electricity consumed,
Lumens -t~e amount of light produced, and
Lumenaire -the fixtures that control the distribution of the lumens."
Because of our City's hillside topography and future sustainability awareness we should consider
how much power is drawn from the grid (watts) as well as how much light is produced (lumens)
as well as the luminaire (fixtures to shield) (just as we consider potable water).
3. Exterior Light Safety -
With regard to Marymount Parking -Hess Park parking lot lumens are less than Marymount
parking lot lumens and our high school parking lot lumens (located at the junction of two very
busy streets, Hawthorne and Silver Spur) are less that Marymount college parking lot lumens
(located nowhere near "get-away streets") making consideration of cameras more supplementing
lights.
4. CORRECTION:
Please correct the Staff Report to accurately reflect your Marymount reference. I suggest the
following additions, underlined in bold, to the Staff Report to more accurately reflect the fact
that Marymount's East Parking Lot is currently under review. The paragraph in question starts at
page 2, last paragraph through top of page 3:
"Over the last two years, several non-residential projects have been constructed within
the City, most notably Chase Bank, Palos Verdes Art Center, Pt. Vicente Veterinary
Clinic, St. John Fisher and the Marymount east parking lot (currently under review)
that have raised the issue to Staff and the Planning Commission of appropriate exterior
lighting. After analyzing the exterior lighting installed at these projects, Staff and the
Planning Commission identified the portions of the City's Development Code that fall
short on reducing lighting impacts related to glare and the degradation of the dark-sky,
rural character of the City. Given the current Code's shortcomings on exterior lighting
standards, Staff worked closely with the applicants of the above mentioned projects1
and is presently working with the Marymount project, to ensure that the exterior
lighting of said projects are fully shielded so as to reduce the impacts of light glare to
adjacent residents and motorists. This process involved ensuring that the lighting plans
submitted by the applicants included the right fixtures with the right shielding, as well as
making adjustments to the installed lighting after it is installed (see attached typical
conditions). While these efforts have eliminated and, in the case of Marymount,
attempt to eliminate the halo effect of unnecessary light pollution, Staff has found that
the topography of a project site may make the elimination of all lighting impacts next to
impossible. Furthermore, this process requires applicants to go back and make changes
to installed lighting which is costly to applicants. Staff and the Planning Commission
agree that the Code should be changed to specify the appropriate fixtures in advance."
I think you are doing a great job of attending to the outdoor lighting issues in our City.
Thank you so much Leza.
Sincerely,
Diane L. Smith
EXHIBIT A
Both photos below were taken from downslope San Ramon Properties 2702 and 2708
ABOVE -View of the moon, August 31, 2014 at 10:00 p.m.
BELOW -View of the moon, August 29, 2014 at 9:00 p.m. with Marymount East Parking Lot Lights