20150721 Late CorrespondenceTO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 21, 2015
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
K Email from Eva Cicoria
L Email from Eva Cicoria
2 Email from Gary Weber
4 Emails from: Tony Baker; Sunshine; David Sundstrom; Ray
Van Dinther; Erin Bryan; Letter from the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Horsemen's Association
6 Email from Eva Cicoria
Respectfully s mitted,
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 20, 2015**.
W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150721 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: E Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:51 AM
To: CC
Subject: Proposed parking restricitions--Items K and L
Mayor Knight, Mayor ProTem Brooks, and Councilmembers Campbell, Duhovic, and Misetich,
The parking restrictions before you tonight strike me as overkill. I agree that there is a problem. I agree that we need to
solve that problem. I think we have to be careful that we do not go further with the "solution" than is reasonably
required to solve the problem, thereby creating other problems.
The two places where 1 believe the restrictions go too far are 1) the distance that the northeasterly curb of Crenshaw Blvd.
will be painted red, and 2) the elimination of parking along the southwest side of Crenshaw from Park Place to Burma Rd.
I suggest the following modest changes to the proposed restrictions:
1) Continue to allow public parking on the southwest side of Crenshaw from Park Place to Burma Rd, perhaps placing the
10 permit parking places for RPV residents along this segment. Recall that the curb is already painted red along this
section on the northeast side, so there is no traffic hazard associated with public parking on both sides of the road here.
2) Paint the curb red on the northeast side of Crenshaw from Seacrest to that point at which the Del Cerro homes
end. From that point to Valley View Rd, Crenshaw Blvd widens, so there is not the traffic hazard associated with public
parking on both sides of the road here.
Please do that which is reasonable to try to fix the problems the neighborhood residents have complained of and stop
there.
Sincerely,
Eva Cicoria
K on OL L
From: Gary Weber <gsweberconsulting@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 5:22 PM
To: CC
Cc: Joel Rojas; Leza Mikhail; 'Jim York'
Subject: CC Agenda 7.21.15 - Moratorium Exception
Attachments: Moraotium Exception 7.20.15.pdf
Mayor Knight and City Council:
Please see the attached letter regarding the proposed Moratorium Exception (Item #2, Public Hearing).
Thank you for your consideration,
Gary Weber,
for Jim York
York Point View Properties, LLC,
July 20, 22015
Mayor Jim Knight and Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
RE; PROPOSED MORATORIUM EXCEPTION "'R"
Dear Mayor Knight and City Council:
VIA E-MAIL
We note with interest Public Hearing item #2 scheduled for July 21, 2015, regarding a proposed
Moratorium Exception "R" that would allow for the construction of barns, or other similar non -habitable
structures, used for the sole purpose of housing animals within the city's landslide moratorium area. We
support the proposed exception to the Moratorium Ordinance that would allow for construction of barns
and similar non -habitable structures to accommodate permitted animals.
We respectfully suggest, however, that the proposed amendment be modified to allow a specific
exception for non -habitable structures in support of permitted agricultural/farming activities. We believe
the rationale for an exception to accommodate a non -habitable structure for farming equipment and
supplies is in keeping with the rationale for allowing animal barns, in that farming equipment structures
and animal barns both support "permitted" uses that are otherwise prohibited or prevented by the
Moratorium Ordinance.
We respectfully offer the following language to allow non -habitable structure for farming equipment and
sullies, which is modeled after the proposed Exception "R":
The Moratorium shall not be applicable to thefollowing.- The construction and use of a non -habitable
structures) for the sole purpose of supporting an approved agricultural use in a single family residential
zoning district, pursuant to Section 17.02.025 of the City's Development Code. Said non -habitable
structures shall be used to store agriculturagarming equipment and related supplies required to
permitted agricultural activities and only be permitted on lots greater than S acres, which are served by a
sanitary sewer system. The maximum area of the structure shall not exceed 1, 600 square feet and shall
not count against the 1,200 square foot limitation set forth in Paragraphs "H" and "K" of this Section. A
use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, which prevents the structure from
being used for any purpose other than a non -habitable use for storing farming/agricultural equipment
and supplies, shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. Prior to the approval
of an application, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies
reasonable required by the City to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City geotechnical staff that the
proposed non -habitable structure will not aggravate the existing situation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
t
Gary S. Weber, for
James York, Member
York Point View Properties, LLC
CC: Jim York, YPVP
Joel Rojas, Community Development Director, RPV
Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner, RPV
Subject: FW: 10 Chaparral Lane
Attachments: General Plan Amendment.pdf
From: tony baker [mailto:tbal<e377 rnail.corn]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:06 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.&ov>
Subject: 10 Chaparral Lane
RE:
Case: NO.ZON2014-00143
Dear Senior Planner:
Due to serious concerns about the potential impacts that this projects footprint will have on the native plants and
habitat at this site, we submit the following:
Tony Baker
16 Limetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes
(424) 233-9221
Horticulture co-chair
South Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society
q.
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Environmental Assessment
Case: NO. ZON2014-00143
Project: Proposed house site & zone change at end of Chaparral Lane
Figure 2: Existing and Proposed land use and zoning map boundary line.
°
o
.
°'' (RS -2)
e Open Space Hazard (OFA)
o HO
Soo.
y
�4eta Benda
'P
*� '4
",u
.
_ ON Jexisting) to
y
RS (proposed)
Existing Boundary Line
Residential
.
°'' (RS -2)
O100 ft. reduced fuel zone would extended into habitat
A house built on the proposed house site would allow a large entry point for invasive species to spread and impact the coastal sage scrub habitat and USGS blue line stream.
i<
California native plant species growing directly adjacent to the site that may be impacted by the project:
1. Eriogonum elongatum (Long-stemmed Buckwheat)*
2. Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum (Coastal California Buckwheat)
3. Eriogonum cinereum (Ashy -leafed Buckwheat)
4. Rhus integrifolia (Lemonade berry)
5. Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak)
6. Acourtia microcephala (Sacapellote)*
7. Artemisia californica (California Sagebrush)
8. Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum (Golden Yarrow)*
9. Hazardia squarrosa var. squarrosa (Sawtoothed Goldenbush)*
10. Heterotheca grandiflora (Telegraph Weed)
11. Malacothrix saxatilis var. tenuifolia (Cliff Malacothrix)
12. Pseudognaphalium californicum (California Everlasting)*
13. Pseudognaphalium microcephalum (White Everlasting)*
14. Stephanomeria virgata (Tall Stephanomeria)
15. Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia var. chrysanthemifolia (Common Eucrypta)
16. Calystegia macrostegia subsp. intermedia (South Coast Morning Glory)*
17. Dudleya lanceolata (Lance -Leaved Live -Forever)*
18. Acmispon glaber var. glaber (Deerweed)*
19. Lathyrus vestitus var. vestitus (Pacific Peavine)*
20. Lupinus bicolor (Bicolor Lupine)*
21. Lupinus longifolius (Bush Lupine)*
22. Lupinus succulentus (Arroyo Lupine)
23. Lupinus truncatus (Collar Lupine)*
24. Trifolium willdenovii (Tomcat Clover)*
25. Polypodium californicum (California Polypody)*
26. Pentagramma triangularis (Goldback fern)*
27. Pellaea andromedaefolia (Coffee fern)*
28. Salvia mellifera (Black Sage)
29. Stachys ajugoides var. rigida (Rigid Hedge -Nettle)
30. Claytonia perfoliata subsp. perfoliata (Miner's Lettuce)
31. Mimulus aurantiacus (Sticky Monkeyflower)
32. Elymus condensatus (Giant Wildrye)
33. Melica imperfecta (Coast Melic Grass)
34. Stipa lepida (Foothill Needle Grass)
35. Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon)
36. Galium angustifolium subsp. angustifolium (Narrowleaf Bedstraw)
37. Solanum douglasii (Douglas Nightshade)
38. Dichelostemma capitatum subsp. capitatum (Wild Hyacinth or Blue Dicks)
39. Bloomeria crocea var. crocea (Common Goldenstar)*
*indicates locally uncommon native plants on the Palos Verdes Peninsula
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:51 AM
To: raymadelin@gmail.com
Cc: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; cmoneil@aol.com;
pvpra.president@gmail.com; CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Idb910@juno.com;
radlsmith@cox.net; rjvaleri@cox.net; cprotem73@verizon.net; info@pvpwatch.com;
EZStevens@cox.net; vlocicero@hotmail.com; greg@groystonlaw.com;
vdogregg@aol.com;jeanlongacre@aol.com; troy@eworld-media.com;
susanmswank@gmail.com; lynn.swank@cox.net; dlfriedson@gmail.com;
verikon@cox.net; sharkbait12345@aol.com; craigwhited@cox.net
Subject: More Re: Tonight is the night to make a difference. 10 Caparral is only the tip
Mr. Chen is not threatening the City. He is simply applying to take what Staff is willing to suggest that
the City Council give him. It is so easy to forget that neither the City Council nor the City's employees
swear an oath to uphold the City's General Plan. The City Council is just supposed to "advocate for
the community", whatever that means.
Showing up and speaking at a Public Hearing accomplishes two things: Catch Staff in a fraudulent
activity and lay a guilt trip on the Council Members. That is all that We The People can do between
elections. ...S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 7/21/2015 9:59:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, raymadelin@gmail.com writes:
I absolutely agree. How dare mr Chen threaten the city. If he is and does there is more to this than meets the
eye.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 21, 2015, at 9:54 AM, SunshineRPWa aol.com wrote:
Hi all,
Chaparral Lane is not in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) nor the RPV General
Plan as a publicly accessible trail. I agree with Madeline that the equestrian community
should not lobby the City Council to make it so. However, the trail connection between
the trail easement at #7 Chaparral Lane and Bronco Drive, is in the General Plan, CTP
and it is an existing trail.
What this Application is missing is the design for how the trail connection can be
rerouted to accommodate the property owner's desire to build a house where the trail is
now. This is not a situation where he gets to say "No thanks". It is Staff's responsibility
to facilitate the design of an "intermediate" / TYPE 5 trail corridor prior to deciding
where any easements should/could be. Think of it this way. The trail connection stays.
If the property owner chooses not to offer an easement then the property owner does not
get to transfer liability to the City. There is no point in the City taking on additional
liability if there is no usable trail.
Staff has had several years to figure out how to keep this open space or just the trail
connection as a community amenity. The name Martingale Trailhead Park has been
Jq.
moved to another location. The proposed Peter C. Gardiner Park site was not pursued
when this property was in foreclosure. We The People are getting screwed, again, by a
Community Development Staff which has decided to implement changes to the RPV
General Plan and Land Use Map without bothering to bring these changes before the
City Council in a Public Hearing.
Consider the word "obfuscation". This project is being brought before the City Council
and the public as three items fused into one. I contend that this should be two separate
topics.
The General Plan Amendment part proposes shifting a line on the Land Use Map. When
the City's Geology Consultant states, in writing, that some specific portion of the
property now know as 10 Chaparral and some specific portions of some adjacent
properties are now known not to be a "Hazard", Staff should bring this specific
Amendment before the Council in a Public Hearing.
If and when the Council adopts such an Amendment, then, the Zoning Map should be
updated accordingly. No Public Hearing required.
After all this in house business is taken care of, then, the 10 Chaparral property owner
should be able to submit a development application which accommodates the relocation
of the trail, the drainage issues and all the other stuff that an Applicant has to deal with.
As recommended, this Application is faulty enough to deserve denial on all
counts.
This is not just an equestrian issue. This not even just a trails issue. Show up tonight
and give the City Council some guts to stand up to Staff's manipulation of our
community's approved goals.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
Subject: Re: Fwd: staff Report for 10 Chaparral
Date: 7/20/2015 7:4022 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
From: 11)Tsotino(ityahoo.com
To: momoij go D n1ail.com, C,MQneil i1)aol.com, raymadelimcr? mail.com<clip_image001.gif>SunshineRPV(r aol.com, p��pra.presidentrcpmail.com
Hello All
The owner at #10 Chaparral has made it clear to City that he will not
allow any public use across his property to access the easement at #7
Chaparral. So Kim confirmed to me today that she is not misleading
anyone when she says that connection is GONE! Some letters to her
complained about the trail access loss, but many letters came in as
'late correspondence' opposing the development.
Can we please all agree that we should not pursue this (trail access)
with City Council, as Chaparral Lane is a private street. Why would
City Council advocate for public use on a private street? They would
not. And, I think the residents would not want the public using their
2
private street! Kind of leaves them between a rock and a hard place,
doesn't it? Oppose the development at #10, which will be a lengthy
construction project or oppose public trail use via their private street,
which could be in perpetuity?
We can argue all day about trails and access and historical use, but all
of this is moot because the City failed all of us in the 'Q' District and,
in my opinion, we continue to be the most under -represented group in
the City!
See you all tomorrow night.
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
3
From:
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:55 AM
To:
pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; cmoneil@aol.com;
raymadelin@gmail.com; pvpra.president@gmail.com
Cc:
CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Idb910@juno.com; radlsmith@cox.net; rjvaleri@cox.net;
cprotem73@verizon.net; info@pvpwatch.com; EZStevens@cox.net;
vlocicero@hotmail.com; greg@groystonlaw.com; vdogregg@aol.com;
jeanlongacre@aol.com; troy@eworld-media.com; susanmswank@gmail.com;
lynn.swank@cox.net; dlfriedson@gmail.com; verikon@cox.net; sharkbait12345
@aol.com; craigwhited@cox.net
Subject:
Tonight is the night to make a difference. 10 Caparral is only the tip of the i
Hi all,
Chaparral Lane is not in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) nor the RPV General Plan as a publicly
accessible trail. I agree with Madeline that the equestrian community should not lobby the City Council to
make it so. However, the trail connection between the trail easement at #7 Chaparral Lane and Bronco Drive, is
in the General Plan, CTP and it is an existing trail.
What this Application is missing is the design for how the trail connection can be rerouted to accommodate the
property owner's desire to build a house where the trail is now. This is not a situation where he gets to say "No
thanks". It is Staff's responsibility to facilitate the design of an "intermediate" / TYPE 5 trail corridor prior to
deciding where any easements should/could be. Think of it this way. The trail connection stays. If the
property owner chooses not to offer an easement then the property owner does not get to transfer liability to the
City. There is no point in the City taking on additional liability if there is no usable trail.
Staff has had several years to figure out how to keep this open space or just the trail connection as a community
amenity. The name Martingale Trailhead Park has been moved to another location. The proposed Peter C.
Gardiner Park site was not pursued when this property was in foreclosure. We The People are getting screwed,
again, by a Community Development Staff which has decided to implement changes to the RPV General Plan
and Land Use Map without bothering to bring these changes before the City Council in a Public Hearing.
Consider the word "obfuscation". This project is being brought before the City Council and the public as three
items fused into one. I contend that this should be two separate topics.
The General Plan Amendment part proposes shifting a line on the Land Use Map. When the City's Geology
Consultant states, in writing, that some specific portion of the property now know as 10 Chaparral and some
specific portions of some adjacent properties are now known not to be a "Hazard", Staff should bring this
specific Amendment before the Council in a Public Hearing.
If and when the Council adopts such an Amendment, then, the Zoning Map should be updated accordingly. No
Public Hearing required.
After all this in house business is taken care of, then, the 10 Chaparral property owner should be able to submit
a development application which accommodates the relocation of the trail, the drainage issues and all the other
stuff that an Applicant has to deal with.
As recommended, this Application is faulty enough to deserve denial on all counts.
This is not just an equestrian issue. This not even just a trails issue. Show up tonight and give the City Council
some guts to stand up to Staff's manipulation of our community's approved goals.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
Subject: Re: Fwd: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
Date: 7/20/2015 7:40:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
From: pvvpasofino c yahoo.com
To:
momofyagoLa gmail.com, CMOneil@aol.com, raymadelin(a)gmailxom, SunshineRPV.g aol.com, pvpra.president cr�,amail.com
Hello Al
The owner at #10 Chaparral has made it clear to City that he will not allow any public
use across his property to access the easement at #7 Chaparral. So Kim confirmed to
me today that she is not misleading anyone when she says that connection is
GONE! Some letters to her complained about the trail access loss, but many letters
came in as 'late correspondence' opposing the development.
Can we please all agree that we should not pursue this (trail access) with City Council,
as Chaparral Lane is a private street. Why would City Council advocate for public use on
a private street? They would not. And, I think the residents would not want the public
using their private street! Kind of leaves them between a rock and a hard place, doesn't
it? Oppose the development at #10, which will be a lengthy construction project or
oppose public trail use via their private street, which could be in perpetuity?
We can argue all day about trails and access and historical use, but all of this is moot
because the City failed all of us in the 'Q' District and, in my opinion, we continue to be
the most under -represented group in the City!
See you all tomorrow night.
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
2
From:
So Kim
Sent:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:16 AM
To:
Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Cc:
Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas
Subject:
FW: There is something rotten in the City of RPV
Hi Carla,
Below is late correspondence for 10 Chaparral.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
w v)KKlgvc�c�v_
(310) 544-5222
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:15 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: There is something rotten in the City of RPV
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: 7/20/2015 6:06 PM
To: momofyago@gmail.com
Cc: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; rjvaleri@cox.net; radlsmith@cox.net; PC; dlfriedson@gmail.com; Idb910@iuno.com; Doug
Willmore
Subject: There is something rotten in the City of RPV
Hi Sharon,
You wrote: I hate the way staff makes false and misleading statements and essentially advocates for applicants. Disgusting.
You and I certainly agree on this point. The big challenge is how do we get the City Council or even the City
Manager to make them stop? Joel Rojas has his people trained as shall we say "one trick ponies". He did not
earn the title of King of Obfuscation by being "transparent". ...S 310-377-8761
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:25 AM
To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Subject: FW: 10 Chaparral Lane - comments in opposition to proposal
Attachments: Sundstrom_Attachments_10_Chaparral_Lane.pdf
Late Correspondence for 10 Chaparral.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
vy, yr vca. ov
(310) 544-5222
From: David A. Sundstrom [mailto:dasundstrom@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:17 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 10 Chaparral Lane - comments in opposition to proposal
Ms. So Kim
Senior Planner
Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
RE: 10 Chaparral Lane
Ms. So Kim:
I have been reviewing the City Council package for Tuesday, July 21 and have several concerns:
1) The proposed project will result in significant loss of habitat, and the Staff Report does not address the
mitigation methodology or the cost of such mitigation.
2) The proposal will result in obliteration of two access trails, but there is no financial plan for replacement,
and it is inappropriate to subsidize the Applicant by having the City pay for the replacement trails.
3) The Staff Report recommends approval of four valuable development entitlements, without getting any
entitlements in return, except for ambiguous and unenforceable language.
4) The proposed project calls for excavation of 7,000 cubic yards of earth, on a steep slope that is currently
classified as a Hazard Zone. In all likelihood, much of the 7,000 cubic yards will end up spilling downhill,
obliterating even more habitat and threatening a creek bed. The Applicant's Geotechnical Report is silent on
this issue.
�/ I
5) The proposed project is oversized and completely inappropriate for George F. Canyon, and will have a
significant impact on the aesthetics of the canyon.
Further discussion of the above five points:
1) I am concerned about the certain loss of significant amounts of pristine native habitat that will result from
the proposed project, based on the submitted plans for excavation and recompaction of soil, and from the
massive Fuel Modification Zone that will be required by the fire authorities. Neither the staff report, the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, nor the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) provide an
assessment of the total projected loss of habitat.
The MMP specifies several vague mitigation measures in regards to Biological Resources. Item B-3 (on page
marked 37) states that "Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project pursuant to
the City's NCCP."
Despite the reference to the NCCP, it does not appear that the relevant portion of the NCCP was included in the
City Council package. If the relevant portion is included, please indicate the location via return e-mail.
If the relevant portion was omitted from the package, please send the document or provide a link so I can
download the document from the City's website.
Typically, there is a requirement of 3:1 replacement, since it is very difficult to duplicate the habitat value of
pristine Coastal Sage Scrub with man-made habitat elsewhere. While the mitigation cost per acre varies,
depending on site conditions and the required outcomes, a good mid-range estimate would be $50,000 per
acre. Assuming one acre of lost habitat at a ratio of 3:1 replacement, the City would be subsidizing the property
owner in the approximate amount of $150,000.
Instead of this inappropriate subsidy, I recommend that the City Council require the property owner to post a
bond in the amount of $150,000. Actual costs could be researched and billed to the property owner as a
condition of approval.
2) As you know, the project would result in the loss of two existing trails:
* The "Bronco Trail" would be severed, eliminating access from George F. Canyon to Bronco Drive, and in
turn, to the trail system in Rolling Hills Estates
* The "Chaparral Trail" would be severed, eliminating access from George F. Canyon to Chaparral Drive, and
in turn, to the trail system in Rolling Hills Estates
If both trails are severed, the link between George F. Canyon and Lower Willow Springs Trail in Rolling Hills
Estates is lost, with no financial plan for replacement of the lost trails. Who would pay for 200 yards of new
trail? If not the property owner, why should the City or the state's Resource Agencies subsidize the property
owner?
3) You are asking the City Council to approve a set of four entitlements that benefit the property owner, but the
property owner is not granting any entitlements to the City. Both your Staff Report and several comment letters
make note of the severed trail access, and yet there is only an abstract reference to future trail development in
your Staff Report. Therefore, it appears the community is suffering the loss of trail access as a consequence of
the proposed project, but there is no current provision for replacement trail access. In fact, the Staff Report (see
page 6) washes away this issue with the following ambiguous and unenforceable language:
- beginning of excerpt -
"As a result, while the previous 2012 project included a dedication of a small trail easement to re-route the
existing pathway from Chaparral Lane to the trail in RHE, the current proposal no longer includes said trail
easement dedication. The applicant does not want to dedicate or create an easement from Chaparral Lane as
this will allow the public to access his driveway and portions of his private yard area. As the CTP (the City's
conceptual trails plan) does not call for a trail connection to Chaparral Lane and there is no legal easement over
the subject property for public use, Staff finds the applicant's approach to be reasonable and intends to work
with him to identify and obtain the necessary easements for the future implementation of the conceptual Bronco
and Georgette Canyon trails. Staff plans to consult with the City's trail consultant for the most feasible
locations of the future implementation of the aforementioned conceptual trails and work with the applicant to
have easements recorded prior to Building Permit issuance."
- end of excerpt -
In summary, the Staff Report oversteps by making significant concessions to the Applicant, but does not ask for
a trail easement dedication in exchange.
Also, please note that the City's conceptual trails plan is now 22 years old (September 1993), does not
accurately reflect today's thinking on land conservation and trail access issues, has insufficient detail for George
F. Canyon, and should not be relied on as a planning tool for such a keystone property.
4) The proposed project calls for excavation of 7,000 cubic yards of earth, in order to properly re -compact the
building pad, yet there is no place to store 7,000 cubic yards of earth on site, given the steep slope that is
currently classified as a Hazard Zone. In all likelihood, much of the 7,000 cubic yards will end up spilling
downhill, obliterating even more habitat and threatening a creek bed. The Applicant's Geotechnical Report
dated November 21, 2014 does not address this issue. Please see pages 18-19 of the report (excerpted here as
Attachment 1).
5) The proposed project is oversized and completely inappropriate for George F. Canyon, and will have a
significant impact on the neighborhood viewscape and the natural resources of the canyon. I do not agree with
Initial Study, specifically the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Section 1 regarding Aesthetics (excerpted
here as Attachment 2).
Also, please see attached photos:
Attachment 3 - Proposed construction site from Bronco Trail, before flag structure (August 29, 2014)
Attachment 4 - Proposed construction site from Bronco Trail, with flag structure (July 18, 2015)
Attachment 5 - Proposed construction site at grade, showing obliteration of trails (July 18, 2015)
Attachment 6 - Proposed construction site from George F. Canyon (July 18, 2015)
These pictures demonstrate the significant impact on the neighborhood viewscape and the natural resources of
the canyon.
In summary, I recommend that the City Council deny the project. Alternatively, I recommend that the City
Council delay approval of the project until the full impact of habitat loss is understood, appropriate mitigation
measures are specified, funding is in place, and a trail easement dedication is signed by both parties.
Best regards,
David Sundstrom
Conservation Committee, South Coast Chapter
California Native Plant Society
(Resident of Rancho Palos Verdes)
place provided they are filled with concrete. No filled line should be permitted
closer than 2 feet from the bottom of future footings. Local ordinances relative to
abandonment of underground utilities, if more restrictive, will supersede the
above minimum requirements.
6.2 SITE GRADING
6.2.1 Remedial Grading
Remedial grading to create an approved compacted fill pad consists of removing
and re -compacting the approximately 12- to 15- of uncertified fill, colluvium, and
any other deleterious material identified during over excavation. Furthermore,
excavation shall penetrate into the layer of weathered bedrock a minimum of 5
feet and a minimum of 5 feet below proposed foundations, whichever is deeper.
The placement of fill shall be benched into the bedrock progressively up the
slope with a keyway and fitted with a keyway and bench drains, as necessary. It
is recommended that excavated soils be replaced with properly compacted fill
such that the footings and slabs are supported on an improved layer of approved
compacted fill.
Soils should be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction
above optimum moisture content for clayey soils and near optimum moisture
content for granular soils. Phasing and the depth of overexcavation should be
reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction. Any subsurface
obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material encountered
during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the
Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as
recommended. Exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the
Geotechnical consultant or his representative.
6.2.2 Temporary Excavation Procedures
Excavations of site soils 4 feet or deeper should be temporarily shored or sloped
in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements:
In areas where excavations deeper than 4 feet are not adjacent to existing
structures or public right-of-ways, sloping procedures may be utilized for
temporary excavations. It is recommended that temporary slopes in site soils be
graded no steeper than 1:1 (H:V), or shallower based on observed conditions
during construction, for excavations up to 10 feet in depth. Temporary slopes in
site bedrock (with no adverse structural orientation) may graded no steeper than
3/4:1 (H:V), or shallower based on observed conditions during construction, for
excavations up to 10 feet in depth. Temporary slopes for any layered soil and/or
bedrock conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer at the time
of grading. The above temporary slope criteria are based on level soil conditions
behind temporary slopes with no surcharge loading (structures, traffic) within a
lateral distance behind the top of slope equivalent to the slope height.
Chen Residence November 21, 2014
14-1876 In Page 18
HAMILTON Attachment 1
N A�sociatn Page 1 of 2 84
It is recommended that excavated soils be placed a minimum lateral distance
from top of slope equal to the height of slope. A minimum setback distance
equivalent to the slope height should be maintained between the top of slope and
heavy excavating/grading equipment.
Soil conditions should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant as excavation
progresses to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary cut slope
design will be dependent upon the soil conditions encountered, construction
procedures and schedule.
6.2.3 Imported Soils
Any imported soil required to complete grading operations may consist of similar
site soils (for certain uses approved by the geotechnical engineer), or material
which exhibits an expansion index less than 20 (for structural retaining wall
backfill) when tested in accordance with ASTM D4829 Test Procedures, and
should be free of debris, particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension,
organic matter or other deleterious materials, and should be approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. Potential import material should
be identified and sampled by the Geotechnical Consultant at least 72 hours prior
to planned importation to the site.
6.2.4 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements
Existing site soils, unless indicated otherwise, are considered suitable for re -use
during site grading, provided they are free of debris, particles greater than 4
inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other deleterious materials, and
are to a suitable moisture condition to permit achieving the required compaction.
On-site and import granular materials approved for use should be placed in
horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 -inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to
near optimum moisture contents for granular soils, and compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the latest edition of
ASTM Test Method D1557.
6.2.5 Tests and Observations
Our office should be contacted for a site pre -grading meeting prior to beginning
grading. All grading, compaction, and backfill operations should be performed
under the observation of and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant's field
representative. Field tests should be taken in accordance with this report and
local ordinances.
The depth of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant
during the actual construction. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural
elements, and unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be
immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper
exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Exposed excavation
bottoms should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant or his
representative. Imported fill soils should be tested as necessary for evaluating
Chen ResidenceNovember 21, 2014
I
14-1876 M - -_
- Page 19 HAMILTON Attachment 1
& Associates
Paae2of2
FOOR
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than No
Sources
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic
1
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historical
1
buildings, within a state scenic
hi hwa s?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
1,8
�1
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
1,8
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
The proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning map designations will not have an
impact to existing scenic resources. The proposed boundary line relocation merely allows for a residential
development occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. The
future development of a single-family residence on the new building pad area as a result of the proposed
land use and zoning boundary line relocation will have less of a visual impact than the hillside area where
the construction is currently allowed by -right as the hillside character of the lot will be preserved.
Additionally, developing on the new building pad area may cause view impairment from the viewing areas of
the properties located in the easterly direction. However, the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood
compatibility and view analysis for any new residential projects to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic and
view effects, and any structure proposed on the site would have to obtain permit approval complying with the
Municipal Code, including lighting. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the
proposal.
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
2
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Gov't Code section 5104(g))?
Attachment 2
17
got
ALA.
i
1aP! 1
AI
°•• '-_ -_,''mow.. i � .� ' 4
Wl W-
r•%y '
Y V •'
1p
'4y�
i
f "
Ir
f a 'TA '
x_
From: Ray Madeline <raymadelin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:30 AM
To: CC
Subject: What is going on re: 10 Chaparrel - threats now?
I have heard from several sources now that Mr Chen the property developer is threatening the city. Under I
have copied a comment from an RPV resident who met with So Kim
"As I understood from So Kim yesterday, Mr. Chen has made it very clear he wants his
privacy and threatens to withdraw his granting easements on the upper/lower portion of
his property, if the City presses for this connection! "
The City of RPV need to protect the interests of the RPV residents regarding access to the Nature Trail which
has always been accessed through this land.
Prior to Mr Chen, with development applications on this property, access to this trail always remained as a
priority before any development was discussed.
Who has rewritten the rules and how is Mr Chen being allowed to threaten the City.
What he is 'granting' is of no use or interest to RPV residents who have been using this access for years. All it
is doing is fogging the issue.
Ray Van Dinther
From: Ray Madeline <raymadelin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:31 AM
To: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Cc: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; cmoneil@aol.com;
pvpra.president@gmaiLcom; CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Idb910@juno.com;
radlsmith@cox.net; rjvaleri@cox.net; cprotem73@verizon.net; info@pvpwatch.com;
EZStevens@cox.net; vlocicero@hotmail.com; greg@groystonlaw.com;
vdogregg@aol.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; troy@eworld-media.com;
susanmswank@gmail.com; lynn.swank@cox.net; dlfriedson@gmaiLcom;
verikon@cox.net; sharkbait12345@aol.com; craigwhited@cox.net
Subject: Re: Tonight is the night to make a difference. 10 Caparral is only the tip of the i
The City of RPV need to protect the interests of the RPV residents regarding access to the Nature Trail which
has always been accessed through this land.
Prior to Mr Chen, with development applications on this property, access to this trail always remained as a
priority before any development was discussed.
Who has rewritten the rules and how is Mr Chen being allowed to threaten the City.
What he is 'granting' is of no use or interest to RPV residents who have been using this access for years. All it
is doing is fogging the issue.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Ray <raymadelinggmail.com> wrote:
I absolutely agree. How dare mr Chen threaten the city. If he is and does there is more to this than meets the
eye.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 21, 2015, at 9:54 AM, SunshineRPV a,aolcom wrote:
Hi all,
Chaparral Lane is not in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) nor the RPV General Plan as a
publicly accessible trail. I agree with Madeline that the equestrian community should not lobby
the City Council to make it so. However, the trail connection between the trail easement at #7
Chaparral Lane and Bronco Drive, is in the General Plan, CTP and it is an existing trail.
What this Application is missing is the design for how the trail connection can be rerouted to
accommodate the property owner's desire to build a house where the trail is now. This is not a
situation where he gets to say "No thanks". It is Staff's responsibility to facilitate the design of
an "intermediate" / TYPE 5 trail corridor prior to deciding where any easements should/could
be. Think of it this way. The trail connection stays. If the property owner chooses not to offer
an easement then the property owner does not get to transfer liability to the City. There is no
point in the City taking on additional liability if there is no usable trail.
Staff has had several years to figure out how to keep this open space or just the trail connection
as a community amenity. The name Martingale Trailhead Park has been moved to another
1 4.
location. The proposed Peter C. Gardiner Park site was not pursued when this property was in
foreclosure. We The People are getting screwed, again, by a Community Development Staff
which has decided to implement changes to the RPV General Plan and Land Use Map without
bothering to bring these changes before the City Council in a Public Hearing.
Consider the word "obfuscation". This project is being brought before the City Council and the
public as three items fused into one. I contend that this should be two separate topics.
The General Plan Amendment part proposes shifting a line on the Land Use Map. When the
City's Geology Consultant states, in writing, that some specific portion of the property now
know as 10 Chaparral and some specific portions of some adjacent properties are now known
not to be a "Hazard", Staff should bring this specific Amendment before the Council in a Public
Hearing.
If and when the Council adopts such an Amendment, then, the Zoning Map should be updated
accordingly. No Public Hearing required.
After all this in house business is taken care of, then, the 10 Chaparral property owner should be
able to submit a development application which accommodates the relocation of the trail, the
drainage issues and all the other stuff that an Applicant has to deal with.
As recommended, this Application is faulty enough to deserve denial on all
counts.
This is not just an equestrian issue. This not even just a trails issue. Show up tonight and give
the City Council some guts to stand up to Staff's manipulation of our community's approved
goals.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
Subject: Re: Fwd: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
Date. 7/20/2015 7:40:22 P.M, Pacific Daylight Time
From: pvpasofino@vahoo.com
Reply To:
To: momofyago(i
leaves them between a rock and a hard place, doesn't it? Oppose the
development at #10, which will be a lengthy construction project or oppose
public trail use via their private street, which could be in perpetuity?
We can argue all day about trails and access and historical use, but all of
this is moot because the City failed all of us in the 'Q' District and, in my
opinion, we continue to be the most under -represented group in the City!
See you all tomorrow night.
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
Preview my multi media books
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKOe5b-W7CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWWaNkrL 8M
WWW.GOLDENDOLPHINBOOKS.COM
3
From: ebryan377 <ebryan377@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 2:12 PM
To: egstrnn@cox.net; CC
Subject: RE: Letter re: 10 Chaparral Lane
I like it. Erin
Scnt. Erom trig- Verizon Wireless 4G L� '."twi-tphorle
-------- Original message --------
From: egstrnn@cox.net
Date: 07/21/2015 11:55 AM (GMT -08:00)
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Subject: Letter re: 10 Chaparral Lane
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached (with text pasted below) please find a letter from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association
regarding Public Hearing item #4 on tonight's city council agenda.
July 21, 2015
Dear Mayor Knight and Members of the City Council,
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association is deeply concerned about the ramifications of this project
if approved as proposed. This project will result in the permanent and irreversible loss of the existing, long
established trail that currently traverses a portion of 10 Chaparral, and which trail is, and has been for decades, a
vital link for equestrians and hikers on the east side of the Hill to the George F Canyon trail and the trail
network in Rolling Hills Estates.
Mr. Chen was fully aware of the fact that a relatively small portion of his property had been used for decades as
a trail before he purchased the property. It is appropriate to condition approval of his development on the re-
routing of the trailhead onto the most easterly portion of Mr. Chen's lot so that the trail can continue to be
utilized without any material interference with the proposed project.
The PVPHA opposes the development as proposed and asks that you uphold the goals of the City to preserve
trails and require that easements be granted on the applicant's property not only as set forth in the staff report
(along the north, south and westerly portions of the property) for future implementation of the Bronco and
Georgette trails (which implementation may never come to pass), but also for the retention of the very real,
active and in use trail that connects east side residents to the George F Canyon and nature preserve in RHE on
the easterly portion of the property.
Very truly yours,
CHARLENE O'NEIL
President
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
To Whom It May Concern:
egstrnn@cox.net
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:56 AM
CC
Letter re: 10 Chaparral Lane
10Chaparra121July2015jpeg
Attached (with text pasted below) please find a letter from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association regarding
Public Hearing item #4 on tonight's city council agenda.
July 21, 2015
Dear Mayor Knight and Members of the City Council,
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association is deeply concerned about the ramifications of this project if
approved as proposed. This project will result in the permanent and irreversible loss of the existing, long established trail
that currently traverses a portion of 10 Chaparral, and which trail is, and has been for decades, a vital link for
equestrians and hikers on the east side of the Hill to the George F Canyon trail and the trail network in Rolling Hills
Estates.
Mr. Chen was fully aware of the fact that a relatively small portion of his property had been used for decades as a trail
before he purchased the property. It is appropriate to condition approval of his development on the re-routing of the
trailhead onto the most easterly portion of Mr. Chen's lot so that the trail can continue to be utilized without any
material interference with the proposed project.
The PVPHA opposes the development as proposed and asks that you uphold the goals of the City to preserve trails and
require that easements be granted on the applicant's property not only as set forth in the staff report (along the north,
south and westerly portions of the property) for future implementation of the Bronco and Georgette trails (which
implementation may never come to pass), but also for the retention of the very real, active and in use trail that connects
east side residents to the George F Canyon and nature preserve in RHE on the easterly portion of the property.
Very truly yours,
CHARLENE O'NEIL
President
q.
July 21, t1
Dear •r Knight and Members of s
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association is deeply concerned about
the ramifications of this project if approved as proposed. This project will result in
the permanent and irreversible loss of the existing, long established trail that
currently traverses a portion of 10 Chaparral, and which trail is, and has been for
decades, a vital link for equestrians and hikers on the east side of the Milt to the
George F Canyon trail and the trail network in Rolling Hills Estates.
Mr. Chea was Billy aware of the fact that a relatively small portion of his property
had been used for decades as a trail before he purchased the property. It is
appropriate to condition approval of his development on the re-routing of the
trailhead onto the most easterly portion of lir. Chen's lot so that the trail can
continue to be utilized without any material interference with the proposed
project.
The PVPHA opposes the development as proposed and asks that you uphold the
goals of the City to preserve trails and require that easements be granted on the
applicant's property not only as set forth in the staff report (alone the north, south
and westerly portions of the property) for future implementation of the Bronco
and Georgette trails (which implementation may never come to pass), but also
for the retention of the very real, active and in use trail that connects east side
residents to the George F Canyon and nature preserve in RHE on the easterly
portion of the property.
Very truly yours,
CHARLENE OWEtL
President
From: E Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:27 PM
To: CC
Subject: Enhancing parks and open space operations and maintenance
Mayor Knight, Mayor ProTem Brooks, and Councilmembers Campbell, Duhovic, and Misetich,
I was elated to see that City staff has so promptly come up with a plan to address some of the problems we are seeing
(and reporting) at our parks, beaches and preserve lands. While I am generally supportive, I want to bring to your
attention some concerns I have and some suggestions for considering alternative approaches
Trash Collection
Eliminating trash pick up at hard to reach places such as our beaches is a terrible idea. These are some of the most
problematic areas and trash in these areas currently sits for days and weeks, unsightly, pecked at by wildlife, and often
washed into the sea by the tides. Staff's proposal will exacerbate the problem. Staff proposes the adoption of a public
outreach process to encourage a "pack it in, pack it out" mentality. If only it were so simple. It is possible that with
increased staffing in the right places, this could work, but we have seen this "public outreach" process fail time and time
again. Unless you propose to have a full-time staff person (overtime, actually, during summer months) at remote
locations such as Sacred Cove (aka Smuggler's Cove), I foresee an increase in trash left behind and degradation of our
beach and ocean environment. (Note that the proposal for enhanced staffing at Abalone Cove seems to focus on the
Shoreline Park area and being available to deal with parking payment issues, not roaming other more remote areas.)
We need to "think outside the box" and find other solutions. Here is one possibility:
When I served on the committee that provided input regarding Abalone Cove Shoreline Park improvements, I raised the
concern regarding trash pickup at the park. Committee members shared the concern that trails not be the width of
roads. So, how were trash trucks going to access trash cans for removal? I asked about the possibility of using a smaller
motorized vehicle designed for such purpose. That was outside of the realm of our work at the time, so the question went
unaddressed.
It seems to me that it is time for the City to consider purchasing equipment to pick up trash from trash cans on our trails
and beaches. We should analyze whether it would be less expensive if trash pickup at these remote locations were done
by City staff, instead of by a private waste hauling company. Perhaps, with the right equipment, City staff could deliver
trash to a central location to later be collected by a contracted waste hauling company. Alternatively, perhaps there is a
waste hauler who has experience in remote areas. Marina is doing a terrible job in remote areas.
Graffiti Removal
With the adoption of the Volunteer Trail Watch program, reports of graffiti have been on the rise, not only within the
Preserve, which is the program's focus, but in parks, on roadways, and on beaches, because we (the VTW
members) pass through these areas on "watch". Thus, we are reporting more, not only to PVPLC but to the City as
well. Perhaps City staff is receiving more reports of graffiti from others also. What is the status of the Sheriff program for
Volunteers on Patrol in our City? Is that a possibility for addressing graffiti? I am unfamiliar with how the City of Torrance
program works to "seek out" graffiti and remove it before it is reported, so Staff's recommendation in this case may be the
best we can do. I am glad the recommendation was not limited to "public outreach".
Recreation and Parks Staffing Enhancement
In general, I support the proposal. It is costly and there appears to be some overlap between the recommendations for
graffiti removal and for staff enhancement to address trash collection and graffiti removal. There also didn't seem to be
much focus on staff presence to address safety issues, but perhaps that is assumed to be a staff responsibility. In any
case, there is no question that a greater presence is necessary to both educate the public and to provide a presence
that the public perceives as increasing the likelihood that they will be cited if they violate city ordinances.
My primary concern with the staff enhancement recommendation is at Abalone Cove. The staff focus at this location --a
City park, beach, and preserve --needs to go beyond the pay stations and addressing payment issues. If the latter is their
charge, they won't roam far from the payment station and will do little to elevate the public's behavior or to increase the
perception that the City enforces its ordinances.
Sincerely,
Eva Cicoria
CITY OFRAf ICHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 20, 2015
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, July 21, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Email exchange between Col. Stephen E. Katz and Deputy
City Manager Petru
K Emails from: Jean Longacre; pvpprof@gmail.com
2 Email exchange between: Dr. Cassie Jones and Senior
Planner Mikhail; Dr. Cassie Jones and City Attorney Lynch
4 Emails from: Damon Swank; Ray Van Dinther; Sunshine;
Sandy Valeri; Email exchange between Sharon Yarber and
Senior Planner Kim
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W: AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150721 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: Carolynn Petru
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:28 AM
To: Steve Katz
Cc: Pat Carroll; CC
Subject: RE: Skateboards
Attachments: 20150721 Ord. No. 571 - Skateboard Ordinance Banning Bombing.pdf
Dear Col. Katz —
Thank you for your emaill At last City Council meeting, Ordinance No. 571 was introduced to curb the dangerous
practice of "bombing" or speed skateboarding on all of our public streets. The Council decided not to adopt the
resolution that would have added additional streets to the current list of streets where skateboarding, in any form, is
prohibited. The City Council decided, with input from the Lomita Sheriff's Station, to implement the anti -bombing
ordinance city-wide and see if a combination of the new law and enforcement can address this dangerous practice in our
community. A copy of the ordinance is attached for your information. After implementation, the effectiveness of the
new anti -bombing law will be assessed and the City Council can decide whether to revisit the other provisions of the
Municipal Code.
I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Carolynn Petru
Deputy City Manager
L. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5203
cgro!yITnn r vc�. ov
www; r vc . v
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
AND IF I AM IN YOUR CONTACTS, SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM CAROLYNN(cRPV.COM TO CAROLYNN RPVCA.GOV. THANK
YOU!
From: Steve Katz [mailto:stevekatz74@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 4:16 PM
To: CC; Pat Carroll
Subject: Skateboards
If it's not too late, how about adding Seaglen
Drive to the list of streets that ban skateboards.
I.
On 18 July (Sat) at 1:30pm, four male teenagers skated
down the center of the street. Because there were cars
parked on both sides, it was very difficult to evade them.
This was totally unexpected, because this is a dead end
street, & it's a long slog back up. But, they are doing it, it
is dangerous, and needs to be prohibited & enforced.
Thank you for your service to our city.
Stephen E. Katz,
Col, USAF ret.
3553 Seaglen Dr.
resident since 1972
ORDINANCE NO. 571
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
AMENDING SECTION 12.16.120 OF TITLE 12 OF CHAPTER 12.16
OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO
RESTRICT THE USE OF SKATEBOARDS ON CITY ROADWAYS
AND TO CURB THE DANGEROUS PRACTICE OF "BOMBING."
WHEREAS, skateboarders have been fatally injured while engaging in "bombing,"
a practice whereby skateboarders ride down roadways at excessive speeds, sometimes
obstructing traffic and failing to yield at stop signs; and
WHEREAS, bombing is a popular activity on steep hills because skateboarders
can travel for several miles with little or no effort, and can reach speeds in excess of 40
miles per hour; and
WHEREAS, bombing not only poses a significant danger to those engaging in this
activity, it also endangers the lives and property of others who use City streets, and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 21967 allows a local authority tc
adopt an ordinance prohibiting or restricting the use of skateboards on highways,
sidewalks, or roadways;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 12.16.120 of Chapter 12.16 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (proposed additions are
highlighted):
"A. No person shall, and it shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to,
operate, ride, propel, or coast any skateboard or scooter, or utilize roller skates,
inline skates or any similar unmotorized wheeled device having wheels less than
six inches in diameter, upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or roadway within
the city, where such public street, sidewalk, alley, or way is designated by
resolution of the city council as closed to such activities and where notice of such
prohibition has been posted and is clearly visible in the immediate vicinity where
such activity is prohibited."
"B. No person shall, and it shall constitute a public nuisance for any person to,
operate, ride, propel, or coast any skateboard or scooter, or utilize roller skates,
inline skates or any similar motorized or unmotorized wheeled device having
wheels less than six inches in diameter, upon any public park or other public
property within any zone in the city, where such public property is designated by
resolution of the city council as closed to such activities and where notice of such
prohibition has been posted and is clearly visible at a minimum of two entrances
to the prohibited area or in the immediate vicinity of the area where such activity is
prohibited."
-1-
1847347v2
"C. The notices required by subsections A and B of this section shall be in
substantially the following form:
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12.16.120 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, NO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES,
INLINE SKATES, OR SCOOTERS ARE PERMITTED."
"D. This section shall not apply to persons participating in any city -sponsored
program, event or class in which use of the self -powered wheeled devices
described herein are specifically authorized, permitted or required."
"E. Skateboarding on public property. Persons riding on skateboards on public
roadways, public sidewalks, public parking lots and other public property shall
comply with the following requirements and restrictions:
1. Skateboarding in the upright position. Persons riding on
skateboards shall do so only in the upright, standing position. Using, pushing,
propelling or riding on a skateboard in a sitting, prone, kneeling or lying position
is prohibited.
2. Traffic controls. Persons riding on skateboards on public roadways
shall obey all speed limits, stop signs, signal lights, and other traffic controls that
govern the use of the public rights-of-way.
3. Yielding to traffic in same direction. Persons riding on skateboards
on public roadways shall ride close to the far -right edge of the roadway, and shall
yield to vehicles approaching from the rear by moving to the right curb or
shoulder of the roadway.
4. Uncontrolled intersections. When approaching an uncontrolled
intersection, persons riding skateboards on public roadways or public sidewalks
shall dismount from the skateboard and walk across the intersection taking due
care to yield to vehicles that are so near as to present a hazard.
5. Prudent Operation. It shall constitute a public nuisance for any
person to ride or propel a skateboard upon a roadway at a speed greater than is,
or in a manner other than is, reasonable or prudent having due regard for
weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the grade, surface and width of, the
roadway, and in no event at a speed or in a manner that demonstrates a wanton
disregard for the safety of other persons or property.
6. Attaching to or towing by vehicle. A person operating a skateboard
shall not attach or "skitch" the same or himself or herself to any motor vehicle on
the roadway. In addition, a person shall not knowingly drive a motor vehicle that
is towing a person riding upon a skateboard."
"F. Penalty for violations. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or fail to
comply with the provisions of this section. Any person violating the provisions of this
-2-
section shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to fines, as established by the
City Council."
Section 2. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase of this Ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any
part thereof. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby declares that it
would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the
passage of this ordinance and shall cause same to be posted pursuant to state law within
fifteen (15) days after its passage, and this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30)
days after its passage.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 21st day of July, 2015
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES)
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 571 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes held on July 7, 2015, and was duly and regularly adopted by the
City Council at a regular meeting held on July 21, 2015, and that the same was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
-3-
City Clerk
From: jeanlongacre@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 7:49 PM
To: CC
Subject: Parking Restrictions at Del Cerro, Island View and Crenshaw ROW
Dear City Council,
In regards to the Consent Calendar, Item K, parking restrictions at Del Cerro, Island View and the Crenshaw ROW.
Has staff considered any positive actions? The Crenshaw ROW is 80 feet wide in that area. Could encroachments be
removed and the full width be used to make parking there safer? Instead of no parking signs, could we try signs reminding
hikers to be quiet and not disturb the neighbors? Could we ask organizations not to have advertised group hikes in that
area? In the Sensory Environment section of the General Plan, Policy #6 is "Develop and maintain, in conjunction with
appropriate agencies, public access to paths and trail networks for the enjoyment of related views. I feel this area is a
spectacular view area and should be enjoyed by the public.
Over the years, I feel that the Del Cerro and Island View areas have received preferential treatment from our City. When
the homes around Del Cerro were built, some homes were allowed to use our parkland (which has Federal restrictions)
for their driveways. Then when Island View was developed there was a bluff top trail (as shown in the General Plan).
However, when the maps were approved by Council, the topo lines were not shown and the trail was placed over the
edge of the cliff. Then there was a trail along Crest in front of Island View and we were told that those walking along Crest
would be able to view the ocean and Catalina. After going through the democratic process, when staff submitted the map
to the State, the wording was changed from trail easement to landscaping easement. A berm and hedges were put in
place and now those walking on Crest cannot see the ocean. The City also relinquished Whitney Collins Drive so Island
View residents did not need to be bothered with through traffic (partly in exchange for the trails we did not get). Then for
years, the Crenshaw ROW was blocked off to hikers and equestrians because a resident on Burrell Drive was unhappy.
Now we have a situation where hundreds of people (from the hill and beyond) have given millions of dollar and grant
money has been secured to make a beautiful nature preserve and now we are restricting the parking so those who are
fortunate enough to have the view daily are not inconvenienced by the public who wishes to enjoy it on weekends. Surely
we can do better!
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
From: Carla Morreale
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:40 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka
Subject: FW: Del Cerro Park unlawful parking, impeding of safety and use on July 16, 2015
Attachments: P1080812.JPG; P1080814.JPG; P1080815.JPG
Carla Morreale, CMC, City Clerk
("'4TY OF L RANC 410
City Clerk's Office
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: (310) 544-5208
Fax: (310) 544-5291
PAL DE
From: pvpprof [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 8:46 PM
To: Denise Girardi; Jack Girardi; Emily Hou; Usha Raval; Janak Raval; Steven Anderson; Hilda Rodgveller; Barry
Rodgveller; Harvey Brown; Roanna Brown; Beth Ceverha; angeleromas@yahoo.com; Michelle Hansberger
Cc: CityManager; Nicole Jules; CC
Subject: Del Cerro Park unlawful parking, impeding of safety and use on July 16, 2015
Hello all,
Today at Del Cerro Park there was a very large Bus with a large group of persons occupying much of Del Cerro
Park that created real problems for resident and emergency / safety / police / fire vehicles and others. Del
Cerro Park use and parking were endangered and use was limited by others for quite a long time. Further,
there was substantial - if not complete - impeding of any normal, staging and/or emergency use by Fire or
Sheriff.
Unfortunately, all ingress and egress on the public street Park Place - both to and from homes on Park Place as
well as Crenshaw Blvd. - was 'blocked' by the parked Bus. Homeowners and visitors were not able to enter or
leave. Please see picture #....812 attached.
Regarding density and Del Cerro Park use, several group members personally acknowledged that the Bus
brought them all. Two additional pictures (#...814 and #...815) show a sub -group of 50+ persons occupying
the 'width' of Del Cerro Park from Park Place to the hedges of the back -yards of homes located on Burrell
Ln. The later of these pictures shows 2 persons carrying a large orange water container and other materials to a
K.
location closer to the street, Park Place, where there were more persons assembled. Clearly, this was large
group in a small Park.
It appears and as seen from the pictures that there are at least 3 problems here:
1. unlawful parking and obstruction,
2. large use of Del Cerro Park that may preclude others from using the Park, and
3. lack of approval from RPV to use Del Cerro Park for a large group and Bus that could/should be referred by
RPV, Fire, Sheriff, etc. to another RPV Park where there is sufficient legal parking and space.
All things, it would seem reasonable that the above problems be considered by RPV City Council, etc. and
'solutions' generated. Unfortunately, Sheriff resources are constrained in responding by higher priority
matters. And RPV is constrained as Park supervisors are not available to address such problems as they are
occurring. It would be reasonable to believe that without 'solutions' that these unlawful parking and adverse
use (including impeding Fire staging and more) situations will continue.
Perhaps these situations should be further presented to, and discussed among, members of the HOAs that are
local to Del Cerro Park and RPV representatives. Please share ideas / thoughts / suggestions.
Best regards,
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
information and may be subject to patient -attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections.
If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in
error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message.
Any professional medical, consulting, business or other advice included in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S.
federal or state or local code, law or practice requirement and/or penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
recommending to another party any professional matter addressed herein.
= ft
m �7 yF..��v " '..„t_�.\ � r' y�.f l ..-��'� "a''i,.•'+'`Mti'+►n ,,,;.v -v'' iii., Y'l Pp
_ `�a ...•.•.tea__-s�_°�'�%� � �_..,..t�'� 'i'`' �`"�Cn'��iw .�:, , ; t, '{ ',���7
y �, ! � �a,{ +� 'er.� - � °�• ��' • :mak •� � '
AJ
466
R J:
v- _ �'•Lo 'Aft -
r•
meati
s
.r.
r.
4•
T+a }
•z� �,
+q, y ash
�j
`
t
•
Y
i(
w
,
is
� .'t!•
•
�.
- r
D
f F
1_
From: Leza Mikhail
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 9:32 AM
To: cassiej@aol.com; CC
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: RE: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Hello Cassie,
I'm glad I could help clarify. As for your other question... Yes, the City does have a limitation on the number of horses
permitted "by -right." Pursuant to Section 17.46.020 of the RPVMC, two (2) large domestic animals (such as a horse)
may be kept on a developed lot with a gross lot area of at least 15,000 square feet. One (1) additional large domestic
animal may be kept for each additional 5,000 square feet of lot area, not to exceed a maximum of four (4) large
domestic animals. All Development Standards listed in Section 17.46.060 (setbacks, etc.) would continue to apply if the
proposed code amendment passes.
Should a property owner wish to exceed four (4) large animals on their property, the Development Code allows them to
submit for a discretionary permit to exceed the code limitations (i.e. Large Domestic Animal Permit for 5-6 large animals
on a developed lot, or Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit for more than 6 large animals). These permits are rare,
and Staff does not foresee the proposed code amendment creating an influx in these applications.
It should be noted that the City's codes may be different than any restrictions enforced through separate CC&R's.
I hope this helps to answer your questions. Let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
City of Rancho (Ta(os Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca. ov
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f
lezam�rpvca.gov
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is **(a`rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect lezam@rpvea.gov as my new email.
From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 8:34 AM
To: Leza Mikhail; CC
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: Re: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
a 8
Thank you for the clarification! As I read the item on the council agenda, I did not catch that it distinguished between
developed and undeveloped lots. (There was no link I could follow to a staff report) Encouraging horse ownership in the
Q Zone is great. The barn set backs must be followed so this won't work on every property, but it might help on a few. It
is sad that as homes are built, they are so large and situated so poorly that the property is forever precluded from having
horses, should someone in the future wish to do so. The City is gradually decreasing the rural atmosphere by approving
homes that eliminate the equestrian possibility forever. This might help a few properties. By the way, does the City have
a limit on the numbers of horses? If so, who enforces that limit?
If you could pass this on the council as well, that would be great.
Thanks again,
cassiejtiD_aol.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
To: 'cassiej@aol.com' <cassiej cr7aol.com>
Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelRCa rpvca.gov>
Sent: Mon, Jul 20, 2015 8:17 am
Subject: RE: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Hello Cassie,
I hope you are doing well, I received your comment letter below, which I will forward to the City Council. However, I
wanted to clarify that the proposed code amendment would not allow barns for animal keeping on vacant lots. Instead,
it allows property owners who already have a single-family residence to have a barn that does not count against their
1,200 square foot allowance for an addition.
Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to forward them, but I wanted to makes sure I explained the proposed code
language, as there appeared to be some confusion.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
K.
City of Rancho Tacos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
W W W,. r,pvca . ggy
...........................................
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f
I e za m @_rpygg. qov
*Please Note: Effective 02.%20/15, the City's new email address is "(a rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect lezanz%�i'm L �«�, as my new email.
From: cassie' ��aol.com [mailto:cassie' aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:25 PM
To: CC; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell
Subject: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Dear Council,
I noticed the proposal of an item on the agenda that warrants a comment. The Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2,
allowing the housing of "animals" on vacant lots in the Landslide Moratorium area is of concern to me.
First, the CC&Rs for the Portuguese Bend Community Association do not allow for the housing of animals on vacant lots -
with the exception of lots that are contiguous with a residence such that the owner of both treats them as one lot. The
owners are presumably ever-present (they or someone lives there and can care for the animals on a timely basis). The
CC&Rs do not allow for structures, either, other than a garden shed 10" x 12".
Second, the housing of animals on vacant lots is fraught with potential problems for those of us who live adjacent to the
lots. We cannot be expected to be the eyes and ears for these animals 24-7 yet we cannot be expected to turn a blind
eye to them in a time of need or duress, either. The largely unattended animals are a huge attractive nuisance to wildlife,
trespassers and vandals. Coyotes regularly stalk the neighborhood looking to harass and kill. I know the animals would
not be my responsibility, but listening to a hungry, ill or otherwise distressed animal without doing something about it is an
additional burden that I did not sign up for when I bought my house in this City and in this community. OF COURSE the
local residents would get involved in an emergency but it is unfair to place this burden on them.
Third, the term "animals" is broad. Roosters, donkeys, large and small psittacines (parrots), for example, are very noisy.
You would probably not want to live next to them for very long. Kennels housed with dogs can be problematically noisy,
too. Additionally, such small "animals" as chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats and smaller birds are, essentially, coyote -bait
around here. And we have them around here in broad daylight on a daily basis.
Should you decide to go down this road, however, I would suggest that you ask why just the Landslide Moratorium
area? If animals are going to be house on vacant lots, then any lot in the City so zoned should be allowed to build
random structures to house animals. It is arguably true that the Landslide Moratorium area is at even greater risk for
disaster and the need to evacuate animals than other areas of the City, that might be more accessible and observed.
This is coming to you from a veterinarian who treats almost all of these animals, with the exception of horses, and loves
and encourages pet ownership. Your proposal puts these animals in a nearly unattended situation, at risk, and attracts
the vermin that we are trying to keep out of the neighborhood (rats interested in animal feed and coyotes, in particular).
It is not your task to find uses for the vacant lots that were purchased on speculation that something useful could be done
with them at some point in the future.
Cassie Jones, DVM
Ga sie ol.corn
From: cassiej@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 8:34 AM
To: Leza Mikhail; CC
Cc: Joel Rojas
Subject: Re: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Thank you for the clarification! As I read the item on the council agenda, I did not catch that it distinguished between
developed and undeveloped lots. (There was no link I could follow to a staff report) Encouraging horse ownership in the
Q Zone is great. The barn set backs must be followed so this won't work on every property, but it might help on a few. It
is sad that as homes are built, they are so large and situated so poorly that the property is forever precluded from having
horses, should someone in the future wish to do so. The City is gradually decreasing the rural atmosphere by approving
homes that eliminate the equestrian possibility forever. This might help a few properties. By the way, does the City have
a limit on the numbers of horses? If so, who enforces that limit?
If you could pass this on the council as well, that would be great
Thanks again,
cassiej@aol.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov>
To: 'cassiej@aol.com' <cassiej@aol.com>
Cc: Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Mon, Jul 20, 2015 8:17 am
Subject: RE: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Hello Cassie,
I hope you are doing well. I received your comment letter below, which I will forward to the City Council, However, I
wanted to clarify that the proposed code amendment would not allow barns for animal keeping on vacant lots. Instead,
it allows property owners who already have a single-family residence to have a barn that does not count against their
1,200 square foot allowance for an addition.
Thank you for your comments. I will be sure to forward them, but I wanted to makes sure I explained the proposed code
language, as there appeared to be some confusion.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail
Senior Planner
City of Rancho nafos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
............................................
(310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f
Iezam _rpvca.cov
a 6
*Please Note: Effective 02/20/15, the City's new email address is "@,,rpvca.gov" Please update your contact
information for me to reflect 1 .UP1' zp - f.gc r as my new email.
From: cassieL @aol.com [rr)ailto:cassie� d)aol.coriij
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:25 PM
To: CC; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell
Subject: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Dear Council,
I noticed the proposal of an item on the agenda that warrants a comment. The Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2,
allowing the housing of "animals" on vacant lots in the Landslide Moratorium area is of concern to me.
First, the CC&Rs for the Portuguese Bend Community Association do not allow for the housing of animals on vacant lots -
with the exception of lots that are contiguous with a residence such that the owner of both treats them as one lot. The
owners are presumably ever-present (they or someone lives there and can care for the animals on a timely basis). The
CC&Rs do not allow for structures, either, other than a garden shed 10" x 12".
Second, the housing of animals on vacant lots is fraught with potential problems for those of us who live adjacent to the
lots. We cannot be expected to be the eyes and ears for these animals 24-7 yet we cannot be expected to turn a blind
eye to them in a time of need or duress, either. The largely unattended animals are a huge attractive nuisance to wildlife,
trespassers and vandals. Coyotes regularly stalk the neighborhood looking to harass and kill. I know the animals would
not be my responsibility, but listening to a hungry, ill or otherwise distressed animal without doing something about it is an
additional burden that I did not sign up for when I bought my house in this City and in this community. OF COURSE the
local residents would get involved in an emergency but it is unfair to place this burden on them.
Third, the term "animals" is broad. Roosters, donkeys, large and small psittacines (parrots), for example, are very noisy.
You would probably not want to live next to them for very long. Kennels housed with dogs can be problematically noisy,
too. Additionally, such small "animals" as chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats and smaller birds are, essentially, coyote -bait
around here. And we have them around here in broad daylight on a daily basis.
Should you decide to go down this road, however, I would suggest that you ask why just the Landslide Moratorium
area? If animals are going to be house on vacant lots, then any lot in the City so zoned should be allowed to build
random structures to house animals. It is arguably true that the Landslide Moratorium area is at even greater risk for
disaster and the need to evacuate animals than other areas of the City, that might be more accessible and observed.
This is coming to you from a veterinarian who treats almost all of these animals, with the exception of horses, and loves
and encourages pet ownership. Your proposal puts these animals in a nearly unattended situation, at risk, and attracts
the vermin that we are trying to keep out of the neighborhood (rats interested in animal feed and coyotes, in particular).
It is not your task to find uses for the vacant lots that were purchased on speculation that something useful could be done
with them at some point in the future.
Cassie Jones, DVM
Cassie Aol.com
From: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 8:29 AM
To: 'cassiej@aol.com'; CC; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic; Brian
Campbell
Cc: Doug Willmore; Joel Rojas; Leza Mikhail
Subject: RE: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Dear Dr. Jones:
I am writing in response to your ernail to clarify one point, which is that the proposed code amendment would not allow
these structures on undeveloped properties. The first sentence of the proposed ordinance states:
The construction ofa barn, livestock structure or other similar non -habitable structures) used for the sole purpose
of housinz animals on lots that are currently lezally developed with a residential structure.
This may address one of your concerns.
Regards,
Carol Lynch
From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:25 PM
To: cc@rpvca.gov; susan.brooks@rpvca.gov; jim.knight@rpvca.gov; anthony.misetich@rpvca.gov;
jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov; brian.campbell@rpvca.gov
Subject: Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2
Dear Council,
I noticed the proposal of an item on the agenda that warrants a comment. The Code Amendment to Chapter 15.2,
allowing the housing of "animals" on vacant lots in the Landslide Moratorium area is of concern to me.
First, the CC&Rs for the Portuguese Bend Community Association do not allow for the housing of animals on vacant lots -
with the exception of lots that are contiguous with a residence such that the owner of both treats them as one lot. The
owners are presumably ever-present (they or someone lives there and can care for the animals on a timely basis). The
CC&Rs do not allow for structures, either, other than a garden shed 10" x 12".
Second, the housing of animals on vacant lots is fraught with potential problems for those of us who live adjacent to the
lots. We cannot be expected to be the eyes and ears for these animals 24-7 yet we cannot be expected to turn a blind
eye to them in a time of need or duress, either. The largely unattended animals are a huge attractive nuisance to wildlife,
trespassers and vandals. Coyotes regularly stalk the neighborhood looking to harass and kill. I know the animals would
not be my responsibility, but listening to a hungry, ill or otherwise distressed animal without doing something about it is an
additional burden that I did not sign up for when I bought my house in this City and in this community. OF COURSE the
local residents would get involved in an emergency but it is unfair to place this burden on them.
Third, the term "animals" is broad. Roosters, donkeys, large and small psittacines (parrots), for example, are very noisy.
You would probably not want to live next to them for very long. Kennels housed with dogs can be problematically noisy,
too. Additionally, such small "animals" as chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats and smaller birds are, essentially, coyote -bait
around here. And we have them around here in broad daylight on a daily basis.
Should you decide to go down this road, however, I would suggest that you ask why just the Landslide Moratorium
area? If animals are going to be house on vacant lots, then any lot in the City so zoned should be allowed to build
random structures to house animals. It is arguably true that the Landslide Moratorium area is at even greater risk for
a.
disaster and the need to evacuate animals than other areas of the City, that might be more accessible and observed.
This is coming to you from a veterinarian who treats almost all of these animals, with the exception of horses, and loves
and encourages pet ownership. Your proposal puts these animals in a nearly unattended situation, at risk, and attracts
the vermin that we are trying to keep out of the neighborhood (rats interested in animal feed and coyotes, in particular).
It is not your task to find uses for the vacant lots that were purchased on speculation that something useful could be done
with them at some point in the future.
Cassie Jones, DVM
cassiej(a aol.com
Click here to report this email as spam.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and/or the attachments accompanying it) may
contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The
information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents
of this information is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorized interception of this transmission is illegal. If you
have received this transmission in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all
copies of the transmission.
Gmail - To Ms.So Kim, Senior Planner: 10 CHAPARRAL LANE: USE OF LANE BY LARGE AND HEAVY VEHICLES 7/13/15 1:23 PM
To Ms.So Kim, Senior Planner: 10 CHAPARRAL LANE: USE OF LANE BY LARGE
AND HEAVY VEHICLES
Damon Swank <damon.swank1685 c@gmail.com>
Draft To: SoK@rpvca.gov
Re: Hearing July 21, 2015
Issues
Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:21 PM
Chaparral Lane is privately owned in common by its residents. It is narrow, lightly
paved, and entirely unsuitable for large, long, and heavy vehicles such as trucks
transporting earth -moving equipment. The Applicant is requesting that the City, by
issuing various permits, authorize use of this private property for massive heavy -
equipment purposes over an extended period of time.
The Issues:
1) Likely consequences of applicant's proposed activity
2) Suggested restrictions and remedies
Consequences
1) Damage to pavement: The Lane is very lightly paved. It is used almost
exclusively by automobiles and light trucks. Regular use by larger vehicles will
assuredly destroy the pavement entirely. Although an occasional larger vehicle (say,
fire truck) has used the Lane without significant damage, full-sized garbage trucks
pose a threat. Small garbage pickup trucks ("Pup Trucks") are used instead.
2) Damage to owners' property adjoining the Lane: Many of the properties have
improvements such as retaining walls, fences, and tiled or stuccoed mailbox
structures at the curbside. It is almost inevitable that these face damage. by cement
mixers, lumber trucks, and the like. The Lane is narrow, so it will be difficult for
these vehicles to pass each other, making curbside accidents likely.
3) Possible collapse of the roadway itself. This is, hopefully, unlikely. However,
the Lane is simply a dirt road cut into the hillside. Not only would expensive
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e9O5efl4Oe&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=14e89l4Oa8bb46d1&dsqt=l&sim1=14e89l4Oa8bb46d1 Page 1 of 3
Gmail — To Ms.So Kim, Senior Planner: 10 CHAPARRAL LANE: USE OF LANE BY LARGE AND HEAVY VEHICLES 7/13/15 1:23 PM
emergency repairs be required, but a vehicle could leave the Lane and cause
damage to a down slope property.
suggested Remedies
1) Require that the Applicant agree to restore the Lane and its adjacent structures
to their present condition before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Applicant to
repair or reconstruct any collapse or damage to the structure of the Lane
immediately.
2) Provide a funding source: require Applicant to purchase insurance to cover all
these expenses and to maintain uninterrupted coverage.
3) Designate an appropriate independent person or entity to receive any claims of
damage, to determine that all claims have been satisfied, and to certify that a
Certificate of Occupancy can properly be issued.
Conclusion
The problems here are readily apparent. They can easily be addressed now, at the
outset.
By approving the project, and issuing construction permits authorizing the Applicant
to use his neighbors' property, the
City is mandating the acquiescence of the owners of the Lane.
The Calif. Vehicle Code (35720c) provides that no restrictions may be placed on the
weight or size of a vehicle that is proceeding to a job site pursuant to a valid
construction permit.
Note
I will provide photographs of Chaparral Lane, hopefully by Wednesday, July 15,
2015.
Thank you.
Damon Swank
https:llmail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&lk=e9OSefl4Oe&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=l4e8914oa8bb46dl&dsqt=l&siml=14e89l4Oa8bb46dl Page 2 of 3
0
Amid
Att'll ,
pi `t - pi -
10
01.
40-
Aw
ko
14
14
10
01.
40-
Aw
• h14
ARA,.�3�L�� 1J - , !�► jib' a's
i
.y;
d
From:
Ray <raymadelin@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, July 17, 2015 5:03 PM
To:
Madeline Ryan
Cc:
Charlene O'Neil; Sharon Yarber; Sunshine Grimes; Anna McDougall; Jean Longacre;
Octavia Zaccaro Santiago; CC
Subject:
Re: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
"This to me is the death knell of trails in rpv.
I do not have the energy or heart after all these years of battle to go further.
I believe the city council and staff of rpv want to rid the area of horses and this their way to do it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Madeline Ryan <pvpasofmo(c,yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello All
Here we go! Staff actually recommending everything this landowner is
asking for! Staff also pointing out that landowner not wishing to give up any
of his property to trail users to access the 'trail' (which sits next to #7) into
Georgette Canyon (Nature Trail). This route and 'trail' has been used for
over 30 years!
However, I do believe that we can still manage to access the trail next to
#7. Would have to see #10's survey and look for markers on site to
determine if we can cut through some foliage, prior to his driveway, and that
way we stay off his private driveway/yard.
In my opinion, we are up against the very fact that Chaparral Lane is a
private street and Staff noted that too in the report. Not likely the CC could
give those of us living elsewhere permission to cross anyway. Staff seems
almost giddy over the dedication of excess land this landowner wants to
donate, so the City can pursue a trail connection from Bronco/Martingale to
????? They also mentioned how 6 surrounding property owners would have
to give permission! Like that will happen!
Very disheartening.....
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: So Kim <SoKQrpvvca.gov>
To: "raymadelinQgmail. com" <raymadelin gmail.com>; "Damon Swank
(damon.swank1685(@g_mail. com)" <damon,swank1685(a gmail.com>;
"susanmswank(a_gmail.com" <susanmswank(p)gmail.com>; "Madeline Ryan
(pvpasofino(c)yahoo.com)" <pvpasofino ah000com>; "sunshineRPV@aol.com"
<sunshineRPVt7a.aol.com>; sharon yarber <momofyago(a),gmail.com>; "'AnnaMaria Chu'
(annamcdougall(a-),cox.net)" <annamcdougall cox.net>; "john.feykCa.cox.net"
<john.feyk(ocox.net>; "mookat9 schlossbros.com" <mookat(o-)schlossbros.com>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 8:59 AM
Subject: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
Morning,
Below is the link to the Agenda for next Tuesday's CC Meeting.
http://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=13
Please scroll down to Public Hearing Item No. 4 to view the Staff Report and
attachments.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW EB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF
YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE CHANGE MY EMAIL FROM
SOKP-RPV.COM TO SOK(cD-RPVCA.GOV.
From: Ray Madeline <raymadelin@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 4:28 AM
To: CC
Subject: Please hear our plea re 10 Chaparrel
I beg City Council to question HOW this heinous development project of Mr Chen's 6700 sq ft mansion to be
built on Open Hazard Space at 10 Chaparrel is being recommended by RPV staff,
Not only does this require a complete rezoning of Open Hazard Space to build but staff are also recommending
that the access to the Nature Trail will be forever lost to RPV residents.
2 Important situations have changed in development and staff recommendations on this site.
In the past the house was always to be built back on the slope where it was part of the existing community and
not on Open hazard space and impinging on the visual wilderness of this area
and
Staff in the past always recommended providing access for RPV residents to the Nature Trail.
Mr Chen the current landowner does not wish to continue providing access into the Georgette Canyon Trail for
RPV residents and now RPV staff are also recommending this loss of access to the Nature Trail.
This route and trail has been used for over 30 years by RPV residents.. The access to this trail will be gone
forever .
It is beyond my comprehension how staff can recommend this.
Please ask Who and WHY.
Ray Van Dinther
One of many RPV residents who have always used and loved this rural trail.
y
From:
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:
Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:34 AM
To:
pvpasofino@yahoo.com
Cc:
CC; PC; Doug Willmore; So Kim; Cory Linder; jeff@broedlow lewis.com;
paul@agajanianlaw.com; greg@groystonlaw.com; cprotem73@verizon.net;
david.lukac@freshandeasy.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com; verikon@cox.net; Idb910
@juno.com; Judy@writeindependent.org; pdownjac@hotmail.com;
ken.delong@verizon.net; yerelian@gmail.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com;
susanmswank@gmail.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; vgranoff@verizon.net;
EZStevens@cox.net; pvpra.president@gmail.com; vdogregg@aol.com
Subject:
Way beyond 10 Chaparral, Making sense of the City of RPV. It is up to the CC
Hi Madeline,
You wrote: At this time when Ara is spearheading a trails development plan throughout the City,
why would So Kim usurp this endeavor by calling for abolishing these (21, 22) conceptual
trails?
Enlighten me, please.
"Thank you for asking. I do believe that Ara came up with the best clue to the situation when answering the
question... Why is the Lower Point Vicente Park proposed update of the Coast Vision Plan not a part of the
proposed Parks Master Plan update?
If this makes sense to anybody, his answer was that..."They are on different tracks". He may not have meant
the same analogy but it sure helps explain why I feel like the whole process of updating the City's primary
documents is a "train wreck" that we are all witnessing in slow motion. The damage has been going on for all
the years during which Staff has not been updating the documents immediately after the City Council approves
an Amendment or takes some action which changes the information provided in the documents.
The 10 Chaparral development application is just another runaway train on a different track. Think of it this
way from the bottom up. A Planner is processing a private property owner's request for a
4. General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change, and Residential Development on a Property Located at
10 Chaparral Lane (Case No. ZON2014-00143) [Continued from September 30, 2014] (Kim) (45 mins)
There are two existing trails which cross the subject property. One provides Geology students with a view of
exposed Catalina schist. The other is a connecting trail known as Spoke 92 of the Peninsula Wheel Trails
Network. Both existing trails are "conceptually" to be preserved point-to-point per the RPV Conceptual Trails
Plan.
The existing RPV Parks Master Plan identifies this site as a potential equestrian oriented park site.
In relation to 10 Chaparral, both the Parks Master Plan and the Conceptual Trails Plan are in compliance with
the existing RPV General Plan.
10 Chaparral is private property. Why have a General Plan if Staff is powerless to implement it? Apparently.
Staff doesn't even try to defend the "goals" of the community.
Now, think of it from the top down. The existing trail connection across what is now known as 10 Chaparral is
clearly illustrated on Figure 22 in the existing RPV General Plan. Because of the active landslide, LA County
named the area Martingale Trailhead Park. The existing RPV General Plan Land Use Map designates even the
flat area on the site as "Hazard" because of this known land movement. If this designation was an inaccuracy,
Staff would have included this proposed line adjustment in with all the others they are proposing based on the
more specific GIS data we now have access to. (Unfortunately, Staff is not proposing all these line adjustments
as a separate General Plan Amendment. They have been sitting in limbo for a very long time. Or, maybe they
are being utilized based on the Planning Commission's "approval" to recommend them to Council as a part of
the big "update".)
Staff has only relatively recently come up with the notion that a "conceptual" trail does not exist. The
Conceptual Trails Plan was written and adopted by Council to explain to Staff which trails do exist and
therefore should be preserved. In some cases, the property owner is to be given the opportunity to design a
rerouting of the trail at a specified TYPE in order for the preservation of the trail connection to be more
compatible with whatever he/she wants to build on the property. Historically, it has been cost effective for Staff
to negotiate an addition to the builder's contract to do the grading and other improvements at the same time as
the primary construction.
The debacle at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road began when Staff demanded that the Applicant not improve the
relocated trail route in conjunction with the grading for his new home. A cost of something like $100 K has
turned into $465 K and trail users have been deprived of the use of the trail for 10 years as opposed to the few
months while the home was being built.
Staff's recommendation for 10 Chaparral is even worse. There is no design to reroute the trail connection from
the City's easement on 7 Chaparral to the existing trail to Bronco Lane. It is absurd to think that someday in the
future the City will have the funds to improve trails on the proposed easements.
It is unfair to both the Applicant and the citizenry in general for Staff to waste everyone's time by bringing such
a poorly conceived site plan to the City Council.
The current City Council and our new City Manager have not yet discussed, in public, how the previous City
Council directives are to be implemented. The City no longer keeps a log of the status and then final actions on
General Plan Amendments. Various Plan "updates" are on different "tracks". In the mean time, nobody
has access to a clear picture of what RPV is all about. Obviously "The Wizard" likes it like that.
I truly wish that someone could enlighten me. Keep sharing your questions and concerns. Those who are silent
get to reap the fruits of our labor or, live with the results of the "train wreck". ,
...5 310-377-8761
in a message dated 7/16/2015 7:27:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pvpasofino@yahoo.com writes:
Hello Sunshine
Without having to scramble through CTP's and General Amendments, how does
the deletion of #21 and #22 relate to #10 Chaparral? Though I don't agree with
deleting any possible trail connection, I disagree with any potential trail being
regarded as 'obsolete' and by whose definition?
At this time when Ara is spearheading a trails development plan throughout the
City, why would So Kim usurp this endeavor by calling for abolishing these (21,
22) conceptual trails?
Enlighten me, please.
"May the Trails be with you..." Madeline
From: "SunshineRPV@aol.com" <SunshineRPV@aol.com>
To: jeanlongacre@aol.com
Cc: jduhovic@hotmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougall1@yahoo.com;
susanmswank@gmail.com; vgranoff@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:53 PM
Subject: 10 Chaparral and the Cake property
Hi Jean,
I finally found the map you asked for. It is hiding in my computer filed under Spoke #2
in RPV as the Stein -Hale Trail. Oops. From a trail user point of view, it can be
confusing when a trail name changes at a city boundary. But then, trail user rules
change at city boundaries.
Cranky old computer won't let me paste the one image into this text. So I'll attach the
whole email from Ken Garland. The property lines are pretty feint. You know where to
look for them.
It all seems to come down to the term "conceptual". The existing RPV General Plan
has a lot to say about preserving and enhancing walkways and trails. On figures 21
and 22, the maps are called "conceptual" because in 1975 essentially all of them were
on private property. The 1990 RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) identified the trail
connections which had become the City's responsibility as well as the most critical
ones that should still be pursued.
10 Chaparral is just one example of how Staff's position has become that a
"conceptual" trail doesn't exist and there is very little they can do to create/preserve a
usable trail. City Planners are trained "critics". They have not been taught to design
solutions and negotiate win win situations. I am so sorry that the update of the RPV
General Plan and the update of the RPV Trails Network Plan are in the hands of such
people.
So Kim is proposing that figures 21 and 22 be deleted from the General Plan because
they are "obsolete". I contend that the "concepts" are still valid. More detailed Plans
like the CTP simply help Staff recognize the goals more specifically.
3
The Staff Report on 10 Chaparral for the July 21 City Council is probably circulating for
the higher up's to initial them. Any further correspondence will be shared as "late
correspondence". Comments need to address whatever Staff comes up with as their
recommendation. I usually get a listserve notice on Fridays.
Thank you for all the years of effort you have devoted to saving the amenities which
make the Palos Verdes Peninsula such a special place.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
From:
Joel Rojas
Sent:
Monday, July 20, 2015 8:47 AM
To:
So Kim
Cc:
Ara Mihranian
Subject:
FW: Save our City
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: rivaieri@cox.net
Sent: 7/20/2015 7:55 AM
To: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Cc: cprotem730verizon.net: gree@grovstonlaw.com; ken.delong@verizon.net; yerelian@gmail.com;
momofvago@gmail.com; EZStevens@cox.net; iessboop@cox.net: verikon@cox.net; paul(Pagaianianlaw.com;
ieff@broedlawlewis.com; PC
Subject: Re: Save our City
I will be there. And we need MANY more to come. This is OUR city. If we can't take one evening of our lives
to come fight for it, they will continue to give it away to those with big money and more fancy suits.
This isn't about property rights.
It's like buying a house next to a airport and then complaining about the planes afterwards. But you knew they
were there when you bought the property and the price took that into consideration.
Now this owner wants the city to double or triple his property value by obliterating public trail access and
rezoning. He gets huge monetary value increase beyond what he paid and the public pays for it.
THEY ARE GIVING AWAY OUR PUBLIC TRAILS TO A PRIVATE PERSON. Is this how you want your
tax dollars spent? Is this how you want your city government representing you?
How much are staff and city officials getting paid off to make this sweetheart deal?
Sandy Valeri
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2015, at 6:38 PM, SunshineRPV@,aol.com wrote:
Dear people who do not necessarily care about trails and emergency circulation but do seem to
care about the future of RPV enough to notice that Staff is implementing a whole new General
Plan, Land Use Map, Parks Master Plan and Trails Network Plan without benefit of a City
Council approved Resolution,
City Council meeting, Tuesday, July 21, Item #4 appears to be an application to build a new
single family residence. I am asking you to come and ask the City Council what they think about
Staff s Recommendation in favor of a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning change, a height
variation, lots of grading and the elimination of historic and presently existing trails at the end of
a narrow private road so that some guy can build a big house on an active landslide. This is
going above and beyond private property rights.
1 *1/.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
Hi Sandy,
You wrote: If you or Madeline have any figures or drawings you could attached to this email discussion it would
be very helpful.
Help me choose what sort of figures or drawings would inspire people to show up at a meeting
where the only issues the City Council may decide on are defined in the July 21, Item 4 Staff
Report.
WOW. This is serendipity. While I was contemplating what to write next, thunder made a big
boom, my cat spilled a pile of papers and the path to the attached document landed on top. More
than three years later, the situation is pretty much the same. It is now a different CASE NO. and
Staff is completely ignoring The Crap Trail. I don't think that Staff is stupid or
incompetent. There must be another reason why they insist on oh so slowly wrecking what we
have. There must be a reason why the City Council is never permitted to discuss the big picture.
I know that some people are new to the politics of homeownership and some people are getting
tired of it. This is our town. There is something very wrong when our elected representatives
cannot discuss the essential concerns like what amenities our little City may preserve.
The Applicant purchased 10 Chaparral knowing that it was designated as a "Hazard", knowing
that it is in an Equestrian Overlay District, knowing that there are existing trails and knowing
that RPV has "neighborhood compatibility" ordinances. The previous owner sure put that into
the Public Record. I am appalled that Staff thinks they still have a chance at duping the City
Council.
We The People do need to step up in our own defense. In this case, a crowd showing up and
arguing in favor of delaying this Application, again and again, until Staff comes up with a
recommendation which "advocates for the community" is a potentially effective thing to
do. Choose one reason or them all. Pass the word.
I am sending this to all of the PV Loop Trail Segment Adopters and interested parties who live in
RPV, 10 at a time.
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
<Practically from day one.doc>
From: So Kim
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:14 AM
To: 'sharon yarber'
Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian (aram@rpv.com)
Subject: FW: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
Hi Ms. Yarber,
Per your request, Staff's responses are in red font below.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE CHANGE MY EMAIL FROM SOK@RPV.COM TO SOK@RPVCA.GOV.
I will call you shortly but if you could respond to.my questions in writing that would be appreciated.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: So Kim <SoKnrpvca.gov>
Date: 07/20/2015 8:19 AM (GMT -08:00)
To: sharon yarber <<uonwfya�,,o(Li,)gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC9rovca.gov>
Subject: RE: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
Hi Ms. Yarber,
Thank you for your email.
Your email will be forwarded to the City Council as late correspondence. Also, please feel free to call me on my direct
line
(310-544-5222) to reach me.
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 1:09 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Staff Report for 10 Chaparral
So,
I will call you on Monday to discuss further, but I have a few comments and questions re: 10 Chaparral.
First, you consistently refer to Georgette Canyon in all you staff reports. I assume that is because the
Conceptual Trails Plan erroneously refers to Georgeff Canyon as such. Yes, the CTP refers to the trail as
1
Georgette Canyon Trail. To be clear, there is Georgeff Canyon in Rolling Hills and George F Canyon in RHE
(same canyon but different names depending on in which city the applicable portion is located). I suggest staff
implements a correction to the CTP to correct the name of the canyon so as to avoid any future
confusion. Since the CTP will be incorporated as part of the pending Trails Network Plan, necessary
corrections could be made to that future document.
It is somewhat clear from the staff report that the applicant has no intention of granting an easement over any
portion of his property to allow access to the existing trail. Not true. The applicant is willing to grant easements
over the sloping areas to the north and south of the building pad area for the future Bronco Trail and Georgette
Canyon Trail. The staff report suggests that any such easement would necessarily require use of the driveway
or otherwise interfere with the house and the development, but that is not the case. Easement for a connection
directly from Chaparral Lane would require the use of the applicant's driveway and/or the private yard
space. A diagonal trail, or small switchback, could easily be put in at the easterly portion of the property
(cutting through some brush) to connect to the trail. This would in no way interfere with the development of the
property. This would require the applicant to re -design the driveway layout or would for the applicant to allow
public access on portions of his property. Has staff attempted to obtain an easement there? If not, why
not? Staff attempted to obtain an easement over the subject lot in hopes to re-route the existing non -dedicated
path. While the applicant is willing to volunteer areas of his lot for public trail uses, he also wishes to maintain
control over his private driveway and yard area by not allowing public to access those portions of his property,
which is normally expected by most property owners. Staff respects the property owner's request as the CTP
specifically states that the Georgette Canyon Trail "will not traverse Chaparral Lane" (PDF page 86 of the
attached CTP).
You mentioned that Chaparral is a private street over which there is no easement, but so what? None of the
neighbors has ever objected to horses traversing the street to connect to the trail on 10 Chaparral. The trail was
there long before the street was put in place. The City's conduct in this application amounts to usurpation of the
rights of the residents of Chaparral to either restrict use of their private street, which they are not doing, or
permit local equestrians to use the street, which is exactly what they are doing. Staff acknowledges that despite
there being no dedicated/recorded trail easement, the public has been accessing the private street (Chaparral
Lane) and portions of the private subject lot over a portion of 7 Chaparral to connect to a trail in
RHE. Dedicating easements for a public trail is "voluntary" by the property owner. So the City cannot force a
property owner to dedicate portions of their property just because the public has been accessing his lot despite
there being no recorded easements for such use. I understand there is a recorded easement in favor of the City
over 7 Chaparral. Is there one? If so, what is the purpose of that easement if you cannot access it other than by
using the private street itself? Yes, there is an easement over 7 Chaparral that follows the west side property
line. The purpose of this easement is to allow access from Chaparral Lane to the trail in RHE.
You state in the report that the CTP specifically says that "no trail access should be created" over Chaparral, but
that is not true or accurate. The CTP simply says that insofar as the conceptual trail is concerned, "The trail will
not traverse Chaparral Lane". This is misleading to the Council. Yes, the CTP says that the "trail will not
traverse Chaparral Lane".
I also cannot determine exactly where the caisson wall is to be constructed. Will any portion of it sit within the
boundaries of 8 Chaparral? Sometimes the reports (current and prior ones) indicate it will and that it is a
condition of approval that the owner of 8 Chaparral enter into an encroachment agreement. Is that the case? If
so, I trust you are aware that an easement for a permanent, exclusive use of a portion of a person's property
constitutes the functional equivalent of a conveyance of that portion of the grantor's property which necessitate
a lot line adjustment between the adjoining landowners, otherwise it can be construed as a circumvention of the
Subdivision Map Act. Please advise of the precise location of the caisson wall. A caisson wall is proposed
along the southerly edge of Chaparral Lane on a portion of 8 Chaparral Lane. The property owner of 8
Chaparral Lane has authorized the proposed work. The main reason for his authorization is because he also has
an active application with the City to develop 8 Chaparral Lane. This wall will need to be built by either
applicants prior to development of their lots. This only benefits the applicant for 8 Chaparral as he doesn't have
to do the work and it will be done by the applicant for 10 Chaparral.
I note that the prior owner's proposal included an easement over the easterly portion of the property so as to
maintain a connection to the existing trail leading to the nature trail in George F Canyon. This trail has been
used for decades. What efforts over the years has the staff made to acquire an easement? Why didn't staff get an
easement from the prior owner when he was prepared to grant one? Was his willingness to grant an easement
only on condition that he be allowed to improve the property with a house? Yes, the previous property owner
was only willing to dedicate that portion of the easement in exchange for development.
Has there been any discussion within the City about bringing an action to establish a prescriptive easement?
Why not? Or better yet, negotiate an easement and pay something to the owner to make it worth his while?
These vital links cannot be allowed to be subject to the whims of a person who buys the property with full and
complete knowledge that there is a trail on it and then decides he wants to cut it off. No, there has been no
discussion within the City to take action for prescriptive easements over private properties. Again, dedicating
easements over private properties for public use is a voluntary effort by each property owner.
Your staff report is misleading in that it states in several places that the City geologist has "approved" the
geological information and report provided by the applicant. If you actually read the City geologist report it is
clearly limited to confirming that the applicant's report meets our Code requirements and complies with
generally accepted practices. It very clearly and specifically states that it does NOT constitute an "approval" of
the applicant's geologist's report. Why does your report misleadingly state "approval" was given when clearly it
was not? The geologist granted an "in -concept approval" for planning purposes. The applicant will be required
to submit a more detailed geotechnical report for a formal approval prior to building permit issuance.
On page 5 of your report you discuss the Bronco trail portion of the CTP and say the applicant will provide
access over the westerly portion of the property for future implementation of the conceptual Bronco trail.
Westerly portion in a south -north direction for Bronco Trail. Then in the discussion under the Georgette (sp)
trail you say the applicant will provide an easement over the northerly portion of the property for future
implementation of the Bronco trail. Northerly portion in an east -west direction for Georgette Canyon Trail. Did
you mean Georgette (sp)? Also, the NORHTERLY portion of the property abuts the canyon. Did you mean
southerly portion of the property (near the caisson wall) to provide access to Bronco? Your report is, indeed,
confusing. Ultimately, the point is to have south -north Bronco trail traverse down from Bronco onto the subject
lot to connect with the east -west Georgette Canyon Trail. None of which will connect or traverse Chaparral
Lane.
And when on Page 6 of the report you state staff will work with the applicant to obtain easements for the future
implementation of the Bronco and Georgette (sp) Canyon trails, you are referring to the Georgeff trail in RH,
correct, and not the portion of the Georgeff Trail in RHE? No, Staff is referring to the Georgette Canyon trail as
described the CTP.
Bottom line is this - the City could easily require that a portion of the easterly property be dedicated to the City
for an easement for the future implementation of the Georgeff trail that is in RHE and such an easement would
not interfere whatsoever with the development. Let's work with the applicant to get an easement that will keep
the existing easement accessible.
I look forward to your responses and to chatting with you on Monday.
Sharon Yarber
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:59 AM, So Kim <SoKgrVvca.gov> wrote:
Morning,
Below is the link to the Agenda for next Tuesday's CC Meeting.
http://rov.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=13
Please scroll down to Public Hearing Item No. 4 to view the Staff Report and attachments.
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE CHANGE MY EMAIL FROM SOK@RPV.COM TO SOK@RPVCA.GOV.