The URL can be used to link to this page

20180904 Late Correspondence:1f-\ COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR TRACT 16540 .Dvt\J'ioi ~~~~~ Portuguese Bend Clu b East 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Presentation to RPV City Council on September 4, 2018 I am speaking to you this evening on behalf of the Homeowners of Tract 16540 which adjoins Lot D. I am David Gakenheimer, Chief Financial Officer of our HOA. I am joined tonight by the President of our HOA, Robert Voll. The City's Planning Department wants your approval this evening to turn Lot D into a restricted -access native habitat area. Tract 16540 disagrees with this plan for the following two reasons . 1. The Coastal Commission recorded Lot D as a 1-acre park years ago when Ocean Trails was created allowing public access for recreational use (copy of relevant recorded pages attached). It has never been a native habitat area until now with the Planning Department's new plan. This change in use of Lot D should not be made without a public hearing and proper coordination with the Coastal Commission. Charles Posner, the Coastal Commission Supervisor of Planning, responded to our concern by email dated 8/28/18 with the following statement: "Lot D does appear to be designated as a park, although there may exist some habitat value that will have to be preserved when the formal walkways and bike paths are installed and when the area is landscaped with native plants. I agree that the area adjacent to the homes should be considered defensible space when the landscaping plan is developed, meaning that plant species should be used that reduce any fire hazard and the plan should include a fuel modification component that allows the area near habitable structures to be selectively thinned in order to reduce fire hazard. Also, we will discuss with the City any issues it may have with the park's access from the adjacent neighborhood. I don't know any reason why an existing public accessway would be closed." Mr. Posner asked us to talk to Zack Rehm of his office, who has been handling Lot D, when he returns from vacation (expected 9/5/18) to resolve this misunderstanding with the recorded use of Lot D and he further communicated: "In any case, I can confirm that there is no proposal to change to the conditions of the amended coastal development permit as they currently exist. At this time our staff is working with the permittee and City to comply with the conditions of the amended coastal development permit." A petition is attached signed by 40 Tract 16540 homeowners who wish to continu e to have access to Lot D through the community gate at the end of PV Drive South frontage road, as they have had for more than 60 years. 2. The decision to plant fire resistant native plants is fine with the homeowners of Tract 16540, as long as normal fire department brush setback and fuel modification standards are employed. At present, the developer's plan for Lot D shows plants up to our property line with proposed spacing (36 to 48 inches) and heights (up to 5 feet) that do not meet sensible brush setback standards from structures nor low combustible fuel levels. Note that the Fire Department's Weed and Brush Clearance Requirements state that native plants can be flammable even if green and all plants/brush should be setback 30 ft from structures. Since our homes along the property line are only setback by 3 to 1 O feet from the property line depending on home, the Fire Department requirement of 30 ft is not close to being met. Therefore, to avoid a serious conflict between the City's plans for Lot D, and the Coastal Commission's conditions for Lot D, we ask City Council to defer approval of the Lot D Landscape plans until its use as a park, with public access, can be worked out between the Coastal Commission, the developer, the City and our community. In light of the current severe drought conditions across California, Tract 16540 homeowners also request an additional Fire Department review with public participation of the final landscaping plan (including plant type, spacing, height, irrigation and pruning requirements and setback from our property line) and a sign off by the Fire Department. Attachments: 1. Coastal Commission Recorded Lot Conditions for Ocean Trails, application number A-5-RPV-93-005-E3, Appendix A5 pages 3 to 6 2. Petition signed by 40 Tract 16540 Homeowners requesting continued access to Lot D from the community gate 3. LA Country Fire Department Weed and Brush Clearance Requirements STATE OF CALIFORNIA· THE RESOURCES AGENCY ... • Go\'ftmor \ • South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 • • Filed: 4/3/97 49th Day: N.A. 180th Day: N.A. Pi; Staff: PE/LB Staff Report: 5/22/97 Hearing Date: 6/10-1 3/97 Commission 'Action: STAFF REPORT: PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST APPLICATION NO.: A-5-RPV-93-005 E3 APPLICANT: Palos Verdes Land Holdings Co. and Zuckerman Building Companies d.b.a. Ocean Trails AGENTS: Kenneth Zuckerman, Barbara Dye PROJECT LOCATfON: Palos Verdes Drive South and La Rotonda Drive, comprising 261.4 acres adjacent to Shoreline Park, South of Palos Verdes Drive South, east of the Portuguese Bend Club, extending to mean high tide. Habitat restoration includes Shoreline Park, and 98 acres located on Palos Verdes Drive East north of Palos Verdes Drive South. City of Ranr.,o Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Residential subdivision on Palos Verdes Peninsula consisting of two tracts (vesting tentative tract numbers 50667 and 50666) containing 75 single family lots, 18 hole golf course, club house, maintenance yard, four moderate income units, public parks, restrooms, habitat restoration areas, overlooks and trails as further described, conditioned and required on attached Appendix A, Notice of Intent to Issue Amended Permit A-5-RPV-93-005-A5. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the extension request is consistent with the Local Coastal Program and the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Approval of this extension request will extend the expiration date of Coastal Development Permit A-5-RPV 93-005, as amended, to April 15, 1998, one year from the previous date of expiration, and five years from the date of the original Commission approval. • •• • • . . . • • A·5·RPV·93·005·A5 . Palos Verdes Land Holdings/Zuckerman Page 3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS: In order to conform with the certified City of Rancho Palos Verdes LCP and the Public Access and Recreation Policies of the California CoastaJ Act, applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 1. OFFER TO DEDICATE IN FEE OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS EOB PARKS. PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicants es landowners shall execute and record document(s), iri a form end content acceptable to the Executive Director, irrevocably offering to dedicate to public agency(ies) or private association(s) approved by the Executive Director, the corridors noted on (roman numeral Revised Findings) Exhibit I, further explained in (roman numeral Revised Findings) Exhibits IJ, III, IV, V and exhibits 1, 5A, 48 and 49, for parks, public access, passive recreational use, habitat enhancement, trail, public parking and street purposes. The land shall be dedicated subject to the provisions outlined in the conditions bef ow with respect to trail access, beach use, habitat restoration and habitat preservation . The dedicated areas shall include the following: A. PARKS Land to be dedicated for purposes of public access, public recreation and parks tis show!"l _on Exhibit I: (1) The entirety of the follov•ing lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666: Lot A, Palos Verdes Drive--West Vista Park, Lot H; Halfway Point Park, including all areas inland of the bluff edge trail described in 3.A( 11 t below, not less than: (2) LOT 0 VTTM 50666, Portuguese Bend Overtook an Fuel Modification Area, as shown in Exhibit 49, 1.5 acres 5.1 acres not less than: 1.0 acre (3) Bluff Top Activity Corridor, Lot K Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666 as shown in the Attached Exhibit I, (roman numeral one) generally described as southerly of lot 38 and being no less then 100 feet wide immediately adjacent to the bluff edge (bluff face is Lot G) extending from • • . . •. A·S·RPV ·93.006·A5 Palo1 Verde• Land Holdlnga/Zuckerman · Page 4 the easterly tract boundary with VTTM 50667 to the intersection with Lot F (Halfway Point Preserve Aree), no less than 8.9 Acres (4) The entirety of Palos Verdes Drive-East Viata Park, lot 0 within Vesting Tentative Tract M1p 50667: 1.2 ICrtl (5) Bluff Top Activity Corridor Lot K, within Vesting Tentative Trect Map 50867 es 1hown in the attached Exhibit l (rom1n numeret, one) generally described as southerly of lot 38, being no less then 1 00 feet wide immediately adjacent the edge of bluff (bluff face is Lot I), no less than: 4. 5 1cres · All Lends dedicated for park purposes 1h1ll be open to the general public for recreation UH Half way Point Park end the Palo a Verde a Drive Vista Parks (described in 1.A(1 ), and 1.A(4)) shelf be developed for active use; •• the lands described in 1.A(2), (3), and (5), (known as the Portuguese • Bend View Park, the Bluff Top Activity Corridor West VTTM 50666, end the Bluff Top Activity Corridors East VTTM 50667) shell be developed with trails, benches, shade structures, interpretive signs and bikeways. The fends described in ~ A{2), (3), and (5) (known as Portuguese Bend Overlook, Bluff Top Activity Corridor West (VTTM 50666) and Bluff Top Activity Corridor East (VTTM 50667H shell not be graded except within the dedicated bicycle/pedestrian path and within two areas, one area of · not more than 0.3 acres adjacent to the 18th tee and a second area of 0.13 acres adjacent to the 18th hole. The total combined disturbed area adjacent to the 18th tee and the 18th hole shall not exceed 0.43 acres and shall be located as shown on Exhibit A depicting 1etb1ck1 for VTTM 60666 prepared by RBF and dated July 25, 1995. The disturbed area shall be further reduced es modified by the map dated June 20, 1996 submitted by the applicant with amendment A4 and ahown on Exhibit 9 1ttached to amendment A4. The Blufftop Activity Corridors shall be revegetated, as required by the Department of Fish and Game •nd United States Fish end Wildlife Service es specified in the executed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The offer to dedicate shall also provide that no development, other than development approved in this permit shall occur in the trail areas shown in Exhibits A and/or Exhibit 42 except es euthorized by a future coastal development permit, and es otherwise • . ! .. .. ... •• e. • • A·5·RPV·93·005·A5 Palos Verdes Land Holdings/Zuckerman Page S authorized by law. No co11t1I development permit exemptions 11 defined in Section 3061 O of the Coastal Act shall apply to the trails d11cribed btlow. AASSIVE PARK/HABITAT PRESERVES. Lands to be dedicated for purposes of habitat enhancement and passive recreation es shown on Exhibits I and III (roman numeral): (1) The entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666 excluding any trails identified in condition 3 of this permit: Lot E, West Bluff Preserve, no less than 7 acres, generally as indicated on Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 except that no portion of lot E shall be closer than 100 feet from any subdivided lot. 7.0 acres Lot F Halfway Point Preserve 3.3 acres Lot G the Bluff Face and Beach 24.4 acres (2) Lot I Golf course Bluff Edge Habitat Setback within VTTM Tract 50666, described as a strip of. land no Jess than 50 feet in width immediately adjacent to the edge of the bluff (the bluff face lot is Lot G), southwesterly of the golf course, including the west side of Half way Point, no less than: 1.2 acres " .... , >· ~ • (3) Tiie entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667, excluding any trails identified in Condition 3 of this permit: Lot G East Bluff Preserve no less than 7.7 acres Lot I Bluff Face and Beach no less than 10.1 acres Public' access to the lots dedicated for habitat preservation purposes above is limited to a} tours, inspections, and educational field trips managed by the Department of Fish and Game, or the Fish and Wildlife Service, or b) the trails shown in Exhibits A and II. All lots shall be revegetated with coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub plants as listed in the finally executed Habitat Conservation Plan, in the manner required by the Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, except that no grading, vegetation removal except hand removal of invasive plants, or other development with the exception of trails end fences and drainage devices approved in this .. • ... . . A·&·RPV ·13..00&·AB Palos Verdes Lind Holdin91/Zuokerm1n Pege 6 permit shall occur in these areas. The beach portion, the southern lot line to 20 feet above mean see level, of Lot G, VTTM 50666 and Lot I, VTTM 50667 shall be open for public recreational use. C. MULIMJS! CQMMQfjl Sl!Eri SPACE. Lends offered to be dedicated for habitat, managed fire break, flood control purposes except for trail areas offered to be dedicated in condition 3 below: (1) The entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666: Lot B, Forrestal Draw and Portuguese Bend Club connector Lot C managed fire break (2) The entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667: Lots A, B, C, for open space, drainage and slope hazards Lot H east end for managed fire break Public access in the Multi-use Common Open Space areas is limited to the trails shown in Exhibits A and 11. Planting and fuel modification shall •• occur only as indicated in a final approved planting and fuel modification • plan required by special condition 10. Areas unavoidably disturbed for drainage devices shat! be revegetated such that plants are two feet high in two years from the date of completion of rough grading. 0. STREETS. ROADS ANO f?UBLIC fb lfUNG AREAS. Lands offered to be dedicated for public access purposes. All streets, roads end public parking areas identified in the Tentative Tract maps 50666 and 50667, including the two public parking lots at the end of Street A, VTTM 50666, as a new lot in tract 50666 and lot E VTTM 50667, and noted on Exhibits 1, 9 and 46 and B. The dedication shall be for public street and public street parking purposes. No gates, gate· houses or other entry control may constructed on the public streets. The two public parking lots at the end of Street A VTTM 50666 and lot E VTTM 50667 may be entry gated as long as exit is possible after the lot its closed. Such lots shaU remain open from dawn to dusk as described in condition 19 below. The following appUe1 to Items A, B. C end D ebove. All documents shall provide that the offer of dedication shall not be used or construed to allow • e~tition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Our Tract 16540 eastern border adjoins Lot D of the Trump Ocean Trails golf development. This lot will be dedicated to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Ocean Trails developer in the next few weeks. We have very recently learned that after Lot Dis transferred to the City, the City's stated policy is to close all access across Lot D from our community gate. This is a restrictive change to a long-standing land use pattern which will prevent us from using our community gate. The threat of prosecution by the City for trespass, once Lot D is dedicated to the City, has been sent to our homeowners association by the Planning Department (see portion of email below 1 ). We have enjoyed a foot path from our community gate across Lot D for decades. This is used daily by residents of Tract 16540 and the Portuguese Bend Club, along with their children and dogs, to access the trails around the driving range which are intended for public use. Therefore, we the undersigned hereby petition the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department and City Council to allow the continued use of the existing foot path from our community gate to the existing coastal trail after Lot D is transferred to the City. 1 What happens if a property owner accesses Lot D directly from their property and damages habitat? Please see Municipal Code Sections below. •€4N!€€€€€ 17.41.050 • l'rohlblti!cl tonduet. 1t i:; tinlawlul lnr any person, fimr, btJsitw:;:c,, rotp<:>r~tlon, or any nlhN entity to pertorrn h:~hit.rit: rnodlflt:btJon Wt'Wk on .any CSS habitat. or perfonn we-ed abatement on <~ny pn-:itH,~rty 9n~nter than two acr-t::s in sv0 that b wJthm Hie Hrnlts Df the t!ty arid contains CSS habitat, <:1:s depkb~d on ttw t:Jty's mt>~•t curr~nt NCCP rndp, provi:;lons of th!S ctwpt;,r (Ord. 420 § 2 (p;ilt), 2D05: Orn. 4·19u § 2 {pm(), WOS'J •€€€€€€€€ 17.41Al90 • Violations and peni1ilties. A vinliltmn of ;my p<ovi>ic>rr ol thrs chapter 1;; a m1sdl'!mec1nor ptmish;)t;i!(~ by ,1 fme uf not rnor1~ than .. 1ne thmJS~Jnd doHzirs, nr by imprlsonrnent in the county pi! lnr {1 pPrlod not -exceeding sc~ n'H)ntf1~;. ()f by bo!:h s-uch nne-and tmpn$OnrnenL 1\ny f,M?-t.son found t.o h;:1vr:~ viol{'1tt?d ~'my provision of Hw; (h0pter :::ih:i:d! bi.2' d00rned guiHy of a septuatt: and ti1~:.tinn nf·lens(~ for {:ach day, ur purtwn ther.:of, during which ~~Hth violation {;.onhriucs, <JtHi ~,haH brt punistwhle iH cordin9!y. ~n udditio11 to the forf!g(nnq, the city rrwy rt:Quire:) reveqetation wo1k be performed by tht.~ vtohJt()i'i "1t J r.Jtio 10 be-d(~~ermined by Ute di-rettor, dnd rndy as~e;;s ~1 hne in flfl arriount nece~>-!~i:H''Y to .;J5St.ffC that the CSS H1dt wns mrn·nrn,rlv Jt:<rnoved can be rr:~pla(ed and maintained for a tninirnum period of fwe year:; or until tt'H~ CS~) ii, r(~e~t<1h!ished and to cover (~r11r othd <:osts in<:wr(~d by tht: dtV in athievlnq cnmp!iarii:.:0 wlth this ch0pter, f'.urther. the dtv shalt not ac<ept tor pr-0-cfr'.~"l:>lnq. or nrant approval of, any appikalltln tor development use, permit, nr other entitlement pursu:rnt to Tlries 15, 16 or 17 ut the munrdp0I (Orie until >Hd't ttrn~~ thM the property owr>r.:-r has complie-d with the provisions of this ch0pter ;lnd other dpp!icJbh3'. provisions of the rntmidp,)I rnde. {Ord, 420 2 (part), WO:l: nrrl. 419U § 2 (pMt), 200'.'d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 e,etition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South lot, I support I oppose Owner this this Name Address petition petition 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 I oppose this petition requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South . Lot Owner Address Signature I support I oppose Date this this petition petition 27 28 29 30 31 .F:'J~tition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Signature Pet;itiQJ1 To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner I oppose this 32 f 33 34 35 36 Owner Narne { . \ '. n u our comrnun end litth:~ Slgni;lture '(>.1 {/, Pettmn this l oppose this To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date ! I '! ') From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address ~s~;rtv~ I Date. Pa from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South ··«·~--... " .. ""'" ... ",. ''f "" -·""""~··~~~-"'-""·······""'"""'" .... " ,, ... _., ,.~.T·--·"-'· . . . . .... ------·-· j I I support f oppose · · this this Address [Signature j petition , petition ... ······----···-···----·]'····· ··t. \d 39 37 P~~O the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners Tract 16540 requesting continued access across foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South i £<upport I oppo.1$e ttds petition Date I 4144 Mmi!1me Rd ' To the City of Rancho Palos From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of Uttle Palos Verdes Drive South .SU~)tlOrt I oppose ·this petition Date 38 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South ......... , .... -........... .,,,~·-···--"--····-T"'"-··--·-····-1·· ···--········--······y~···-·--1 lot, I .1 I support , f oppose I I Owner I ; this / this I · Name I Address 1 Signature j petition 1 petition j Date "~;,.r--f~--r 1--......... "1 .. ~~J.· ~ .. ···'2.a·····.j1 ......... ~~----·· -IJOv:rij····· ~ ········+ --, -, ----/ ..... ,,__ ·-f·· ""' ----·---·---··-....... J__ ·····--------+ " --1~-········J 40 M Gn,ait David Gakcnheimcr <dgakenheimer@gniai l.corn> Re: Petition for Continued Access through Tract 16540 Gates to Lot D Trump Golf Course 1 message Lynn Doran <lynnsky@earth link .net > Mon , Aug 20 , 2018 at 5 :20 PM To : David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com > H1 David I would like to sign the petition but I am 4n Hong 1 g on my way to Bah . Can you sign for me and I will authorize when I return sept. 7th? Lynn Sent from my iPhone Property Line County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures IMPORT ANTI Clearance requirements apply to your property even if the structure being protected is not on your property! Okay to have ornamental plants and trees if individually planted, spaced and maintained so they do not form a means of transmitting fire from native growth to the structure. No portion of a tree may extend within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney and it must be free of dead wood. (County Code sec. 325 .2.1 EXCEPTIONS (1 )) Weed and Brush CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS IMPORT ANT! Thinning or removal of vegetation an additional 70 to 130 feet (100 to 200 feet total) from structures may be required! Please contact your Zone Inspector! (626) 575-5484 http://acwm.lacounty.gov Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet from structures and less than 18 inches in height may be maintained where necessary to stabilize soil and prevent erosion. (County Code sec. 325.2.1 EXCEPTIONS (3)) Space trees and shrubs a minimum of 15 feet or three times their diameter from other shrubs. Trees should be spaced to allow a minimum of 30 feet between canopies at maturity. For trees taller than 18 feet, prune lower branches within 6 feet of the ground. For trees and shrubs less than 18 feet, prune lower branches to 1 /3 of their height. Choose landscaping plants that are fire resistant and maintain all plants regularly removing dead branches, leaves, etc. (Go to http ://fire.la county .gov/FromChi ef .asp and scroll down the page and click on the link on the left entitled "Ready! Set! Go! Wildfire Action Plan".) -... Roadway clearance, minimum of 10 feet clearance for all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth. (County Code sec . 325 .10) Firewood, manure, compost or other combustible materials must be placed or stored a minimum of 30 feet from any building or structure. (County Code sec. 325 .2.1 (1)) [ ! J +---Neighbor's House -I . ., : ·'. ' . . .. ,,, .. ~' / -:' ~-i/ Remove/clear away all flammable vegetation or combustible growth for a distance of not less than 30 feet from any structure . This includes ornamental plants known to be flammable. (County Code sec . 325 .2.1 (2)) NATIVE PLANTS CAN BE FLAMMABLE EVEN IF GREEN! -1 I I I I I I --------1 I I I I Okay to have cultivated ground cover provided they are maintained in a condition that does not form a means of transmitting fire from native growth to the structure. (County Code sec. 325.2 .1 EXCEPTIONS (2)) TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. F 1 2 Description of Material Email from Rick Daniels; Letter from John and Denise Girardi Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction Redline; Correction to Attachment E Exhibits; Email exchanges between Director of Community Development Mihranian and: Lake McManus and Frank Angel; Dr. David Gakenheimer; Email exchanges between Deputy Director of Community Development Kim and: Jessica Leeds; Kelvin Vanderlip; Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Fox and SUNSHINE; Emails from: SUNSHINE; Lenee Bilski Email exchanges between Director of Public Works Sassoon and: Edward Stevens; Joe Lindorfer; Emails from: SUNSHINE; Ginette Aelony; Charles Agnew; Lenee Bilski; Don Bell; Elizabeth Sax; Mickey Rodich; Kristen Lenders Respectfully submitted, W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180904 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:06 AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: September 4, 2018, City Council Meeting Agenda Item # F, Night-Time Parking on Crenshaw Blvd. Late corr From: Rick Daniels [mailto:rickdaniels314@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2018 7:55 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: September 4, 2018, City Council Meeting Agenda Item# F, Night-Time Parking on Crenshaw Blvd. Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks and Council Members, The Del Cerro HOA Board supports the City Staff recommendation for "PROHIBITING NIGHT-TIME PARKING ON CRENSHAW BOULEVARD FROM THE ENTRANCE OF THE PORTUGUESE BEND RESERVE TO THE INTERSECTION OF CREST ROAD". The HOA Board would like to make the City aware that Del Cerro residents are: • Concerned about the proliferation of signs along Crenshaw Blvd. and the cumulative impact on the area's semi- rural ambience from the existing RPV Resident Parking Permit signage, the subject night-time parking restrictions, and possibly the future addition of signs relating to parking meter stations. • Concerned about signs that negatively impact ocean views that overlook Crenshaw Blvd. Therefore, the HOA Board also recommends that the City consider the following when determining how to implement the night-time parking restrictions: 1. Use only the minimum number of signs that will still make the parking restriction enforceable. 2. Consider unique signage wording such as "No night-time parking along this entire section of Crenshaw" or "No night-time parking south of Crest Rd. to the end of Crenshaw" (or equivalent language) to enable the city to minimize the number of signs. This approach would be similar to the permit parking signs used in the adjacent neighborhoods that indicate that permit parking applies to the "entire neighborhood." 3. Work with Del Cerro residents whose properties overlook Crenshaw Blvd, to determine the optimal placement of signage so as not to interfere with their ocean views. 4. Consider whether the parking restriction is needed adjacent to St. John Fisher Church and coordinate any restrictions deemed appropriate with church officials. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Rick Daniels (3 Amber Sky Drive) Del Cerro HOA President 1 F LAW}i'ERS September 4, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: cc(@,rpvca.gov Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Item F, Consent Calendar for September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: We agree that establishing no nighttime parking on Crenshaw Boulevard is a necessary first step in addressing the parking issues in our community. One of the benefits is that it would have no impact on the use or enjoyment of the Preserve. Commensurate with the restrictions would be enforcement, not only on Crenshaw Boulevard, but Park Place as well (where nighttime parking currently is not allowed. Repectfully submitted, John and Denise Girardi 1126 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. 90017-1904 TELEPHONE: 213-977-0211 •FACSIMILE: 213-481-1554 WWW. GIRARD !KEESE. COM RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: California Coasta l Commission 45 Fremont St. 725 Front Street , Suite 2-00G300 Santa Cruz. CA 95060 San Francisco, CA 94105 2219 Attn : Legal Division NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383 Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code §6103. SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEED RESTRICTION This SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEED RESTRICTION ("Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction") is entered into as of , 2018, by VH Property Corp., a Delaware corporation ("VH"), VHPS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("VHPS'', together with VH , and the successors and assigns of each , collectively, "Owners"), and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation ("City", together with the Owners , collectively, the "Grantors"), in favor of the California Coastal Commission ("Commission"), acting on behalf of the People of the State of California. RECITALS I. WHEREAS, this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction is entered into by VH, VHPS , and the City in favor of the Commission, acting on behalf of the People of the State of California, in order to amend and restate in its entirety that certain Amended and Restated Deed Restriction recorded against the Property (as defined below) in the Official Records of the Los Angeles County Recorder 's Office ("Official Records") as Instrument No. 00-1613036 on October 17 , 2000 (the "Restated Deed Restriction"), which amended and restated that certain Deed Restriction recorded in the Official Records as Instrument No. 97- 1999963 on December 19, 1997 (the "Original Deed Restriction"). The Restated Deed Restriction was previously amended pursuant to that certain Amendment to Documents, recorded in the Official Records as Instrument No. 00-1649980 on October 23, 2000 (the "First Amendment"). The Original Deed Restriction , together with the Restated Deed Restriction, and First Amendment, are collectively referred to herein as the "Deed Restriction". II. WHEREAS, VH, VHPS, and the City, collectively, are the legal owners of a fee interest in certain real property located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes , County of Los Angeles, State of California, and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"). -(}R{);-0001 /5 00364 . I-01203 .0001 /5 00364 .2 1 III. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the coastal zone as defined in Section 30103 of the California Public Resources Code ("PRC"), a section of the California Coastal Act of 1976, PRC § 30000 et seq. (the "Act"). IV. WHEREAS, the Act created the Commission and requires that any development approved by the Commission must be consistent with the policies of the Act. V. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Owners' predecessor-in-interest, Ocean Trails, L.P. ("Original Owner"), applied to the Commission for a coastal development permit on the Property described above and pursuant to the Act, on April 15, 1993, the Commission granted Coastal Development Permit Number A-5-RPV-93-005 (the "Original Permit"). VI. WHEREAS, the Original Permit was subject to certain terms and conditions including, but not limited to, the conditions listed on Exhibit B to the Original Deed Restriction. VIL WHEREAS, the Original Owner elected to comply with the Original Condition imposed by the Original Permit and executed and recorded the Original Deed Restriction (as defined above) so as to enable the Original Owner to undertake the development authorized by the Original Permit (such development, the "Project"). VIII. The Original Permit has subsequently been amended from time to time (as so amended, the "Permit"), and Owners have subsequently succeeded to the interest of Original Owner as the developer of the Project. IX. WHEREAS, VH applied to the Commission for a permit amendment to further amend the Permit, and on August 13, 2014 the Commission conditionally approved Coastal Development Permit Amendment Number A-5-RPV-93-005-A21 ("Permit Amendment 21"), attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Findings adopted by the Commission (incorporated herein by this reference and on file and available for review at the Commission's office located in Long Beach), and the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit Amendment to Coastal Development Permit A- 5-RPV-93-005-A21 dated September 24, 2014. The Permit, as amended by Permit Amendment 21, is referred to herein as the "Amended Permit". X. WHEREAS, Permit Amendment 21 requires VH to cause the landowner(s) of the Property to record an amended and restated deed restriction against the Property consistent with the requirements of the revised Special Condition 7 of Permit Amendment 21 attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Revised Condition"). XL WHEREAS, as a result of the foregoing, the Owners desire to amend and restate the Deed Restriction by executing this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction, and City has agreed to join in this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction in order to allow VH to comply with the Revised Condition. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, and the granting of the Amended Permit by the Commission, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confirmed, the Grantors hereby irrevocably covenant with the Commission that there be and hereby is created the following restrictions on 2 the use and enjoyment of said Property, which shall be deemed to be incorporated into and become part of the deed to the Property. 1. COVENANT, CONDITION AND RESTRICTION. Each of the undersigned Grantors, for h-imselffherself and for his/her heirsitself, its assigns,-_and successors in interest, covenants and agrees that the following covenants and notices shall run with and burden the Property, all as contemplated by the Amended Permit, including the Revised Condition: A. In accordance with the Amended Permit, the habitat, trail and park improvements referenced in Conditions 4 and 8 of the Amended Permit shall be complete prior to (i) final grading of individual residential lots within Tentative Tract Map 50666, (ii) construction of more than 5 "model homes" in Tract 50666, or (iii) the occupancy of any residential structures in Tract 50666. B. Habitat and public access shall be provided as the case may be in accordance with the requirements of the Special Conditions of the Amended Permit (i.e.,f Conditions 1, 3,--:::6 and 8j). C. The public shall have the right to park on and pass through the streets of this subdivision in accordance with the requirements off Conditions 1(D)-an<l-,_l9(E)-j-and 24 of the Amended Permit. D. The Owners shall have the right and duty, and any future park district created by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and/or the City shall have the right, to manage and maintain the parks, trails, habitat areas and fire breaks required by the Amended Permit in accordance with the habitat management and maintenance program required by fCondition 6}-_of the Amended Permit, including, without limitation, the obligation of each of the Owners to contribute their fair and reasonable share of the costs of the maintenance of the area, the obligation to participate in special district(s) or associations organized to collect funds and carry out maintenance of the areas and the right of the district/and or accepting agency to manage and maintain the area in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Amended Permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this restriction imposes the obligation on City or a homeowner to personally work on the streets, parks or habitat areas. E. Drainage systems, oil separators, Best Management Practices and other programs and devices required to protect habitat in ocean waters and tide pools shall be maintained in accordance with the habitat management and maintenance program required byf Condition 6}-_of the Amended Permit; which includes, without limitation, the obligation of each of the Owners to contribute their fair and reasonable share of the costs of the maintenance of the drainage systems oil separators or other devices, the obligation to participate in special district(s) or associations organized to collect funds and carry out maintenance of the drainage systems oil separators or other devices and the right of the district/and or accepting agency to manage and maintain the drainage systems oil separators or other devices accordance with the terms and conditions of the Amended Permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this restriction imposes the obligation on City or a homeowner to personally clean the streets or drainage devices. 3 F. The use on the Property of invasive, non-native plants listed in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall be restricted in accordance with the requirements of landscaping{ Condition 1 Oj--_of the Amended Permit. G. No development, other than development approved in the Amended Permit, shall occur in the park areas indicated in Exhibit E to that certain Amended and Restated Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Fee Title, recorded in the Official Records on October 17, 2000 in the Official Records as Instrument No. 00-1613039, which was subsequently amended pursuant to the First Amendment (as defined above) (the "Fee OTD"), and the trail areas shown in Exhibit E of that certain Amended and Restated Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Public Trail Easement and Declaration of Restrictions recorded in the Official Records on October 17, 2000 as Instrument No. 00-1613038 (the "Trail OTD"), which Trail OTD was subsequently amended pursuant to the First Amendment (as defined above) and that certain Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Public Trail Easement and Declaration of Restrictions, recorded concurrently herewith, except as authorized by a future coastal development permit, and as otherwise authorized by law, or as permitted by such documents. No coastal development permit exemption as defined in Section 30610 of the Coastal Act shall apply to the trails described above. H. Improved golf cart paths on Lots 24-27 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666 and Lots 38 39 37-39 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667 shall be open and available, as a public access program, for pedestrian use by the general public during non-golfing daylight hours in accordance withf Condition 19(C)j-_of the Amended Permit. Said trails shall be signed and identified as public. I. All covenants and agreements between the Owners and/or successors in interests and their agents and with the City or private maintenance companies or other entities that affect the streets, parking lots, parks habitat areas and trails required undert Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 19j--_of the Amended Permit are subject to the terms and conditions of this Second the Amended and Restated Deed Restriction and said Conffi-tie-nsPermit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this restriction imposes the obligation on City or a homeowner to personally perform any work on the streets parks, habitat areas, or drainage systems. Pursuant to this requirement, any agreements or covenants that delegate maintenance or operation of these public facilities to a third party shall be consistent with all terms and conditions referenced above, and shall be provided to the Executive Director of the Commission with evidence of such consistency prior to their execution. 2. DURATION. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 2, this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction shall remain in full force and effect during the period that the Amended Permit, or any modification or amendment thereof, remains effective, and during the period that the development authorized by the Amended Permit or any modification of said development remains in existence in or upon any part of, and thereby confers benefit upon, the Property described herein, and shall bind the Owners Grantors and their respective assigns or successors in interest. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction shall not become effective as to any portion of the Property until a final tract map or a final parcel map is recorded against such portion of the Property for development purposes or either of the Owners or their respective successors or assigns commences grading operations on 4 such portion of the Property. 3. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. It is intended that this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction is irrevocable and shall constitute an enforceable restriction within the meaning of a) Article XIII, §8 , of the California Constitution; and b) §402.1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code or successor statute. Furthermore, this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction shall be deemed to constitute a servitude upon and burden to the Property within the meaning of §3712(d) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, or successor statute, which survives a sale of tax-deeded property. 4. RIGHT OF ENTRY. The Commission or its agent may enter onto the Property at times reasonably acceptable to the Grantors to . ascertain whether the use restrictions set forth above are being observed. 5. REMEDIES. Any act , conveyance, contract, or authorization by the Ovmers Grantors whether written or oral which uses or would cause to be used or would permit use of the Property contrary to the terms of this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction will be deemed a violation and a breach hereof. The Commission and the Grantors may pursue any and all available legal and/or equitable remedies to enforce the terms and conditions of this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction. In the event of a breach, any forbearance on the part of any party hereto to enforce the terms and provisions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of enforcement rights regarding any subsequent breach. 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction is held to be invalid, or for any reason becomes unenforceable , no other provision shall be thereby affected or impaired. 7. PRIOR DEED RESTRICTIONS. The Grantors and the Commission hereby agree that this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction completely amends and restates the Original Deed Restriction and the Restated Deed Restriction (as amended by the First Amendment), and that the Deed Restriction is of no further force and effect. 8. COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, nothing in this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction shall be impose any obligation on City or a homeowner to comply with any conditions of approval issued by the Commission for the issuance of the Amended Permit or the development of the Project and neither the City, nor any homeowner, shall be bound to ensure compliance with, except as may be expressly agreed to by the City pursuant to the Certificates of Acceptance relating to the Fee OTD and the Trail OTD executed by the City and recorded concurrently herewith. 9. INTERPRETATION. In the event of conflict between the terms and conditions of this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction and the Amended Permit , all of v1hich shall be the obligation of the Owners and their respective successors and assignsthe Amended Permit shall prevail. [Signature Pages Follow} m0011s 0m64 .1-01203 .ooo 11soo364 .2 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amended and Restated Deed Restriction as of the date written above. OWNERS: VH PROPERTY CORP., a Delaware corporation By: ______________ _ Name: Title: By: ______________ _ Name: Title: VHPS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: ______________ _ Name: Title: By: --------------- Name: Title: 6 CITY: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a municipal corporation Susan M. Brooks, Mayor ATTEST: Emily Colborn, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP William W. Wynder, City Attorney COMMISSION: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION By:~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Karla Galvez Title: Staff Counsel 7 NOT ARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGES 8 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this ce1iificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , 2018 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ________________ _ A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , 2018 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ________________ _ 9 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , 2018 before me, personally appeared , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: _______________ _ -0-hJ.G~OQG+,l§OOJM+ 01203.0001/500364.2 EXHIBIT A Description of the Property [Attached] EXHIBITB Permit Amendment No. 21 [Attached] EXHIBITC Revised Condition [Attached] EXHIBITD Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants [Attached] 01203.0001/500364.1 40848946.10 EXHIBIT A Description of the Property [INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT] 0 I 203. 0001/500364.1 EXHIBIT B Permit Amendment No. 21 [INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT] 01203.0001/500364.1 EXHIBITC Revised Condition [INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT] EXHIBITD Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants [INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT] 01203.0001/500364.1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late Correspondence. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP So Kim Friday, August 31, 2018 9:55 AM CityClerk FW: Letter Re: Director's Review of Landscape Plan for Trump National Golf Club, Lot D Preservation Area Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes Y:!Y:!Y::Lf PVC."J .gov (310) 544-5222 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:20 AM To: 'Frank Angel' <fangel@angellaw.com> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Zach Rehm <Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: RE: Letter Re: Director's Review of Landscape Plan for Trump National Golf Club, Lot D Preservation Area I look forward to meeting you. And no, there is no design for the shortcut along PVDS. We merely offered that as a suggestion. As I see it, the PBC residents can easily walk out their entrance gate on to the PVDS trail (which is part of the City's segment of the California Coastal Trail) and connect to the formal trails at Trump National. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director crrvoF !~NO 10 !)1\LOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? 1 (. rhi'.i c 1mil message conL1i16 i;;fonnai:ion bdonsfnq to the Ctty of Rancho P;;los Verdes, whicr1 rnay be r.wivile9ed, conf!dr,ntid and/or prntected frorn di;;ciosurE\ The inL:nnatkm i;; intendu1 ol1iy for use of the indivklual rn· entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibited, If you received this email in ei rnr, or iltC not an intended recipient, pieilse notify the sender i;mnecliately. Ti1C1nk you for your ilSSistance C1nd cooperation. From: Frank Angel <fangel@angellaw.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:00 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpv~> Cc: So Kim <5oK@rgvca.gov>; Zach Rehm <Zach.Rehm@coastal.@g_ov> Subject: Re: Letter Re: Director's Review of Landscape Plan for Trump National Golf Club, Lot D Preservation Area Thank you, Mr. Mihranian, for your prompt response. I will be at the hearing on September 4. Re: "the PBC may work with the Public Works Department to create a shortcut immediately north of the said gate along Palos Verdes Drive South:" Is there a design for this shortcut? If so I would much appreciate it if you could forward it to me. I assume it will not infringe on Lot D, correct? Thanks! -Frank (o} (310} 314-6433 (c} (310} 924-1416 www.anqellaw.com Sent from my iPhone On Aug 30, 2018, at 10:10 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Mr. McManus, I am in receipt of your letter requesting that special conditions be added to the Director's decision of the landscape plan for Lot D ofTract Map No. 50666. As you may know, the September 4th City Council Staff Report, under Additional Information, discusses the request to provide a trail connection between the PBC gate at the terminus of the cul-de-sac to the formal public trail. The specific Staff Report language reads as follows: Currently, there is a private gate at the terminus of the Palos Verdes Drive South cu I- de-sac that provides direct private access to Lot D. Mr. Vanderlip is requesting that a pedestrian path be provided from said gate that would connect to the public trail on Lot D. As noted above, Lot D will be dedicated to the City for public open space with improved public trails based on the Council-approved Public Amenities Plan. At no time, since the original approvals were obtained by the City Council in 1992 and the Coastal Commission in 1993, did the Public Amenities Plan contemplate a trail that would connect Lot D to the PBC. Lot D is intended to be open park space with limited public access and a specific plant palate. Additionally, the Coastal Commission recently weighed in on the private trail access request and submitted an email in opposition to introducing an access trail to the PBC. Furthermore, the City's segment of the California Coastal Trail runs parallel to the private street's cul-de-sac that the PBC residents can use with access to the trails at Trump National. Notwithstanding, the PBC may work with the Public Works Department to create a shortcut immediately north of the said gate along Palos Verdes Drive South. 2 To that end, and in the spirit of the information you cited in your letter, the City has no intention to provide the requested trail connection, and will consider your recommended condition language. Thank you, Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development From: Lake McManus [mailto:lmcmanus@angellaw.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 5:41 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; wwynder@awattorneys.com; shudson@coastal.ca.gov; thenry@coastaLca.gov; chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov; erin.chalmers@coastal.ca.gov; zach.rehm@coastal.ca.gov; Frank Angel <fangel@angellaw.com>; Ellis Raskin <eraskin@angellaw.com> Subject: Letter Re: Director's Review of Landscape Plan for Trump National Golf Club, Lot D Preservation Area Dear all: Please see the attached letter from Frank P. Angel regarding the landscape plan for Trump National Golf Club, Lot D Preservation Area. Specifically, Mr. Angel asked that I direct your attention to the first full paragraph on page 4, which reads as follows: "We certainly much appreciate the elimination of the connector trail that was depicted on the Lot D Landscape Plan lodged by the TNGC with the Coastal Commission on August 15, 2018. However, the mere removal of the connector trail from the revised Lot D Landscape Plan lodged on August 21, without more, is insufficient to prevent future violations. To effectively prevent violations and protect the public's rights under state law, we request inclusion of special conditions into your Director's approval of the Lot D Landscape Plan, to the effect of: (a) expressly prohibiting access to Lot D from the cul-de-sac or any other area of Residential Tract 16540, thereby ensuring notification of all PBC residents and PBBC members that they have no access privileges greater than those of the general public (which includes all other City residents and visitors to the local coast); and (b) establishing a physical access control system at the gates to Lot D, preventing unpermitted trail access and encroachments upon the habitat restoration area. This second special condition will save considerable enforcement resources the City would otherwise have to commit case-by-case, and it will provide the City a level of protection against enforcement litigation should case-by-case enforcement fall short." lake McManus I Practice Manager I (310) 314-6433 2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Angel Low 3 ANGEL LAW 2 6 0 1 O c e a n P a r k B l v d . , S u i t e 2 0 5 S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 5 -5 2 6 9 T e l : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 -6433 F a x : ( 3 1 0 ) 3 1 4 -6433 a n g e l l a w . c o m August 30, 2018 Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Via email to aram@rpvca.gov Re: Director’s Review of Landscape Plan for Trump National Golf Club, Lot D Preservation Area Dear Director Mihranian: This law firm represented the Sierra Club both in litigation under the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the California Environmental Quality Act concerning the project formerly known as Ocean Trails, and in a May 1995 settlement negotiation of the litigation then pending. The parties to the settlement include, inter alia, the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society, the California Coastal Commission, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the predecessors-in-interest of the Trump National Golf Club ownership interests (TNGC), namely, Real Parties in Interest Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, L.P., Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company, Inc., and Zuckerman Building Co.1 1 This settlement resulted in expanded habitat conservation and expanded public open dedications on the site of what is now the TNGC property. It incorporated all duties of Real Parties in Interest arising under the Habitat Conservation Plan, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental (California Coastal Gnatcatcher) Take Permit for the golf course development project, and contains Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development August 30, 2018 Page 2 of 5 We now write on behalf of the Sierra Club to express our client’s categorical objection to any form of direct trail access from any land located within Homeowners’ Association Tract 16540 (Residential Tract 16540) or within the Portuguese Bend Beach Club (PBBC), through any currently existing or future gate along the common boundary of Residential Tract 16540 and Lot D of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 50666 within the TNGC, to Lot D and the public trail system (the walkways and bike paths) that will be developed on Lot D, or to the California coastal gnatcatcher preserve south of Lot D. Residential Tract 16540 borders on the westerly boundary of Lot D. VTTM 50666 is a land division that was originally created as part of the Ocean Trails project. Residential Tract 16540 and the PBBC (west and south of Tract 16540) each is a gated private residential community. Both share a common entrance on Yacht Harbor Drive, at the guardhouse located seaward of the intersection of Yacht Harbor Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South. The PBBC maintains recreational amenities, including shaded picnic tables, fire rings, volleyball courts, and a kid’s playground. Non-residents may join the private beach club if they can afford the membership fees.2 On August 21, 2018, the City Council accepted TNGC’s offer to dedicate Lot D to the City, and transfer of title is now slated to occur following the City Council’s anticipated approval on September 4, 2018 of the recordation of the final VTTM 50666. We understand that members of Residential Tract 16540’s board of directors have been lobbying the City for direct access from Residential Tract 16540 to the public trail system that is proposed on Lot D, i.e., access that would benefit exclusively the PBC residents, non-resident PBBC members, and their invitees. Specifically, the Residential Tract 16540 representatives want access to Lot D through a gate located in a cul -de-sac just south of and roughly parallel to Palos Verdes Drive South, within Residential Tract 16540. There are several additional gates from the yards of private residences within Residential Tract 16540. Like the gate in the cul-de-sac, these provide de facto illegal access to Lot D. The Sierra Club objects to any private trail connection from and to Residential Tract 16540, primarily on the grounds set forth below (not to mention tort liability exposure and insurance costs borne by the local taxpayers should a ny PBC resident, PBBC member, or invitee, suffer any injury while traversing the habitat to connect with the public trail or bikeway, or using other bluff areas west or southwest of the PBC). a contractual commitment that subsequent statutory or regulatory changes will not operate to diminish the duties of Real Parties in Interest under these instruments. The settlement is binding on the parties’ successors in interest and assignees. 2 Residential Tract 16540 and the PBBC will sometimes hereafter be referred to collectively as “PBC.” Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development August 30, 2018 Page 3 of 5 First, access directly from Residential Tract 16540 to Lot D is incompatible with the continuous native vegetation planting area proposed outside the controlled public trail system. The revegetated area would be divided and disrupted by a Residential Tract 16540 connector trail. Ingress and egress from and to the PBC by the PBC residents, the PBBC’s non-resident members, and their invitees, crossing the Lot D preservation area (with or without on- or off-leash dogs, or bikes) would be an ongoing source of degradation of the area’s environmentally sensitive habitat, and would compromise successful growth of the native vegetation species and overall restoration to begin with. The City’s proposed trail system carefully balances visitor access and habitat restoration on Lot D. Expanded access for neighboring beachfront residents and non-resident PBBC members will upset that balance. Second, demands for private trail access directly from the Residential Tract 16540 to Lot D and its public trail system, to put it politely, evince an entitlement mindset of a bygone era. The demands of the PBC representatives, if satisfied, would grant the residents of a gated community and members of a private beach club privileged access to public amenities on public parkland, without granting the public reciprocal rights of access to the PBBC’s dry sandy beach areas, private recreational amenities and bathrooms, which are guarded by private security. The Residential Tract 16540 representatives’ demands fly in the face of the public access and environmental justice policies of the Coastal Act, which serve to advance public coastal access, not this type of exclusive access for residents and members of a private beach club. To this point, we note that the Coastal Act, since 2017, promulgates state legislative policy calling upon local governments and the Coastal Commission to consider “environmental justice, or the equitable distribution of environmental benefits throughout the state” in coastal development permitting. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30604, subd. (h).) “ ‘[E]nvironmental justice’ means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulati ons, and policies.” (Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e).) At the local level, this includes fairness in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. (See Cal. Department of Justice, Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level: Legal Background (Updated July 10, 2012).) Third, the City previously precluded development on a 32-foot wide swath of land of Lot D along its boundary with Residential Tract 16540. What is more, neither the connector trail demanded by the Residential Tract 16540 representatives, nor any other private access from any yard of any private residence, were ever included in the City’s 1997 Public Amenities Plan or its recent update. Nor are these uses permitted under any coastal development permit (CDP). Because they would involve a change in the intensity of the use of Lot D, they constitute “development” within the meaning of the Coastal Act . (Pub. Resources Code, § 30106.) The intensity of the change associated with the connector trail is significant since it would offer access to the entire PBC residential community, plus the non-resident club members, plus their invitees, all over a preservation area earmarked for Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development August 30, 2018 Page 4 of 5 native habitat restoration. Lacking any CDP, such use of Lot D is subject to injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as civil penalties under the Coastal Act’s enforcement provisions. We certainly much appreciate the elimination of the connector trail that was depicted on the Lot D Landscape Plan lodged by the TNGC with the Coastal Commission on August 15, 2018. However, the mere removal of the connector trail from the revised Lot D Landscape Plan lodged on August 21, without more, is insufficient to prevent future violations. To effectively prevent violations and protect the public’s rights under state law, we request inclusion of special conditions into your Director’s approval of the Lot D Landscape Plan, to the effect of: (a) expressly prohibiting access to Lot D from the cul-de-sac or any other area of Residential Tract 16540, thereby ensuring notification of all PBC residents and PBBC members that they have no access privileges greater than those of the general public (which includes all other City residents and visitors to the local coast); and (b) establishing a physical access control system at the gates to Lot D, preventing unpermitted trail access and encroachments upon the habitat restoration area. This second special condition will save considerable enforcement resources the City would otherwise have to commit case- by-case, and it will provide the City a level of protection against enforcement litigation should case-by-case enforcement fall short. Our request in no way deprives the PBC residents or PBBC members of access to the public recreational amenities to be developed adjacent to the PBC, including use of the amenities on Lot D. They will have access rights equal to the public’s. In fact, they will be able to enjoy the walkways and bike paths like hardly anyone else: by simply leaving the gated community through its entryway at the guardhouse and walking or biking no more than a couple of hundred feet east to the public trailhead on Palos Verdes Drive South. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions. We look forward to receiving your decision. We applaud the City for moving forward with the long-awaited implementation of the West End trail system. Sincerely, ANGEL LAW Frank P. Angel cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (via email to susan.brooks@rpvca.gov; eric.alegria@rpvca.gov; john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov; jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov; ken.dyda@rpvca.gov) Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development August 30, 2018 Page 5 of 5 So Kim, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Deputy Director of Community Development/Planning Manager (via email to sok@rpvca.gov) William W. Wynder, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, City Attorney (via email to wwynder@awattorneys.com) Steve Hudson, California Coastal Commission, District Director, South Central Coast and South Coast, Los Angeles County (via email to shudson@coastal.ca.gov) Teresa Henry, California Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, District Manager (via email to thenry@coastal.ca.gov) Charles R. Posner, California Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office, Supervisor of Planning (via email to chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov) Erin Chalmers, California Coastal Commission, Legal Division, Staff Attorney (via email to erin.chalmers@coastal.ca.gov) Zach Rehm, Senior Transportation Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission, South Coast Area Office (via email to zach.rehm@coastal.ca.gov) From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:14 PM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Response to Lot D Landscaping Plan (Version 4, dated 8/21/18) Attachments: Lot D Path Access Petition Signatures.pdf; 2018.09.04 Landscape Plan with Pictures.pdf From: So Kim Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:09 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Response to Lot D Landscaping Plan (Version 4, dated 8/21/18) Late Correspondence for tonight's Trump item. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 2:59 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com> Cc: Robert Voll <ravvoll67@gmail.com>; Steve Stewart <srstewl@aol.com>; Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>; Charlotte Wiederholt <cwiederholt@tangramstudio.com> Subject: RE: Response to Lot D Landscaping Plan (Version 4, dated 8/21/18) David, Please let me know if you would like to review the landscape plan with So and I. As you will see, the plant palate used for Lot D is limited to 6 plants out of 14 plants on the list. This is to ensure that the plants used come from a colorful palate and are fire resistant (as approved by the Fire Department). Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director l).A .• N r''·l I() f.)'.'.i.fi ("\CS'' v·· FP['JE·S'' V\l I\..; I I '/·'\t.>-A:. . • •. \. ~· .. 1 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? ··nw~ c inai! rness290 c.ont;m1s infori1)Jt:on to the City of Pancho Palos Vcn:Jcs 1 \:-vhich rnay be privdc9cd 1 conLdenHa~ dnd/or prol;ccL.::d fron-i disc!nsure, The intended e,in!y fcv use of th~~ an intended recipient; iy· cnLly narncd, Unauthoi·iz(•d cn~};crninatior\ distribution, or copyin0 strictly prohit)itcd, ff you received !Jw; crnail notify tho sender immediately, Tivmk you for your· assistance and cooperation. From: So Kim Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 2:21 PM To: David Gakenheimer <dgake_oh~imer@gmail.com.> Cc: Ara Mihranian <~JaM_@mvca.goy>; Robert Voll <.E~yvoli67@gmail.coro_>; Steve Stewart <~.rst?_YYl@.aol.corQ.>; Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>; Charlotte Wiederholt <cwies;!erb.9-!.:t@tarlfilam1_tudio.com> Subject: RE: Response to Lot D Landscaping Plan (Version 4, dated 8/21/18) Hi David, Thank you for your comments. The attached landscape plan and your email has been forwarded to the Director for his consideration. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: David Gakenheimer [mailto:dgakenheimer@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 4:27 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Robert Voll <ravvoll67@gmail.com>; Steve Stewart <srstew1(&aol.com>; Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>; Charlotte Wiederholt <cwiederholt@tangramstudio.com> Subject: Response to Lot D Landscaping Plan (Version 4, dated 8/21/18) So Kim, Please find below Tract 16540 comments to version 4 of Lot D landscaping plan dated 8/21 /18: 1. Lot D is to remain a park with a fuel modification zone. The current landscaping plan does not reflect these conditions and needs to be modified as further described to you, Ara Mihranian, the City Council and Coastal staff in an email dated August 30, 2018, by Kelvin Vanderlip. 2. Tract 16540 homeowners demand continued access across Lot D to the public paths from a community gate at the end of PV Drive South Frontage Rd that they have enjoyed for 50 years. A petition signed by 40 of the homeowners is attached. 2 3. In light of the current severe fire conditions across California, Tract 16540 homeowners demand an additional fire department review with public participation of the final landscaping plan (including plant type, spacing, height, irrigation, and pruning requirements and setback from our property line) and a sign off by the fire department. In the event the City fails to act on these issues, Tract 16540 will seek legal counsel. Note, I understand a version 5 of the landscaping plan was released today. We have not yet reviewed it, but will forward additional comments to you next week if appropriate. Sincerely yours, Dr. David C. Gakenheimer Tract 16540 Chief Financial Officer fJgakenheimer@gmail.com 310-913-3703 3 e~tition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Our Tract 16540 eastern border adjoins Lot D of the Trump Ocean Trails golf development. This lot will be dedicated to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Ocean Trails developer in the next few weeks. We have very recently learned that after Lot Dis transferred to the City, the City's stated policy is to close all access across Lot D from our community gate. This is a restrictive change to a long-standing land use pattern which will prevent us from using our community gate. The threat of prosecution by the City for trespass, once Lot D is dedicated to the City, has been sent to our homeowners association by the Planning Department (see portion of email below 1 ). We have enjoyed a foot path from our community gate across Lot D for decades. This is used daily by residents of Tract 16540 and the Portuguese Bend Club, along with their children and dogs, to access the trails around the driving range which are intended for public use. Therefore, we the undersigned hereby petition the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department and City Council to allow the continued use of the existing foot path from our community gate to the existing coastal trail after Lot D is transferred to the City. 1 What happens if a property owner accesses Lot D directly from their property and damages habitat? Please see Municipal Code Sections below. •€4N!€€€€€ 17.41.050 • l'rohlblti!cl tonduet. 1t i:; tinlawlul lnr any person, fimr, btJsitw:;:c,, rotp<:>r~tlon, or any nlhN entity to pertorrn h:~hit.rit: rnodlflt:btJon Wt'Wk on .any CSS habitat. or perfonn we-ed abatement on <~ny pn-:itH,~rty 9n~nter than two acr-t::s in sv0 that b wJthm Hie Hrnlts Df the t!ty arid contains CSS habitat, <:1:s depkb~d on ttw t:Jty's mt>~•t curr~nt NCCP rndp, provi:;lons of th!S ctwpt;,r (Ord. 420 § 2 (p;ilt), 2D05: Orn. 4·19u § 2 {pm(), WOS'J •€€€€€€€€ 17.41Al90 • Violations and peni1ilties. A vinliltmn of ;my p<ovi>ic>rr ol thrs chapter 1;; a m1sdl'!mec1nor ptmish;)t;i!(~ by ,1 fme uf not rnor1~ than .. 1ne thmJS~Jnd doHzirs, nr by imprlsonrnent in the county pi! lnr {1 pPrlod not -exceeding sc~ n'H)ntf1~;. ()f by bo!:h s-uch nne-and tmpn$OnrnenL 1\ny f,M?-t.son found t.o h;:1vr:~ viol{'1tt?d ~'my provision of Hw; (h0pter :::ih:i:d! bi.2' d00rned guiHy of a septuatt: and ti1~:.tinn nf·lens(~ for {:ach day, ur purtwn ther.:of, during which ~~Hth violation {;.onhriucs, <JtHi ~,haH brt punistwhle iH cordin9!y. ~n udditio11 to the forf!g(nnq, the city rrwy rt:Quire:) reveqetation wo1k be performed by tht.~ vtohJt()i'i "1t J r.Jtio 10 be-d(~~ermined by Ute di-rettor, dnd rndy as~e;;s ~1 hne in flfl arriount nece~>-!~i:H''Y to .;J5St.ffC that the CSS H1dt wns Jt:<rnoved can be rr:~pla(ed and maintained for a tninirnum period of fwe year:; or until tt'H~ CS~) ii, r(~e~t<1h!ished and to cover (~r11r othd <:osts in<:wr(~d by tht: dtV in athievlnq cnmp!iarii:.:0 wlth this ch0pter, f'.urther. the dtv shalt not ac<ept tor pr-0-cfr'.~"l:>lnq. or nrant approval of, any appikalltln tor development use, permit, nr other entitlement pursu:rnt to Tlries 15, 16 or 17 ut the munrdp0I (Orie until >Hd't ttrn~~ thM the property owr>r.:-r has complie-d with the provisions of this ch0pter ;lnd other dpp!icJbh3'. provisions of the rntmidp,)I rnde. {Ord, 420 2 (part), WO:l: nrrl. 419U § 2 (pMt), 200'.'d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 e,etition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South lot, Owner Name Address I oppose this petition 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 I oppose this petition requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South . Lot Owner Address Signature I support I oppose Date this this petition petition 27 28 29 30 31 .F:'J~tition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address Signature Pet;itiQJ1 To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes I oppose this from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address 32 f 33 34 35 36 Owner Narne { . \ '. n u our comrnun end litth:~ '(>.1 {/, Pettmn this l oppose this To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date ! I '! ') From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address ~s~;rtv~ I Pa from the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South ··«·~--... " .. ""'" ... ",. ''f "" -·""""~··~~~-"'-""·······""'"""'" .... " ,, ... _., ,.~.T·--·"-'· . . . . .... ------·-· lot, l I I support f oppose Owner • · this this Name [Signature j petition , petition ... ,,, _______ ,,,.,__,,_, ____ "i''"·"'"'' ""'f. \d 39 37 P~~O the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners Tract 16540 requesting continued access across foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South i £<upport I oppo.1$e ttds petition Date I 4144 Mmi!1me Rd ' To the City of Rancho Palos From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of Uttle Palos Verdes Drive South .SU~)tlOrt I oppose ·this petition Date 38 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South ......... , .... -........... .,,,~·-···--"--····-T"'"-··--·-····-1·· ···--········--······y~···-·--1 lot, I .1 I support , f oppose I I Owner I ; this / this I · Name I Address 1 Signature j petition 1 petition j Date "~;,.r--f~--r 1--......... "1 .. ~~J.· ~ .. ···'2.a·····.j1 ......... ~~----·· -IJOv:rij····· ~ ········+ --, -, ----/ ..... ,,__ ·-f·· ""' ----·---·---··-....... J__ ·····--------+ " --1~-········J 40 Re: Petition for Continued Access through Tract 16540 Gates to Lot D Trump Golf Course Lynn Doran <lynnsky@earthlink.net> Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:20 PM To David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com> Hi David, I would like to sign the petition but I am in Hong King on rny way to Bali Can you sign for me and I will authorize when I return sept. 7th? · Lynn Sent from my iPhone TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENT PROJRCT SIT2: Tcu~~ N~cl>n.' Ge" ~i~~F:.'~''.:~""'ON "'"""' PR:O.JECT I.OCA.TION: ~.,,,ncy e: l.c• .\c,g~!~>.~ol WATER USE CALCULATIONS 1;,,;:,,.,,,"''""''"'" -----;;-:i MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWAJ -'""--·""'"''• -.cc~O~V n-.,~~ .;-uo;n;"'>L '~;.v_-·,, RZ:'BR~'OC~ :Vll?O!W-.l:S?:R.'.~l<'JN (:NCH~S pt~ ~t;.!<i r-·~~-c~"--·--~~ ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWO) Rl-.~~Hn PACO~ V'E?~£~ Ern -;f •. .10 H~nSC>Pl' '~7~ -:<0,~9 ;;o. ~.,-. DATE: 7/20/18 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY· ---2'!!__ CHECKED BY: _2:!!..__ SCALE: l'NS. SIDl.LfO" LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA RANCHO STEPHEN WOOD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4120 ROSE AVE. LONG BEACH. CA 90807 RLA 6244 PALOS VERDES PLANTING LEGEND I , SYM90L. / I BOTANICAL NAME II CO~IMON NAME ~/?'?' --+-------+----+------; ::/"" / ,./ ::::J LU?INUS LONGIFLORUS II BUSH LUPINE ?/~1 SGAL@:l6"0.C. I ' I SGAL@48"0.C. i , I ERIOGONUIJI CIM:REUIJI ASH BUCKWHEAT 5 GAL@ :l6"0.C. i SGAL@48"0.C.' '1 i ' ! \ \ I; ~ \'~ ~11MULUS LONGIFLORUS I MONKEY FLOWER I 5 GAL@48" o.c. I VERY LOW ~~-J-.. i ' 0 0 0 q '"""'°"'°""UOM i "'°~'°GAA~ I o.,C@~·0.0.1 C~ 0 0 0 g . ___i:_:___::__~-- SHEET INDEX L0.00 COVER SHEET Ll.00 PLA.'\JTING PLAN Ll.01 PLANTING PLAN Ll.02 PLANTING DETAILS Ll.00 IRRJGATION PL.\N Ll.01 IRRJGATI0:-1 PLAN Ll.02 IRRIGATION DETAILS KEY MAP CI> KOTTOSC'i.LE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA COVER SHEET DRAWING LO.DO SHEET_1_ OF 7 / 0 10 20 40 80 ~ SCALE: 1" = -2~·-~· DATE:~ DESIGNED BY: __ DRAWN BY~ CHECKED BY: ---2::!:!__ SCALE: 1" = 20' -0" CXISTINGHISISCUSANO ALONGSFOOT PlASTERWAl.LTOREl.<'.AIN.PROTECT INPLACE.SHEARTOBRINGNCLOSERTO WALLONAREGULA.RBASIS. ~~~~~~;~~ ~~~~lffS. WEEDS AP?ROX!lAA TE LOCA TlON OfEXISTINCCW.INUW(FENCE STEPHEN WOOD LANDSCAPE ARCH11ECT 4120 ROSE AVE - LUPINUSSUCCULE'ITUS ARROYO LUPINE 5GAL@48"0.C. @E]ERIOGONUMC!NEREUI ASHLEA.FBUCKWHEAT 5GAL® :woe. REVISIONS i;l/~5/16 ClTY SU8Wl1"L LONG BEACH, CA 90807 RLA 6244 W'~CJ;...Ysuewr~ EXISTlNCBOUGAINVlll.EAALONC 4'CHAWLWKFENCETOREIAAIN. PROTECTIN?l..ACE, S!-IEARTOBRWCINCLOSERTO WALLONARCGULARBASIS (X)STINGSOIJGAINl/!l.l.E ~~o~~~~~;i~~~ REMAJN..PROTECTll\I - Pl.ACE.SHEARTOSRING INCLOSERTOWAUOlllA REGIJ'...A.RtlASIS 4\ DETAIL 'I{ REFER~NCE 1 HEMEROCALL!SHYBR!D /P!..ANTBOTAN/CALNAME L3.8 DAYLJLY PAGE 5GAL.AT24"0.C. /SJZE&SPACING NUMBER 20 REQUIRED THIS SHEET QUANTITY PER SHEET PLANTING NOTES PLANT MATERIAL SYMBOLS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE 1YPICAL THROUGHOUT DRAWING SET. EACH SHEET CONTAINS A PLANT CALLOUT TO THE SPECIFIC PLANT SYMBOL. 2. QUANTITIES GIVEN FOR PLANT MA. TER!ALS SPECIFIED FOR "ON CENTER" SPACING ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE SPACING GIVEN. CHECK AND SUPPLY SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PLANTS TO FULFILL SPACING REQUIREMENTS. 3. All PLANT MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTJON DETAILS. 4. IN SOME CASES, PLANTING SYMBOLS MAY BE SHOWN JN AREAS WHERE ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES INTERFERE OR ALTER THE DESIRED SPACING AND/OR PATTERN. CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW AREAS WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING MATERIAL 5. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL REVIEW ARRANGEMENT AND LAYOUT OF MATERIAL IN FIELD PRIOR TO PLANTING. 6. TO PD RESS ALL AREA WITHIN THE LIMIT OF WORKLINE {EXCLUDING PATH) WITH A 3" LAYER OF~· -2" MATURE. COMPOSTED MULCH. SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR REVIEW ANO APPROVAL. 7• REMOVE ALL WEED GROWTH AND DEAD PLANT MA TER!AL FROM LOT 'D' AND DISPOSE OF OFF SITE. REMOVE SQUASH PLANTS. ALL HEDERA SPECIES (ENGLISH IVY), BOSTON NY ANO CASTOR BEAN FROM LOT'O' AND ALONG THE STACKED STONE RETAINING WALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL COMMON AREAS SHALL BE PLANTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO THAT VIEWS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ANY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE NOT AFFECTED ANO SO THAT SOLAR ACCESS TO ALL DWELLING UNITS IS PROTECTED. WHILE SOME EXISTING VEGETATION AROUND THE PERIMETER WILL BE RETAINED. NATIVE VEGETATION WILL BE PLANTED TO PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS PLANTING AREA WITH NO GAPS OR LARGE VOID AREAS WHEN GROWN JN •. EIJCELlllCALIFORNICA BUSH SUNFLOWER 5GAL@48"0.C • • § •" .~ ·~ .© .w 15 .. • g ·~ l> TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA PLANTING PLAN DRAWING Ll.00 SHEET_2 __ OF 7 ~ #) EXISTlNGBOUGAINVlLLEA AlONG5-6'SLUW'STON£ WAU TO REMAIN PROTECT IN PLACE. SHEARTOBRINC!N CLOSCRTOWALLONA REGULAREIASIS. REMC11/E WSTON WY. / 0 10 20 40 BO ~ SCALE: 1~ = -~0'-0" DATE: 7/20/18 DESIGNED BY: __ DRAWN BY~ CHECKED BY: ___2!f__ SCALE: ,~ "" 20' -0" 0:1SW1GPll.JMaAGO BOUG,>,INVIU.CA TOBCRCIAOVEO. RCMOVCALLOiHCR SW..LLSCRU6.PLANTSl>JClUOJNGCASlER aEANl>NOWEEQSTOBERE!.lOVEO. '· W000 FCNCE TO REWl!f.I, S.ElECTIVELV PRUNE OOWN T060'. PROTt:CTtNPLACE. W..JNT'<INBELOW60" Al ALL TIMES / / / EXJSTINCSINCLE EXISWGRHUS!NTEGR!FOLIATO PlUt.1BAGOALONC6'\EWllN.PROTECTlNPLACE.- ~f ~~fa~~~~l~:51~~T60 '\ ~ ~ EXISTINCTflEECANOf'YCROWINC FROMPRIVATERESIOENCESIDEOF - LUPINUSSUCCULENTUS ARROYOLLIPINE ~CAL@46'0.C. FENCE, STEPHEN WOOD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4120 ROSE AVE. LONG BEACH, CA 90807 RLA 6244 EXISTINGMETROSIDEROS PART Of DRIVING RANGE EXl$TINGORY$TACK$TOklE WALL ALONG WEST SIDI'.: OF ~~~~~~.Np~~~~RD~~~NGE REVISIONS '"' OIV DATE "~". ,.,~ ... li/23/1E '+-i ~:~~~-------1 -cmsu~--- ~1 r/03/181 _C11YSUilt.<inAL ' ' ' '-.,~ ' ' 0, DETAIL REFE~E~ HEMEROCALLlS HYBRID /PL.ANT BOTANICAL NAME ~DAYL!LY :~~~ ;o~~o~iR2:~ ~~is SHEET / SIZE & SPACJNG QUANTITY PER SHEET PLANTING NOTES 1. PLANT MATERIAL SYMBOLS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE TYPICAL THROUGHOUT DRAWING SET. EACH SHEET CONTAINS A PLANT CALLOUT TO THE SPECIFIC PLANT SYMBOL. 2. QUANTITIES GIVEN FOR PLANT MATERIALS SPECIFIED FOR "ON CENTER" SPACING ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND ARE SUBORD!NA TE TO THE SPACING GIVEN. CHECK AND SUPPLY SUFFICIENT NUMBER Of PLANTS TO FULFILL SPACIN1 REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE !NSTAlLED !N ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICA TlONS AllJD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. 4. IN SOME CASES, PLANTING SYMBOLS MAY BE SHOWN IN AREAS WHERE ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES INTERFERE OR ALTER THE DESIRED SPACING AND/OR PATTERN. CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW AREAS WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING MATERIAL 5. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL REVIEW ARRANGEMENT AND LAYOUT OF MA TERIA IN FIELD PRIOR TO PLANTING. 6. TOPDRESS ALL AREA WITHIN THE LIMIT Of WORKLJNE {EXCLUDING PATH) WITH A 3' LAYER OF~·-2" MATURE, COMPOSTED MULCH. SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR REVIEW AN APPROVAL 7. REMOVE ALL WEED GROWTH AND DEAD PLANT MATERIAL FROM LOT 'D' AND DISPOSE OF OFF SITE. REMOVE SQUASH PLANTS, ALL HEDERA SPECIES (ENGLISH IVY), BOSTON IVY AND CASTOR BEAN FROM LOT'D' AND ALONG THE STACKED STONE RETAINING WALL. S. LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL COMMON AREAS SHALL BE PLANTED IN SUCH A MANNE SO THAT VIEWS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ANY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE NOT AFFECTED AND SO THAT SOLAR ACCESS TO ALL DWELLING UNITS !S PROTECTED. 9· WHILE SOME EXISTING VEGETATION AROUND THE PERIMETER WILL BE RETAINED, NATIVE VEGETATION WILL BE PLANTED TO PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS PLANTING AR8A WITH NO GAPS OR LARGE VOID AREAS WHEN GROWN IN .. TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA PLANTING PLAN DRAWING L1.01 SHEET _3_ OF 7 DATE: 7/20/18 DESIGNED BY: __ DRAWN BY~ CHECKED BY: -2!!_ SCALE: 1"A$o SMJ)WN)" STEPHEN WOOD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4120 ROSE AVE. LONG BEACH. CA 90807 RLA 5244 n <· . /'~ITT,ocmo~ PlANTER BEDS TO BE • • • • • 1 2· BElOW WAL!( FINISH -----DISTANCF. THE SAl.1E StJRFACE -----A$ 0.C. DIMENSION ' ""'° '~~,:~~:O:'!:<i'~:~~ ~ NOIT:SEEPlANTINGPLMJSFOR 0'1-CE'ITERSPAC!NGDISTANCC. GROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL I Jg~~~LE I REVISIONS ---J REi..1ARKS ~~~~~ 1 ~:~ ;;::;;:~ ===: 1-7~--?,~"'''°MCfl-CITY SUBMllTAL -----j 2/21/1Bj '8/2'>/lBI 3 0 {":;\ 8ACKFllLMIX: 2/:lSITTSOIL 113 'l.:J ORGA~.acAMENDMENTS SEE 0 SPl:ClF!CATJONS {,\ PU.NTFERTIUZERTABLE1S <..::.J SEESPECIFICATI0'-1$ 0 0 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL I ,~S~'~ I 0 ROO'fllAU_ 0 0 ~~~t~~~~~i~~~~S BETWEEN © 0 1130RCANl::AIMOND!.<l:'NT 0 ~~~~~~~ii~~BLETS SHRUB MASS PLANTING DETAIL I ,~~~~~-I DRAWING 2 TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA L1.02 PLANTING DETAILS SHEET _4_ OF 7 ,,,"' / -~~~·-.-: .:----. --...; "', / ' ------/ ' ' ,, ,, '\ '\ "'\ ' 0-1:;, """ '" 0-<"~ ,, 01>+' " ' " " " l o 10 20 40 so ~ --SCALE: 1~ "" 20'-0n DATE: 7 /20/18 DESIGNED BY: __ DRAWN BY _.'!!!..__ CHECKED BY:~ SCALE; 1~ .. 20' -Qj" STEPHEN WOOD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4120 ROSE AVE LONG BEACH. CA 90807 RLA 6244 BYTDATE 17/23/18 REVISIONS =~--- _, ,~,.~ ClTY SUB,,.ITIAL /ii/1B ClTYSUB,,.ITlAL s ;a12S11al-~"'O:C'O:::~O:::"~"'~"-·------I 6. /03/18 CHYSUB,,.ITIAL Xref ],\ Trurm\New folcler\0000 PROJECT FDLDER\BQse\ccHrrioQtion base DRIP.clwo f) f) IRRIGATION NOTES lNSTALLAUPRESSUREAND~N-PRESSURELlNESANDANYEQUIPMENTINSIDEPLANTINGAREAS Wf<EREVER POSSIBLE. (ITEMS SHOWN OUTSIDE SUCH AREAS fOR PURPOSE OF CLA.RITY ONLY.) 2. ALL EOUIPIA£NT SHAU BE SELECTED AND INSTALLED 11\1 ACCORDANCE WITH Sf'ECIFICATIONSAND CONS1RUCTIONDE'7AILS.SEESHEETN0.L2.02 3. FOR SYMBOL DESIGNATIONS, SEE LEGEND ON SHEET NO. t.2.01 4. ALL PIPE UNDER PAVED AREAS TO BE INSTALLED lN A SCH. 40 SLEEVE TWICE TKE DIAMOER OF THE PIPE CARRIED.AU. WIRE UNDER PAVED AREAS TO BE INSTALLED lN SCH. 40 SLEEVE THE SLZS REOUIREO TO EASILY PULL WIRE THROUGH, ALL SLEEVES TO BE INSTALL ED WITH A 1.m.111.AUM g~Pi:V;;;G~HOWN ON THE SLEEVING DETAIL. stEEVES TO EXTEND AT LEAST 12· PAST THE EDGE 5 ALL SPRAY HEADS ARE TO BO: INSTALLED WITH THE l'<OlliE, SCREEN AND ARCS SHOVl'l>J ON THE Pl.ANS. ALL HEADS ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO PREVENT OVERSPR/\Y ONTO BUILDING, WALLS, FENCESANDHARDSCAPE.T1'1SINCLUDES.BUTISNOTLIMITEDTO.A0JUSTIAENT Ol'DIFFUSERPll\J OR ADJUSTMENT SCREW, REPLACEl.IENT OF PRESSlJRE COMPENSATING SCREEl\JS, REPtACEMENT OF NOZZLES WITH MORE APPROPRIATE ;;tA.DIUS UNITSAl>ID THE REPLACEMENT OF NOZZLES WITH ADJUSTABLE ARC UNITS 8 AREAS Tl-IAT NEED TO BE DEFINED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE EXACT LOCATION OF SPRINKLER ~~~~~~~: :i;:sc;.~~~~N~F THE INSTALLJNG CONTRACTOR TO SEE THATTMEY ARE 7 AS-BUILT DRAWINGS At.JD SPECIFICATIONS SHALL SE. MAINTAINED OllJ SITE AT ALL TIMt::S. AS-SUIL T DRAWINGS SHALL BE UPDATED IMMEDIATELY AS REQUIRED. NO SITE REVIEWS ARE TO BE CONDUCTEDWITHOUTTHESEDRAWllllGS. 8. AREAS RECEMllJG AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL 8£ REVIEWE'D AND VER!FIED BY THE lllJSTALLlllJG CONTRACTOR FOR ACCURACY OF SIZE AND CONFIGURA 001\J. IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND THAT WOULD PROVE DETRIMENTAL TO FINAL COVERAGE. THIS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE OWNER'S ~~E:.!!-oA~~~~~~~;T:~~~~-BY FAILING TO DOSO, ':'HE CONTRACTOR W.Y BE RESPONSIBLE 9 IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW PROJECT LIMIT OF WORK PRIOR TO START OF CO>JSTRUCTION. lN THE EV;;:NT THAT ANY OVERlAP OCCURS, IE. EOUIPV.ENT FROIJI AN EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEIJI DESIGNATED TO REMAIN CROSSES OVER INTO AN AREA OF NEW IRRIGATlON; CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CUTTING AND CAPPING EXIST!~ SYSTEM AS REOUJRED. FURTHERMORE. CONTRACTOR MAY !lE RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING OR REPAIRING ANY EOUl?MENT Tl-IAT WOULD BE DISPtACED BY THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS REOU!RED TO KEEP EXISTING IRRIGATION OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF WORK IN OPERATION PIPE SIZING NOTES REFE;R TO IRRIGATION HEAD LEGEND ONSHEETL2.01 FORGPIJIOFHEADS. 2. ~~~~~CHTE~RE ~~~~~~~~~ :~; SHOWN.SE;EAOJACENTS!ZINGCHART 3, ALLLATERALLINEPIPEDOWNSTREAM OFA314"SIZEDPli>ElSAl$03'4". 4. ALLUNSIZEDRUNSOFLATERALLINE Pl?ESERVINGTHREEORFEWERSPRAY HEADSSH'J.LBESIZED314'. SIZING CHART ---e::-;.:- 1· ---e:::,.: ~ --.::;;; 2" ----c::::-r z-----e::::z;s. 74-116 3· ----e::::y TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA IRR!GA TION PLAN DRAWING L2.00 SHEET _5_ OF 7 () l> v ~\ CONSTRUCTION NOTES (';\ POINT OF CONNECTION TO EXISTING 4" IRRIGATION METER. VERIFY LOCATION \.:..) IN FJELD. ADD A 2" FEBCO 825YA BACKFLOW TO MAINLINE AND TEE OFF FOR IRRIGATION WATER TO LOT 0. CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE WITHIN ADJACENT PLANTED AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE. ADD NORMALLY CLOSED MASTER VALVE AND CONNECT TO NEW CONTROLLER. @ CONNECT NEW VALVES TO NEW SOLAR CONTROLLER. © ~~~~~~~;~; ;~o~~~E~L~Y~~~ ~;~::i-~1~~%~~~~~ ~g~~::~r AND DRIP EMITTERS IN THE AREAS SHOWN. 0 ~~~~-~~;T~~~~~~~~E~~L~~~ ~~~~~~T~~~~~~~%~~~~ ~~~CCESS. PIPE SIZING NOTES REFER TO IRRIOATlON HEAD l...EGENO ON SHEET 1..2.01 FOR GPM OF HEADS. Z. CONTAACTORTODETERMINEP!PE SIZINGWHERESYl.1BOLSARElllOT SHOWN.SEEAOJACENTSIZINGCHART 3. ALLlJ\TERALLlNEPIPEDOWNSTREAiin OF A 314" SIZED PIPE IS ALSO 314". ALLUNSEi:EORUNSOflATERALLINE PIPESERVlNGTHREEORFEWERSPRAY HEADSSHALLBESIZED314". l o ;o 20 40 so ~ sZALE: 1" "' 20'-o" DATE:~ DESIGNED BY: __ DRAWN BY:~ CHECKED BY: ---2!:!_ SCALE: 1" = 20" -0" STEPHEN WOOD 11<1/1 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4120 ROSE AVE. LONG BEACH. CA 90807 RLA 6244 '\ / SIZING CHART PVC SYMBOL ~ ,. --,. " -,. ,. -,. REVISIONS ,. @f ® IRRIGATION NOTES INSTAUAL~PRESSUREA!o.!Dt.ION-PRESSURELINESANDANYEOUIPMENTlNS!DEPL/\NTINGAREAS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. (ITEMS SHOWN OUTSIDE SUCH AREAS FOR PURPOSE OF CLARliY ONLY.} 2. ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SELECTED AND lNSTALlED IN ACCORD"-NCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND C0NSTRUCTIONDETA!l..S.SEESHEETN0.L2.02 3 FOR SYMBOL DESIGNATIONS. SEE LEGEND ON SHEET NO. L2.01 ALL PIPE UNDER PAVED AREAS TO SE INSTALLED IN A SCH. 40SLEEVE lWICE THE DtAMETER OF THEPIPECARRl£0.ALLWIREUND'i::RPAVEDAREASTDSEINSTA1.LEDINSCH.4USLEEV£ THE SIZE REQUIRED TO EASILY PULL WIRE THROUGH.AL!. SLEEVES TO BE INSTALLED WITH A l<llN!MUM g;PPTA~~~G~HOWN ON THE SLEEVING DETAIL. SLEEVES TO EXTEND AT LEAST 12" PAST THE EDGE 5. ALL SPRAY HEADS ARE TO BE INSTALLED WITH THE NOZZ~E. SCREEN AND ARCS SHOWN ON THE; PLANS. ALL HEADS ARE TD BE ADJUSTED TO PREVENTOVERSPRAY ONTO BUILDING. WALLS FENCES Al\IO MARDSCAPE. THIS INCLUDES. BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO. ADJUSTMENT OF DIFFUSER PIN OR ADJUSTMENT SCREW. REPLACEMENT OF PRESSURE COMPENSATING SCREENS, REPLACEMENT ~~J~~~BEL~ ~~; ~NOiii. APPROPRIATE RADIUS UNITS AND THE REPLACEMENT OF NOZZLES VV!TH 6. AREAS THAT NEED TO BE DEFINED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ~CT LOCATION OF SPRINKLER ~~:~~~~E :~'i';'~~~N~ THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR TO SEE THAT THEY ARE 7. AS.SUIL T DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHA~L BE MAINTAINED ON SITE AT All TIMES. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE UPDATED IMMEDto.TELY AS REQUIRED. NO SITE REVIEWS ARE TO BE CON0UCTE:DW1TI10UTTliESEDRAWINGS. 8. AREAS RECEIVING AN !RRIGAT\ON SYSTEM SHALL BE REVIEWED ANDVERlflED BY TH£ INSTALLING CONTRACTOR FOR ACCURACY OF SIZE ANO CONFIGURATION. IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUNOTHAT WOULD PROVE DETRIMENTAL TO AW,L COVERAGE. THIS SHA.l..L BE BROUGHT TO THE OWNER'S AnENTION BEFORE JNSTAlUITION. BY FAIUNG TO DO SO. THE CONTRACTOR IAAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED. 9. IRRIGATJON CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW PROJECT LIMIT OF WORK PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRIJCTION. JN THE EVENT THAT A~ OVERLAP OCCURS, IE. EQUIPMENT FROM AN EXISTING IHRIGATION sYSTEM DESIGN>, TEO TO REIMlN CROSSES OVER INTO AN AREA OF NEW IRRIGATION" CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CUTTING ANO CAPPING EXISTING SYSTEM AS REQUIRE;D. FURTHERMORE. CONTRACTOR MAY BE RESPONS!SLE FOR RELOCATING OR REPA!RJNGANY ~~~l~~~;l:~l~~~L~~~~l~~r~~~ r;vF ~~~~~~~~~LION THAT IS REQUIRED TO KEEP GENERAL LEGEND PRESSURESUPPLYLINES&SIZE (1112."ANDSW.LLER) PRESSURESUPPlYLINES&SlZE (2.ANDLARGER) NON-PRESSURELATERALLINE&SIZE Sl.EEVE&SIZ£(2"ANOLARGER) CONTROLLER SEQUENCE GALLOl>IS PER MINUTE (GPM) REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SIZE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE (1". 1 Y:: & 2") RAINBIROPEBSERIESORIPASSEMBLYVA!.VE I OET.1.$HT.L2.02 () I OUICKCOUPl.JNGVALVE H 0 BALLVALVESIGATEVALVESILINESIZE) NORMA.LL Y CLOSED w>.STER VAL VE Z" GRISWO!.O OR £DUAL (RAIN BIRD) DRIP EMITTER LEGEND XS-26-C-1032: RE0.2.0GPH(Y.56V~)I 15-50 / 2 I RAINBIRD I FLEX RISER TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA IRRIGATION PLAN DRAWING L2.01 SHEET_6 __ _ OF 7 (i) © © 0 © © 0 ;.?~~gX~~~~t.~fR 0 0 0 0 314•?EAGAAVH(l.l1N .. G0 0E,,THJ © 0 0 ~?~~g:~~T~~~~i gr.ER 0 ~~~ng;gr~c~f rBELOW 0 0 0 © ~~E-----@0 24"1.llN.LENGTHN0.4REBJ\R ~:~~WI 2 STAINLESS STEEL NOTES: I. BJ\LLVAWES>W.l.BEIN:>TAU.f_[)INSHJ'IUB AflfAS.JNL=sso~HERWl&EAP?ROVEO. © BRASSNIPPLEjS"MIN.) ©-E~::JbbJ~l£_j'.::= © @ ~~H~~~LE. U:NGTH AS AMBIENT LIGHT POWERED 0 POURED CONCRETE BASE/FOOTING CONTROLLER Ml2CU.FT. TERMINAL STRIP © DIRECT BURIAL CONTROL WIRES TO SPLICE BOX 12 OR 14 GUAGE WIRE © (2) DRY SPLICE CONNECTORS. PROGRAMMING KEY @ IRR!GA TION JUNCTION BOX 35" STEEL MOUNTING COLUMN FINISH GRADE LEIT SOLOR CONTROLLER I s~;E I 7 2. SETVALVEilOXFl.USHWITHftJISHGHAOE lNTURFAR~.S£-:-2"A.BO\IEFINISHGRt\OE lNGRCUNC:COVERAREAS BALL VALVE ASSEMBLY I s3~;E I 5 * SPACING PER Pl.ANTlNG Pl.AH ! ~ ~ ~ * DATE:~ DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY~ CHECKED BY:~ SCALE: 1 ~5= 5:m)WNO~ CD tDGEOFHARDSCAPE/PINITERBOUNCAA'I' © 0 © P1»lT R001W.L (CAN SIZO 3/4" SCHEDOL( 40 l'VC lJiTERAl.. l..NE CLOSEDLOOP:WIN..PRESSIAl:E&.CH VAl...V( IS 1$ PSI, SIZE PER Pl.NI a-._ RAWBIRO REMOTE CONTROL DRf' VJ.J...VO. """'""' @~=~~~-fltA) EJ.irtrtR ASSEMBLY (XB-20PC-1032) (D IUJNLINE:SIZEPERPl.NI @ FJ.CE OF aun .. DHG OR Dn£R STRUCTI;ru; @ ~.!_PVEARimrAC~~R~E:[;~A!..t£sfiliw GRA!>E POINT SOURCE DRIP EMITTERS I s~~iE I 6 STEPHEN WOOD 1rJ/I LANDSCAPE ARCHllECT 4120 ROSE AVE LONG BEACH. CA 90807 RLA 6244 REV1SIONS -R£V.ARKS '=2· 1 "" ~"·"·· I ~__, _ __,,~~~--~:~ ~:~~~: . >-'--+--<0,1~,,~~01, -·ciWSi:JaCi.,ii:,~:C------- ' ! s1:25118 I CITY S1.IB'-'1TT~------- 9/03/181 Norm: 1.SETVAJ.VESOXFll!SHW!THFlNISHGRADE INTURFAREAS.SET2"AB0VEFl>l1SHGRAOE INGROIJ~RAREAS. QUICK COUPLER VALVE I s~§E I 3 {[) PWiT (PER CAN SIZE) @ f"lNISHCAADE @ 3/4.SCH£0ULE40PVC l.A"TERAL l..l<IE -Cl.C&D LOOP: l.IN.PRESSUREE"ACHVAl..VE: IS1SPSI © ® ~~~00-~fl:AJW'ttR @ IWHBIRD XER1 auG EMITTER ASSEMBl.' ~~~~2&EMITTER IS1SPSI. (!) a.-.cl<FJU.WIX?ERSPECIFlC>."TIONS * DISTANCE VARES 11'1" CAN SIZE PLACE 1.ATERl\J.. LINE AT EDGE OF CAN L.OCATOH. PARA1..LEL. W/ P1.AH11NC """" CD ~'t· x ,.. ~c ig,x • CMR 0 ~~l~TE~r· @ @ f:ii~': nef EXPMSJON LOOP ® @ ~RmrJi· ~~~~JPs~l1M~ ® 3/4• PRESSURE REGUlATINb W.J ... VE PIC W.INUNE 3/4• PtA GRAVEL (MIN. s• OEPD1) i• X 3/4• SCH -40 R£D BUSH!~ TxT © ® ® flNISH GRADE @ B1/i~fJEt!rr:J~ @ ~/4• DISC flLTER COMMON WIRE CONTROL WIRE REMOTE CONTROL DRIP VALVE I s~~iE I 0 SLEEV!NG.SEESPECIFlCATIONS 0 0 0 0 © 0 CLEMICOMPACTEDEIACKFILL SE~ SPECIFICATIO>IS. Va -:, O~ ,'v,~ DRIP EMITTERS I s~~iE I 4 !TRENCHING AND SLEEVING DETAIL I s~~iE I 2 TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB I DRA:~02 LOT 'D' FIRE BUFFER AREA IRRIGATION DETAILS SHEET -'···· OF 7 Fr o m: So Kim Se nt: To: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:59 PM CityClerk Subj ect: Attachm e nts: FW : Trump National, September 4, 2018 Re: Draft Landscape/Fencing Plan 2012 -37 Revision QQ.pdf; Draft Fencing Plan.pdf Late Correspondence. Sincere ly, So Kim , AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Commun it y De v e lopment Department Cit y of Rancho Pa los Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310 ) 544 -5222 From : So Kim Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:59 PM To : 'jessboop' <jessboop66@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca .gov > Subj e ct: RE: Trump National, September 4, 2018 Re: Draft Landscape/Fencing Plan Hi Jessica, Please see attached Resolution No. 2012 -37 for Revision QQ and the Draft Fencing Plan for the types, heights, and locations of proposed fencing. As for your question regarding Bougainvillea along the side property lines, as they are planted on the Portuguese Bend properties and are growing over, the Developer is being required to trim them to the shared wall/fence . The Bougainvillea and Plumbago by your property is entirely on Lot D will be removed for the reasons discussed in my previous email. Sincere ly , So Kim, AI CP Deputy Director/Plann i ng Manager Commun it y De v e lopment Department Cit y of Ranc ho Pa los Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310 ) 544 -5222 From: jessboop [mailto:jessboop66@cox.net] Se nt: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:06 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov >; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; jessica <jessboop66@cox.net > Subje ct: Re: Trump National, September 4, 2018 Re : Draft Landscape/Fencing Plan So , I appre ciate your r eturn email. I have tried to call you three times as to me it is mo st important to get the se answers as this is a holiday w e ekend and I wanted to make sure I have the answer s b efore the Monday holiday as Tues day , Sept. 4 is the City Council M eeting. Sorry for botherin g you! This i s my an sw er to y our r ed re sponses. I The Board or m embers of the board are not discus sing the lands cap e plan with me and many other s in my community , 1 • so I do not know what you may or may not have shared with them! Just because we have a board does not mean that we all talk about everything! I'm sure it is the same with other HOA's. Please quote the QQ Revision condition regarding the 12 ft. landscape change in condition/additional condition so I do not have to read through 500 plus pages to find it! Also, you never mentioned, nor does the landscape plan show where the 12 ft. landscape vegetation is located, on the berm, adjoining the driving range next to the trails, or where, and most importantly what is the vegetation/trees that show 12 ft? From what you mentioned this also called for landscape or fencing. Again, please share that QQ revision with me by return email. I do not remember that exact wording that you quoted below! Maybe I did not make myself clear. The bougainvillea and plumbago that hang over the fence into the middle of Lot D fire buffer lot from private homeowners, it is noted in the landscape plan is allowed, but the bougainvillea and plumbago at the street/P V Drive South coastal trail is not allowed as the Biologist says they are invasive, does not make sense. Why would some be allowed (if they are invasive .. which by the way .. the internet says they are not) and others at the very beginning of Lot D at the street are not allowed???? This bougainvillea and plumbago next to the coral tree are very important to me as it blocks people from the trail and future entrance to Costa de Las Islas from looking into my home and our community. Of course those two shielding plants could be removed and replace with taller fire buffer plants that start larger and not a 5 gal. plant that might take 5 plus years to grow sufficiently, and that would solve the problem!!!! In regards to the Eucalyptus tree, yes, it is now been given to the neighbor below me from the Trump Development. However, it still offers a fire hazard as it hangs over the fence and maybe a condition to require trimming what is hanging over the fence (as is done with other private properties along the property line.) could be included as Lot Dis a fire buffer lot. For your information, the lemonade berry next to my house is already at 5 ft, however, I like it, it is there, does not cost the developer any money, and it keeps some privacy to my home without any negatives! I suppose I was not clear enough about the fencing, what is the material proposed to be used for the fencing, and maybe the heights could be offered in the plan also for view issues. I notice there appears to be a fence up by the street of Tract 50666. I don't recall that in a condition. Would you mind giving me that condition, the material and height? What are the conditions and when did the council impose conditions for landscape and fencing, both material and height that you mention in red below. I am sorry to be a pest, however, as you know, this is a holiday weekend and Tuesday will be too late to ask for this information, I'm sure. Thank you for all your assistance and patience .. soon, hopefully this will all be over!!! Best Regards, Jessica Leeds n 8/30/2018 2:11 PM, So Kim wrote: Hi Jessica, Thank you for speaking with me yesterday morning regarding the landscape plan for Lot D. My response to your email below and 3 voicemails following our phone call is shown in red text below. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager 2 Community De v e lopment Depa rtme nt City of Ra ncho Pa los Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310 ) 544 -5222 From: jessboop [mailto:jessboop66@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 1:17 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Trump National, September 4, 2018 Re: Draft Landscape/Fencing Plan 8/30/18 So, I have forwarded this email to others to see if they can make heads or tails of this! I have concerns about new landscaping that has shown up on this plan, all of a sudden. There are conditions which were put in place to protect the Seaview Community and the Portuguese Bend Community, Tract 16540 , and the public from view impairment. I would like to know that those conditions are in place to protect us! Yes, they are in place, which is why all proposed landscaping are limited to 5a€™ in max height at full growth, with exception to the mature lemonade berry that is required to be trimmed to a max height of 5a€™. I spent a lot of money on my largest investment, my home. I bought this home , in 2003 , because of two things; a view from every room across the land to the ocean, and that it was on a cul de sac .. so that there was not a lot of traffic coming by! I spent time at the then Trump Development with JeffKaplinski, project manager with the prior owners , Zuckerman, and then Trump , going over the plans and driving with him in a golf cart to the sight to make sure there would be no view impairment for me. Over the years , I, and many others , have spent a lot of time with Greg Pfost at the City, and Vinnie Stellio at the Trump Development, and at City Council Meetings making sure any changes to Conditions did not jeopardize my/other views and my investment. I am looking to make sure that this development gets done with these conditions secure and in place. I have many questions regarding these new plans you forwarded and have left numerous questions for you on your telephone. I feel that if you can not answer these questions, if you can, regarding the landscaping/fencing plan to the satisfaction of those whose lives are greatly affected by this, there should be a meeting with all those affected to take a look at what is proposed. I think that needs to be done before anything is being pushed ahead to be approved!!!! The landscape plan has been provided to the Portuguese Bend Club (PBC) representatives since its original submittal. I have spent a lot of time speaking with various members of the public, including yourself, and met with your PBC representatives on a number of occasions going over these plans. The PBC has until tomorrow to submit any comments. We will take a look at the comments and work with the Developer to address any concerns. Just to note, the City Council imposed a number of conditions for the landscape and fencing plan and we are at the implementation stage. The City is at the point of reviewing the plans to ensure compliance with the City Council-imposed conditions. Some things , as I have mentioned, do not make sense; such as removing bougainvillea and plumbago near the road , (which protects my home from intruders), but allowing those two plants to come over the fences (mine being one) from the adjacent homeowners! As I explained to you yesterday, Lot Dis considered a Fire Buffer and only specific types of fire resistant planting are allowed. Plumbago and Bougainvillea are not on the list and the City Biologist opined that these are invasive species and recommend removal anyway. Therefore, these plants will be replaced by a type of species for Lot D. 3 Allowing a Eucalyptus tree (fire hazard!) to overhang onto the Lot D fire buffer Lot? I believe you are refereeing to your neighbora€™s tree hanging over Lot D . Allowing a 12 ft. vegetation designation at the bottom of the Driving Range which does not detail if it is on the Driving Range or below the Driving Range? Yes, this is allowed. Revision QQ revised mitigation measures that allowed for a 12a€™ tall high fence, landscape hedge , or a combination thereof, to protect the southerly berm of the driving range along the southerly portion of the driving range. I can not possibly put all my concerns in writing .. we need to sit down together with other people who are concerned and take the time to discuss this; after all, for me, this has been going on since 2003, and the "W" Revision (the removal of the 16 homes and replace with a Driving Range) since June 7, 2005. Each time this went to council the residents made sure our views were protected with silhouettes , etc. By the way, what is the material that is suggested for the fencing shown on these plans? Are any of these view impairing? The fencing heights are already memorized as part of the City Council -imposed conditions for the Trump Project. I am very interested in the Trump Development having the opportunity to complete and final their Development Agreement; I support that. Not only do I support this, I welcome the development being completed! I know that the the developer is working very hard to do that. However, I need to make sure that my investment and those surrounding me have their protections in place. I know you are busy with many things, and many people , however..! would appreciate some answers. Thank you, Jessica Leeds On 8/29/2018 10:52 AM, So Kim wrote: Hi Jessica, Please see attached DRAFT fencing and landscape plan. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca .gov {310) 544-5222 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING REVISION "QQ" FOR A REVISION TO THE DRIVING RANGE LOCATED AT THE TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF COURSE. WHEREAS, an application package was filed by the Zuckerman Building Company and Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company requesting approval of tentative parcel maps, vesting tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, a coastal permit and a grading permit to allow the construction of a Residential Planned Development of 120 single family dwelling units and for development of an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and parking facilities on a 258 acre site bounded by Palos Verdes Drive South on the north, Portuguese Bend Club and Community Association on the west, the Pacific Ocean on the south and Los Angeles County Shoreline Park on the east; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and circulated for 45 days from June 7, 1991 through July 22, 1991 in order to receive written comments on the adequacy of the document from responsible agencies and the public; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and preparation of written responses, the applicant revised the scope of the project and reduced the number of proposed single family residences to 40 units in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and 43 in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667, and an 18 hole golf course with related facilities within the boundaries of both Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and, due to the changes in the project, an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (AEIR) was prepared; and, WHEREAS, based on review of the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City determined that the information submitted in the AEIR cited potential additional significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the revised project, and directed preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The SEIR, which incorporates information and findings set forth in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, was prepared and circulated for 45 days from March 19, 1992 through May 4, 1992, during which time all interested parties were notified of the circulation period and invited to present written comments to the information contained in the SEIR, in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992 the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53 certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 for an 83 lot Residential Planned Development, public open space, and an 18 hole public golf course with clubhouse and related facilities on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregions 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approving Revisions to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to address concerns expressed by the California Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space, public access and habitat preservation; and, WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with re-approval of the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65590; and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approval of Revision "A" to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to incorporate changes to the project made by the California Coastal Commission in April 1993, and (based on additional geologic information) relocate the golf course clubhouse, reduce the number of single family lots from 83 to 75 and approve a location for the golf course maintenance facility and on-site affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-15 approving the fourth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approval of Revision "B" to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to incorporate changes to the project made by the California Coastal Commission in January 1995 regarding the relocation of the golf course clubhouse, Paseo Del Mar roadway and public trails to accommodate a reconfiguration of the public parking facilities, as well as additional modifications to the public trails in order to provide clarification or to be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's approval and to include an 8.5 acre vacant property owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District into the golf course. WHEREAS, on September 3, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 96-72 approving the fifth Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, in connection with approval of Revision "C" to the Ocean Trails project applications described above, in order to relocate two single family residential lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 from the end of Street "A" to the end of Street "C," revise the boundaries of open space Lots B, C, G and H, convert the split-level lots in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50667 to single-level lots, revise the golf course layout, revise the public trail system, combine parallel trail easements, construct a paved fire access road west of the Ocean Terraces Condominiums and modify several amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures to change the required timing for compliance; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 98-76 approving Addendum No. 6 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "G" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: 1) an 18% increase in the size of the clubhouse from 27,000 square feet to 32,927 square feet; 2) an increase in the size of the maintenance facility from 6,000 square feet to 9,504 square feet; 3) a two foot increase in the upslope height of the maintenance facility building; and, 4) relocation of the maintenance building and reconfiguration of the maintenance facility parking lot. WHEREAS, on February 2, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-10 approving Addendum No. 7 to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "H" to the Ocean Trails project, which included: changing 6 of the residential lots within VTTM 50667 from flat pad lots to split level lots, lowering the overall pad elevation for each lot, and lowering Street 'B' within the subdivision, and lowering the pad elevation for 6 other lots within the subdivision. Additionally, the approval included the modification of the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval to allow the permitted construction hours for the entire Ocean Trails project to be expanded to include Sundays through March 21, 1999. WHEREAS, on May 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-29 approving Addendum No. 8 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "I" to the Ocean Trails project, which included a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "I" only amended the drainage for the east side of the Ocean Trails project, involving La Rotonda canyon; and, WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 99-55 approving Addendum No. 9 to Environmental Impact Report No. 35 and the proposed Revision "J" to the Ocean Trails project, which included 1 ), the conditions requiring the establishment of a maintenance district be revised by eliminating the maintenance district and having the golf course owner be the sole responsible entity for maintenance thereby excluding the future residential homeowners; 2) withdrawn by applicant; 3), the timing of the installation of ornamental fencing on each residential lot be delayed until prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 4), delay the construction of two trails within VTTM 50666 from the Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 2 of 11 Second Stage to the Third Stage of phasing within the Public Amenities Plan; 5), lower the approved residential building pad elevations and create split-level pads in VTTM No. 50666; 6), delay the payment of traffic impact fees to prior to Final Map No. 50666; 7), allow an increase in total building area of the clubhouse by permitting a basement space; 8), withdrawn by applicant; and 9), revise the hours permitted for golf course landscape gardening; and, WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-27 approving Addendum No. 1 O to Environmental Impact Report No. 36 and the proposed Revision "K" to the Ocean Trails project, which allowed a portion of the golf course to open for play before all of the required public amenities have been completed due to delays caused by the failure of Landslide Con June 2, 1999; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No. 2000-38 certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to Environmental Impact Report No. 36, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the proposed Revision "L" to the Ocean Trails project, for the repair of Landslide Cat Ocean Trails; and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision M to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an amendment to the HCP Implementing Agreement, and approval of a Conservation Easement over the lower portion of Shoreline Park; and, WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision N to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and amending the project to accommodate a change to the design of the storm drain facilities of the Ocean Trails project from a tunneled pipe system to the existing on-site canyons. Revision "N" only amended the drainage for the west side of the Ocean Trails project, involving Forrestal Canyon; and, WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision P to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment to allow Ocean Trails an extension of time to provide 4 on-site affordable housing units for rent from "prior to one year of the opening of the clubhouse" to "prior to the opening of the 18-hole golf course"; and, WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision Q to the Ocean Trails Project, thereby approving an amendment which allows Ocean Trails to re- construct (instead of re-pave) La Rotonda Drive from Palos Verdes South to the end of La Rotonda Drive, in lieu of re-paving Palos Verdes Drive South from La Rotonda Drive to the eastern City limits; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision "R" to the Ocean Trails project to revise the Conditions of Approval for VTTM No. 50666 and VTTM No. 50667, so as to adjust Condition 1-3 allowing an extension to completing the reconstruction of La Rotonda Drive from Palos Verdes Drive South to its end; and, WHEREAS, on March 4, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Amendment No. 2 to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement to clarify that the City Council may extend any approved tentative tract not to exceed the term of the Development Agreement and extend Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666; and, WHEREAS, on June 7, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved Revision "W' to the Trump National Golf Club project thereby revising CUP No. 162, CUP No. 163, VTTM50666, and Grading Permit No. 1541 to accommodate a new driving range in place of 16 residential lots within VTTM50666; and, Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 3of11 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Amendment No. 3 to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from November 20, 2007 through March 9, 2008; and, WHEREAS, on December 18, 2007, the City Council denied Revision "GG" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163, thereby denying a 12' high ficus hedge located at the western edge of the existing Driving Range; and, WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Amendment No. 4 to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from March 9, 2008 through July 18, 2008; and, WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Amendment No. 5 to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from July 18, 2008 through October 22, 2008; and, WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Amendment No. 6 to the Ocean Trails Development Agreement which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from October 22, 2008 through January 22, 2008; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision "RR" to the Trump National Golf Club project, which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from January 22, 2009 through July 22, 2009, and revised Grading Permit No. 1541 to allow an additional temporary opening of the driving range to the public through July 22, 2009; and, WHEREAS, on July 21, 2009, the City Council, via Minute Order, approved a two month extension (Revision "SS") of the Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 and the temporary use of the Driving Range at the request of the Applicant in order to accommodate the Applicant's schedule and availability to attend the Council meeting. Said two month extension was granted to September 16, 2009. As part of that action, the Council also continued the item/public hearing on Revision "SS" to September 15, 2009;and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision "SS" to the Trump National Golf Club project, which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from September 16, 2009 through March 17, 2010, and revised Grading Permit No. 1541 to allow an additional temporary opening of the driving range to the public through March 17, 2010; and, WHEREAS, on March 16, 2010, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision "UU" to the Trump National Golf Club project, which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from March 16, 2010 through September 21, 2010, and revised Grading Permit No. 1541 to allow an additional temporary opening of the driving range to the public through September 21, 201 O; and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 2010, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision "V V" to the Trump National Golf Club project, which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from September 21, 2010 through March 21, 2011, and revised Grading Permit No. 1541 to allow an additional temporary opening of the driving range to the public through March 21, 2011; and, Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 4of11 WHEREAS, on March 15, 2011, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Revision "W W' to the Trump National Golf Club project, which extended the life of the Development Agreement and existing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 from March 21, 2011 through September 21, 2011, and revised Grading Permit No. 1541 to allow an additional temporary opening of the driving range to the public through September 21, 2011; and, WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, the City Council denied Revision "TT" to Conditional Use Permit No. 163, thereby denying two proposed varying height ficus hedges located at the western edge of the existing Driving Range; and, WHEREAS, on January 31, 2012, the City Council adopted Addendum #1 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Driving Range and approved Revision "ZZ" to the Trump National Golf Club project to revise the conditions of approval found within CUP No. 163, so as to allow one hedge row ranging in height from 6' -0" to 9'-8" and composed of the New Zealand Christmas Tree species to be planted on the western edge of the existing Driving Range; and, WHEREAS, VH Property Corp., submitted an application to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requesting approval of Revision "QQ" to the Trump National Golf Club project to revise mitigation measures H- 1, H-2, 8-2 and 8-4, which were adopted within the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Driving Range, so as to: replace the approved retaining wall along an existing trail located parallel to and on the ocean side of the Driving Range's southerly berm with a fence, hedge or combination thereof (Mitigation Measure H- 1 ); remove the operational aspects governing the Driving Range (Mitigation Measure H-2); and to change the timing of the installation of 0.60 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (Mitigation Measures 8-2 and 8-4); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Revision "QQ" would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study was prepared on March 26, 2012 and distributed for circulation and review from March 29, 2012 through April 27, 2012; and, WHEREAS, copies of the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to the City Council, and prior to taking action on the proposed Revision "QQ", the City Council independently reviewed, considered the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and determined that the document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local guidelines, with respect thereto; and, WHERAS, on March 29, 2012 a notice was duly published in the Peninsula News and mailed to property owners within a 500' radius of the Trump National Golf Club site identifying a public hearing to be held on May 1, 2012 by the City Council to consider proposed revisions to the Driving Range through Revision "QQ". After the public notice was provided, on April 23, 2012, the City received a request from the Trump Organization requesting that the Public Hearing for Revision "QQ" be continued to a subsequent meeting due to a scheduling conflict with a key representative of the Trump Organization. As such, on May 1, 2012, the City Council continued the Public Hearing to their May 29, 2012 adjourned meeting; and, WHEREAS, after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public hearing on May 29, 2012, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Applicant's request for Revision "QQ" includes a request to revise mitigation measures Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 5of11 H-1, H-2, 8-2 and 8-4, which were adopted within the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Driving Range, so as to: replace the approved retaining wall along an existing trail located parallel to and on the ocean side of the Driving Range's southerly berm with a fence, hedge or combination thereof (Mitigation Measure H- 1 ); remove the operational aspects governing the Driving Range (Mitigation Measure H-2); and to change the timing of the installation of 0.60 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (Mitigation Measures 8-2 and 8-4). Specifically, the changes proposed to the existing Mitigation Measures are as follows: Proposed Revisions (Revision "QQ") to Mitigation Measure (underline for text added and _ ... _. .. __ ;:":for.text removed) B-2: Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, CDFG and USFWS, and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the driving range and prior to issuance of any building permits for residences within Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 50666, CSS habitat will be revegetated (0.60 acres). Revegetated habitat should be suitable for forage, cover and nesting by coastal California gnatcatchers. Monitoring and Reporting Action Milestone Revegetate habitat prior to issuance of Certificate of occupancy and prior to issuance of building permits for any homes in VTTM50666 B-4: Prior to issuance of an~ building 12ermits for residences within Vesting Tentative Tract Ma12 No. 50666, t+he Forrestal Canyon Preserve shall be increased by 0.60 acres. Planting, maintenance and monitoring of new habitat plantings per mitigation measure B-2 shall be in compliance with the project's Habitat Conservation Program and incorporated into the project's annual Habitat Monitoring Program/Reporting. Monitoring and Reporting Action Milestone Prior to issuance of c-~,,, -~~A---buildina oermits for anv homes in VTTM50666 - H-1: The driving range shall be developed with safety features as proposed in the plan identified as the "Gcean +rails Driving Range/Lot Layout Proposed Amendment Tentative +ract No. 50666", dated February 2, 200§S~ubject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, that include a 12' high fence and/or landsca12e hedge and/or combination thereof, to 12rotect trail users along the trail located on the ocean side and adjacent to the southerly berm of the driving range, and a 6' high decorative fence shall be installed along the southerly 12ortion of the western boundary of the driving range, located between the edge of the driving range and the pedestrian/bicycle trails. If a landscage hedge is used in lieu of or in combination with a fence, then said landsca12ed hedge shall be of a density that would ensure that golf balls go not go through said hedge or the A1212licant shall 12rovide an alternative such as adding mesh fencing along with a hedge until said hedge has the necessa[Y density. Further, any landsca12e hedge, fencing or combination thereof shall be in com[11iant with existing Mitigation Measure A-1 that ensures that the [1ro12osed hedge, fence or combination thereof will not be higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm and any hedge shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm. Any changes to the proposed plan that may affect public safety as determined by the Director shall be subject to additional environmental analysis, review and approval in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Monitoring and Reporting Action Milestone Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy H-2: The proposed use of the driving range shall comply with the following: • Golfers will hit primarily from east to west, while Golf Professional Staff may teach some private golf lessons on the western side of the driving range under strict supervision. • Golfors will be restricted to using certain golf clubs depending upon which tee area they are hitting from based upon the "Golf Shot Plan". Specifically, Section "A" of the golf tees will be used for shots traveling up to 140 yards, SeGtioA "B" will be used fur shots tra\•eliAg betweeA 14Q yards aml 215 yards, and Section "C" will be 1:1sed fur shots tra11eling over 215 yards (see ~xhibit C). • Signs will be posted in SectioAs "A", "B" and "C" noting distaAces authorized to hit from each tee section . • An on-site Golf Professional Staff Member will monitor all tee areas of the driving range during all operating hours of the driving range to ensure that shots do not go beyond the westerly tee areas or over the 12ro[1osed westerly hedge the proper golf clubs are being 1:1sed from the proper tees. • When lessons are being taught at the eastern edge of the driving range, the on-site Golf Professional Staff will ensure that the longer shots from the western side of the driving range are prohibited. Monitoring and Reporting Action Milestone On-ooino durino use of drivino ranoe Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 6of11 Section 2: As required by Section 15162(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), while there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed revisions that cannot be mitigated, since there are proposed revisions to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Driving Range (Revision "W'), namely proposed revisions to the four mitigation measures as discussed in Section 1 above, those revisions warrant public review and as such a Subsequent MND (SMND) is the most appropriate way to document said changes and allow for public input consistent with CEQA policies. Section 3: As required by CEQA, the Initial Study and notice of the proposed SMND were released for public comment for a period of 30 days (from March 29, 2012 through April 27, 2012). The Initial Study that was released for public review included the "Draft" revised Mitigation Measures as originally requested by the Applicant. However, during the public comment period, the City received a request from the Applicant to revise Mitigation Measure H-no allow the possibility of having a landscape hedge be installed in conjunction with or in lieu of a fence parallel to and on the ocean side of the southerly berm as the Applicant felt that a landscape hedge may be more aesthetically pleasing. The table below describes Mitigation Measure H-1 as it was included in the Initial Study that was released for public review, and the proposed revision requested by the Applicant (strikethrough and underline text represent changes to the original 2005 Revision "W" mitigation measure). Proposed Revised Mitigation Measure released Revision requested by the Trump Organization during 30-day Public Review Period H-1: The driving range shall be developed with safety H-1 : The driving range shall be developed with safety features as pFepese9 iR Hie plaR i9eRtifie9 as tl=1e "GseaR features as pF9pese9 iR tl:le plaR i9eRtifie9 as tl:le "GseaR +Fails QFi•1iR€J RaR!:Jelbet baye1:1t F!Fepese9 AmeRElmeRt +Fails QFi•1iR€J RaR!:Jelbet baye1:1t PF9pese9 AmeR9meRt +eRtative +Fast Ne. 50666", 9ate9 FebFl:lal)' 2, +eRtative +Fast Ne. 50666", 9ate9 Febrnary 2, 200a8§.ubject to review and approval by the Director of 200a8§.ubject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, that include Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, that include a an angled fence to 12rotect trail users along the trail 12' high fence and/or landsca12e hedge and/or located on the ocean side and adjacent to the southerly combination thereof, to 12rotect trail users along the trail berm of the driving range, and a 6' high decorative fence located on the ocean side and adjacent to the southerly shall be installed along the southerly 12ortion of the berm of the driving range, and a 6' high decorative fence western boundary of the driving range, located between shall be installed along the southerly 12ortion of the the edge of the driving range and the pedestrian/bicycle western boundary of the driving range, located between trails, both in an area and design as described in the the edge of the driving range and the pedestrian/bicycle review letter by KiQ Schulties Golf Design, Inc., dated trails, betl:l iR aR aFea as 9essFibe9 iR tl:le Fe•.iiew letteF b•t March 24, 2012 .. Any changes to the proposed plan Ki~ Ssl:l1:1lties Galf Qesi!:JR, IRG., 9ate9 MaFGl:l 24, 2012 .. that may affect public safety as determined by the If a landsca12e hedge is used in lieu of or in combination Director shall be subject to additional environmental with a fence, then said landsca12ed hedge shall be of a analysis, review and approval in compliance with the density that would ensure that golf balls do not go California Environmental Quality Act. through said hedge or the AQQlicant shall 12rovide an alternative such as adding mesh fencing along with a hedge until said hedge has the necessa!Y density. Further, any landscage hedge, fencing or combination thereof shall be in comgliant with existing Mitigation Measure A-1 that ensures that the 12rogosed hedge, fence or combination thereof will not be higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm and any hedge shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm. Any changes to the proposed plan that may affect public safety as determined by the Director shall be subject to additional environmental analysis, review and approval in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA sections 15073.5 and 1507 4.1 allow the substitution of mitigation measures in a proposed MND (or in this case Subsequent MND (SMND)] without re-circulating the SMND ifthe mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures and the change will not cause any potential significant effect on the Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 7of11 environment. The City's Golf Safety Consultant for this project confirmed that provided a substituted hedge is of sufficient density upon planting and maintained as such, it would be equivalent to the original 2005 Revision "W' mitigation that required a 6' high retaining wall with 6' high fence atop and consistent with the "Draft" mitigation measure that was initially released with the Initial Study for public review. To ensure that if not planted to sufficient density to keep a golf ball from reaching the trail, the mitigation measure has been revised to have the Applicant provide an alternative such as adding mesh fencing to the hedge until the density is achieved. Additionally, to ensure that a proposed hedge does not hinder views, the mitigation measure has been revised to ensure that the hedge, fence or combination thereof would not be higher than the southerly berm. Therefore, since the revised mitigation measure recently proposed by the Applicant is equivalent in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that in itself will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment, the proposed change meets the requirements of CEQA for not requiring re- circulation of the SMND. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, approval of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, rather than the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, or a new Mitigated Negative Declaration, is appropriate for the consideration of the proposed revision to the Trump National Golf Club, based on the following findings: 1. That subsequent changes proposed to the project do not require important revisions to the previous EIR for the entire Trump National project, or the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Driving Range, since there are no new significant environmental impacts that have been identified, which were not considered in the previous EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration. This is evident in the relatively minor changes to the mitigation measures of the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration. Specifically, in regards to the proposed change to Mitigation Measures B-2 and B-4, which in the previously certified MND for Revision "W' for the Driving Range required a total of 0.60 acres of coastal sage scrub to be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Driving Range, the proposed revision to Mitigation Measures B-2 and B-4 is simply to change their respective Monitoring and Reporting Action Milestones so that the required habitat is planted "Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a home within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666" as opposed to "Prior to Certificate of Occupancy" of the Driving Range. The purpose of this request is due to the proposed habitat being planted along the ocean side of the southerly berm of the Driving Range and conflicting with future infrastructure improvements. More specifically, infrastructure (storm drain and sewer lines) serving the future 12 homes located between the Driving Range and Palos Verdes Drive South will run beneath the Driving Range and through the southerly berm to connect to existing infrastructure on the southerly side of the Driving Range. The installation of said infrastructure is directly related to the construction of the future homes. If habitat were planted before the infrastructure was to be installed then it would have to be partially removed when the infrastructure is eventually installed for the homes. So as not to disrupt the newly planted habitat, it makes more sense to tie the installation of the habitat with the future homes than the construction of the Driving Range. Further, since the 2005 approval of Revision "W' for the Driving Range was an amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, which also included the revision to home sites, the nexus of applying this mitigation measure to the residential development of the tract is sound. Additionally, in regards to the proposed change to Mitigation Measures H-1 and H-2, the change to Mitigation Measure H-1 is simply to provide for an alternative type of fencing that would exclude the Applicant from having to build a 6' high retaining wall, while still ensuring that the same safety protections are given to neighboring uses. Further, in regards to Mitigation Measure H-2, since upon visiting the site after the Driving Range has been in operation, and considering that there have been more than 9,600 users of the Driving Range without incident, the Golf Safety Consultant has confirmed that this mitigation measures may be adjusted and there will still not be a potentially significant adverse hazard impact to public safety. 2. That substantial changes to the project would not occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which would require important revisions to the previous EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration for Revision "W', since, as noted in #1 above, there are no new Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 8of11 significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the previous EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration for Revision "W', Supplements and previous Addenda thereto. 3. That there is no new information of substantial importance to the project which indicates that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration; that significant effects previously examined will not be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration; that no mitigation measures or alternatives, previously found not to be feasible, would now in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or that no mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, would now substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the environment. Section 5: In approving the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration documenUlnitial Study. Section 6: The Subsequent MND to the Driving Range MND identifies no new potential significant adverse environmental impacts to the areas listed below, beyond those already identified in the adopted Driving Range MND, Addendum #1 to the Driving Range MND, or the overall project's Final EIR No. 36, the Supplement, Second Supplement, and Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 to EIR No. 36, as a result of the proposed revisions to the Trump National project: 1. Landform, Geology, and Soils 2. Hydrology and Drainage 3. Biological Resources 4. Cultural and Scientific Resources 5. Aesthetics 6. Land Use and Relevant Planning 7. Circulation and Traffic 8. Air Resources 9. Noise 10. Public Services and Utilities 11. Population, Employment and Housing 12. Fiscal Impacts Section 7: That implementation of the proposed changes to the project would not require additional mitigation measures or significant deletions/modifications to the mitigation measures included in the adopted Driving Range MND, Addendum #1 to the Driving Range MND, or the overall project's Final EIR, as well as the Supplemental, Second Supplemental, and Addends Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43and44to EIR No. 36. Section 8: While the implementation of mitigation measures as discussed in the adopted Driving Range MND, Addendum #1 to the Driving Range MND, and Final EIR No. 36 and the Supplemental, and the Second Supplemental, and Addenda EIR Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 to EIR 36 will further reduce these impacts, it is not possible to entirely eliminate cumulative impacts to the areas of concern listed in EIR No. 36, above. Therefore, the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, as provided in Final EIR No. 36, are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 9: All findings, attachments and Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Resolution Nos. 92-53, 92-115, 93-89, 94-71, 96-15, and 2006-62, as adopted by the City Council on June 1, 1992, December 7, 1992, October 5, 1993, September 6, 1994, March 11, 1996, September 3, 1996, and June 7, 2005 respectively, are hereby incorporated by reference. Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 9of11 Section 10: Since the only affect to the 2005 Driving Range project (Revision "W') is upon the mitigation measures, B-2, B-4, H-1 and H-2 as described in Section 1 above, all other mitigation measures within the prior certified MND, which are not being revised through this Subsequent MND are sufficient for the Driving Range and remain applicable to the revised project. Further, the Mitigation Monitoring Programs contained in Resolution No. 96-72, Resolution No. 2000'-38 and Resolution No. 2000-58, as adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996, June 21, 2000 and September 5, 2000 respectively, have not been revised by this Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program, and thereby in addition to the Mitigation Monitoring Program found in Exhibit A, remain as the Mitigation Monitoring Programs in effect. Section 11: While the proposed project is only to change Mitigation Measures B-2, B-4, H-1 and H-2, and does not involve any changes to existing conditions of approval found in the approved Conditional Use Permit No. 162, Conditional Use Permit No. 163, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, and Grading Permit No. 1541, all of which were revised when the City Council approved Revision "W', since the proposed project would result in a change to the project adopted through Revision "W', the City Council hereby finds that the proposed revisions are relatively minor, will not cause any grading at the site, the design of Tract 50666 will not be altered by the minor revisions to the mitigation measures, and these minor revisions, as mitigated, will not alter the effect of the project on surrounding properties. Therefore, the findings for the previously approved entitlements through Revision "W' can still be adopted as follows: Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163: 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood; 2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use; 3. That, in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof; 4. That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan; 5. That, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter; and 6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffers; b. Fences or walls; c. Lighting; d. Vehicular ingress and egress; e. Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; f. Landscaping; g. Maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; h. Service roads or alleys; and i. Such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666: (a) That the proposed map, and the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; and (b) That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; and (c) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; and (d) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems; and (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Grading Permit 1541: E.1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 10of11 lot, as defined in Chapter 17. 96 of this title. E.2. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. E.3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. E.4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. E.5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17.02. E.6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. E.7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. E.8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. E.9. The grading conforms to the standards of Section 17. 76.040(E)(9). Section 12: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or any other applicable short period of limitations. Section 13: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings contained in the staff reports, minutes, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certifies a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration in association with Revision "QQ", based on the City Council's determination that the document was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 29'" day of M~~ Ma or Attest: &tc~. City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2012-37 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council ata regular meeting held on May 29, 2012. City Clerk Resolution No. 2012-37 Page 11 of 11 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: Revision "QQ" to the Trump National Golf Club for revision to an existing Driving Range. Location: Trump National Golf Club, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant/: V.H. Property Corp. Landowner TABLE OF CONTENTS I. lntroduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2 . II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ........................................................................... 3 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................................ 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures ................................................................................. 3 Mitigation Monitoring Operations ....................................................................................................... 3 Ill. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist.. ......................................................................................... 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table ............................................................................................... 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 1of7 I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which is to allow Revision "QQ", permitting a revision to an existing Driving Range at the Trump National Golf Club, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Section 21081.6, which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration (or in this case a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration) has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMF complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program." Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 2of7 II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ~OLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The Citywill have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section Ill provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Planning, Building, and Code =:nforcement. bompliance Verification The MM P Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 3of7 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Monitoring Milestone column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City oF Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement with advice from Staff or another City department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements. Mitigation Monitoring Prograrrm Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 4of7 Ill. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on May 29, 2012. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear inthe Initial Study. It should be noted that this MMP represents revisions to the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on June 7, 2005 through Resolution No. 2005-62. All mitigation measures identified in Resolution No. 2005-62 that are not being revised through this MMP shall remain in effect. * * * Monitoring and Reporting Actionindicates when the measure should be monitored and reported. Party Responsible for Mitigation indicates who is responsible for implementation. EnforcementAgency/MonitoringAgency/MonitoringMilestone indicates what agency is responsible for enforcing the measure, and provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures 6. Biological Resources B-2: Subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, CDFG and USFWS, and prior to issuance of any building permits for residences within Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 50666, CSS habitat will be revegetated (0.60 acres). Revegetated habitat should be suitable for forage, cover and nesting by coastal California qnatcatchers. Monitoring and Reporting Party Action Responsible for Mitigation Re-vegetate habitat prior to i V.H. Property issuance of building permits for Corp./Project Biologist any homes in VTTM50666 Mitigation Monitoring Program Enforcement Agency/ Monitoring Agency/ Monitoring Milestone City PBCE/CDFG/USFW Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 5of7 Mitigation Measures B-4: Prior to issuance of any building permits for residences within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666, the Forrestal Canyon Preserve shall be increased by 0.60 acres. Planting, maintenance and monitoring of new habitat plantings per mitigation measure B-2 shall be in compliance with the project's Habitat Conservation Program and incorporated into the project's annual Habitat Monitoring Program/Reporting. 1. Hazards H-1: The driving range shall be developed with safety features subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, that include a 12' high fence and/or landscape hedge and/or combination thereof, to protect trail users along the trail located on the ocean side and adjacent to the southerly berm of the driving range, and a 6' high decorative fence shall be installed along the southerly portion of_the western boundary of the driving range, located between the edge of the driving range and the pedestrian/bicycle trails. If a landscape hedge is used in lieu of or in combination with a fence, then said landscaped hedge shall be of a density that would ensure that golf balls do not go through said hedge or the Applicant shall provide an alternative such as adding mesh fencing along with a hedge until said hedge has the necessary density. Further, any landscape hedge, fencing or combination thereof shall be in compliant with existing Mitigation Measure A-1 that ensures that_the proposed hedge, fence or Monitoring and Reporting Party Action Responsible for Mitigation Re-vegetate habitat prior to i V.H. Property issuance of building permits for Corp./Project Biologist any homes in VTTM50666 Prior to issuance of Certificate V.H. Property Corp. of Occupancy Mitigation Monitoring Program Enforcement Agency/ Monitoring Agency/ Monitoring Milestone City PBCE City PBCE Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 6of7 Mitigation Measures combination thereof will not be higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm and any hedge shall be maintained to a height that will not grow higher than the ridge elevation of the southerly berm. Any changes to the proposed plan that may affect public safety as determined by the Director shall be subject to additional environmental analysis, review and approval in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. H-2: The proposed use of the driving range shall comply with the following: • Golfers will hit primarily from east to west, while Golf Professional Staff may teach some private golf lessons on the western side of the driving range under strict supervision. • An on-site Golf Staff Member will monitor all tee areas of the driving range during all operating hours of the driving range to ensure that shots do not go beyond the westerly tee areas or over the proposed westerly hedge. • When lessons are being taught at the eastern edge of the driving range, the on-site Golf Professional Staff will ensure that the longer shots from the western side of the driving range are prohibited. Monitoring and Reporting Party Action Responsible for Mitiaation On-going during use of driving V.H. Property Corp. range Mitigation Monitoring Program Enforcement Agency/ Monitoring Agency/ Monitorina Milestone City PBCE Resolution No. 2012-37 Exhibit A Page 7of7 From: So Kim Sent: To: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:49 PM CityClerk Subject: FW : VTTM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for Lot D Late Correspondence. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310 ) 544-5222 From: So Kim Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 3:48 PM To: kelvin@vanderlip.org Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com>; Charles Posner <chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov>; Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Charlotte Wiederholt <cwiederholt@tangramstudio.com>; Steve Stewart <s rstewl@aol.com>; Robert Voll <ravvoll67@gmail.com> Subject: RE: VTIM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for Lot D Hi Kelvin, Thank you for speaking and meeting with the Director and I regarding the landscape plan. My responses, which are the same that were relayed to you before, are provided in red text below. Sin cerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Commun it y Development Department Cit y of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca .gov (310 ) 544 -5222 From: Kelvin Vanderlip [mailto:kelvin@vanderlip.org] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 2:17 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov > Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov >; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca .gov >; David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com >; Charles Posner <chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov >; Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov; CC <CC@rpvca.gov >; Charlotte Wiederholt <cwiederholt@tangramstudio.com >; Steve Stewart <srstewl@aol.com >; Robert Voll <ravvol l67@gmai l.com > Subject: VTIM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for Lot D from: Kelvin Vanderlip, Secretary, Tract 16540 HOA to: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planing Manager, Community Development, Rancho Palos Verdes 1 cc: Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development, Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Doug Wilmore, City Manager, Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Charles Posner, Planning Director, California Coastal Commission cc: Zach Rehm, Transportation Analyst, California Coastal Commission cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council cc: Board of Tract 16540 HOA Dear So, Summary section (see longer discussion section below my signature) I am truly sorry to be taking your time to sort through the issues regarding Lot D. You are probably under a great deal of pressure to get this done. We "interested parties", who live next to Lot D, have received misleading information from the Planing Department regarding the effect of various requirements and constraints governing the use of Lot D. It has taken us a great deal of time and effort to untangle and understand the true, long -a go negotiated purpose of the lot which we discuss here: Lot D is to remain a park, and remain a fire barrier Fuel Modification Zone. We were told that you have the right to take bare-dirt fire-break Lot D and suddenly landscape 100% of it in dry, low water, native planting, right up to our property lines . This is not true. Lot Dis a Fuel Modification Zone and was cleared of planting years ago. All of our attempts to convince you that increasing the fire load on Lot D was dangerous for our community were met with a bureaucratic stone wall. It took us days of research to find the true conditions set out by the original designers of the Tract, who were thinking of safety. We received 4 versions of the Landscape Plan from you. In each one you covered the all of the bare ground with new plants that turn brown for 9 months of the year. In each successive version the planting was moved closer and closer to our homes. It is a sad state of affairs when the citizens beg for "safe plans" and it falls on deaf ears. We were told you require NO Fire Department review of the new planting on Lot D so long as you choose plants from a certain palette. This is not true. Your Landscape Plan breaks the condition that Lot Dis Fuel Modification Zone. You must abide by the Fire Department regulation in the HCP. You tell us no Fire Department review is called for. We strongly disagree. We ask you to get a Fire Department stamp on your Landscape Plan. The California Coastal Commission, as part of their Coastal Development Permit approval for the Golf Course, approved a plant palette which specifies the types of plants allowed on certain portions of the property. Lot D is considered the FIRE BUFFER ZONE, which has its own specific plant palette consisting mostly of fire resistant, native, and drought tolerant species. This lot was not intended to be left vacant of any foliage. At the time the Project was originally approved, all other agencies, including Coastal Commission, CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife, and the LA County Fire Dept, etc were involved. So unless the Developer wishes to plant species outside of what is on the approved plant palette, another review by the Fire Dept for the landscape plan is not required. We were told that Lot D had to be protected from access because the Coastal Commission "forced" it to be a Native Habitat. This is not true. The Coastal Commission conditions specify 2 that Lot D is a park, not Native Habitat. A "Park" is for use by people, while "Passive park/Habitat preserve" is for use by plants and animals. We were told that walking on the path to our community gate has to be stopped because this path is not on the Public Amenities Plan. This is misleading. Your assertion rests on treating Lot D as protected Native Habitat. However, Lot D is an open access park, a Fuel Modification Zone, and a fire break, with plenty of room for everyone to walk over the open space, including even our residents. Not true. Lot D is approved with a public pedestrian trail, bicycle path, as well as landscape areas. We were told that you can bar the path leading from our community's gate across Lot D, used for years by our residents, because it is not on City plans. This is misleading. It is on the Figure 6 map in the City's own decades-old Habitat Conservation Plan. Not true. Figure 6 is the Public Trails Plan which shows the official trail leading from PVDS, not from the community gate. The community has been accessing a portion of privately owned land in the past, without an official easement or an official trail dedication. We were told that the Landscape Plan was subject only to the Director's review because you comply with all conditions voted by the City Council. City Council approved Resolution No. 2018-39, Condition L.3.a.(3) expressly allows the Director to review and approve the landscape plan. This is not true -you do not comply with the HCP, which requires the Lot "be cleared of combustible vegetation that may represent a potential fire hazard to adjacent structures". Instead you plan to plant 100% of the lot with low-water native plants, right up to the houses! See my comment above regarding the approved plant palette. We were told that no public input was required on the Landscape plan. This is not true. We found and pointed out the City development condition requiring the Director to take comment from a hearing of "interested parties". You have given us until August 31st to prepare for, arrange our schedules, and attend this meeting. Given what we have learned over the last week, this is now too short a period of time to work this out. We request a 2 week extension for this meeting. Not true. City Council approved Resolution No. 2018-39, Condition L.3.a.(3) requires that the Developer coordinate with the City and the Portuguese Bend Club communities to ensure that proposed landscape plans address concerns. On July 25, 2018, Jill Martin representing the Developer, emailed a copy of the Landscape Plan to David Gakenheimer (PBC representative), which you were subsequently cc'd on July 3Q 1h. Below is a copy of the correspondence as a reminder. You had more than 30-days to review the plans. With the most recent version of the landscape plan, you requested a 5-day review period. I provided you with 8. Please provide your comments by tomorrow as requested. From: David Gakenheimer [mailto :dgakenheimer@gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:54 AM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca .gov > Cc: Kelvin Vanderl i p <kelvin@vanderlip.org >; Jill Marti n <jmartin@trumpnational.com > Subject: Re: Trump Nationa l -Landscape Plans for community review Hi So Kim, 3 I expect to be able to respond with comments for the landscaping plans by Friday (August 3). Kelvin Vanderlip is helping me collect comments from the residents . We met with Jill Martin this morning to get clarification on several things in her lans . If possible , Kelvin and I would like to meet with you to be sure we understand the City requirements and conditions correctly. Are you available tomorrow morning (Tuesday , July 31) anytime between 9:00 AM and 12 noon? I think we need about 1/2 hour of your time . Please advise. Thanks [)avid We were told that the Board of our Tract 16540 HOA is not representative and must "submit proof that our community is in entire agreement with our request" for access. Attached is a petition of signed by 40 individual Tract 16540 homeowners requesting access to Lot D via their long established, grandfathered-in path from our community gate. Please honor it. We already discussed this matter in detail in person and over the phone. Please refer to my responses above. All of these points can be quickly resolved. You could revise the Landscape Plan to create an open, fire-safe, minimally planted, visually appealing park/fuel modification zone for all citizens to safely cross and enjoy. You could treat our community gate as just another entrance to the lot Lot D park. You could simplify the Landscape plan and improve public safety. Please, just do it -everybody wins. With best regards, Kelvin Vanderlip Secretary, Tract 16540 Homeowners Association cell: +l (424)241-0609 Attachments : Tract 16540 HOA petition for access Lot D CC conditions Map 6 of HCP -path over Lot D Discussion Section: We received your email giving us your opinion on access to Lot D, on your compliance with "City Council-approved conditions of approval", and on fire safety. I will try my best to deal with these issues below. This is taking you and I a huge amount of effort and time which, to date, has produced no progress towards our goals. We will press on anyway. We want you to: • Correct your Lot D Landscape Plan to meet the Fuel Modification Zone standard of fire safety, • Leave alone our existing community gate path on Lot D. 4 Our position is based on the recorded Coastal Commission special conditions and the City's HCP. These reflect years of negotiation between the developer, the residents, the Coastal Commission and the City. Hopefully, this legacy will prevail over your department's recent position on our pedestrian access rights, and your plan to put dry habitat planting on Lot D. Both of these policies conflict with the relevant conditions. Fire Barrier We suggest for Lot D's landscape plan a simple fire barrier "park" with minimal decorative fire- safe native plant ground cover. Your continued insistence on covering all of Lot D with low- water native plants is not required by the CC conditions, nor the HCP. It directly conflicts with our goal of fire safety. We agree with Mr. Posner that "the area adjacent to the homes should be considered defensible space when the landscaping plan is developed, meaning that plant species should be used that reduce any fire hazard and the plan should include a fuel modification component that allows the area near habitable structures to be selectively thinned in order to reduce fire hazard." And please note that Lot Dis bare ground. There are no plants which need to be thinned. Instead, the City is introducing new plants onto the bare ground in this fire break. These plants add a new fire load onto Lot D. If you insist on adding new plants onto this bare fire break, they must be widely spaced and kept well away from structures, and the plan reviewed by the Fire Department. Only in the selection of plants from the 2005 plant palette have you given regard to fire safety. The spacing of the plants, their placement relative to each other and the structures, and their maintenance are equally important considerations for fire safety. It does not improve public safety for you to claim immunity from Fire Department oversight. For our peace of mind, for the City, staff and community, the final Landscape Plan for Lot D should be stamped by the Fire Department. Again, it does not improve public safety for you to disregard LA County Brush Clearance standards. Compliance with City Council conditions You cite that your Landscape Plan complies with "Council Approved conditions of approval". Please refer to the City's Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment (the HCP, approved by the City Council 7/18/00), which designates the 1 acre Lot Das Fuel Modification Zone and says: "2.16 The term Fuel Modification Zone means the area required by Los Angeles County Fire Department to be all/or partially cleared of combustible vegetation that may represent a potential fire hazard to adjacent structures". This explains why, to this day, Lot 0 is bare dirt and has remained vacant of planting for 2 decades. The clearing of Lot D was required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the 5 HCP. This seems to have been forgotten or ignored in the 2018 Community Development Department Landscape plan for Lot D, which shows no brush setback for the adjoining homes. We believe your goal of converting Lot D from Fuel Modification Zone to native habitat, thereby covering all of Lot D (except the PUMP paths) with dry native brush, planted right up to our resident's property lines, absolutely conflicts with the City's own HCP definition of this Fuel Modification Zone lot. Please, change your Landscape Plan and its goal of turning Lot D into an inaccessible native habitat zero-setback scrub field. Instead, make Lot D a fire-safe, minimally planted yet visually appealing park for to passers by to enjoy. This will simplify the Landscape plan, improve public safety. Let's just do it right. Sincerely, Kelvin Vanderlip Secretary, Tract 16540 Homeowners Association cell: +l (424) 241-0609 --------Forwarded Message -------- Subj ect:FW: Trump LA -Lot D Date:Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:20:24 +0000 From:So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> To: chuck. posner@coastal.ca. gov <chuck. posner@coastal.ca. gov>, kel vin@vanderli p .org <kel vin@vanderli p .org> CC:Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, 'Zach Rehm (zach.rehm@coastal.ca. gov)' <zach.rehm@coastal.ca. gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Dear Chuck and Kelvin, This email is to clarify the issue of whether or not a pedestrian path solely to provide access from a private community over Lot D can be allowed. Lot D will be dedicated to the City for public open space with improved public trails based on the Council-approved Public Amenities Plan . At no time, since the original approvals were obtained by the City Council in 1992 and the Coastal Commission in 1993, did the Public Amenities Plan contemplate a trail that would connect Lot D to the Portuguese Bend Club community (PBC). Lot D is intended to be open park space with public access with a specific plant palate. Additionally, Zach Rehm (Coastal Commission Staff assigned to the Trump Project) reviewed the landscape plan and confirmed that Coastal Commission did not approve the trail from PBC to Lot D (see highlighted text in the email below). He is also correct in that the requested trail from PBC to Lot D would not be in compliance with City-imposed condition requiring a 32 ' minimum setback from the PBC property line to any trail. When the Director and I met with Mr. Kelvin and Mr. Gakenheimer a week ago , we let them know that the PBC may work with the Public Works Dept to create a shortcut immediately adjacent to the gate that would connect to the public trail on PVDS. Doing so would not cross over into Lot D . As for landscaping, Lot Dis considered a Fire Buffer/fire break. As a result, there was a specific Fire Buffer Zone Plant Palette approved by the Coastal Commission. There are specific plants allowed on lot D, which are fire resistant and drought tolerant. ' 6 I hope this helps clarify the matter regarding the pedestrian path as well as the type of landscaping allowed for Lot D . Also , as a reminder, the City Council approved condition allows the Director to review and approve the Landscape Plan for Lot D , provided that it meets the Council-approved conditions of approval. The Landscape Plan is not subject to a public hearing with the City Council. Sincerely, So Ki m , A IC P Deput y Director/P lanning Manager Community Development Department City o f Rancho Palo s Verdes www.rpvca.gov (3 10) 544 -5222 From: "Posner, Chuck@Coastal" <Chuck.Posner@coastal.ca.gov> Date: August 28 , 2018 at 10:54 :10 AM PDT To: "'kel vin@vander lip . org '" <kel vin@vanderlip.org> Cc: Susan Brooks <susan.brooks@rpvca.gov>, "Rehm, Zach@Coastal" <Zach.Rehni@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: RE: Request for meeting regarding the use of Lot D, VTTM 50666, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Vanderlip -To confirm what we discussed this morning : Lot D does appear to be designated as a park, although there may exist some habitat value that will have to be preserved when the formal walkways and bike paths are installed and when the area is landscaped with native plants. I agree that the area adjacent to the homes should be considered defensible space when the landscaping plan is developed, meaning that plant species should be used that reduce any fire hazard and the plan should include a fuel modification component that allows the area near habitable structures to be selectively thinned in order to reduce fire hazard. Also, we will discuss with the City any issues it may have with the park's access from the adjacent neighborhood. I don't know any reason why an existing public accessway would be closed. However, it may be problematic to provide access to the park from adjacent private properties. Please keep in mind , however, that Zach is much more familiar with the details of the amended permit than am I. therefore , I recommend that we consult with him on these issues as soon as he is back in the office (probably Sept. 5). In any case , I can confirm that there is no proposal to change to the conditions of the amended coastal development permit as they currently exist. At this time our staff is working with the permittee and City to comply with the conditions of the amended coastal development permit. Charles R. Posner Supervisor of Planning California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate -Tenth Floor Long Beach , CA 90802 7 (562) 590-5071 Ch uck.posne r@coasta l.ca .gov CAL IF O~ll l .!o COASTAL (0 1'•"!.l l SSI O N From: Rerun , Zach@Coastal [ mailto:Zach.Rehln@coastal.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday , August 14 , 2018 5:22 PM To: Jill Martin <jmartin@trumpnational.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Steve Wood (swood@lrmltd.com) <swood@lrmltd.com> Subject: RE: Trump LA -Lot D Thank you, Jill. I have two comments: The revegetation plan for the area at the southwest portion of Lot D (left side of page 2) is still unclear. I see an approximation of my triangle has been added , with what appears to be ash buckwheat proposed . But I don 't understand the two circles and the thin squiggly line. If the squiggly line is the existing chain link fence , then please just eliminate the triangle and propose ash buckwheat with temporary irrigation in the entire area northeast of the squiggly line (capturing the smaller triangle and the bigger triangle). Southwest of the fence , existing vegetation may remain and new irrigation should not be installed. Please remove the trail connecting to the Portuguese Bend cul-du-sac depicted on page 3. I'm not sure why that appeared on the most recent draft , but the Coastal Commission has not approved any trails in that portion of Lot D which is designated for habitat/fire break -and any development within 32 feet of the Portuguese Bend tract is prohibited by the City permit. Additionally I received a call from a Sierra Club attorney asserting that gates and use trails from the Portuguese Bend property are prohibited by the Ocean Trails/CCC /RPV settlement agreement. If the Portuguese Bend HOA desires a new access point from their cul-du-sac, they can construct a path or stairway to connect to PV Drive South adjacent to the coral tree at their own expense . Zach Rehm Senior Transportation Program Analyst California Coastal Comm ission 200 Oceangate, 101h F loor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 C A L IF Ol!!!l l O, COASTAL C 01""11111 $S IO N 8 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Our Tract 16540 eastern border adjoins Lot D of the Trump Ocean Trails golf development. This lot will be dedicated to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Ocean Trails developer in the next few weeks. We have very recently learned that after Lot Dis transferred to the City, the City's stated policy is to close all access across Lot D from our community gate. This is a restrictive change to a long-standing land use pattern which will prevent us from using our community gate. The threat of prosecution by the City for trespass, once Lot Dis dedicated to the City, has been sent to our homeowners association by the Planning Department (see portion of email below 1 ). We have enjoyed a foot path from our community gate across Lot D for decades. This is used daily by residents of Tract 16540 and the Portuguese Bend Club, along with their children and dogs, to access the trails around the driving range which are intended for public use. Therefore, we the undersigned hereby petition the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department and City Council to allow the continued use of the existing foot path from our community gate to the existing coastal trail after Lot D is transferred to the City. 1 What happens if a property owner accesses Lot D directly from their property and damages habitat? Please see Municipal Code Sections below. •€€€€€€€€ 17 .41.050 • Prohibited conduct. It Is unlawful for any person, firm, business, corporation, or any other entity to perform habitat modification work on any CSS habitat, or perform weed abatement on any property greater than two acres in size that is within the geographical limits of the city and contains CSS habitat, as depicted on the city's most current NCCP map, without lirst complying with the provisions of this chapter, (Ord, 420 § 2 (part), 2005: Ord, 419lJ § 2 (part), 2005) •€€€€€€€€ 17 .41.090 • Violations and penalties. A violation of any provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment In the county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and Imprisonment Any person found to have violated any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a separate and distinct offense for each day, or portion thereof, during which such violation continues, and shall be punishable accordingly, Jn addition to the foregoing, the city may require revegetation work be performed by the violator. at a ratio to be determined by the director, and may assess a tine in an amount necessary to assure that the CSS that was improperly removed can be replaced and maintained for a minimum period of five years or until the CSS is reestablished and sufficient to cover any other costs incurred by the city In achieving compliance with this chapter, Further, the city shall not accept for processing. or grant approval of, any application for development, use, permit. or other entitlement pursuant to Titles 15, 16 or 17 of the municipal code until such time that the property owner has complied with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of the municipal code, (Ord, 420 § 2 (part), 2005: Ord, 419lJ § 2 (part), 2005) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name I Address I !Signature I support I oppose I this this t petition petition Date I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address I support I oppose this this Signature petition petition Date Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot Owner Address Name Signature I support I oppose Date this this petition petition 27 28 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name I support I oppose this this Address Signature petition petition 1 Date /} Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, I support I oppose Owner this this Name Address Signature petition petition Date 29 Wou.<lf\ \tiO ~p)r-J~ x B~/18 5> Kev\/\ t00~1V\d ~f\-~ 30 ~ Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address Signature I support I oppose this this petition petition Date 31 e Yl 0AfJ.rr ) z.<:.S'f1~, f'T 32 r: ~Ne (~ 33 34 35 36 r Petition To t he City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of l i t t le Palos Verdes Drive South !Lot, Owner l -,- 1 I support l I oppose I : this I this I , Name Address f,... ' (_tl 1 H , l ).-1 /; ~ . ry111-11/ h1,1-J1 ,·i \ " 1 /H\( (~Ir> /_'/I _? "• ,• L.,_ f/t .. _..i} lk I \_ 1-k / .>. Lc.~·" ._ Petition i petition 1 peti tion · Date I '}))I'~ ~.h~/r To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name I support I oppose this this Address Signature petition petition Date Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From t h e Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside . our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner Name Address Signature I support I oppose this this petition petition Date Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our com m unity gate situated at the end of littl e Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, Owner N me I !Address I 1 support I oppose , this this !signature j petition petition 1 Date 37 Kent Jon es 4144 Maritime Rd 39 Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South 38 Lot, Owner Name I support I oppose this this Address petition petition Date Petition To the City of Rancho Palos Verdes From the Homeowners of Tract 16540 requesting continued access across the foot path outside our community gate situated at the end of little Palos Verdes Drive South Lot, ' . Owner .. ' Name Address . I suppo.rt r ·oppose · .. . . ,. this -, · ttlis . . .. _p ~tition · ; petitiOn · Date /(Uftr 1=-Wot.I .$1J"7>1 40 Gm ·1 David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com> Re: Petition for Continued Access through Tract 16540 Gates to Lot D Trump Golf Course 1 message Lynn Doran <lynnsky@earthlink .net> Mon , Aug 20, 2018 at 5 :20 PM To: David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com > Hi Dav id , I would like to sign the petition but I am in Hong King on my way to Bali . Can you sign for me and I will authorize when I return sept. 7th? Lynn Sent from my iPhone A-5-RPV-93-005-A 13 Standard and Special Conditions Page-3 of 44 1. OFFER TO DEDICATE !N FEE OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS FOR PARKS, PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicants as landowners shall execute and record document(s), in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, irrevocably offering to dedicate to public agency(ies) or private assoclation(s) approved by the Executive Director, the corridors noted on (roman numeral Revised Findings) Exhibit I, further explained in (Roman numeral Revised Flndings) Exhibits II, III, IV, V and Exhibits 1, 5A, 48 and 49,{of the original approval) for parks, public access, passive recreational use, habitat enhancement, trail, public parking a:nd street purposes. The land shall be dedicated subject to the provisions outlined in the conditions below with respect to trail access, beach use, habitat rest~e~itat preservation. The dedicated areas shall include the following: (/A. PARKS~~~~ d to be dedicated for purpo~es of public access, public recreation and parks as sho n on Exhibit I: \ >,,~,,~ ····-~~. _ _ll} The entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666: Lot A, Sunset Point Park {Palos Verdes Drive-West Vista Park,) 1.5 acres Lot H; Ocean Trails Park (Halfway Point Park), including all areas inland of the bluff edge trail described in 3.A(11) below, not less than: 9-4 5.21 acres (2) LOT D VTTM 50666, Portuguese Bend Overlook and Fuel Modification Area, as shown in Exhibit 49, not less than: (3) Bluff Top Activity Corridor, lot K Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666 as shown in the Attached Exhibit I, (Roman numeral one) generally described as southerly of Jot 38 and being no less than 100 feet wide immediately adjacent to the bluff edge (bluff face is Lot G) extending from the easterly tract boundary with VITM 50667 to the intersection 1.0 acre with Lot F (Halfway Point Preserve Area), no less than 8.9 Acres (4) Catalina View Park, (Palos Verdes Drive-~ East Vista Park), lat D within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667: 1.2 acres 5) {Bluff Top Activity Corridor lot K, within Vesting Tentative Tract Map f)0667 as . shown in the attached Exhibit I (roman numeral; one) generally described as southerly of lot 38, being no less than 1QO feet wide immediately adjacent the edge of bluff (bluff face is lot I), no less than: OO l6l30.:fS acres $ []][ .. _ .. _ .. _. ·--- A-5-RPV-93-005-A 13 Standard and Special Conditions Page~ 4 of 44 I All lands dedicated for park purposes shall be open to the general public for recreation use. Ocean Trails Park (Halfway Point Park) and Vista Catalina Park and Sunset Point Park (the Palos Verdes Drive Vista Parks), (described in 1.A(1), and 1.A(4)) shall be developed for active use; the lands described in 1.A(2), (3),. and (5), (known as the Portuguese BendView Park, the Bluff Top Activity Corridor West VTTM 50666, and the Bluff Top Activity Corridor East VTTM 50667) shall be developed with trails, benches, shade structures, interpretive signs and bikeways. The lands described in 1.A (2), (3), and (5) (known as Portuguese Bend Overlook, Bluff Top Activity Corridor West (VTTM 50666) and Bluff Top Activity Corridor East (VTTM 50667)) shall not be graded except within the dedicated bicy('.le/pedestrian path, to the extent necessary to install and maintain utilities within drainage, utility and sewer, easements shown on Exhibit 5 (Map G) and hydrogen, and · groundwater testing well easements shown on Exhibit 6 (Map K) of this Amendment 6, and within two areas, one area of not more than 0.3 acres adjacent to the 18th tee and a second area of 0.13 acres adjacent to the 18th hole. In addition, approximately 2.6 acres of land disturbed by the active landslide C may be graded for exploration, landslide repair, and drainage control purposes only as specifically authorized in special condition 28 of amendment 13 of this permit The. total combined disturbed area adjacent to the 18th· tee and the 18th hole shall not exceed 0.43 acres and shall be located as shown on Exhibit A depicting setbacks for VTTM 50666 prepared by RBF and dated July 25, 1995The disturbed area shall be further reduced as modified by the map dated June 20, 1996 submitted by the applicant with amendment A4 and shown on Exhibit 9 attached to amendment A4. The Blufftop Activity Corridors shall be revegetated, as required by the Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service as specified in the executed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The offer to dedicate shall also provide that no development, other than development approved in this permit shall occur in the trail areas shown in Exhibits A and/or the Public Amenities Plan Trails and Signage Map of September 26, 1996 revised 1/20/97 except as authorized by , a future coastal development permit, and as otherwise authorized by law. Drainage, landslide, and slope repairs only as specifically authorized in special condition 28 of amendment 13 to this permit No coastal development permit exemptions as defined in Section 30610 of the Coastal Act shall apply to the trails described below except that repair and maintenance of existing sewer lines, drainage structures, utilities, monitoring wells, and hydraugers shall be exempt pursuant to section 30610(d) and the regulations of the California Administrative Code Title 14 Section 13252. B. PASSIVE PARKJHABITAT PRESERVES. lands to be dedicated for purposes of habitat enhancement and passive recreation as shown on Exhibits I and III (roman numeral of the revised findings of tt)e original permit): (1) The· entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50666 excluding any trails identified in condition 3 of this permit: Lot E, West Bluff Preserve, no less than 7 acres, 00 1613039' ~ . A-5-RPV-93-005-A 13 Standard and Special Conditions Page-5 of 44 generally as indicated on Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 · except that no portion of lot E shall be closer than 100 feet from any subdivided lot. Lot F Halfway Point Preserve Lot G the Bluff Face and Beach (2) Lot I Golf course Bluff Edge Habitat Setback. within VTTM Tract 50666, described as a strip of land no less than 50 feet in width immediately adjacent tO the edge of the bluff, southwesterly of the golf course, including the 7.0 acres 3.3 acres 24.4 acres west side of Halfway Point, no less than: 1.2 acres (3} The entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50667, excluding any trails identified in Condition 3 of this permit lot G East Bluff Preserve no less than 7.7 acres Lot I Bluff Face and Beach no less than 10.1 acres Public access to the lots dedicated for habitat preservation purposes above is limited to a) tours, inspections, and educational field trips managed by the Department of Fish and Game, or the Fish and Wildlife Service, orb) the trails shown in Exhibits A and the Public Amenities Plan Trails and Signage Map of September 26, 1996 revised i/20/97. All lots shall be revegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub and Coastal Bluff Scrub plants as listed in the finally executed Habitat Conservation Plan, in the manner required by the Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. No grading, vegetation removal or other development may occur on lots dedicated for habitat preservation purposes except for the following: i) trails, 2) fences approved in a coastal development permit, 3) hand removal of invasive plants, 4) installation of public . utilities generally as shown on Exhibit 5 Map G, 5) the drilling of testing wells and hydraugers generally as shown on Exhibit 6, Map K, and 6) the sewer connections and drainage devices approved in this permit shall occur in these areas, 7) drainage, geologic exploration, landslide and slope repairs only as specifically authorized and described in special condition 28 of amendment 13 to this permit The beach portion, the southern lot line to 20 feet above mean sea level, of Lot G, VTTM 50666 and lot I, VTTM 50667 shall be open for public recreational use. C. MUL Tl-USE COMMON OPEN SPACE. Lands offered to be dedicated for habitat, managed fire break, flood control purposes except for trail areas offered to be dedicated in condition 3 below: (1) The entirety of the following lots within Vesting Tentative Tract Map . 50666: Lot B, Forrestal Draw and Portuguese Bend Club connector Lot C managed fire break 00 1613039 $ Dil[ ·~ '. : .... ~ ~. ., . . --, . . ' · ..... , . /!' _.---/ . . --~------ I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi SUNSHINE: Kit Fox Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:48 AM SUNSHINE Elias Sassoon; Gabriella Yap; So Kim; Ara Mihranian; CityClerk RE: How urgent are the Trump errors, omissions and Committee review? -Item 1, 9/4/18 RE: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property Tax status Unfortunately, I have little to no influence over issues related to the Trump project, the General Plan update or the TNP/CTP update. Direction to create/recreate advisory committees and commissions and/or new Staff positions would need to come from the City Council. ! assume that the graphic you mentioned is the aerial photo of the vicinity of 8 Chaparral Lane that I sent you last week (attached). However, I'm not clear about how So's "responses" have sent to back to me regarding this matter or the larger projects and initiatives that you've mentioned. I have no additional info to provide regarding the 8 Chaparral Lane issue other than to assure you that I continue to watch for opportunities for the City to acquire the property through the County's tax- defaulted property sale program. Since your email makes reference to issues to be discussed on tonight's agenda. I will ask the City Clerk to include is as Late Correspondence on Item l. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Cihi of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544~5226 kitf@rpvca.aov From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 10:59 AM To: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: How urgent are the Trump errors, omissions and Committee review? Hi Kit, I haven't finished this and Trump is tonight. I have Elias looking into the lack of a Rec & Parks Committee, too. So Kim has not responded to my concern even though she sent me emails on Friday about my General Plan concerns. I have no clue on how the CTP reference errors will be corrected or if there is any intention to back into updating the TNP. Thank you for the graphic. The local trail advocates are very familiar with the existing trail and the various1. properties which could be impacted by rerouting it. I would ask you to add more of the info we know to the 1 . graphic if I could figure out who would use it to pursue this opportunity. I trust you have seen So Kim's responses. We, the People, are being "stonewalled". So's comments send me back to you in an attempt to figure out how to change some Staff attitudes and prevent the General Plan Update and the Trails Network Plan Update from changing the primary directives they now contain. Here are the issues. It sure would be nice if we had an Ombudsman, Rec and Parks Committee, an Infrastructure and Activities Commission or some such. RPV Staff seem to have lost all sense of the quality and qualities which have made RPV a special place. We are losing it. Anything you can do to help will be most appreciated. Apparently, a lot of Staffers are not aware that we no longer have a Rec & Parks Committee. It is in the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) as the body to whom easement offers and proposed changes to the CTP are to be addressed. Right now, it is nobody's job to consider such things so many opportunities have been lost. Also, the R&P Committee is still listed in the Trump Project restatement as needing their "review and approval" of the specifications for construction of the pedestrian and bicycle trails PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP. The "specs" are terribly written and sure could use a "citizen review" for quality control. Any guess about how this will be handled during Council's "approval discussion" Tuesday night? Can it be simply ignored? 2 Nathan Zweizig From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi SUNSHINE: Kit Fox Wednesday, August 29, 2018 8:47 AM SUNSHINE jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; Cory Linder RE: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property Tax status 8 Chaparral Lane and Vicinity.pdf 8 Chaparral Ln. has not re-appeared on the County's tax-defaulted property list. As you'll recall, the City tried to acquire the property in 2015, but the property owner paid the back taxes and redeemed the property. The County Assessor shows that the property taxes have not been paid since 2016, so I expect that this property might pop up on the County's list again in 2019 or 2020. I'll continue to watch for this. With respect to trail connectivity, I would point out that there is another vacant parcel (APN 7568-019-021) between 8 Chaparral Ln. and the public right-of-way of Bronco Dr., across which the City would also have to acquire an easement to reach the street (see attachment). Kit Fox, AICP CitLJ of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544~5226 kitf@rpvca..5ov From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 4:39 PM To: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov> Cc: jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property Tax status Hi Kit, Has this property shown up above your radar? In relation to RPV TNP/CTP, SECTION FIVE Trail F2 and Spoke #2 of the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network, this existing trail connection still crosses a few private properties. I don't know who else to ask. In the General Plan (existing and draft Update) and the existing CTP, the preservation and enhancement of this trail connection falls to what is now the Community Development Department. The CTP clearly states that "The exact route should be designed prior to easement solicitation." In conjunction with applications to develop #10 Chaparral, COD has proven that they missed this directive and that they are incapable of producing a viable trail design. The availability of 8 Chaparral is an opportunity to have Public Works look into the best route of a TYPE 5 trail that connects the Bronco/Martingale intersection with the Nature Trail in RHE. Given that RPV has one Trail Easement and one Irrevocable Offer of a Trail Easement in the area, who is in a position to say whether or not acquiring 8 Chaparral (particularly if it cannot meet the geologic factor of safety for a residential development) would contribute toward preserving the trail connection? 1 Kit, I sure hope you can pull this together. I advised against the City acquiring the East Crest Road "Trailhead Park" property. I am looking for some intelligent thought on this opportunity .... S 310-377- 8761 From: jeanlongacre@aol.com To: ,$unshineRPV@aol.com Sent: 8/22/2018 3:06:37 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: 8 Chaparral Ln. Property Tax status Hi Sunshine, In the Breeze, Monday, August 18. 2018, the property at 8 Chaparral is listed as being tax delinquent in the amount of $22,864 for the 2015-2016 fiscal year. The taxes yearly are around $5,000 so that means it is getting close to the 5 year delinquent sale date. The property is currently listed for sale for $945,000 (a $50,000 reduction) but it has been on the market for some time. The owner is Mohammad Halisi and he purchased it in 2004 for $370,000. Mr. Halisi is the president of Z Auto Sound in Orange County. According to an L.A. Times article on Oct. 15, 1992, Mr. Halisi was arrested and alleged to be the ring leader of a group who were pirating music tapes big time. Jean 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Thursday, August 30, 2018 8:07 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: September 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Item 1, Trump and a whole lot more about Staff instructions From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 6:21 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca .gov>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: September 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Item 1, Trump and a whole lot more about Staff instructions Dear Mr. Willmore, Stop scratching your head. All of the following is based on your Staff's performance. Polite inquiries and suggestions produce no results. Prior to September 4, 2018 would be a good time to at least save the future of the Trump Project on behalf of the people who live in this City. It is frustration which causes "nasty-grams". I sure hope that the power won't be off at City Hall, tomorrow, from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm the way it will be in an undisclosed portion of the City so you can get something done without the "not WiFi connected" public bothering you. I will look for clarification emails on Friday. September 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Item 1, Trump Hi So, I never finished and sent these questions and now they have been answered as something of a "MAYBE". Given last week's Council action in relation to removing "that trail'', is the door still open for identification of and discussion about the "among other things" in Resolution 2018-60 and the "no other changes" on the Public Amenities Plan? Is the Maintenance Agreement going to get cleaned up before or after the Tract Map is declared "Final"? All those public questions and concerns which you declared... "Not a part of Revision KKK" have now come home to roost. I have only just begun reading your Agenda Report and I already see some errors and omission, which I have pointed out, previously. My question remains about whether or not anybody cares about getting this "Agreement" to become a Coastal Zone "treasure" in perpetuity. None of the following is "new" news and the same errors and omissions are repeated throughout these "latest" I documents. , 1 #1. Every page of a document which the City produces should have a header or footer with an ownership by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a document title and a date. Ask our City Clerk how to do that. Beginning on Page A-69 (81), Y. PUBLIC AMENITIES PLAN. 1. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP, #2. Assuming that all of the "specifications" have now been submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development, Public Works, and Recreation and Parks, as well as the City's Recreation and Parks Committee. (sic) I have to point out, again, that the City no longer has a Recreation and Parks Committee. My question remains ... What body of advisory citizens have been given the opportunity to specifically review these Public Amenities ? #3. Bicycle lanes and paths. There are no "standards" for bikeways in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan. Classifications of I, II and Ill are pretty universally established. There are more details in the RPV Conceptual Bikeways Plan (CBP) and the RPV Trails Network Plan. I am not finding any definitions of grade restrictions defining "easy" and "intermediate" in the CBT. So, what do these terms mean in this case? (Fuzzy is not enforceable.) #4. Moving on, beginning with page A-70 (82), in relation to pedestrian trails. All of these individual trails are more specifically described in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan of 1993 or should have been added per the Tract Amendments of 2016 . The RPV Trails Network Plan Update changes in format and "policy" of 2012 still have not been implemented . The TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA is much more specific than the vague "standards" and "level of difficulty" as used in this "restatement". Applying the CRITERIA to what has already been designed/specified does not substantially change anything. It simply makes the term "maintained to the City's reasonable satisfaction" much more enforceable. #5. I have hinted at it but have never been able to start a discussion about the trail and landmark naming oddities and inconsistencies on this Project. This would have been a "hot topic" if we had a Recreation and Parks Committee or an Infrastructure and Activities Commission. There is more to "wayfinding" than making signs. #5. Just to be clear, these "A" pages are "the restatement" as in the "Maintenance Agreement". Or, am I going to have to go searching for another list to critique? It has been five business days with no response to the following email. Subject: Fwd: Several problems with Trump which relate to several future Council Agendas and other projects Date: 8/22/2018 3:59:35 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To : ianaya@rpvca .gov Cc: esassoon@rpvca .gov , corvl@rpvca .gov , sok@rpvca .gov , aram@rpvca .gov , cc@rpvca .gov , pc@rpvca .gov , ksnell0001@aol.com , judith .foote@outlook.com , leneebilski@hotmail .com , kelvin@vanderlip.org , smhvaleri@cox.net Bee: jessboop@cox.net Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi Irving, 2 This is the one. Given last night's City Council action, I am hoping that you can help get the TNP update and the documents that need to be approved before the Final Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 into agreement at least as they relate to trails and bikeways. Cory Linder is "on the hook" for keeping the City's Parks Master Plan up to date. Erosion, drainage and view obstruction avoidence are up to some other people. Resolving conflicts between trail/bikepath users and golfcart users is still pretty fuzzy. So many Resolutions and I still have not been able to "nail down" exactly which trail descriptions need to show up in the TNP Update. I get it. Resolution 2018-60 superscedes Resolution 2018-39. What the Hell!. I have spent so much time reading Staff Reports and pointing out descrepancies that I might as well draft the Coastal Zone portions of the SECTION FOUR TNP/CTP update myself and let the Council critique my work even though they may never get to. At least nobody can whine about Staff being "overworked". If you have received any written instructions about how you are to approach the data/policy gathering for this TNP Update particularly in relation to establishing the GPS end points for each trail, I will certainly appreciate your sharing. . .. S 310-377-8761 Subject: Fwd: I am not going to give up on getting the TRUMP deal to become a wonderful facility Date: 8/22/2018 1:29:17 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv(lllaol.com To: ianaya@rpvca.gov Cc: sok@rpvca.gov, dwillmore@rpvca.gov, S&@rpvca.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi Irving, I'm not giving up on the TNP update, either. You should have this one. I'll keep searching for the email in which I left a letter out of your address in the Copy To list. So has not replied to either one. 3 A major part of keeping the TNP Updated is to treat it like a "living document". That means every time Council accepts a trail easement offer (which Council did last night) or approves trail improvements, you need to capture the recorded version and add whatever to the TNP in the appropriate inventory. This did not get done with the 2016 changes to Trump's PUBLIC AMENITIES PLAN, TRAILS AND SIGNAGE DRAWING. It is in the process of being "amended". In last nights approval of Resolution 2018- 60, it states that no other changes were made. The following changes need to be made to facilitate the TNP update and the future of the quality of their maintenance. One problem is figuring out when a specific trail should be described as Category I, Category II or Category Ill. As of last night, Trump appears to have some in each of these Status: Categories. Another problem is that the existing General Plan Amendment 22 and the TNP are silent on the matter of Maintenance Agreements. The City has entered into several of them since 1984. The confusion is in how they get enforced. Most of them are not unless the City receives a complaint from a citizen and Code Enforcement responds, eventually. Ara described to the Planning Commission what a good relationship he has with the Trump people giving the repair of the SUNSET TRAIL as an example. Since Public Works is responsible for monitoring, maintaining and repairing Category I trails, I think they are the ones who could most easily keep track of the maintenance monitoring under the Maintenance Agreements. I am assuming that you (or the Update Consultant) will have to turn to our Mr. City Manager for direction on what goes into the draft TNP Update. Thank you for doing what you can. A lot of people still appreciate both the existing and the conceptual portions of the Peninsula's non-motorized circulation corridors .... S 310-377-8761 PS: The City's web site still shows the CTP SECTION FIVE map where the SECTION FOUR map should be. And, don't forget to fix the title on the Notice Me listing. Subject: I am not going to give up on getting the TRUMP deal to become a wonderful facility Date: 8/19/2018 3:09:52 PM Pacific Standard Time From: sunshinerpv@aol.com To: SoK@rpvca .gov Cc : CC@rpvca .gov , ianaya@rpvca .gov , AraM@rpvca .gov , PC@rpvca .gov , selim@sawayaeng .com , kelvin@vanderlip .org , wgg@squareoneinc .com , EZStevens@cox .net , leneebi lski@hotmail.com , smhvaleri@cox .net , philatpv@gmail.com Bee : jessboop@cox .net Sent from the Internet (Details) 4 Hi So, Thank you for your reply. I hope you had a lovely weekend. Apparently I need to rephrase my question. Here goes: If it is in there, where in your Agenda Report for the August 21, 2018 Council Meeting is the trail-by-trail text description of the trails that you expect the Trump Organization to maintain in perpetuity? I need the cumulative page numbers as given by the web page. If it is not in there, just say so. Resolution 2018-39 is a mess. When do you expect the complete version to be available for comment? The PUBLIC AMENITIES PLAN, TRAILS AND SIGNAGE drawing (PAGE 1 OF 31 SHTS) which starts on page 416 of the Agenda Report is flawed. The origination date has been changed to August 21, 2018. The date of the most recent revision Con Page 2 of 31 SHTS still reads 08/16/2016. Per the basic "Architectural Graphic Standards", the origination date of August 2016 should remain the same. Deleting the other beach access trail should be dated and described as REVISION D. Any other revisions, such as the following, should be dated and described as REVISION E. The "to be deleted trail" has been "vanished". But, I just happened to notice that trail 5b in the table on PAGE 3 OF 31 (Agenda Report page 418) has been changed from 4' to 5'. Are there any other changes which are not mentioned in your Agenda Report? Error alert. On PAGE 3 OF 31 SHTS, trail 5b is still shown as CLASS I. This one is supposed to be SOFT FOOTED. Error alert. On PAGE 5 OF 31 SHTS, sign #12. has a typo. On this same page, the California Coastal Trail insignia is not listed. Did you not read the email from the Coastal Commission Staff? Somebody needs to work with Zach Rehm to identify where these insignias are to be placed. This brings up another issue to discuss with Zach. It came up at Terranea and I have not seen a decision. Particularly for "wayfinding", is the designated CCT supposed to be the most seaward trail in all cases or should it be the more direct, maintained to accommodate a higher volume of users, option? (See trail 5b vs 14/15 and trail ?a vs 7b.) Unlike the Palos Verdes Loop Trail signage program, the CCT insignia does not provide a directional element. At Terranea, there is at least one trail to a "dead end" vista point. From a disabled person point-of-view, trail 5b creates a similar situation. This sort of thing impacts the quality of the visitor experience and the maintenance descriptions in the CTP section of the TNP, old or new format. 5 Simply an observation. Years ago, Ara and I discussed the benefits of the way trail/bikeway 11/12 was improved without an obstruction between them. I thought we had agreed that trail/bikeway 4b and 5b should be improved the same way. Pages 6, 7 and 9 show a separation where they are immediately adjacent. There is something in the text about it, too. Please fix. At this stage of the process, it is a very simple matter to introduce Council's "policy directions" of 2012 by modifying the table on PAGE 3 OF 31 by putting the CRITERIA number in the TYPE column and clarifying that the WIDTH refers to the improved tread/prism. I suggest: TRAILS WITHIN TRACT 50666 TYPE WIDTH REMARKS 5b WEST PORTAL TRAIL 1 5'/8' CCT PEDESTRIAN 5c LINK TO PB VISTA 1 5'/8' 6 SUNSET TRAIL 6 3'/5' BEACH ACCESS 7 SUNRISE TRAIL 6 3'/5' BEACH ACCESS 11 CATALINA VIEW TRAIL 5 4'/6' CCT PEDESTRIAN 13b FL YING GOLFBALL TRAIL 5 4'/6' 14 WEST BLUFF TRAIL 6 3'/5' CCT SCENIC ROUTE 15 WEST BLUFF TRAIL 6 3'/5' CCT SCENIC ROUTE 18 DUDLEYA TRAIL 6 3'/5' BEACH ACCESS TRAILS WITHIN TRACT 50667 TYPE WIDTH REMARKS ?a CATALINA VIEW TRAIL 5 4'/6' CCT PEDESTRIAN 7b SAGEBRUSH WALK TRAIL 7 2'/4' CCT SHORTCUT 8 SWITCHBACK TRAIL 6 3'/5' BEACH ACCESS 9 EAST PORTAL TRAIL 5 4'/6' 6 Per the attachments, I really don't see that the change in the descriptions changes what has been agreed to. It is just more specific. Approval of Development Agreement and Recordation of Final Map 0:30 is not agenized until September 4, 2014. We have until then to have the Public Amenities drawing corrected and further amended, correct? Or, do we have more time to finalize the referenced documents? The objective is to make the maintenance/repair of the "soft footed" trails a little more specific than "to the City's reasonable satisfaction". When would be the appropriate time to have a discussion about the trail names? Just curious. Was the "to be removed trail" a specific topic of discussion when the Council approved the Habitat Conservation Plan? You get paid to spend hours and hours working for the best interests of the citizens of RPV, LA County and the State of California. It is a shame that the citizenry has to spend hours and hours searching out your plethora of errors, omissions and obfuscated correspondence. The clock is ticking. Which documents must be in their final form before the City Council Approves the Recordation of the FINAL TRACT MAP for NO 50666? To be more specific, am I wasting my time critiquing the PUBLIC AMENITIES PLAN, TRAILS AND SIGNAGE drawing and drafting a coordinated update of the RPV Trails Network Plan as it relates to Tracts 50666 and 50667? I really would like to know? ... S 310-377-8761 Subject: RE: What is the latest in your Agenda Report? Date : 8/1712018 11 :46:30 AM Pacific Standard Time From: SoK@rpvca .gov To: sunshinerpv@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi SUNSHINE, 7 The Public Amenities Plan begins on PDF page 414. PDF pages 303+ that you are referencing are Offer to Dedicate Trail Easements. The Offers to Dedicate had a validity period of 21 years. As they expire in December of 2018, those are still valid and are not being replaced . A Certificate of Acceptance will be prepared to accept those offers. PDF pages 188+ are the Conditions of Approval for the Project. These were recently consolidated into Reso 2018-39 that I previously emailed you. Please see page 32+ for the same trail conditions. Sincerel y, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Pa los Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310} 544-5222 From: SUNSHINE (mailto :sunshinerpv@aol.com ] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 3:11 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov > Subject: What is the latest in your Agenda Report? Hi So, Sorry this is more inconvenient the throwing more documents at me. What I need are the page numbers shown while scrolling through your Agenda Report for Council's August 21, 2018 meeting. I am looking for whether or not there is something similar and more current than what is on pages 304 -313 which appear to have replaced pages 188-194. 8 I have lots of versions of the Public Amenities Plan. What is the most recent revised date on the version you attached? (My computer memory is rather precious.) I would prefer to know how to find it on the City's web site as in what pages is it on in your Agenda Report? ... S In a message dated 8115 /2018 2:49:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,SoK@rpvca.gov writes: Hi SUNSHINE, For ease, attached separately are the following: Public Amenities Plan -this format is required by the California Coastal Commission. Trail Conditions -See page 32 and on in the attached Reso 2018-39 . Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (3 10) 54 4 -5222 This is the City's record of the telephone voice mail message I left for So Kim. From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System [mailto:unityconnection@rpvca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 15 , 2018 2:36 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Message from unknown (13103778761) 9 From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: So Kim Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:20 PM CityClerk FW: VTTM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for Lot D High Late correspondence for tonight's Trump item. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes yy_yvw.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:16 PM To: 'kelvin@vanderlip.org' <kelvin@vanderlip.org> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov; Charles Posner <chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov>; Voll, Robert <robert.voll@pattersonvet.com>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: VTIM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for Lot D Importance: High Hi Kelvin, Thank you for your message about Trump Lot D. I believe you are mistaken. Lot Dis a Fire Buffer area and is restricted to a specific fire-resistant plant palette (and public trails as shown on the Public Amenities Plan). It should be planted, not barren soil. Plantings will discourage the general public from coming near the PBC properties. Have you thought of that? Don't you want privacy and security for those properties? Sorry about your "community gate" but it's time for it to go. Members of PBC have used that access while the project remained undeveloped since the 1990's. You only have to walk a few extra feet up to PV Dr. South and take the California Coastal Trail that your community improved to get to the public trails on the Trump property. That shouldn't be such a hardship for you, your neighbors and your guests that have been using the cul de sac gate! Mr. Posner confirmed what I understand stating "it may be problematic to provide access to the park from adjacent private properties. " Also there was a lawsuit about land use between the developer and the Sierra Club which was settled in the Sierra Club's favor. Were you told of that by PBC members? You really need to get the facts straight before you start trying to interject your suppositions here. Those of us who have lived here a long time have dealt with the Zuckermans and the Trump organization for decades regarding this project, whereas you have just recently returned to the area. Remember: the public trails must be 32 ft. away from the PBC property lines. /. 1 Would you be okay with members of the general public trying to use that gate once the trails are built? I don't think so, but that's what will happen, Kelvin. That gate would be an invitation to walk down and check it out (or climb over it). Just use the improved path along PV Dr. So. for your walks and don't complain about the plantings up to the property line on Lot D. They will be fire resistant. That cannot be said for the Eucalyptus tree, bouganvillea, plumbago and other plants that are growing over the PBC fences and walls into Lot D space. Be grateful that the city is limiting the height as well as the species on Lot D to protect the views of the adjacent property owners. Best regards, LENEE BILSKI From: Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org> Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2018 9:02 PM To: Lenee Bilski Subject: Fwd: VTIM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for Lot D Dear Lenee, I read your email for Sept 4th about Lot D now being a "Preservation Zone". You might be interested in our HOA's email, which was not included in the correspondence, but which also questions the use of Lot D. I believe that the 2017 demolition of the waterfalls caused a reduction in "Native Habitat" and the Coastal Commission then required additional habitat be found. I base this on scanty knowledge which I found here: https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/08/24/trump-national-golf-club-close-to-ending-spat-with-coastal-commission- over-habitat-destruction/ Trump National Golf Club close to ending spat with Coastal www.dailybreeze.com More than a year after the Coastal Cormnission halted the demolition of three waterfalls at Trump National Golf Club, the club was a go-ahead this week by commission staff to move So they might have found the additional habitat they need in Lot D. Now its no longer a park, its a "Preservation Zone". So long, fire break. Best, Kel --------Forwarded Message-------- Subject: VTTM Tract 50666 Lot D: Support for our opposition to the Community Planning Department's plans for LotD Date:Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:17:05 -0700 2 From:Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org> Reply-To:kelvin(a{vanderlip.org To:So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> CC:Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Doug Wilmore <dwillmore@rpvca.gov>, David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com>, Charles Posner <chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov>, Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov <Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov>, cc@rpvca.gov, Charlotte Wiederholt <cwiederholt@tangramstudio.com>, Steve Stewart <srstewl@aol.com>, Robert Voll <ravvoll67@gmail.com> from: Kelvin Vanderlip, Secretary, Tract 16540 HOA to: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planing Manager, Community Development, Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development, Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Doug Wilmore, City Manager, Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Charles Posner, Planning Director, California Coastal Commission cc: Zach Rehm, Transportation Analyst, California Coastal Commission cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council cc: Board of Tract 16540 HOA Dear So, Summary section (see longer discussion section below my signature) I am truly sorry to be taking your time to sort through the issues regarding Lot D. You are probably under a great deal of pressure to get this done. We "interested parties", who live next to Lot D, have received misleading information from the Planing Department regarding the effect of various requirements and constraints governing the use of Lot D. It has taken us a great deal of time and effort to untangle and understand the true, long-ago negotiated purpose of the lot which we discuss here: Lot D is to remain a park, and remain a fire barrier Fuel Modification Zone. We were told that you have the right to take bare-dirt fire-break Lot D and suddenly landscape 100% of it in dry, low water, native planting, right up to our property lines. This is not true. Lot D is a Fuel Modification Zone and was cleared of planting years ago. All of our attempts to convince you that increasing the fire load on Lot D was dangerous for our community were met with a bureaucratic stone wall. It took us days of research to find the true conditions set out by the original designers of the Tract, who were thinking of safety. We received 4 versions of the Landscape Plan from you. In each one you covered the all of the bare ground with new plants that turn brown for 9 months of the year. In each successive version the planting was moved closer and closer to our homes. It is a sad state of affairs when the citizens beg for "safe plans" and it falls on deaf ears. We were told you require NO Fire Department review of the new planting on Lot D so long as you choose plants from a certain palette. This is not true. Your Landscape Plan breaks the condition that Lot Dis Fuel Modification Zone. You must abide by the Fire Department regulation in the HCP. You tell us no Fire Department review is called for. We strongly disagree. We ask you to get a Fire Department stamp on your Landscape Plan. We were told that Lot D had to be protected from access because the Coastal Commission "forced" it to be a Native Habitat. This is not true. The Coastal Commission conditions specify that Lot D is a park, not Native Habitat. A "Park" is for use by people, while "Passive park/Habitat preserve" is for use by plants and animals. 3 We were told that walking on the path to our community gate has to be stopped because this path is not on the Public Amenities Plan. This is misleading. Your assertion rests on treating Lot D as protected Native Habitat. However, Lot D is an open access park, a Fuel Modification Zone, and a fire break, with plenty of room for everyone to walk over the open space, including even our residents. We were told that you can bar the path leading from our community's gate across Lot D, used for years by our residents, because it is not on City plans. This is misleading. It is on the Figure 6 map in the City's own decades-old Habitat Conservation Plan. We were told that the Landscape Plan was subject only to the Director's review because you comply with all conditions voted by the City Council. This is not true -you do not comply with the HCP, which requires the Lot "be cleared of combustible vegetation that may represent a potential fire hazard to adjacent structures". Instead you plan to plant 100% of the lot with low- water native plants, right up to the houses! We were told that no public input was required on the Landscape plan. This is not true. We found and pointed out the City development condition requiring the Director to take comment from a hearing of "interested parties". You have given us until August 31st to prepare for, arrange our schedules, and attend this meeting. Given what we have learned over the last week, this is now too short a period of time to work this out. We request a 2 week extension for this meeting. We were told that the Board of our Tract 16540 HOA is not representative and must "submit proof that our community is in entire agreement with our request" for access. Attached is a petition of signed by 40 individual Tract 16540 homeowners requesting access to Lot D via their long established, grandfathered-in path from our community gate. Please honor it. All of these points can be quickly resolved. You could revise the Landscape Plan to create an open, fire-safe, minimally planted, visually appealing park/fuel modification zone for all citizens to safely cross and enjoy. You could treat our community gate as just another entrance to the lot Lot D park. You could simplify the Landscape plan and improve public safety. Please, just do it -everybody wins. With best regards, Kelvin Vanderlip Secretary, Tract 16540 Homeowners Association Cell: +1 (424) 241-0609 Attachments: Tract 16540 HOA petition for access Lot D CC conditions Map 6 of HCP -path over Lot D Discussion Section: We received your email giving us your opinion on access to Lot D, on your compliance with "City Council-approved conditions of approval", and on fire safety. I will try my best to deal with these issues below. This is taking you and I a huge amount of effort and time which, to date, has produced no progress towards our goals. We will press on anyway. We want you to: • Correct your Lot D Landscape Plan to meet the Fuel Modification Zone standard of fire safety, 4 • Leave alone our existing community gate path on Lot D. Our position is based on the recorded Coastal Commission special conditions and the City's HCP. These reflect years of negotiation between the developer, the residents, the Coastal Commission and the City. Hopefully, this legacy will prevail over your department's recent position on our pedestrian access rights, and your plan to put dry habitat planting on Lot D. Both of these policies conflict with the relevant conditions. Fire Barrier We suggest for Lot D's landscape plan a simple fire barrier "park" with minimal decorative fire- safe native plant ground cover. Your continued insistence on covering all of Lot D with low- water native plants is not required by the CC conditions, nor the HCP. It directly conflicts with our goal of fire safety. We agree with Mr. Posner that "the area adjacent to the homes should be considered defensible space when the landscaping plan is developed, meaning that plant species should be used that reduce any fire hazard and the plan should include a fuel modification component that allows the area near habitable structures to be selectively thinned in order to reduce fire hazard." And please note that Lot D is bare ground. There are no plants which need to be thinned. Instead, the City is introducing new plants onto the bare ground in this fire break. These plants add a new fire load onto Lot D. If you insist on adding new plants onto this bare fire break, they must be widely spaced and kept well away from structures, and the plan reviewed by the Fire Department. Only in the selection of plants from the 2005 plant palette have you given regard to fire safety. The spacing of the plants, their placement relative to each other and the structures, and their maintenance are equally important considerations for fire safety. It does not improve public safety for you to claim immunity from Fire Department oversight. For our peace of mind, for the City, staff and community, the final Landscape Plan for Lot D should be stamped by the Fire Department. Again, it does not improve public safety for you to disregard LA County Brush Clearance standards. Compliance with City Council conditions You cite that your Landscape Plan complies with "Council Approved conditions of approval". Please refer to the City's Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment (the HCP, approved by the City Council 7 /18/00}, which designates the 1 acre Lot Das Fuel Modification Zone and says: "2.16 The term Fuel Modification Zone means the area required by Los Angeles County Fire Department to be all/or partially cleared of combustible vegetation that may represent a potential fire hazard to adjacent structures". This explains why, to this day, Lot D is bare dirt and has remained vacant of planting for 2 decades. The clearing of Lot D was required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the HCP. This seems to have been forgotten or ignored in the 2018 Community Development Department Landscape plan for Lot D, which shows no brush setback for the adjoining homes. 5 We believe your goal of converting Lot D from Fuel Modification Zone to native habitat, thereby covering all of Lot D (except the PUMP paths) with dry native brush, planted right up to our resident's property lines, absolutely conflicts with the City's own HCP definition of this Fuel Modification Zone lot. Please, change your Landscape Plan and its goal of turning Lot D into an inaccessible native habitat zero-setback scrub field. Instead, make Lot D a fire-safe, minimally planted yet visually appealing park for to passers by to enjoy. This will simplify the Landscape plan, improve public safety. Let's just do it right. Sincerely, Kelvin Vanderlip Secretary, Tract 16540 Homeowners Association cell: +1 (424) 241-0609 --------Forwarded Message -------- Subject:FW: Trump LA -Lot D Date:Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:20:24 +0000 From:So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> To: chuck. posner@coastal.ca. gov <chuck. posner@coastal.ca. gov>, kelvin@vanderli p. org <kelvin@vanderlip.org> CC:Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, 'Zach Rehm ( zach.rehm@coastal.ca. gov)' <zach.rehm@coastal.ca.gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Dear Chuck and Kelvin, This email is to clarify the issue of whether or not a pedestrian path solely to provide access from a private community over Lot D can be allowed. Lot D will be dedicated to the City for public open space with improved public trails based on the Council-approved Public Amenities Plan. At no time, since the original approvals were obtained by the City Council in 1992 and the Coastal Commission in 19931 did the Public Amenities Plan contemplate a trail that would connect lot D to the Portuguese Bend Club community (PBC). Lot Dis intended to be open park space with public access with a specific plant palate. Additionally, Zach Rehm (Coastal Commission Staff assigned to the Trump Project) reviewed the landscape plan and confirmed that Coastal Commission did not approve the trail from PBC to Lot D {see highlighted text in the email below). He is also correct in that the requested trail from PBC to lot D would not be in compliance with City-imposed condition requiring a 32' minimum setback from the PBC property line to any trail. When the Director and I met with Mr. Kelvin and Mr. Gakenheimer a week ago, we let them know that the PBC may work with the Public Works Dept to create a shortcut immediately adjacent to the gate that would connect to the public trail on PVDS. Doing so would not cross over into Lot D. As for landscaping, Lot Dis considered a Fire Buffer/fire break. As a result, there was a specific Fire Buffer Zone Plant Palette approved by the Coastal Commission. There are specific plants allowed on lot D, which are fire resistant and drought tolerant. I hope this helps clarify the matter regarding the pedestrian path as well as the type of landscaping allowed for Lot D. Also, as a reminder, the City Council approved condition allows the Director to review and approve the Landscape Plan for Lot D, provided that it meets the Council-approved conditions of approval. The Landscape Plan is not subject to a public hearing with the City Council. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 6 YAfWw.q2vca.gov (310} 544-5222 From: "Posner, Chuck@Coastal" <Chuck.Posner@coastal.ca.gov> Date: August 28, 2018 at 10:54:10 AM PDT To: "'kelvin@vanderlip.org"' <kelvin@vanderlip.org> Cc: Susan Brooks <susan.brooks@rpvca.gov>, "Rehm, Zach@Coastal" <Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: RE: Request for meeting regarding the use of Lot D, VTTM 50666, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Vanderlip -To confirm what we discussed this morning: Lot D does appear to be designated as a park, although there may exist some habitat value that will have to be preserved when the formal walkways and bike paths are installed and when the area is landscaped with native plants. I agree that the area adjacent to the homes should be considered defensible space when the landscaping plan is developed, meaning that plant species should be used that reduce any fire hazard and the plan should include a fuel modification component that allows the area near habitable structures to be selectively thinned in order to reduce fire hazard. Also, we will discuss with the City any issues it may have with the park's access from the adjacent neighborhood. I don't know any reason why an existing public accessway would be closed. However, it may be problematic to provide access to the park from adjacent private properties. Please keep in mind, however, that Zach is much more familiar with the details of the amended permit than am I. therefore, I recommend that we consult with him on these issues as soon as he is back in the office (probably Sept. 5). In any case, I can confirm that there is no proposal to change to the conditions of the amended coastal development permit as they currently exist. At this time our staff is working with the permittee and City to comply with the conditions of the amended coastal development permit. Charles R. Posner Supervisor of Planning California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate -Tenth Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 ( 562) 590-5071 Chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov From: Rehm, Zach@Coastal [mailto:Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 5:22 PM To: Jill Martin <jmartin@trumpnational.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Steve Wood (swood@lrmltd.com} <swood@lrmltd.com> Subject: RE: Trump LA -Lot D Thank you, Jill. I have two comments: The revegetation plan for the area at the southwest portion of Lot D (left side of page 2} is still unclear. I see an approximation of my triangle has been added, with what appears to be ash buckwheat proposed. But I don't understand the two circles and the thin squiggly line. If the squiggly line is the existing chain link fence, then please just eliminate the triangle and propose ash buckwheat with temporary irrigation in the entire area northeast of the squiggly line (capturing the smaller triangle and the bigger triangle). Southwest of the fence, existing vegetation may remain and new irrigation should not be installed. Please remove the trail connecting to the Portuguese Bend cul-du-sac depicted on page 3. I'm not sure why that appeared on the most recent draft, but the Coastal Commission has not approved any trails in that portion of Lot D which is designated for habitat/fire break -and any development within 32 feet of the Portuguese Bend tract is prohibited by the City permit. Additionally I received a call from a Sierra Club attorney asserting that gates and use 7 trails from the Portuguese Bend property are prohibited by the Ocean Trails/CCC/RPV settlement agreement. If the Portuguese Bend HOA desires a new access point from their cul-du-sac, they can construct a path or stairway to connect to PV Drive South adjacent to the coral tree at their own expense. Zach Rehm Senior Transportation Program Analyst California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 101h Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071 8 From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Elias Sassoon Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:20 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: Conqueror DR. & PVDRS. Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 4:41 PM Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended To: 'Edward Stevens' <ezstevens@cox.net>; 'jessica' <jessboop@cox.net>; 'Uday Patil' <globus@pacbell.net>; 'Mary Casaburi' <MJCasaburi@aol.com>; 'Joe' <lindorferl@cox.net>; Rodklenders@cox.net; 'ali derek' <ALIDEREK@gmail.com>; 'Peter Von Hagen' <peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Engineering <Engineering@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <Ara M@rpvca.gov> Cc: Liz <saxhousel@gmail.com>; Margaret Moilov <lafree13@sbcglobal.net>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Emeric Radich (mickeyrodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>; Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net> Subject: RE: Conqueror DR. & PVDRS. -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Mr. Stevens: The attached drawings to the Staff Report are only schematics in nature. The detailed engineering drawings will be prepared by a professional engineer and will be based on best engineering practices and will avoid the situation which you have mentioned in your correspondence. Please let me know if you have any further question. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 From: Edward Stevens [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 1:08 PM To: 'jessica' <jessboop@cox.net>; 'Uday Patil' <globus@pacbell.net>; 'Mary Casaburi' <MJCasaburi@aol.com>; 'Joe' <lindorferl@cox.net>; Rodklenders@cox.net; 'ali derek' <ALIDEREK@gmail.com>; 'Peter Von Hagen' <peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Engineering · <Engineering@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Liz <saxhousel@gmail.com>; Margaret Moilov <lafree13@sbcglobal.net>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; _1 1 ~. SunshineRPV@aol.com; Emeric Radich (mickeyrodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>; Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net> Subject: RE: Conqueror DR. & PVDRS. -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hi, The improvement for Conqueror Dr is wrong. A raised curb where the existing yellow line is on PVDRS will cause drivers to have a problem when they go to make their left turn from Conqueror on to PVDRS. They will run over the edge of the curb or make too wide a left turn to avoid the raised curb possibly getting out of control to avoid the traffic from either direction .. The city needs to take another SERIOUS look at this situation. Edward Stevens From: jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 12:06 PM To: Uday Patil; EZStevens; Mary Casaburi; Joe; Rodklenders@cox.net; ali derek; Peter Von Hagen Subject: Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hello, Lenee Bilski asked me to write to you about changes to your buffer area near Schooner that is on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday night.A Click below on City Meeting Agenda and then it will bring up a page. Click on City Council -Agenda .. when that loads, go to Regular Business, Item 2 which talks about CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED changes to PV DRIVE SOUTH AT SCHOONER! Please review .. This may be your last chance to speak up before this is DONE! --------Forwarded Message -------- Subject:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Date:29 Aug 2018 19:15:31 -0500 From:City of Rancho Palos Verdes <listserv@civicplus.com> Reply-To:listserv@civicplus.com To: jess boop@cox.net View this in your browser The City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 has been Amended to add Closed Session Items No. 2 and No. 3 and Mayors Announcements Citizens' Award Presentation. TheA City Council.A Successor Agency to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, and Improvement AuthorityA regular meetingsA are scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. (Closed Session), 7 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.A Click on this link to access the agendas and staff reports on the city website.A http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-Agendas If you have any questions, please contactA the City Clerk's officeA at 310-544-5217 or at CityClerk@rpvca.govA A***************************************** *A******* This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed up for.A Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email address.A You can make changes to your subscription by visitingA http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor Agency and Improvement 2 Authority Agendas on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe 3 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:33 AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Item # 2 on Regular Business Sept. 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Late corr From: lindorfer [mailto:lindorferl@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:27 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Cc: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Item # 2 on Regular Business Sept. 4, 2018 City Council Agenda I believe that the median curbing east of the Schooner intersection should be cut back towards the east to make left turns out of Schooner safer as has been suggested by many for Conqueror. Joe Lindorfer -------Original Message------ From: Elias Sassoon Date:9/4/201811:05:13AM To: 'lindorfer'; CC Cc: Lenee Bilski; Ara Mihranian; Ron Dragoo Subject: RE: Item# 2 on Regular Business Sept. 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Good morning Mr. Undorfer: Thanks for your email and meeting with me at the intersection yesterday evening. Please note that your email wlll be induded as part of the late correspondence regarding this item. Regards, 1 ~. Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Pub!fc Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 From: lindorfer [mailto:lindorfer1@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2018 4:19 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov> Subject: Item# 2 on Regular Business Sept. 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Dear RPV City Council and staff re: Agenda Item #2 Sept. 42018 I object to "Removal of all obstructions (pilasters,fence,wall,trees;sign,vegetation,etc.) from the center island adjacent to the frontage road east of Schooner Drive to improve the driver's visibility". Based on the illustration of the proposed changes at the corner of PVDS and Schooner, I calculated that the newly proposed stop line on Schooner would place the driver (who is about eight feet 2 back from the front of the car) right on the current stop line. The attached photos show the current stop sign driver view is blocked, but the new stop line gives the driver a view that is not blocked by the proposed destruction items. Please do not remove the proposed items. It is not needed. Thanks, Joe Lindorfer 4207 PVDS 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:19 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: All of PV Drive South and PV Drive West, City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:44 PM To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; ezstevens@cox.net; jessboop@cox.net; globus@pacbell.net; MJCasaburi@aol.com; lindorferl@cox.net; Rodklenders@cox.net; ALIDEREK@gmail.com; peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: saxhousel@gmail.com; lafree13@sbcglobal.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; mickeyrodich@yahoo.com; nbarber310@cox.net Subject: All of PV Drive South and PV Drive West, City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hey Elias, If your people can only produce schematics which are not based upon best engineering practices, what are we paying you for and what is our volunteer, Traffic Safety Advisory Committee getting sucked into? Your email response to Ed Stevens reads like a "trust me or f off' sort of "customer service reply". Have a lovely holiday weekend .... S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 8/31/2018 4:40:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, esassoon@rpvca.gov writes: Mr. Stevens: The attached drawings to the Staff Report are only schematics in nature. The detailed engineering drawings will be prepared by a professional engineer and will be based on best engineering practices and will avoid the situation which you have mentioned in your correspondence. Please let me know if you have any further question. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 From: Edward Stevens [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 1:08 PM To: 'jessica' <jessboop@cox.net>; 'Uday Patil' <globus@pacbell.net>; 'Mary Casaburi' <MJCasaburi@aol.com>; 'Joe' <lindorfer1@cox.net>; Rodklenders@cox.net; 'ali derek' <ALIDEREK@gmail.com>; 'Peter Von Hagen' <peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Engineering <Engineering@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Liz <saxhouse1@gmail.com>; Margaret Moilov <lafree13@sbcglobal.net>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Emeric Rodich (mickeyrodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>; Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net> Subject: RE: Conqueror DR. & PVDRS. -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hi, The improvement for Conqueror Dr is wrong. A raised curb where the existing yellow line is on PVDRS will cause drivers to have a problem when they go to make their left turn from Conqueror on to PVDRS. They will run over the edge of the curb or make too wide a left turn to avoid the raised curb possibly getting out of control to avoid the traffic from either direction .. The city needs to take another SERIOUS look at this situation. Edward Stevens From: jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 12:06 PM To: Uday Patil; EZStevens; Mary Casaburi; Joe; Rodklenders@cox.net; ali derek; Peter Von Hagen Subject: Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hello, Lenee Bilski asked me to write to you about changes to your buffer area near Schooner that is on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday night.A Click below on City Meeting Agenda and then it will bring up a 2 page. Click on City Council -Agenda .. when that loads, go to Regular Business, Item 2 which talks about CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED changes to PV DRIVE SOUTH AT SCHOONER! Please review .. This may be your last chance to speak up before this is DONE! --------Forwarded Message -------- Subject:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Date:29 Aug 2018 19:15:31 -0500 From:City of Rancho Palos Verdes <listserv@civicplus.com> Reply-To: listserv@civicplus.com To:jessboop@cox.net View this in your browser The City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 has been Amended to add Closed Session Items No. 2 and No. 3 and Mayors Announcements Citizens' Award Presentation. TheA City Council,A Successor Agency to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, and Improvement AuthorityA regular meetingsA are scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. (Closed Session), 7 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.A Click on this link to access the agendas and staff reports on the city website.A http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-Agendas If you have any questions, please contactA the City Clerk's officeA at 310-544-5217 or at CityClerk@rpvca.gov A A************************** * * * * * * * * ********A*** * * * * This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed up for.A Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email address.A You can make changes to your subscription by visitingA http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor Agency and Improvement Authority Agendas on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:02 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: PVDS all along Trump -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 12:49 PM To: ezstevens@cox.net; jessboop@cox.net; globus@pacbell.net; MJCasaburi@aol.com; lindorferl@cox.net; Rodklenders@cox.net; ALIDEREK@gmail.com; peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; leneebilski@hotmail.com Cc: saxhousel@gmail.com; lafree13@sbcglobal.net; mickeyrodich@yahoo.com; nbarber310@cox.net; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: PVDS all along Trump -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hi neighbors, While we are all working on improving RPV's quality control and "transparency", we need to share our specialty observations among ourselves. I can see that Mr. Sassoon's answer is an obfuscation. You may be able to translate other City Staff "explanations" based on your expertise. It is never too soon to point out a potential error or omission. It is what we can all learn about what Staff does with the info that will make the public more effective at having a well-run City. In this case, Ed did not ask a question. I think it is rather unprofessional of Mr. Sassoon to imply that he did, that the question has been answered and that Ed no longer has any need for concern. I agree with Jessica. There is a serious risk that after tonight's meeting, Staff will interpret whatever Council has to say and do this work as they see fit as they have so many times in the past. Mr. Willmore's apologies usually include an expensive Change Order. Now, we all should ask several questions. Mr. Sassoon's reply translates as ... We're at the "busy making pretty pictures" stage. When the Council blesses the "schematics", somebody will draw up some "construction" looking drawings based upon a Staff generated list of what is to be done, i.e. specifications. Said list may be generated/communicated in a discussion or it may be a list like what is in Trump's Restated Development Agreement. Either way, the question is when will a citizen advisory body get to review it? In the case of the Trump Project, the latest draft Agreement states that the developer shall submit design specifications for review and approval by the City's Rec & Parks Committee prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Does that mean they just have to be submitted? The City doesn't even have a Rec & Parks Committee. One might consider the City Manager to be the "developer" in relation to Public Works Projects. The City Council is certainly not in a position to dig into all the little details the way a Committee or a Commission might be able to demand to. Mr. Sassoon did not say when Ed would have the opportunity to confirm that the error he has pointed out has been re-mediated to his satisfaction. What Mr. Sassoon indicates as a professional engineer will not necessarily be a Professional Engineer, as in a person with, P.E. after his/her name. Who decides who writes the "specs"? Who decides the level of engineer who does the construction drawings? And, when will a group of citizens get to sit down with the interested parties and hash out the pro's and con's of the conflicting design elements? There are still several of them. 1 ~ ' That list of "specs" needs to be verified before any sort of engineer puts any more lines into a computer. Call a Council Member. Go to the meeting and speak, watch it on TV and then push for a "review and approval" with the Traffic Safety Committee like Trump's Public Amenities Plan is supposed to have with the Rec & Parks Committee. Staff just can't seem to get it right on their own. Let me know how it goes. There are so many other projects which have gotten too far to really fix .... S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 8/31/2018 4:40:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, esassoon@rpvca.gov writes: Mr. Stevens: The attached drawings to the Staff Report are only schematics in nature. The detailed engineering drawings will be prepared by a professional engineer and will be based on best engineering practices and will avoid the situation which you have mentioned in your correspondence. Please let me know if you have any further question. Regards, Elias I<. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works ~ity of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 2 From: Edward Stevens [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 1:08 PM To: 'jessica' <jessboop@cox.net>; 'Uday Patil' <globus@pacbell.net>; 'Mary Casaburi' <MJCasaburi@aol.com>; 'Joe' <lindorferl@cox.net>; Rodklenders@cox.net; 'ali derek' <ALIDEREK@gmail.com>; 'Peter Von Hagen' <peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Engineering <Engineering@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Liz <saxhousel@gmail.com>; Margaret Moilov <lafree13@sbcglobal.net>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Emeric Rodich (mickeyrodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>; Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net> Subject: RE: Conqueror DR. & PVDRS. -Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hi, The improvement for Conqueror Dr is wrong. A raised curb where the existing yellow line is on PVDRS will cause drivers to have a problem when they go to make their left turn from Conqueror on to PVDRS. They will run over the edge of the curb or make too wide a left turn to avoid the raised curb possibly getting out of control to avoid the traffic from either direction .. The city needs to take another SERIOUS look at this situation. Edward Stevens From: jessica [mailto:jessboop@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 12:06 PM To: Uday Patil; EZStevens; Mary Casaburi; Joe; Rodklenders@cox.net; ali derek; Peter Von Hagen Subject: Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hello, Lenee Bilski asked me to write to you about changes to your buffer area near Schooner that is on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday night.A Click below on City Meeting Agenda and then it will bring up a page. Click on City Council -Agenda .. when that loads, go to Regular Business, Item 2 which talks about CONSIDERED/RECOMMENDED changes to PV DRIVE SOUTH AT SCHOONER! Please review .. This may be your last chance to speak up before this is DONE! --------Forwarded Message -------- Subject:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Date:29 Aug 2018 19:15:31 -0500 From:City of Rancho Palos Verdes <listserv@civicplus.com> Reply-To:listserv@civicplus.com To: jessboop@cox.net View this in your browser 3 The City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 has been Amended to add Closed Session Items No. 2 and No. 3 and Mayors Announcements Citizens' Award Presentation. TheA City Council,A Successor Agency to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency, and Improvement AuthorityA regular meetingsA are scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. (Closed Session), 7 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd.A Click on this link to access the agendas and staff reports on the city website .A http://www. rpvca. gov/772/City-Meeti ng-Video-and-Agendas If you have any questions, please contactA the City Clerk's officeA at 310-544-5217 or at CityClerk@rpvca.gov A A***************************************** *A******* This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed up for.A Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email address.A You can make changes to your subscription by visitingA http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor Agency and Improvement Authority Agendas on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 4:33 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: PVDRS near Trump. RPV City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018, Item 2 From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 4:21 PM To: ezstevens@cox.net; jessboop@cox.net; globus@pacbell.net; MJCasaburi@aol.com; lindorferl@cox.net; Rodklenders@cox.net; ALIDEREK@gmail.com; peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: saxhousel@gmail.com; lafree13@sbcglobal.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; mickeyrodich@yahoo.com; nbarber310@cox.net; smhvaleri@cox.net Subject: Re: PVDRS near Trump. RPV City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, September 4, 2018, Item 2 Hello neighbors including all Council Members, Once again, the "Devil" is in Staff's Work Product. Notice: ORIGINATED BY: Nadia Can-asco, Assistant Engineer, Is she not a PE? Professional Engineer? REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon PE, Director of Public Works APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager And, that the Item will be presented to Council by (Dragoo). Is Ron Dragoo a PE? And, ff you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 310-544-5217 or at ~~i.t.y(~J91:J5@m.Yc;<1,g_9y I know she is not an Engineer. I agree with Ed Stevens... The city needs to take another SERIOUS look at this situation. The big question is ... Who might that be? "Staff" is recommending that the Council authorize "designs" and a "Feasibility Study" by "Staff'. I would like to see some Credentials. 13 pages in the Council's Agenda Report and I can't figure out who will get the $150,000.00, who produced the graphics which were recommended to the Traffic Safety Committee and who presented said recommendations to the Traffic Safety Committee. On August 6, 2018, ALSO PRESENT: Elias Sassoon. Director; Nadia Carrasco, Assistant Engineer; Nancy Penate, Acting Recording Secretary, Public Works Department; Vanessa Munoz, Consulting Traffic Engineer, Wi lldan Engineering. Other than the "Oops" which Ed Stevens has pointed out, I am seeing a lot of poor "Engineering Practices" and poor "Business Practices". That is on our City Manager. I support moving forward with these infrastructure "improvements". I am looking to Council to get us the "best bang for our buck". Listen to your constituents. Those who bother to read 1 and speak up about the errors and omissions in the Agenda Reports are your best assets no matter which politically influenced position you prefer .... S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 8/3112018 1 :07 :46 PM Pacific Standard Time, ezstevens@cox.net writes: Hi, The improvement for Conqueror Dr is wrong. A raised curb where the existing yellow line is on PVDRS will cause drivers to have a problem when they go to make their left turn from Conqueror on to PVDRS. They will run over the edge of the curb or make too wide a left turn to avoid the raised curb possibly getting out of control to avoid the traffic from either direction .. The city needs to take another SERIOUS look at this situation. Edward Stevens 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:06 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: I support the recommendations of the Ladera Linda board regarding the NO round about on PVdriveSouth and Forrestal From: G_ZITPA [mailto:gzitpa@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2018 11:11 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: I support the recommendations of the Ladera Linda board regarding the NO round about on PVdriveSouth and Forrestal Ginette Aelony 1 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:06 AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: September 4th City Council Meeting Late corr From: Charles Agnew [mailto:cvagnew@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2018 12:37 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: September 4th City Council Meeting Regarding: Palos Verdes Drive South and F orrestal Drive/Trump National Drive. It is most difficult to go from: Trump National Drive to PV Drive South toward the slide area, and from Trump National Drive straight across to Forrestal Dr. You are taking your life into your quick vision and quick reaction. I am suggesting: 1) Do not have a new intersection at Costa De Las Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS), instead have them enter and exit at Trump National Drive. 2) Install an upon demand traffic light at PV Drive South and Trump National Dr. (Forrestal Drive). This would solve Trump's problem and Ladera Linda's problem. Sincerely Charles Agnew 32261 Phantom Dr. 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:05 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: Item # 2 on Regular Business Sept. 4, 2018 City Council Agenda From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebilski@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2018 2:40 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov> Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Item# 2 on Regular Business Sept. 4, 2018 City Council Agenda Sept. 1, 2018 Dear RPV City Council and staff re: Agenda Item #2 Sept. 4, 2018 I object to "Removal of all obstructions (pilasters, fence, wall, trees, sign, vegetation, etc.) from the center island adjacent to the frontage road east of Schooner Drive to improve the driver's visibility; " All that destruction is not necessary! Just approval of the addition of the acceleration/rescue lane by reducing the median, and trimming of some foliage for better visibility will be sufficient. There has only been One (1) collision at this intersection between 2013 and 2017 at Schooner as evidenced in the Traffic Study charts presented to the Traffic Safety Committee last December. See page 12 Of 62 for Table 5 and Attachment F of this Updated Traffic Impact Study: http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11015/Updated-Traffic-lmpact-Study?bidld= With the approval of the City, the Sea View community used trash recycling grant monies and Association monies to design, construct and plant the entrances to our community. In recent years, increased traffic Volume has made it hazardous to make a left turn from our community onto The Drive from Schooner Dr. I have lived here for 50+ years and only recently has this intersection become hazardous due to the the almost non-stop traffic flow during daytime and early evening hours! Believe me, I know. Sea View residents know that turning left from Conqueror is the simple solution to the current situation. I direct guests and service personnel to go down to Conqueror for an easy left turn because there's a rescue/acceleration lane there. There has only been one collision in 4 years at the Schooner intersection ! The city Staff's solution includes a "Destruction Derby" Please do not approve the "totally destructive" part, but do approve the "constructive" part of creating a rescue lane from the median space. Then we will only need to look in one direction (left) to enter the intersection safely from the SeaView community at Schooner Drive at PV Dr. South .. Thank you. Ever vigilant, Lenee Bilski 1 d. From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:02 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: City Council Meeting September 4, 2018 From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 1:03 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Traffic <Traffic@rpvca.gov> Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Subject: City Council Meeting September 4, 2018 Dear Council Members My name is Donald Bell and I live at 3571 Vigilance Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. I wish to recommend a vote on Regular Business Item 2 to follow staff recommendation. Specifically: on (1) I am in favor of the addition of an acceleration lane at Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal/Trump National. I like the acceleration lane at Conqueror Drive. on (2) I support investigating possibility of a roundabout. I have used roundabouts in Europe and in Wisconsin and find them drive-able without need for traffic stops in any direction. These are interesting public opinions on roundabouts. http://www.roundabouts.us/whatlsARoundabout.php and this https ://www. wsdot. wa. gov /Safety/roundabouts/BasicF acts.htm Respectfully, Don Bell 1 J. From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:01 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: Curb at Conqueror and PV Dr. South From: Elizabeth Sax [mailto:saxhousel@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 1:55 PM To: Uday Patil <globus@pacbell.net>; MJCasaburi@aol.com; lindorferl@cox.net; Rodklenders@cox.net; Derek, Ali <ALIDEREK@gmail.com>; peter.vonhagen@daumcommercial.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Engineering <Engineering@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>; Margaret Moilov <lafree13@sbcglobal.net>; Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; SunshineRPV@aol.com; mickeyrodich@yahoo.com; Erika Barber <nbarber310@cox.net> Subject: Curb at Conqueror and PV Dr. South Dear City Council, I am in full agreement with Ed Stevens with regard to making double yellow lines instead of a curb on the left turn from Conqueror to PV Drive South. The reason is the overwhelming probability of tires popping when making the left turn. I speak from experience. In an effort to avoid oncoming traffic and cyclists, a driver will be inclined to hug the median, double yellow lines are more forgiving and will prevent drivers making the left turn from popping or clipping their tires on the curb. I write from experience, because that is exactly what happened to me when I made a left turn from PV drive North unto Crenshaw going North, which has the same kind of curb you are considering putting in at PV So. and Conqueror. I was told by the AAA serviceman that helped me with my flat tire, that it happens at that all the time at that curb and you could see the black tire marks on the curb where people's tires clip it all the time. Please consider either double yellow lines in lieu of the curb to keep people in the correct lane when turning onto PV So. from Conqueror or at the very least, if you have to have a curb, end it closer to Foresta! and have double yellow lines at the tip end closer to the intersection of Conqueror and PV South. 1 ~- Respectfully, Elizabeth Sax 4022 Admirable Drive, RPV 2 From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:00 AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Late corr From: Mickey Radich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 6:45 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Agenda Item #2: The City Council has approved having a traffic guard to control traffic on PVDS & Forrestal during AYSO games, which occur on Saturdays and Sundays during their 9 month season. But we, at Ladera Linda, also need help during the week day morning and evening rush hour traffic as well as during the AYSO off hours and off season. A left turn accelerating lane will resolve most of the present traffic problems at PVDS & Forrestal. The Traffic Safety Committee has recommended a left turn accelerating lane as their solution. We are in agreement with them. At their meeting, the crowd present was not in favor of a traffic signal, but most all were in favor of the left turn lane. We are against a turn around for a number of reasons. 1) They require much more space than we have available. 2) A complete separate extra inner lane is necessary to allow only large tractor trailer trucks to navigate the circle because they cannot stay in one 12' lane while circling in the turn around. 3) Has anyone figured out what the traffic back up will be when you have a steady stream of 40 to 50 mph traffic entering this turn around from San Pedro and slowing down to 25 mph? Traffic will back up to Western Ave. Drivers exiting Forrestal will have extreme difficulty trying to penetrate the constant traffic flow from San Pedro. 4) They require a high amount of illumination than a traffic signal all night long which affects all nearby homes with higher light pollution. 5) How do you provide bicycle lanes when you have vehicles traveling out of and into the connected streets? 6) How do pedestrians cross PVDS? 7) The time required to do a complete study of turnaround's and especially one for PVDS & Forrestal will take many months, but we at Ladera Linda need answers a lot faster than that. 8) Placing a turn around at PVDS & Forrestal would leave no room to allow access to Aqua Vista Street. 1 We ask you to approve a left turn accelerating lane at PVDS & Forrestal now so that we can get relief from our traffic problems. 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late corr -----0 rigina I Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:16 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: Schooner and PVDS Fro m: Kristen Lenders [mailto:klenders@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 2:56 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Schooner and PVDS Hello RPV City Council, I am a Peninsula native and have lived at 4155 PVDS (and Schooner) for 22 years now. As you can imagine, we have seen much growth in that time. Traffic has certainly increased since the completion of Terranea Resort. However, my intersection has seen less activity in recent years. I had grown accustomed to traffic collisions in front of my house. I believe that decline is due to the Seaview residents recognizing that the Schooner entrance/exit is better utilized as an entrance and a Right Turn Only exit. Seaview residents typically use the Conquerer entrance/exit as their Left Turn exit point due to the protected turn lane. It seems a perfectly feasible idea to try this option first, posting signs at Schooner and PVDS that read "Right Turn only," before spending money to "improve" the access point at this time. I'm not sure you would have more complaints about trying that, while I have heard many about reconfiguring the intersection. While using gift money to create a beautiful entrance a few years ago, that would all be lost if deconstruction were to start. It has taken all these years for the landscaping to mature and we are finally feeling the rewards of less noise and lights into our bedroom windows. I would ask that you would please consider other options at this time. A sincerest thank you, Kristen Lenders 4155 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 1