20180918 Late CorrespondencePrin:
Subject:
From:
To:
Date:
here it is
Nad Gv (nvgeorg(§gmail.com)
sharon.loveys @ yahoo. com;
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 4:22 PM
�\�` ' v, ► 9/17/18, 9:26 AM
AGENDA ITEM: PU5%%r- C®,m,M1,c-+
RECEIVED FROM:
LADIPC
AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF:
OFFIG9 9F THI1= 0Il`Y QLL1RK
I'm sending this to So Kim, I believe this part is what you probably won't be able to present tonight
Dear commissioners,
As I'm traveling and cannot be present at the tonight's meeting, I would like to express my concerns about
GH in the late correspondence.
We need clarity on what are going to be developed and intensity and density in the undeveloped areas of GH
memorial park.
It would be really helpful to avoid future problems if the City Planning Commission creates an agenda item
for its next meeting on the need for the Commission to request an "Interpretation Review" of the Planning
Department on this question of how "density and intensity" of use can be measured when there is no baseline
to determine what is adequate or permissible, and when the Green Hills Master Plan is merely advisory.
How can this be when other specified conditions require that the Planning Department determine whether a
proposed "development" is in substantial compliance with the Master Plan.
I want to point out that what is happening with Area 4 development is reflective again of a "pattern and
practice" by Green Hills and the City to ignore the imposition of any meaningful limits on the Cemetery's
future development. Green Hills wants to develop as it pleases with minimal input from the surrounding
community. The City's zoning and development code is supposed to fairly reconcile the conflicting interests
of all sides. What the City is doing is favoring Green Hills over the adjacent property owners.
The situation with Area 4 is an example of Green Hills' strategy of "Do First, Ask For Forgiveness Later.
There is a clear pattern and practice being exhibited by Green Hills where they seem to record Interment
Plots they do not have the right to sell because the City has never issued a (conditional use) "permit" allowing
for the existence or use of these Interment Plots. The reason is obvious. We cannot have people buying
undeveloped property, subdividing the property (that would include subdividing the air space for condos...
when one buys a condo, one is purchasing subdivided air space, together with a "joint" interest in the
common areas), and then selling each subdivision unilaterally without proper government controls as to
whether the property, so subdivided, is lawfully subject to sale.
If Green Hills can develop the Alta Vista open space with just a grading permit, then Green Hills can argue
that it can develop any area of the cemetery with just a grading permit. This is absurd. The whole purpose of
a the Master Plan is to control future development and give adjoining property owners the ability to know,
understand, and rely on future development patterns of the cemetery. This objective cannot be achieved when
the City authorizes new development simply by issuing grading permits alone when there has been no formal
amendment to the existing conditional use permit. In short, the adjoining RPV property owners are being
completely conned.
about blank Page 1 of 2
Print
9/17/18, 9:26 AM
The bottom line is that the Green Hills' right to "use" its property as an interment venue is not absolute. It is
conditional. Which is why the zoning code requires a conditional "use" permit where the "use" rights are
"conditioned" based on public safety and convenience criteria (impact on neighboring properties; noise issue;
etc.). They are not "by right" or "absolute". Grading is the means employed to effectuate the permitted "use".
.... A right to "grade" is not the same as the right to "use". That is why separate findings are required to
support the issuance of a grading permit.
Keep in mind that both under the state Cemetery Code and regulations, and the City's Zoning (Development)
code, earth interments are considered "development"
Under the City's own zoning code, any grading, which impacts or affects the intensity or density of use is
considered "development. So, by definition, any grading (i.e. development) must also involve an analysis of
current use versus proposed use versus authorized (permitted) use.
The more clarity the better for the entire RPV neighborhood and of course the city.
Thank you,
Nadia, Vista Verde owner
about:biank Page 2 of 2
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Additional Modifications to the General Plan; Email exchanges
between Community Development Deputy Director Kim and: Jean
Longacre; April Sandell; Email from SUNSHINE
2 Emails from: Melinda Politeo; George and Leanne Twidwell
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, September 17, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Colborn
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180918 additions revisions to agenda.doc
F
rx
CITY
OF
RANCHO
PALOS
VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Additional Modifications to the General Plan; Email exchanges
between Community Development Deputy Director Kim and: Jean
Longacre; April Sandell; Email from SUNSHINE
2 Emails from: Melinda Politeo; George and Leanne Twidwell
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, September 17, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Colborn
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180918 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
So Kim
Sent:
Tuesday, September 18, 2018 9:09 AM
To:
CC
Cc:
CityClerk; Ara Mihranian
Subject:
General Plan Late Correspondence
Attachments:
Councilman Dyda's Review and Comments.pdf, Additional Proposed Changes.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear Madame Mayor and Members of the Council,
Staff recently received additional suggested corrections and clarifications to the General Plan text from Councilman Dyda.
Attached is Councilman Dyda's comments with Staff's responses in red text. Additional modifications to the General Plan text
were made in response to Councilman Dyda's comments, which are attached (ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CHANGES) for your
review.
Staff also met with the Los Angeles County Fire Dept and added new fire safety related policies per their request. These are
shown on PDF page 14 (bottom header shows General Plan Page 184) of the ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CHANGES attachment.
Sincerely,
So Kim, ACCP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
yyww.rpa 9 --'goy
(31.0) 544-5222
1
General plan review.
1. On page 10, online 1 in paragraph 4 the word "annexation" should be "incorporation". Done.
2. In the same paragraph in line 4 after "this was accomplished" with a petition that did not protest the incorporation but
provided an alternative of annexing to rolling Hills Estates which had declared it would not annex any new properties. A
lawsuit was filed alleging this was not a valid protest, however the judge ruled that in effect it was and SOC lost that
lawsuit, Done
3. On page 10 in paragraph 5 up to the word SOC should be deleted. Done
4. On page 11 in paragraph 4 on line 2 should read a schedule indicated that... Already included.
5. On page 13 it would be helpful to indicate the major annexation of the Eastview area. Are you referring to the
Regional Vicinity Map?
6. On page 17. Confusion in goals report. The first report was submitted in September 1974 by a combination of 14
citizens committee, one for each general plan element. The second goals report submitted in September 2002 and was
not sanctioned by the city Council but rather an effort consising of over 210 residents who submitted a review and
update of the original goals report for the Council's consideration. Text revised.
7. On page 33 item number 18. In my mind future development includes parks, preserves, trails etc.
Did you want the policy revised to inlcude parks, preserves, trails, etc?
8. Comment: it would be nice to identify the location of the many photographs within the report.
I assume you only mean the large photos, correct?
9. In section 4.2 disposal and recovery systems on the sanitation I don't see any discussion of septic tanks in Portuguese
bend. There's septic tanks not only in Portuguese Bend but also on many properties along PVDE. Would you like
to see an additional paragraph discussing septic systems?
10. On page 63 comment: I agree with item 26 with respect to efforts that do not conflict with public safety. Ok
11. On page 64 section 2.2 cultural resources. Including any extension/addition to the PVIC complex.
Are you requesting that an existing policy be amended or a new policy be added?
12. On page 89 Conflict with the description of RM 9. First it states to precerve what is there and then refers to the
limitations of the NCCP. Current text says to preserve vegetation whenever possible, but all areas within NCCP/HCP
shall follow its guidelines. I don't think the text as proposed is conflicting.
13 on page 103. It would be helpful to identify the specific location of Cherry Hill lots (which should be almost obvious)
and the McKay property. These Cherry Hill lots do not have addresses as they are not developed. The only other way
to identify them is to use the Assessor's Parcel Number, which may not be helpful.
14. On page 110 under an additional Peninsula seniors services should we not include "the village".
I do not see any references to "the village."
15. On page 119, goals; for item 5 include operation and maintenance costs in addition to capital expenditures to ensure
appropriate funding. Done
16. On page 122 the city was Incorporated with a low property tax not a no property tax. The initial tax was 5.8 cents per
hundred dollars assessed valuation which rose very slightly and was frozen by prop. 13. Revised "no -property tax" to
"low -property tax"
17. On page 136, in 4 at the top at the sentence add "while maintaining the character of the city". Done
18. On page 136, in 10 change the word " preserve" to "address". Preserve is much too strong a word. Done
19. On page 136, in 15 at the end of the sentence add "such that the surface is lighted while the light source is hidden". DonE
20. On page 136 in 22 either expand your number as 22a to such as " that the school district shall ensure that facilities
lessees comply with city ordinances and mitigate neighborhood impacts. Done.
21. On page 138. The paragraph in 3 refers to figure 1. Where is that figure? It should follow 3 rather than have to be
researched by the reader. Changed to Table 1.
22. On page 138. In 3.1 hazard the paragraph includes recreational activities. Does the second sentence listing constraints
mean that such activities are prohibited in those areas? It Is not clear and could imply that such activities are permitted.
Revised text for clarity.
23. On page 138. In 3.2 what recreational activities are considered appropriate to open space hillside? Again this is to
open and brought a statement to leave undefined. Revised to state "passive" recreational uses as written in the
Development Code.
24. On page 138. In 3.3 a reference is again made to figure 1?Changed to Table 1.
25. On page 139. In 4, figure 1 is again called out. It seems in all these cases it should be table 1. Done
26. On page 141. In 4.2, figure 1 is again called outM Changed to Table 1.
27. On page 143. In 4.3, figure 1 is again called out! Deleted as there is no need to reference a figure here.
28. On page 144 the first paragraph refers to "the following three senior living facilities" following Paragraph is a list of
four such senior living complexes. Corrected to state 4 instead of 3.
29. On page 145. In the paragraph on public activities midway through a reference is made to figure 11. 1 could not find
figure 11 within this element. Changed to Figure 1 and pulled up the map so that it is immediately after this page.
30. On page 145. (Last line of paragraph at top) An original school site within which is now trump national golf course was
traded with the school district for that portion of Ladera Linda which is now owned by the city. It might be more
historically correct to identify this event. A footnote has been added.
31. On page 146. In the paragraph listed as Postal Service on the first line the word "designated" should be "designate" Done.
32. On page 150 in 4.4 recreational; In the first line in paragraph 2 there is a tense conflict with the beginning of the
sentence in the first line recreational land are held.... Corrected.
33. On page 157 in District 3 we might consider annexing that sliver of land in the parking lot that holds signage to bring
signage regulations to conform to the city's ordinances. Noted. No changes were made to the text.
34. On page 162 1 finally found figure 1 referred to above. This figure should be placed somewhere closer to the
paragraph that reference figure 1. That paragraph was revised to reference Table 1.
35. On page 167 the noise level chart becomes an eye chart. If it is used as a criteria it should be large enough to be easily
read. Done.
36. On page 184 under 2 policies number 14 please identified what SEMS stands for. Done.
37. On page 188. If the coastal sage used in the preserve a plant with high fire potential?
Coastal sage scrub is a fire -adapted, drought tolerant vegetation type.
38. On page 188. 3.2 interface fires: in the second paragraph it notes that in Palos Verdes 90% have resulted in from
human activities. Is this the entire peninsula? If so what portion is Rancho Palos Verdes? Shouldn't we stick with Rancho
Palos Verdes? As fires often cross City boundaries, this paragraph is accounts for local fires, taking the entire Palos
Verdes into account.
39. On page 189 third complete line from the bottom the word "for" which states requires fire for one the word should
be replaced with the word "to". I think the word "for" is more appropriate and no changes have been made to the
following sentence.
"Fire has been important in the life cycle of chaparral communities, which have evoled
to a point it requires fire FOR spawn regeneration. "
40. On page 203 Portuguese point is not included in the active landslide yet teh Heritage Castle (now the Gettysburg
property) has moved to the point that improvements are no longer within the survey boundaries. This Needs to be
looked at in more detail to accurately represent the active landslide area.The map was taken directly from the CA Dept
of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. This map will be updated once proper studies are done by either the State Dept or the Ci
41. On page 231 under section 2 policies number seven in the second line the word "Incorporated" should read
incorporate. Done
42. On page 232 this definition of use in paragraph 3.1 eliminates the concept of significant view as it should. The total
view determines the cost of the property and therefore the tax rate. With the restriction to "significant view" it means
that the property owner is paying for a value the property owner no longer enjoys. On the other hand a property owner
that provides landscape is not assessed for that landscaping however improves the value of his property upon sale. This is
a matter of equity between the two properties. Ok.
43. Why are we enamored with the picture of the light house? It does not need constant repetition.
Photo will be replaced.
Comment:
I'm. Glad to see that most of the figures are labeled "not to scale in for illustrative purposes only". This would eliminate
some of the game playing that occurred with the original general plan.
On the whole this was a very excellent effort by all those involved in finally preparing the updated general plan.
My congratulations to all of you.
p bI!C 5eFV!EesUEh as 8liEe and fi Fe ff8terAffie ,
Fueled by a Los Angeles County (County) master plan and the post-World War II economic
growth in the South Bay area, the remaining unincorporated part of the Peninsula (now the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes), began to develop rapidly as the County granted several zone
changes allowing higher-density construction. Little regard was paid to the Peninsula's beauty,
openness, or sensitive environment. During the 1960's the leaders of the three existing cities
and citizens of the unincorporated area repeatedly attempted to convince the County to
restrain uncontrolled development and institute planning and zoning regulations more
compatible with the area's unique qualities.
In the mid -1960's the Peninsula Advisory Council, a group of homeowner associations from
the unincorporated areas was created to provide more clout in negotiations with the County.
The Peninsula Advisory Council along with representatives from the three incorporated
Peninsula cities -Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates and Rollin_ Hills lls repeatedly met with
the County and developers to encourage proper limitations on the development of the
Peninsula's coastal area.
The Eemergence of Save Our Coastline (SOC).
The failure of this coalition of city leaders and the Peninsula Advisory Council's efforts to restrain
unbridled development became evident when, in December 1969, the County surprised the
Peninsula representatives by unveiling and adopting a new Master Plan for the area, known as
the Bevash Plan. This plan enabled high-density uses including high-rise developments (up to
73 units per acre) along the coastline.
It was evident that if the unincorporated area was to be preserved, a different strategy was
necessary. The incorporation of the Peninsula's fourth city efforts now intensified. In April 1970,
Save Our Coastline (SOC) was created. Its function was to bring about the incorporation of the
Peninsula's unincorporated areas in order to establish local control.
SOC now faced a major challenge. The incorporation laws at the time required that the
assessed value of the land owned b, the he signatories needed to represent 25% of the total
assessed land value of the proposed city. In addition, the incorporation attempt could be killed
if 50% -plus one of the assessed value of land ownership protested incorporation. The major
developers opposing the incorporation controlled 38% of the assessed value of land so they
needed only 12% more to defeat the incorporation attempt. Thi swas accomplished with a Formatted: Highlight
petition that did not protest the incorporation but provided an alternative of annexing to
General Plan Page 10
Rolling Hills Estates, which had declared it would not annext any new properties. A lawsuit was
filed alleging this was not a valid protest, however, the fudge ruled that in effect it was and SOC
lost that lawsuit. SOC filed a lawsuit in a California Superior Court contesting the
constitutionality of a law that was based on assessed value of land rather than one-man one
vote as specified in the 14th amendment.
Aften'ri''rmhei -ef leQrni h'+m+ies and seveFai '-defeats n+ su4eFed=vTh
e
California Superior Court declared that using assessed value of land, as a basis for determining
the outcome of an election was unconstitutional. This ruling was promptly appealed to the
California Supreme Court. SOC enjoyed success when the State Supreme Court refused to hear
the appeal, thereby allowing the Superior Court's ruling to stand.
Embolden by the legal victory, SOC petitioned the County Board of Supervisors to accept the
signatures on the initial petition and continue the incorporation process, since the number of
voters exceeded the 25% filing requirement and the developers protest fell well short of the
50% plus one requirement. SOC's request was approved by a slim 3 to 2 voted the Board of
Supervisors.
Rancho Palos Verdes Become the Peninsula's Fourth City
The County agency responsible for conducting incorporations, ncorporations, the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), set the election for the proposed city of Rancho Palos Verdes on August
28, 1973. Some 80% of the registered voters went to the polls and voted by a margin of 5 to
1 for cityhood. The name Rancho Palos Verdes was approved and 5 candidates out of a field
of 24 challengers were elected to the first City Council. They were Dave (Cisco) Ruth, Guenther
Burke, Marilyn Ryan, Ken Dyda and Bob Ryan.
The boundaries of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) now covered the remaining portions of the
unincorporated area within the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District boundaries. Three
unincorporated Peninsula areas were not included, the first two known as Academy Hills and
Westfield were excluded because they were not contiguous to the Rancho Palos Verdes
Boundaries. The third area known as Eastview or the Western Avenue corridor was excluded
due to a lack of enthusiasm for the incorporation. When the petition drive for incorporation
was initiated, it quickly became apparent to SOC that the unincorporated area along Western
Avenue (which was outside the school district boundaries) provided little support for cityhood.
As a result the boundaries for the incorporation were changed to exclude that area. Other
than a few minor boundary adjustments with Rolling Hills Estates, the Rancho Palos Verdes
boundaries remained the same for the next ten years.
Major Annexation Enlarges the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan Page 10
from each of the following commissions, committees, and organizations within the community
(but two persons from the Planning Commission) should be represented on the General Plan
Update Steering Committee:
■ City's Planning Commission
■ City's (former) Recreation and Parks Committee
■ City's Finance Advisory Committee
■ City's Traffic Committee
■ City's (former) Equestrian Committee
■ City's Disaster Preparedness Committee
■ Council of Homeowners' Association
■ Council of Homeowners' Association — Eastview Representative
■ Peninsula Seniors
■ Peninsula Youth Recreation League Council
■ Docents — Los Serenos de Point Vicente
■ School District
■ Chamber of Commerce
■ Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
The purpose of the Steering Committee was to review all of the goals and policies of the 1975
General Plan and to make recommendations as to the extent to which such goals and policies
needed to be maintained, amended, or eliminated, and whether new goals and policies
needed to be added.
Beginning on October 30, 2002, the Steering Committee held a total of 22 public meetings, on
an average of once a month. Through the Committee's work, the Council learned that, apart
from the need for some textual changes to the goals and policies, as well as changes to the
factual information within the Plan, for the most part the goals and policies that were created
in 1975 still apply today.
Additionally, in order to assist the City's undertaking of its general plan update, in 1974, a 14
citizen committee submitted the first "Goals Report" that identified various goals for the City,
one for each General Plan element. In 2002, a non -City -sponsored "grass-roots" committee of
more than 210 residents fGrpRed fer the purpese ef prepared+ag-a the second "Goals Report,
" that ideRtified vaF;eys goals fop the City. This Goals Repowhich was provided to each
member of the Steering Committee for consideration ,
Steer;Rg r emmittee's eWR Feviewand fiR diR in its report to the City Council.
During the preparation of the updated General Plan, the Planning Commission held 70 public
meetings and the City Council held 13 prior to the Council's adoption of the General Plan.
General Plan Page 17
4, Fiscal Health, Revenue, and Expenditure Structure, provides an important discussion on
the limitation that California municipalities face in raising revenues and provides an overview
of the City's revenue and expenditure structure. Section 5, Fiscal Sustainability, generalizes
the City's projected fiscal health and identifies potential fiscal issues in relationship to future
development and infrastructure improvements within the City. Section 9.5 outlines policies of
the Fiscal Element.
1 Goals
1. Hold taxes and assessments to a minimum and continually explore and analyze the
advantages and disadvantages of alternate or new sources of revenue.
2. Explore cooperative financing strategies that might be undertaken in association with
others.
3. Consider the use of regulatory legislation and other options to obtain contributions,
dedications, reservations (option to purchase) and rights of way (i.e., easements).
4. Plan for revenues generated by development to sufficient cover costs related to such
development.
5. Thoroughly evaluate operation and maintenance costs in addition to capital asset
expenditures to ensure that available financing is sufficient to meet related ongoing
operating expenditures.
6. Maintain a prudent general fund reserve.
7. Consider all available funding sources for City expenditures.
8. Maintain competitive rates for taxes and fees charged for the use of community
resources.
9. Adopt a balanced budget.
10. Control the growth of expenditures.
Policies
1. Consider the cost effectiveness and community benefits of new City services and
facilities.
2. Require that wherever appropriate, City services be paid for by the users in the form of
specified fees or taxes.
3. Work toward integration of common services among neighboring jurisdictions,
agencies and organizations for improved cost effectiveness and quality of service.
4. Consider the financial impacts of City decisions on other governmental agencies and/or
public utilities serving our residents.
5. Encourage State legislative action to provide equitable distribution of tax revenues
commensurate with the City's responsibilities.
6. Seek or accept funds from government sources only if the obligations of the City caused
by accepting such funds do not negate the benefits of receiving those funds.
7. Evaluate the merits of contracting for services versus in-house staffing.
General Plan Page 119
Specific and measureable work plans with a clear focus help the City Council determine the
appropriate goals for the year.
Financial Planning: While annual budget review and approval is a sound business practice and
is required by the State of California Government Code and the City's Municipal Code, an
understanding of the City's long-term financial picture is more important thanjust looking at a
1 -year snapshot. While preparing the 5 -Year Financial Model, staff works with all departments
to assess expected trends for future expenditures and performs a complete analysis of all
revenues based on a set of assumptions. After developing future estimates, fund balances are
analyzed to ensure that reserves are maintained and expenditures do not exceed funding
sources. At the end of each year, the City Council considers what the work process has been
through the year, makes any amendments and provides staff direction for the following year's
work plan. The work plan is specific, measurable, and calls out in great clarify try Council's
direction and focus for the following year. €ach year, Then, the City Council -appointed Finance
Advisory Committee is presented with the draft Model and provides comments prior to the
City Council's review at the Budget Workshop. The budget is developed based on estimates
consistent with the model.
Past
Historical Financial
Data Future
The Five -Year 5 Years of Estimates
Financial Model Present based on current policy&
information about the future
Current Revenue & C/
Spending Plan
Use of Reserves: The establishment and management of reserves (sometimes referred to as
rainy -day funds, or contingency funds) is a prudent fiscal policy, as well as an important
consideration in the evaluation of the City's credit rating. Local governments have experienced
much volatility in their financial stability due to the economy, natural disasters, and actions
taken by state government, which includes taking revenues from local governments to resolve
state budget problems. California cities are at an even greater disadvantage than the rest of
the country due to the unique regulations imposed through a strong voter initiative process,
and the difficulty to raise property taxes should the need arise.
Sound financial management includes the practice and discipline of maintaining adequate
reserve funds for known and unknown contingencies. Such contingencies include, but are not
limited to, cash flow requirements; economic uncertainties including downturns in the local,
General Plan Page 120
4410. Encourage all development to presepve-address neighboring site privacy.
20-11. Require all new housing and significant improvements to existing housing to
consider neighborhood compatibility.
Commercial
24,12. Place commercial and institutional developments under the same building -
orientation controls as residential developments in regard to topographic and climatic
design factors.
22-13. Require that commercial and institutional activity buffer and mitigate negative
impacts on adjoining residential areas.
2114. Require commercial and institutional development to be designed to maximize
pedestrian safety.
24.15. Require that scenic view preservation by commercial and institutional activities
be taken into account not only in the physical design of structures and signs, but also
in night lighting of exterior grounds, such that the surface is lighted while the light
source is hidden.
25:16. Require commercial and institutional sites to limit the exposure of parking and
exterior service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.
2617. Specify the mix of standard and compact parking spaces for new development
to ensure that all parking requirements are met.
18. Require adequate screening or buffering techniques for all new and existing commercial
activities in order to minimize odors, light and noise pollution.
2719. Promote and encourage the improvement and redevelopment of the Western
Avenue corridor.
Institutional (Public, Educational and Religious)
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style
1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
2 :20. Require any new schools and encourage existing schools to provide adequate- Formatted: Numbered + Level:1 + Numbering Style
on-site parking and automobile access. 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
2-9:21. Incorporate the Coast Guard Station into Lower Point Vicente Park when it is 0.25" +Indent at: 0.5"
deactivated.
22. Coordinate with the School District on cross jurisdictional issues.
-30:23. Coordinate with the School District to ensure that facility lessees comms with
City ordinances and mitigate neighborhood impacts.
X24. Encourage implementation of plans for pedestrian and bicycling networks
linking residential areas with schools for the safety of children.
-32-.25. Review the location and site design of future institutional uses to ensure their
compatibility with adjacent sites.
33-26. Encourage mitigation of the adverse aesthetic impacts of utility facilities.
-34:27. Encourage the unification of the Eastview students into the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District.
General Plan Page 136
Recreational Land
X28. Encourage local groups to participate in the planning, development, and
maintenance of recreation facilities.
Agricultural Land
x:29. Encourage preservation of agricultural activities.
Open Space Open Space Preserve
37,30. All land with an npeR Space Pres rvat,^^Open Space Preserve Land Use
Designation shall be utilized in compliance with the City's NCCP.
3 Natural Environment/ Hazard Areas
Natural environment/hazard areas to be maintained encompass approximately 1245-1,710
acres of land. There are four separate land use designations (€+g4r-Ta le 1) -that encompass
these areas: "Hazard," "Open Space Hillside," "Open SpaEe PreseFvatie^Open Space Preserve.
and "Greenways." Descriptions of each of these designations are as follows.
3.1 Hazard
The Hazard areas possess extreme physical constraints, such as active landslide, sea cliff erosion
hazard, and extreme slope of 35 percent and greater. These aresand will be maintained in
open space at this time, with very light intensity uses permitted such as agriculture andap ssive
recreational activities, for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The t5
These relate directly back to the analysis and policies in the Conservation and Open Space
Element and the Safety Element in the section on areas for consideration of public health and
safety.
The Hazard designation includes an area of existing residences, part of the Portuguese Bend
community, located within the active Portuguese Bend landslide. This Plan recognizes these
existing residences, in a density range of 1-2 d.u./acre, overlaid with the Hazard designation.
The criteria and policies to regulate this area have been codified in the City's Landslide
Moratorium Ordinance (Chapter 15.20 of the City's Municipal Code), which was originally
enacted in September 1978. The purpose of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance is discussed
in more detail elsewhere in this Element.
The Hazard Area designation also occurs on other properties throughout the City that are
blufftop lots along the City's coastline. In many cases, the Hazard designation along the
coastline has been applied to portions of residential properties.
General Plan Page 138
Ito 2 Dwelling Units perAcre. Land designated in this density range in the original
General Plan had low and moderate physical constraints, and social constraints, such as
public views and vistas, which at this density could be controlled through subdivision
design. This density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent
existing densities and/or a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities.
There currently remain only a scattering of vacant lots to be developed at this density,
mostly within the City's equestrian neighborhoods located within the Portuguese Bend
community and along Palos Verdes Drive East and Via Campesina.
2 to 4 Dwelling Units perAcre. Land designated in this density range in the original
General Plan had low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density was
+compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities. There currently remain
only a few, widely scattered larger parcels designated for this density that could be
developed in the future.
4 to 6Dweiiing Units perAcre. Land designated in this density range has generally low
physical and social constraints At the time of the adoption of the City's first General
Plan, most of this land had already been committed to urban use. This includes the
single-family neighborhoods in the formerly -unincorporated Eastuiew area that were
annexed into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in 1983. There currently remain only a
scattering of small vacant lots to be developed at this density.
6 to 12 Dwelling Units perAcre. Land designated in this density range in the original
General Plan had much the same determinants as that in the 4 to 6 dwelling units per
acre range (above), but the vacant sites were small and almost completely surrounded
by existing high-density uses. This includes the multi -family neighborhoods in the
formerly -unincorporated Eastviewarea that were annexed into the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1983. No vacant parcels remain designated for this density that could be
developed in the future.
12 to 22 Dwelling Units perAcre. Land designated in this density range in the original
General Plan mainly encompassed existing, moderate- to high-density multi -family
residential projects that were constructed prior to the City's incorporation. No vacant
parcels remain designated for this density that could be developed in the future.
4.2 Commercial
Commercial Land Use Designations
The Land Use Element designates approximately 282 acres for commercial use (€i�Table
1), including the neighborhood -scale commercial centers along Western Avenue that were
annexed to the City in 1983, and are analyzed as part of the Western Avenue Specific Plan
Districts. Commercial activities would comprise 3.4% of the total land area, with mostly retail
General Plan Page 138
Service Stations The number of service stations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
decreased from ten in 1975 to six in 2018. In order to ensure that the supply of automotive
service stations in the City remains sufficient to provide for the needs of the City's residents,
the City amended the General Plan in 1993 to adopt the Automotive Service Station Overlay
Control (OC -4) District. This overlay control district is discussed in greater detail below.
4.3 Institutional
Institutional land uses encompass public activities (primarily related to the provision of
government and public safety services), educational activities (including public and private
schools at all grade levels, as well as libraries) assisted living facilities, homes for the aged, and
religious activities. Given the broad range of activities covered under the general heading of
institutional uses, they are broadly distributed throughout the City.
The Land Use Element designates approximately 348 acres for institutional use, which makes
up 4% of the City. Approximately 9.82 acres are vacant and may be proposed for new
institutional use. Institutional uses include facilities for the public, educational, health,
religious, and cultural activities. Recreational activities are generally compatible with
institutional uses and are often part of such uses.
The major area designated for institutional use, the Crestridge Road/Indian Peak Road area,
has generally moderate physical constraints and is centrally located in the Peninsula. The
intent of concentrating institutional use in this area is to provide for a complex of such uses,
rather than allowing them to be located throughout the community, where they are
sometimes incompatible with other uses. Within this area are the following t4fee-fgur senior
living facilities:
■ Belmont Village is a 150 -bed senior assisted -living facility on a 4.57 -acre site at 5701
Crestridge Road. It was completed in 2003 and provides assisted living, skilled
nursing, and Alzheimer's care for its residents.
■ Mirandela is a 34 -unit senior affordable housing apartment complex that was
completed and fully occupied in 2010. It is located on a 19.63 -acre site at 5555
Crestridge Road. The project was a joint venture of the City's former Redevelopment
Agency and the affordable housing developer, AMCAL Multi -Housing Inc.
■ Sol -y -Mar is a 60 -unit age -restricted (55 years+) market -rate senior condominium
complex that includes a clubhouse, resident services, three affordable housing units,
and a public access trail through site. It is located on a 33.97 -acre site at 5601
Crestridge Road.
■ The Canterbury is a non-profit, nondenominational continuing care retirement
community on a 5.2 acre lot at 5801 Crestridge Road that provides seniors
General Plan Page 144
independent living, assisted living, and memorial care. There are 98 independent
living units and 60 -bed assisted and memorial care living at the facility.
Another major area designated for institutional use is a portion of the current Point Vicente
Park and Civic Center which was a former Nike missile site that was acquired from the U.S.
government in 1976. Strategic planning is underway to improve the civic center site with
facilities that would support a City Hall, public safety, and recreation facilities and activities.
The remaining areas designated for institutional use located throughout the City include the
following uses: religious facilities, public and private schools, automotive repair shops, senior
assisted living facilities, So Cal Edison, Cal Water offices and facilities, Palos Verdes Art Center,
Mary & Joseph Retreat Center, U.S. Coast Guard station, Marymount California University,
Salvation Army/ Crestmont College, Fire Stations, Federally owned Radar Station, and City
facilities. Most of these uses are on a single parcel with open parking areas.
Public Activities
City Facilities
The City is presently operating as a contract city. Contracts with Los Angeles County include
services for police and fire protection. City staff provides most other administrative and public
services to the City's residents.
Since 1975, the City has acquired the old Nike missile sites for parkland (Del Cerro Park} and
the City Hall site. While the City Hall site is not in the geographic center of the City, it has the
potential for becoming a strong focal point for the community. The buildings at the City Hall
site have undergone very simple and modest upgrades over the years to accommodate
expanded City services that are nearing their life expectancy, (Figure 441 Public Facilities).
Planning is underway to improve the civic center site with facilities that would support a City
Hall, public safety, and recreation facilities and activities. In the years since incorporation, the
City has also acquired property for other City facilities from the County (Lower Point Vicente,
Pelican Cove, Abalone Cove Park and Shoreline Park) and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District (Hesse Park, Ladera Linda Park-' and Grandview Park).
IAnoriainal school site, which is now part of the Trump National Golf Course was traded with the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District for that portion of Ladera Linda Park, which is now owned by the City.
General Plan Page 145
Aside from fire stations, County of Los Angeles has no service facilities in the City. However,
County -owned land within the City includes Los Verdes Country Club, a portion of Friendship
Park and a communications tower located south of the Peninsula Center area.
State Facilities
While, there are no State facilities or land in the City, the Abalone Cove contains a State
Ecological Preserve with important natural marine resources at the bottom of the Portuguese
Bend landslide area.
Federal Facilities
There are two Federal facilities in the City. These include the Point Vicente Lighthouse and
Coast Guard Station (29 acres) and the United States Air Force and Federal Aviation
Administration Radar Station (11 acres) on San Pedro Hill; and a WWII -area bunker and Coast
Guard antenna site (4 acres) at City Hall.
Postal service. The City successfully petitioned the U.S. Postal Service to designated the
"90275" zip code to the entire City in the early 1990s, which resulted in combining a
portion of the 90274 zip code assigned to the rest of the Palos Verdes Peninsula with
the portion of the 90732 zip code in San Pedro that had been assigned to the formerly
unincorporated Eastview area. Postal services for the City are headquartered atthe main
post office in Rolling Hills Estates; there is no branch post office in the City.
Airport Facilities. There are no public or private airports or airstrips in the City.
Educational Activities
Public Schools - Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District The entire Peninsula is served
by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). PVPUSD's reputation for
having a high-quality education system attracts many families to this semi -rural area for its
schools. Students of the Peninsula can attend 2 early childhood centers, 10 elementary schools,
3 intermediate schools, 2 comprehensive high schools, and 1 continuation school. PVPUSD
owns no other property in the City with the exception of playing fields adjacent to the Ladera
Linda Community Center site.
PVPUSD currently occupies the former site of the Malaga Cove Elementary School in the City
of Palos Verdes Estates as its administrative offices. Until 2009, these offices were located at
the former Valmonte Elementary School in the City of Palos Verdes Estates.
PVPUSD schools continue to be recognized for outstanding achievement at the local, state,
and national level. Community and parent volunteers make significant contributions to the
public schools. The Peninsula Education Foundation has been successful in raising local funds
General Plan Page 146
previous Marymount campus on Hawthorne Boulevard is now occupied by Crestmont College,
which is a training academy for the Salvation Army.
Llbrarles The Palos Verdes Library District serves the entire Peninsula with There three library
facilities: Malaga Cove in Palos Verdes Estates, Peninsula Center in Rolling Hills Estates, and
Miraleste in Rancho Palos Verdes. These branches currently have an annual circulation of
1,000,000 books, which is extremely high for the Peninsula's population. The Palos Verdes
Library District has plans for improving these existing facilities, but not for additional facilities
at this time. If a new facility is proposed in the future, it would be appropriate geographically,
and from a population distribution point -of -view, for it to be in the southern portion of the
Peninsula, in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Rellglous Activities There are twenty churches and one synagogue on the Peninsula. Ten
churches are based in the City; 7 have their own physical facilities. Several of these religious
facilities are located along Crestridge Road, between Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Blvd. on
property designated for religious and institutional activities. This area is also appropriate for
other united institutional, cultural, and recreational activities.
4.4 Recreational
Recreational activity areas include sites which have been set aside or are proposed for either
active or passive use. These sites are structured to various degrees to allow specific site
activities to take place. While this section briefly covers recreational activity areas. Conservation
and Open Space Element provides, a detailed discussion of the available active and passive
recreational activity areas in the City. Additionally, path and trail networks, systems which
involve linear right-of-way for the purpose of transportation or recreation, are addressed within
the Circulation Element.
Approximately 413 acres are designated for recreational use. Recreational land aye-lLheld by
public agencies and developed or proposed for development for active or passive
recreational activity. Additional recreational land may be designated after a more specific
study is made of community needs and, as new development creates an additional demand.
The Municipal Code requires new development to provide parkland land.
As authorized by the Subdivision Map Act, the Municipal Code requires the dedication of
parkland or the payment of in -lieu fees (known as "Quimby fees") by the developers of new
residential projects. These fees are earmarked for the provision of new and/or expanded park
facilities to serve the City's residents. Although the General Plan does not delineate specific
additional recreational areas, it is intended that facilities may be added in conjunction with
proposed developments, and through further study of existing neighborhoods. Additionally,
General Plan Page 150
3 Fundamentals of Noise
For the purposes of this section of the General Plan, noise means any loud sound. Sound has physical properties
that are not only heard but can be measured and felt. The decibel (dB) is a conventional unit for measuring the
amplitude of sound, as it accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude, and reflects the way people
perceive changes in sound. When describing sound and its effect on humans, A -weighted (dBA) sound levels are
typically used to account for the response of the human ear. The term "A -weighted" refers to a filtering of the
noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. Some representative common
outdoor and indoor noise sources and their corresponding A -weighted noise levels are shown in the figure below.
COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES
Jet flyover at 1.000 feet
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet
Commercial area
Heavy traffic at 300 feet
Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Quiet rural nighttime
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES
Rock band
Food blender at 3 feet
Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Normal speech at 3 feet
Large business office
Dishwasher in next room
Theater, large conference room
(background)
Library
Bedroom at night, cane w t h 3U
(background)
Broadcast/recording studio
General Plan Page 167
4. Protect life and property and reduce adverse economic, environmental, and social
impacts resulting from any geologic activity.
Policies
1 Promote education and safety awareness pertaining to all hazards which affect Rancho
Palos Verdes residents and adjacent communities.
adopt and enforce building and fire codes, ordinances, and regulations using best
practices which include design and construction standards based upon appropriate
levels of risk and hazard.
3 Continue to require that all structures and facilities in the City adhere to City, State, and
National regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes and other
applicable fire safety standards.
4 Coordinate with the Los Angeles County Fire Department's Prevention Services to
ensure that proper defensible space and an adequate fuel modification program is
actively being implemented and enforced on properties within the Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone
-25 Expedite reviews for reconstruction of fire -damaged structures.
46 Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure law enforcement and
fire protection mutual aid in emergency situations.
47 Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate
water flow capabilities with adequate back-up throughout all areas of the City.
S8 Continue to cooperate with fire protection agencies in utilizing public facilities for water
and refueling location.
C9 Develop and implement stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high
fire hazard potential in coordination with fire protection agencies.
W10 Implement reasonable and consistent house numbering and street naming
systems.
11 Coordinate with the Fire Department to provide adequate emergency access to all
streets, including the end points of cul-de-sacs, and along the sides of structures.
812 Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to update emergency,
evacuation, and hazard mitigation plans, as necessary.
S13 Ensure that services are available to adequately address health and sanitation
issues.
1914 Work with other jurisdictions to ensure that local, County, State, and Federal
health, safety, and sanitation laws are enforced.
X15 Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are
available to all areas of the City.
X16 Develop and maintain relationships with various levels of health, safety, and
sanitation agencies.
General Plan Page 184
1317 Ensure the availability of paramedic rescue and fire suppression services to all
areas of the City.
1418 Maintain and implement a current Standard Emergency Management Systems
(SEMS) Plan to cope with major disasters.
1519 Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and number of animals and balance the
interest of animal owners and persons whose welfare is affected.
X20 Ensure the protection of compatible levels of wild animal populations, which do
not adversely impact humans and their domestic animals.
X21 Work with adjacent jurisdictions with respect to animal regulation activities.
1$22 Consider alternative animal control and enforcement methods and facilitate
shelter, medical treatment, and training classes where needed.
1923 Avoid or minimize the risks of flooding to new development.
2924 Evaluate whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones,
and identify construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new
development is located in flood hazard zones.
2125 Maintain the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities
during flooding.
X26 Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard
zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations,
emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identify
construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are
located in flood hazard zones.
2-327 Establish cooperative working relationships among public agencies with
responsibility for flood, fire, and climate change protection.
Climate Change Policies
Public Facilities and Developments
1. Continue to work with South Bay Cities Council of Governments to develop an Energy
Efficient Climate Action Plan and a Climate Action Plan that would include strategies
that consider the unique characteristics and conditions of the City.
2. Promote new energy efficient buildings and retrofit existing public facilities to be as energy
efficient as feasible.
3. Continue to manage the City transportation fleet's fueling standards to achieve the
greatest number of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles.
4. Support development of publicly accessible alternative fuel infrastructure.
5. Encourage utility companies to provide informational literature about energy
conservation for the public at City facilities.
6. Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation routes and amenities to serve
the travel needs of residents and visitors. Where feasible, connect major destinations
such as parks, open spaces, civic facilities, retail, and recreation areas with pedestrian,
General Plan Page 184
8 Emergency Services
This section deals with various programs and services designed to avoid hazards, help during
hazardous conditions, and/or provide assistance after a hazardous condition has occurred.
8.1 Emergency Medical Aid and Rescue
The City subcontracts ambulance service from a private company regulated by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department. The ambulance vehicles are based in three sepaFatefire
stations (Station Nos. 53, 56 83, and 106) and an Ambulance Station (Red Cross Station No.
7) within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Aside from the subcontracted ambulance service, a paramedic rescue squad (Los Angeles
County Fire Department) serves the contracted areas on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The City
of Rancho Palos Verdes is served by one Paramedic Rescue Squad at Fire Station 106 on Indian
Peak Road. The Paramedic Rescue program provides 24 hour service ranging from aiding heart
attack victims, to assisting victims who may have fallen from one of the coastal bluffs, to aiding
persons stuck in an elevator.
An additional form of rescue operation is provided for water -oriented activities. The Los
Angeles County lifeguards are responsible for lifesaving operations at County beaches.
Rescue operations for boats in distress off the Rancho Palos Verdes coast are currently
provided by Los Angeles County, Los Angeles City, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Although each
has its own jurisdiction, in an emergency, jurisdiction is rarely considered, but rather who can
get there first. In particular, a base of the U.S. Coast Guard, which is a unique branch of the
military responsible for saving lives and protecting the environment among other related
duties, occupies the grounds of the Point Vicente Lighthouse within the City. In the past, the
Coast Guard monitored international distress frequencies with a radio station and radio
navigation beacon added to the lighthouse in 1934 until the task was transferred to another
station in 1980. At present, the former radio center serves as the Coast Guard Auxiliary,
composed of local civilians, who track distress calls from boaters, perform search and rescue
duties in local waters, and maintain radio communication networks in Southern California
(Palos Verdes on the Net).
8.2 Healthcare
The Palos Verdes Peninsula has the following acute care ("short-term") hospitals in Torrance
and San Pedro, located approximately 15 minutes away (see Table 4, Area Hospitals).
Table 4
Area Hospitals
Hospital Location
General Plan Page 214
2 Policies
1. Develop controls to preserve existing significant visual aspects from future disruption or
degradation.
2. Enhance views and vistas where appropriate through various visual accents.
3. Preserve and enhance existing positive visual elements, while restoring those that have
been lost.
4. Consider the visual character of neighborhoods consistent with the General Plan and
Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.
5. Develop and post vista points to provide safe off-road areas from which views may be
enjoyed.
6. Develop and maintain, in conjunction with appropriate agencies, public access to paths
and trail networks for the enjoyment of related views.
7. For development that are proposed within areas that impact the visual character of a
corridor, require developers to incorporated treatments into their projects which enhance
a corridor's imagery.
8. Require developments which will impact corridor -related views to mitigate their impact.
9. Develop a program for the restoration of existing areas which negatively impact view
corridors.
10. Require residents and developers to mitigate light pollution associated with
developments.
11. Maintain strict sign standards so as to ensure that signs are harmonious with the building,
the neighborhood and other signs in the area.
12. Work with adjoining jurisdictions to preserve and restore the view corridors from major
thoroughfares, taking into account the issues of traffic safety.
3 Types of Visual Resources
Visual Resources (See Figure 1) are divided into three categories: Views, Vistas and Urban
Design. This section of the Element describes the types of views, vistas and urban design to be
preserved, restored and enhanced within the City.
3.1 Views
A view is a scene observed from a given vantage point. Views represent panoramic visual
aspect which extends to the horizon of a distant focal point (Catalina Island, rather than a the
lighthouse oriented focused view), and has an unlimited arc and depth. These views can be
either continuous (as views from along a public corridor), or localized (as viewed from a specific
site).
3.2 Vistas
A vista is a confined view, which is usually directed toward a dominant element or landmark
(e.g. lighthouse). A vista, unlike a view, may be created by features that visually frame the vista.
General Plan Page 231
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 9:10 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: General Plan Update
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:56 AM
To: jeanlongacre@aol.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: General Plan Update
Dear Ms. Longacre,
The late correspondence will also include additional modifications to the goals/policies as recommended by Councilman Dyda.
Sincerely,
So Kim, ACCP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.r vca. ov
(310) 544-5222
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:45 AM
To: 'jeanlongacre@aol.com'<j�Lnlcncr�cl.orn>
Cc: CC <C0(rpvca.gcy>; Ara Mihranian <Ar t rpvca. gy>
Subject: RE: General Plan Update
Good Morning,
Thank you for your email.
Just to clarify, there are no Staff -proposed changes to the Steering Committee's modifications to the existing goals and
policies. The April 2018 version that was previously presented to the City Council includes Planning Commission -recommended
modifications, which were considered over 70+ public hearings. The September 2018 version includes a Councilman's request
to add a policy related to Western Avenue. Staff also met with the LA Co. Fire Dept last week and will be proposing new fire
safety related policies, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
Sincerely,
SO Kim, AICD
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
wv_vw.r vca. ov
(310) 544-5222
From: Lanion acre a aol.com [mailto:ieanlon acre aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:42 PM
To: So Kim <Sc� @ pyca.gov_>
Subject: Fwd: General Plan Update
I / r
-----Original Message -----
From: ieanlon acre aol.com <ieanlon acre aal.com>
To: cc <cc(E�rpvca.gov>
Sent: Fri, Sep 14, 2018 7:35 pm
Subject: General Plan Update
Dear City Council,
Having served on the General Plan Update Steering Committee, it is important to me that our recommendations are forwarded
to the City Council intact. Twelve citizens spent 2 years discussing the meaning of each and every word in the Goals and
Policies. Our recommendations represent important and well thought out changes. While they may look similar, they are not
"essentially the same" as the original.
Any recommendations by the staff should be identified as such. Please use the tracking version of the Steering Committee's
recommendations but include the staff's recommendations in a different color.
Thank you
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 9:31 AM
To: hvvbags@cox.net
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Dear April,
Please see my responses in red text below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AiCP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvvbags@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:54 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gvap@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <icruikshank@imc-2.com>
<Icruikshank@imc-2.com>; SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>; igualeni@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Fwd: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Hi So,
Re: Number 7 and 15 on this page.
1) How is it doable to provide trail access running to and from RPV city boundaries to
Western Ave. beyond the existing trail access from portions of Eastview into Rolling Hills
Estates near the intersection at PV Dr. East/PV Dr.North and around the intersection located at
Via Colinta and Miraleste Dr.?
The only way is to obtain trail easements across privately owned properties. As this is dependent
on each property owner's willingness to provide the easement, Staff will propose the following
modification to the policy:
€tee Encourage trail access to the Eastview area and Western Avenue.
2) Is the general plan to provide additional RPV trail access near Friendship Park/Miraleste
Dr/ 9th Western Ave. in San Pedro.... dependent upon a future annexing of residential
properties currently in San Pedro into RPV? No, annexation was not considered to provide trail
access.
I appreciate your time and attention.
Begin forwarded message:
From: hvybags <hvybags a_cox.net>
Date: September 12, 2018 at 10:16:36 AM PDT
To: April <hvyba s a_cox.net>
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 4:07 PM
To: hvvbags@cox.net
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; ieanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; EZStevens@cox.net; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Bill
Gerstner <wgg@squareoneinc.com> <wgg@squareoneinc.com>; ksne110001@aol.com; Krista Johnson
<kristamiohnson@cox.net> <kristamiohnson@cox.net>; smhvaleri@cox.net
Subject: Re: General Plan document / general policy Modifications
Hi April,
I agree. This is a rabbit hole. Actually, Staff doesn't want any trails at all. Even when people are happily
willing to offer to donate trail easements where trails -in -use presently exist, RPV Staff does whatever they
can to make the process essentially impossible.
The issue here is the General Plan Update. We all have our difficulties with getting Staff to be proactive
about some policy or another. I really appreciate you taking the time to help make this process come out in
favor of We, the People as opposed to the "pure habitat".
Tonight's the night.
Just in case you are interested in the trails network, here is what has gone down the rabbit hole. A trail -in -
use exists all the way from the Forrestal Reserve to Crest Road East and from there in Miraleste Canyon at
least as far as the east side of the Miraleste Parks District. I have never ventured further down the Canyon
to see if there is any sort of link to The Terraces as a trail head.
That is the thing about trails as a non -motorized transportation network. Someone needs to want to get
somewhere. One can join the California Coastal Trail from Western Ave at White Point. One can join the
Palos Verdes Loop Trail from any way you choose to get to Miraleste Plaza. It is a two-way thing. Who
wants to get from Western Ave. to anywhere on the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network? And, who wants to
get from anywhere on the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network to Western Ave?
As to the Transportation Systems Policy #7. Coordinate and cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions to
develop trail networks. This is one of those "essentially the same" policies depending on how you interpret
"Coordinate" being a directive without the phrase "is encouraged". It really doesn't matter what the
General Plan says. Staff has already "coordinated and cooperated" with closing almost all of these
preexisting trail connections. If one considers private, gated communities as "neighboring
jurisdictions", Staff has closed many, many more connections.
As to the Transportation Systems Policy now #15? €sure changed to "Encourage" trail access to
Western. Has the Eastview Area been "vanished"? The Steering Committee beefed up the directive about
providing a "network" and now Staff is watering down the notion that Eastview be included.
In my experience, the word "encourage" simply gives Staff the opportunity to "ignore". It has no business
being used in a General Plan Policy. Even words like "ensure", coordinate" and "cooperate" have no
"teeth". There is no "or else" penalty when Staff pursues a different direction.
I'm not going to give up quite yet. ...S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 9/18/2018 1:04:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, hvbagskcox.net writes:
Sunshine,
So Kim response w/." Ensure changed to "Encourage" trail access to Western.
The way I see it, the City would prefer residents give up easement ownership rather than offer a fair price for
the use of the easements for public trail purposes.
With respect to So Kim's... "NO" staff did not consider annexation to provide trail access". ( I MIGHT
say, the point should be made.....should the residential properties in the area I mentioned eventually be
annexed into RPV (which is a current consideration before the staff/cc ) it would be silly for staff not to
consider potential easement dedications for trail access to Western Ave.
There is no point in my continuing further down this particular rabbit -hole.
( Staff double -speak)
In any case, just thought to share. April
Begin forwarded message:
From: So Kim <SoKrpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Date: September 18, 2018 at 9:31:13 AM PDT
To: "hvybagsgcox.net" <hvbagsgcox.net>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca.gov>, CC <CC rpvca.gov>
Dear April,
Please see my responses in red text below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AicP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvvbags@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:54 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <6cruikshank@imc-2.com>
<*cruikshank@imc-2.com>; SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>; jgualeni@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Fwd: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Hi So,
Re: Number 7 and 15 on this page.
1) How is it doable to provide trail access running to and from RPV city boundaries to
Western Ave. beyond the existing trail access from portions of Eastview into Rolling Hills
Estates near the intersection at PV Dr. East/PV Dr.North and around the intersection located at
Via Colinta and Miraleste Dr.?
The only way is to obtain trail easements across privately owned properties. As this is
dependent on each property owner's willingness to provide the easement, Staff will propose
the following modification to the policy:
Ensure Encourage trail access to the Eastview area and Western Avenue.
2) Is the general plan to provide additional RPV trail access near Friendship Park/Miraleste
Dr/ 9th Western Ave. in San Pedro.... dependent upon a future annexing of residential
properties currently in San Pedro into RPV? No, annexation was not considered to provide
trail access.
I appreciate your time and attention.
Begin forwarded message:
From: hvybags <hvybags(q-)-cox.net>
Date: September 12, 2018 at 10:16:36 AM PDT
To: April <hvybagsCa-)-cox.net>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
2018-August---Track-Changes
Policies
Transportation Systems
1. Design public access into residential areas to control non -local traffic.
2, Require any new developments or redevelopment to provide streets wide enough to
support the City's future traffic needs and to address potential impacts to nearby
intersections resulting from such developments.
3. Encourage synchronization and coordination of traffic signals along arterials. G
4. Future residential developments shall provide direct access to roadways other than
arterials.
5. Work with other Peninsula cities and/or regional agencies to improve public
transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the
region.
Implement the Trail NetwoAt Plan to meet the recreational needs of the communi- ,
while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula.
7. Coordinate and cooperate with -neighboring jurisdictions to develop -trail networks.
8. Prohibit motorized vehicles from using paths and trails, except for disabled access,
emergency or maintenance vehicles.
9. Require that all new developments, where appropriate, establish paths and trails.
10. Seek funding for acquisition, development and maintenance of trails.
11. Implement trails on existing rights-of-way and easements in accordance with the Trails
Network Plan. Where applicable, consideration should be given to adding cross-walk
push-buttons at proper equestrian height levels where equestrian trails traverse
signalized intersections.
Include safety measures such as the separation of uses, fences, signage, etc., in the
design and construction of paths and trails.
Encourage the safe and courteous use of trails by educating users as appropriate.
Ensure public access to the Rancho Palos Verdes shoreline.
Ensure trail access to the Eastview Area and Western Avenue.
Encourage and provide trail and recreational facilities that support healthy living.
Explore options to develop a City equestrian park.
4
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:30 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Portuguese Bend Zone 2 building permit
-----Original Message -----
From: Melinda Politeo [mailto:m.politeo@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 1:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Portuguese Bend Zone 2 building permit
> Dear RPV City Council,
> My name is Melinda Politeo, and I am the owner of an undeveloped lot in zone 2, Portuguese Bend RPV. My parents, Frank
and Zdenka Politeo, purchased this lot in 1962 before any building moratorium was in effect. My parents paid fair market
value for a buildable lot and planned on constructing a family home on our lot.
> Even though my mother died at 92 a few months ago, and my father is now 94, they never gave up hope that one day our
family would be able to build a home on our Portuguese Bend lot.
> My corner lot is located at the south end of Ginger Root Lane, where Ginger Root intersects with Narcissa Drive, directly
across the road from the equestrian center. APN is 7572-014-016.
> Abutting my lot are occupied homes that were constructed before 1962, and both my lot and these homes have been and
continue to be solid as a rock.
> Please allow me to fulfill my parent's wish and finally build a home for my Dad on our Portuguese Bend lot.
> Thank you,
> Melinda Politeo
> Sent from my iPad
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: motion to approve funds for update of Portuguese Bend Zone 2 EIR
From: Leanne Twidwell [mailto:leetwid@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 12:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: re: motion to approve funds for update of Portuguese Bend Zone 2 EIR
To members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
Thank you for considering an update of the Environmental Impact
Report of Zone 2 in the Portuguese Bend area.
We are residents of Portuguese Bend and also own one of the empty
lots affected by your actions.
In the time since the last Environmental Impact Report, at least nine
new homes have been constructed in Zone 2. You may recall that the
previous EIR, which was tabled, held that further development in the
area would be safe; nonetheless, many residents of the area predicted
that any new construction would result in untold damage to existing
homes. It appears that notwithstanding these predictions, Portuguese
Bend has not slipped into the Pacific Ocean during the intervening
years
We believe the data in the updated EIR will bear this out and dispel
further objections to development of any of the remaining lots in Zone
2, should lot owners desire to do so.
We hope you will approve the funds to update the EIR as a first step in
gathering data to help you reach a decision regarding further
development in the area.
Sincerely,
George and Leanne Twidwell
32 Sweetbay Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
N1
CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, September 18, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Emails from: SUNSHINE; April Sandell; Jean Longacre
2 Emails from: Neil Siegel; Peter Nopper; Jerry Johnson; Maria
Gutierrez; Jesus Jesse Gutierrez; Robert Bacon; Michael A. Griffith
and Suzanne Black Griffith; Michael E. Nopper; Subhash and Jennifer
Mendonca; Jim York; Andrea Joannou; Letter from Bob Nelson
Respectfully submitted,
AyCorn
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180918 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 2:54 PM
To: So Kim; Lukasz Buchwald; Irving Anaya; Elias Sassoon; Cory Linder; Trails; Juan
Hernandez; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC; Citymaster@hotmail.com; traildoctor@cox.net
Subject: A clue to the CRITERIA in relation to the TNP and General Plan Updates
Attachments: D M Criteria July 4, 2012.doc
Hi So, Lukasz, Irving and all of the RPV Trails Team,
I lifted this from the LA Fire Departments comments on the General Plan Update (Page B-115 in the
Staff Report for Council's September 18, 2018 Meeting):
As for making scanned PDFs copy/paste-able, we will look. into it. This letter is not. So, I retyped these
two items. Call it a labor of love.
4. Access roads shall be maintained with a minimum of 10 feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire
access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clear -to -sky with the exception of protected tree
species. Protected tree species overhanging fire access roads shall be maintained to provide a
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.
4. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15% except where topography makes it
impractical to keep within such grade. In such cased, an absolute maximum of 20% will be allowed
for up to 150 feet distance. The average maximum allowed grade, including topographical difficulties,
shall be no more than 17%. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10% in ten feet.
This is Development and Maintenance Criteria. Compare this with the TYPE 2 trail in the TRAIL
DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. Item 4, above, speaks to the
"PRISM". Item 5 speaks to the "GRADE". The attached document is, sometimes, referred to as the
"Trail Criteria Matrix". It is intended to be used as a "shorthand" to establish the objectives of a trail
design, repair or ongoing maintenance. It was created by the Western States Trail Foundation (which
is responsible for maintaining the Western States Trail which is a 100 mile, historic, Pony Express
route) to standardize/clarify, in Agreements, what volunteers were offering to do in relation to what
Forest Service and Environmental Regulators were permitting them to do. It has turned out to be a
useful tool in all jurisdictions which have and/or desire to have trails.
This is why it was recommended to and the RPV City Council Approved its insertion in the Trails
Network Plan, TRAIL STANDARDS: GENERAL section and for the trail TYPE to be applied to the
individual trail descriptions in the Conceptual Trails Plan section. The word Criteria is to replace the
word Standards for that factor for each trail. In many situations, the word "Criteria" is more
appropriate than the word "Standards" in Policies, RFP's and in Maintenance Agreements.
This impacts the General Plan Update in relation to how much sub -Plans are to be simply referred to
in the various Element's Goals and Policies as opposed to being redundant. It is my recommendation
that Staff and the public should not have to reference two different and potentially conflicting
documents when addressing a specific topic. We have a Coastal Specific Plan, something of an
infrastructure plan, a Parks Master Plan, a Trails Network Plan and soon will have a Natural
Communities Conservation Plan. All the General Plan needs to do is direct everyone to equally
consider all of the Elements and sub -Plans in relation to every proposed project. If Staff doesn't do
that, then, we will continue to produce isolated designs with negative impacts on other Goals.
Similar to the CRITERIA, the trail Categories are the key to referencing the Status factor of the
individual trail descriptions. The more comprehensive Conceptual Trails Plan section of the TNP was
written and approved because Staff was not implementing the Trails Network Plan. The Categories
key was created to help Staff figure out which department was to pursue a specific trail enhancement
opportunity based on the ownership of the underlying property. Staff still didn't get it so the direction
was added to the General Plan as Amendment 22.
(This is a side note about a historic oddity about the number 22 and RPV trails. In the existing
General Plan, the Conceptual Equestrian Network is figure 22. CTP trail A22 of the PV Loop Trail is
the most abused by Staff. The addition of the Trails Categories is General Plan Amendment 22. The
conversion of the Amendment to a Transportation Policy made it Policy 22. In the update process it
has shifted around and now in the final, recommended version, it is back to Policy 22. Just weird.)
It all comes down to how our foundational documents are to be used. It is the current "Staff
preference" that they be wordy, redundant, inconsistent and therefore substantially ignored. For best
results, should use of the CRITERIA become a Policy in the General Plan and restated as a key to a
factor in the CTP? That is the way the Categories are currently handled. And, neither are being
implemented. Who makes this "formatting" decision?
... S 310-377-8761
This is a concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and
assign to a master plan application, a minimal, ultimate objective and avoid repeated
environmental impact studies, reports etc. prior to when funding becomes available
for actual Engineering, improvement or repair of a trail.
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4, 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE
GRADE
PRISM" *
TREAD * * *
Average
Maximum
Distance+
Vertical Horizontal
Minimum Width
1
3%
5%
30'
12' 8'
5'
2
5%
10%
100'
15' 12'
8'
3
5%
15%
100'
15' 10'
8'
4
10%
15%++
100'
12' 8'
6'
5
10%
18%++
100'
12' 6'
4'
6
10%
20%++
100'
12' 5'
3'
7
15%
20%++
100'
12' 4'
2'
These "guidelines" are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi -use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another.+++ For instance:
TYPE 1 — Wheelchairs. (ADA compliant.)
TYPE 2 — Large emergency vehicles. (Fire Department compliant.)
TYPE 3 — Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
emergency vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 — Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 — Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 — Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7 — Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Note: Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones
should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism". Any hardscape (such as a
driveway) that crosses a trail tread should have an anti-skid surface. Vertical
obstructions (such as curbs and water bars) should be no more than six inches high.
Access to ADA compliant alternate routes should be provided.
* A criterion is a standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
** A trail "prism" is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread. Nothing
higher than six (6) inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2) linear
feet along the trail. The trail tread need not be centered in the prism particularly
for "line of sight", big old tree, and/or "safety triangle" considerations.
*** The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side with
water drainage considerations.
+ There should be a level distance of at least eight (8) feet or a level turnout
before and after any instance where the trail tread reaches the maximum
grade for the maximum distance.
++ Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination,
it must meet the average for the trail TYPE. (User expectation signage.)
+++ A "destination" is a trailhead, vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE
can change without leaving someone stuck and having to backtrack,
unintentionally. Identify them with GPS waypoints.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 7:49 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: RPV General Plan — Amendment v. Update
Late carr
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV General Plan — Amendment v. Update
Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,
I have found the box of crackers which is causing me so much discomfort. It all comes down to what
constitutes a General Plan Amendment. An update of "factual information" such as "folding in"
Council approved Amendments should not be such a big deal.
Below is an excerpt of the December 21, 2004 City Council minutes.
General Plan — Program for Completing the Update. (701)
Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Councilman Long, to (1) Direct Staff to
proceed with drafting proposed amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies as
recommended by the general Plan 'Update Steering Committee for future review by the
Planning Commission and City Council; (2) Direct Staff to prooeed with an update of the
factual information within tura General Plan for future reviews by the Planning
Commission and City Council; (3) Direct Staff to proceed with the proposed
improvements to the general format of the General Plan and the mandatory elements
for future review by the Planning Commission and City Council in order to make the
Plan more user friendly; (4) Direct Staff to release an RFQ to obtain consultant
assistance with updating portions of the General Plan, and (6) Disband the General
Plan update Steering Committee.
Big Deal #1. With the Committee's recommendations in hand and a Council directive to proceed with
drafting Amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies, Staff never logged in this proposed
Amendment nor did Staff point out that the City Council Policy Number 33 (below) is not clear about
who has the discretion when the "Applicant" is the City Council. Each of our Housing Element
Updates have been logged in, reviewed by PC, agendized, heard and Approved by Council. Why not
this "update"? There are a couple of seriously impactful changes to the City's direction contained in
the Steering Committee's recommendations. The annoying "cracker crumbs" in this case is the fact
that Staff has been taking actions as though these recommendations had been taken through City
Council Policy Number 42 (also below).
A staff report (now called an Agenda Report without an update of Council Policy #42) has never been
produced for this specific Committee Recommendation to be presented to the Planning Commission
and then the City Council. Apparenty it is just "chatter" that the recommendations are "essentially the
same" as the existing Goals and Policies. This is not just obfuscation. This is a bold faced lie and
Staff has been getting away with it for almost 14 years.
Big Deal #2. Nowhere in the above Motion does it say Staff should propose and integrate their own
recommended changes into the process. If a subsequent Council gave that direction then at least the
newly proposed Land Use Designation, OPEN SPACE- HILLSIDE, should have been logged in and
processed as a separate General Plan Amendment. The annoying "cracker crumbs" in this case is
the fact that it was instigated under the guise of the availability of new technology. "Extreme slopes"
and "high slopes"are primarily a Health and Safety issue. Now that we know precisely where they
occur, they should all be shown, somewhere. Resource Management Districts are in the existing
General Plan. The ones which relate to slopes have graphic representations on figures 9 and
12. These need a technology update. Duplicating some of the info on the Land Use Map is
unnecessary and misleading. Same with the other Resource Management Districts.
Do understand that a General Plan is substantially a directive to Staff to guide them in making
decisions and recommendations. Ordinances and Codes are produced by Staff written Council
Resolutions each of which declare that they are in "compliance" with the General Plan. I still hold the
opinion that a General Plan should be no more than the stated Goals and Policies. Unfortunately, the
State of California (which requires that we have a General Plan in the first place) requires that we
include a whole bunch of "Elements" and prescribed text.
So be it. What I want to know (and I think the City Council should know) is... What, in this latest
draft, is State mandated, what is an integration of previously approved Amendments, what reflects
proposed land use designation changes, what are subtle reinterpretations and what are simply word
processing faux pas? Rewriting the City's history is just plain unnecessary.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER: 33 DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 05/06/97 SUBJECT: General
Plan Amendment Initiation Request Procedure POLICY: It shall be the policy of the City Council that
the General Plan Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) process shall be an optional process to be
followed at the discretion of an applicant. In the event that an optional General Plan Amendment
Initiation Request (GPAIR) application is filed, the following requirements shall be adhered to: 1. The
applicant shall submit the required application...
CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER: 42 DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 08/18/09 SUBJECT: Form of Staff
Recommendations to the City Council POLICY: It shall be the policy of the City Council that in preparing staff
reports to the City Council, Staff will clearly present its independent and professional recommendation to the
City Council under the customary "Recommendation" section of the staff repot, in addition to presenting the
recommendation or decision of the Planning Commission or other advisory board or committee on the matter in
question.
Your September 18, 2018 Agenda just arrived. Have a lovely week. ...S 310-377-8761
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:50 AM
To: So Kim
Cc: cc
Subject: Fwd: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
HI So,
I sent my questions to you a couple days ago but haven't received your response. Today is Friday and I do hope
you have a minute to respond before the end of the day.
It's important for me to understand these transportation plans prior to making any comment.
Thank you.
April L. Sandell
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags(a--)cox.net>
Subject: Fwd: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Date: September 14, 2018 at 7:40:41 AM PDT
To: April <Hvybags -,cox.net>
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:56 AM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Late corn
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 10:54 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>
<jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>; SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>; jgualeni@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Fwd: Eastview portion of the General Plan document
Hi So,
Re: Number 7 and 15 on this page.
1) How is it doable to provide trail access running to and from RPV city boundaries to Western Ave. beyond
the existing trail access from portions of Eastview into Rolling Hills Estates near the intersection at PV Dr.
East/PV Dr.North and around the intersection located at Via Colinta and Miraleste Dr.?
2) Is the general plan to provide additional RPV trail access near Friendship Park/Miraleste Dr/ 9th Western
Ave. in San Pedro.... dependent upon a future annexing of residential properties currently in San Pedro into
RPV?
I appreciate your time and attention.
Begin forwarded message:
From: hvybags <hvybagsc@cox.net>
Date: September 12, 2018 at 10:16:36 AM PDT
To: April <hvybagsacox.net>
Se rpt froiii inv Verizon Wireless 4G 1,11: miarti hone
From: jeanlongacre@aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:35 PM
To: cc
Subject: General Plan Update
Dear City Council,
Having served on the General Plan Update Steering Committee, it is important to me that our recommendations are
forwarded to the City Council intact. Twelve citizens spent 2 years discussing the meaning of each and every word in the
Goals and Policies. Our recommendations represent important and well thought out changes. While they may look similar,
they are not "essentially the same" as the original.
Any recommendations by the staff should be identified as such. Please use the tracking version of the Steering
Committee's recommendations but include the staffs recommendations in a different color.
Thank you.
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
From: Neil Siegel <siegel.neil@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:21 AM
To: CC; Neil Siegel
Subject: opinion regarding item 2 of regular business, City Council meeting on 18 September
2018
from: Neil Siegel, Thyme Place
I write to you to provide my opinion about item 2 of regular business on the City Council agenda of 18
September: consideration and possible action to award a Professional Services Agreement to Rincon Consulting
to complete the EIR associated with proposed revisions to Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance.
I have been both the president of the Portuguese Bend Community Association, and a long-term member of the
Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District board of directors. These experiences have provided me with
some knowledge of the matter at issue.
The original document that divided Portuguese Bend into zones — written by geologist Dr. Perry Ehlig — titled
Zone 2 as "Subdivided land unaffected by large historic landslides", and stated that "The undeveloped lots ...
could be developed without adversely affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide" (emphasis added).
Bear in mind that all of these properties are already zoned for single-family residences. Normal considerations
of development — density, traffic, and so forth — ought to be considered resolved by that zoning.
Given the undeniable fact of that zoning for single-family residences, the only reasonable and proper basis for
denying the owners of these properties the right to develop their properties would be proof that it would be
unsafe. A court, however, found that it was safe to develop some of these lots — the so-called Monks properties,
and the City agreed (as memorialized in their change to the City code that allowed such development); this
makes it at least arguable that the other zone -2 lots can also safely be developed. That was most definitely Dr.
Ehlig's written opinion — I knew him personally and professionally. It was also the opinion of Dr. Robert
Douglas, a professor of geology at USC who studied the landslide and Zone 2 for decades.
So, the City's proposal to proceed with the EIR to investigate the question of safety is the fair and just thing for
the City to do, and I applaud your re -commencing this activity, and therefore, support the issuance of a
consultant contract for that purpose.
Thank you for listening to my opinion on this matter.
From: Peter Nopper <pnopper@outlook.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 10:19 PM
To: CC
Subject: Agenda Topic: Environmental Impact Report
Dear City Council,
I would like to encourage you to vote in favor of funding completion of the Environment Impact Report associated with
proposed revisions to Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance next week.
My father purchased his zone 2 property 38 years ago and it was his continuous dream to build a house on his zone 2
lot. He has seen injustice done to the zone 2 property owners multiple times over the years. He died last year a
disappointed man for not being able to build his house because of decisions made by the city of RPV. I am carrying the
torch for him now to fulfill his dreams and I am using his house plans and soils report. I have filed a soils application with
the city under "exclusion" and I will be driving this project through for my father. The exclusion application will need to
be decided on by the city council and I am sure the EIR will be a pivotal document in making that decision. Please stop
the injustice and represent the individual in this country and not an overzealous HOA.
Thank you for your time,
Peter Nopper 858 740-1730
From: Jerry Johnson <jjmountainman0l@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 8:44 AM
To: CC
Subject: City Council Meeting 9/18/2018 Regular Business Item #2 re: Awarding contract to
complete EIR report pertaining to Landslide Moratorium Report in Zone 2
As a property owner in Zone 2, 1 am writing to you to express my support for the proposed completion of the EIR
report. This report, when completed, should lay to rest all questions related to the building of single-family residences in
Zone 2. The expense of the initial report will be justified only when the report is updated and submitted for your
consideration. Everyone who owns property or who lives on our beautiful peninsula is entitled to be well informed. As our
City Council, you will have shown a willingness to consider expert opinions and engage in public discussions concerning
this divisive issue. Thank you for exercising the responsibility and trust we expect from City
Government. Regards Jerry Johnson
From: Maria Gutierrez <rainier@q.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 12:26 PM
To: CC
Subject: In Consideration of updating the Zone 2 EIR
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
I am respectfully asking you to vote in favor of completing the Environmental Impact
Report in order to revise and update Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance.
In the mid -90's my parents purchased two lots (44 Cinnamon Lane and 55 Narcissa Drive) in
Rancho Palos Verdes with the belief that the Zone 2 landslide building moratorium that
had been in place would soon be lifted and that we would be able to build adjacent
houses. It was my mother's dream to live next door to her grand kids.
The geologist report by Dr Perry Ehlig in 1993 found that zone 2 "could be developed
without adversely affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide". In fact, Dr.
Ehlig found no evidence of recent landslide activity in Zone 2.
In the intervening years, due to the Monk law suit, all the properties surrounding our
two lots have been developed. Geological core testing of land just yards from our lots
have been found to be stable and buildable, but despite this my two lots remain a
moratorium island surrounded by new construction.
Thank you for your consideration and I ask that you vote in favor of funding the
continuation of the EIR study and update the Zone 2 landslide moratorium.
Maria Gutierrez, Trustee
APN#1s 7572 010 019, 7572 010 010
1
a
From: Jesus Jesse Gutierrez <lamaria jesus43@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:19 AM
To: CC
Subject: zone two
To the current members of Ranch Palos Verdes Council,
My name is Jesus Jesse Gutierrez in 1992 my wife and I purchased two lots from the estate of the late Frank Vanderlip.
Our intentions were to build a single-family home on each lot- one of the homes would be for myself and my wife, and
the other for my daughter and her future family. At the time that we purchased the lots, our real estate agent Sharon
gave us confidence the lots could be developed. The general assumption was that the CBA board would allow homes in
the zone two area to be built if they followed and met certain criteria from the planning department and geologist of the
city of Rancho PV. It was with that understanding that we purchased the lots.
It's now been 26 years going back -and -forth to determine whether Zone
2 lots can be developed. Jack Monks, with a small team of attorneys, brought a lawsuit against the City and got 16
properties in Zone 2 released for development. The rest of us lot owners still have our properties and though we were
not part of the Monk lawsuit, we were consistently being assured that our time would come. Many promises over the
years were made in good faith by people in the board and/or employees of the planning department that this matter
would eventually be resolved.
I hope that you can look at the facts that have already been compiled by independent contractors, geologists, and the
RPV planning department, and finally put this matter to rest. I wish you the very best and hope that someday soon this
will all be behind us.
Sincerely yours,
Jesus Jesse Gutierrez
From: Robert Bacon <southroof@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:43 AM
To: CC
Subject: Land Slide Moratorium Zone 2 EIR Completion
Dear Council Members:
My wife and I have owned a lot in Zone 2 for over 20 years and were residents of Portuguese Bend for over 15 years. We
have watched the proceedings and lawsuits make their way to where they are today. With the Monks lawsuit decision to
allow controlled building in Zone 2 we felt encouraged on our option to build a home. We are in favor of the City
completing the EIR concerning the safety of building on the remaining Zone 2 lots. We agree with and support the
comments of the other Zone 2 lot owners who are speaking in favor of completion of the EIR Tuesday September 18,
2018.
Sincerely,
Robert Bacon
From: suzanne black <suzannejoyblack@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2018 10:33 PM
To: CC
Subject: EIR Associated with Proposed Revisions to Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance - Case No. PLCA2018-0004
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
We are residents at 13 Fruit Tree Road and own a Zone 2 Lot at 11 Fruit Tree Road in Portuguese Bend.
We are in agreement with the recommended Council action and ask that the City move forward with awarding a
Professional Services Agreement to Rincon Consultants, Inc. in order to complete / update the Environment Impact
Report to revise the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance pertaining to Zone 2 in Portuguese Bend.
We appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Michael A. Griffith
Suzanne Black Griffith
From: Michael Nopper <mikenopper@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2018 10:56 PM
To: cc@rpvca.gov.; pnopper@outlook.com
Subject: PBC Zone 2 E.I.R study- City Council Agenda item
City of RPV,
In 2014 the city counsel decided to table the PBC Zone 2 E.I.R. report, after several PBCA members expressed
emotionally charged objections. Their opinions were based upon fear, and not legal arguments. Since then, several
Monks II houses have been built in zone 2, (right across the street form our lot), and the neighborhood has not slid into
the ocean. History now shows that any predictions of geological Armageddon as a result of building in Zone 2 was
nothing more than hysteria. After reviewing the video taped meeting, an observer might conclude that no owners in the
neighborhood were in favor of seeing the E.I.R completed, since nobody spoke up to support it. What you would not
have known was that my father was scheduled to speak at that meeting in favor of the E.I.R. Unfortunately, he suffered a
debilitating stroke just days before the meeting, and could not speak. With nobody to speak up in favor of the E.I.R., there
was a motion to table the matter until further notice. My father died last year, forever holding onto the belief that the city
would eventually do the right thing. Now, my brother and I are committed to being granted the same right to build as the
Monks II group, and we belong to a group with other zone 2 lot owners with the same intention. We have begun the
process of applying for a building permit. We expect that we will be able to work with the city to meet our objectives, both
as an individual lot owner, and a group.
Below is our rational arguments, based upon facts and legal precedent. Please take the time to research the facts, and
vote Yes to completing the E.I.R. study to allow us the right to build a house on our on our stable lot.
Portuguese Bend was divided into geologic zones in a report commissioned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in
1993. This document was written by geologist Dr. Perry Ehlig. In this report, Zone 2 was given the title "Subdivided
land unaffected (emphasis added) by large historic landslides", because Dr. Ehlig found no evidence of recent landslide
activity in Zone 2 (in contrast to some of the other zones defined in the same report, in which Dr. Ehlig did find evidence
of active landslide activity). In the section of this report describing his findings about Zone 2, Dr. Ehlig stated that "The
undeveloped lots ... could be developed without adversely affecting the stability of the large ancient landslide"
(emphasis added).
All of these properties are already zoned for single-family residences. Therefore, normal considerations of development
— density, traffic, and so forth — ought to be considered resolved by that zoning.
Given that these properties are already each zoned for single-family residences, the only reasonable and proper basis for
denying the owners of these properties the right to develop their properties would be proof that it would be unsafe. A
court, however, found that it was safe to develop lots within Zone 2 — the so-called Monks properties. The City of Rancho
Palos Verdes agreed with this assessment that such development was safe, as memorialized by their change to the City
ordinance that allowed development on the Monks lots. Since this change to the City ordinance allowing development on
the Monks lots, some of them have in fact safely been developed.
Dr. Ehlig's written opinion was that all of the zone -2 lots could safely be developed, and that the geology was similar
across all of the lots within Zone 2. This was also the opinion of Dr. Robert Douglas, a professor of geology at USC who
studied the landslide and Zone 2 for decades, and chaired the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement district for many years.
So, the City's proposal to proceed with the EIR to investigate the question of safety on the remaining (e.g., non -Monks)
lots within Zone 2 is the fair and just thing for the City to do, and I applaud your re -commencing this activity, and therefore,
support the issuance of a consultant contract for that purpose.
Thank you for considering my opinion on this matter
Michael E. Nopper
a.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members:
Jen Mendonca <jpm4ll89@gmail.com>
Sunday, September 16, 2018 4:59 PM
CC
Support in favor of funding the EIR Study
I am writing to express my strong support to vote in favor of funding the completion of the Environment Impact
Report (EIR) associated with proposed revisions to Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance next week.
My husband and I purchased our non -Monk lot in Zone 2 in 2013 with the goal of building our home to raise
our three kids in this beautiful city. We made this purchase based on the advice of our Realtor George Fotion,
that the City Council will agree with the EIR study recommendations and approve to include all the remaining
31 non -Monk lots in the moratorium exclusion just like the Monk lots. We believed that the previous City
Council would make the right decision and ratify the EIR study recommendations but were horrified to hear that
they tabled the EIR decision. This decision was made even though the city paid for this study and their own city
staff and the consultants hired by them to do this study confirmed that it was totally safe to build on the
remaining non -Monk lots in Zone 2.
The non -monk lot owners who want to build on their lots have suffered great injustice. My empty lot sits right
in the middle of houses all around it and one of them is a Monk lot house that was built just last year. Our
dream to build a house for our kids has been on hold for the past five years due to this injustice done to
me. From then on, we have continued to work towards this purpose of building our home on our lot. The
proposal to proceed with an EIR study to investigate the question of safety on the remaining (e.g., non -Monks)
lots within Zone 2 is the fair and the unbiased decision that the City Staff has recommended, and I have full faith
in our current City Council that they will right the wrong done to us non -Monk lot owners. I applaud the City
Staff for this recommendation and wholeheartedly support the issuance of a consultant contract for that
purpose. Please right the injustice done to us non -Monk lot owners.
Thank you,
Subhash & Jennifer Mendonca
917-582-0383
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 6:46 AM
To: CC
Subject: : Zone 2 EIR Revisions
> We are the owner of a legal lot on upper Cinnamon Lane. It is the only lot on the street where a home currently cannot
be built
> I encourage the city council to approve at the 9/18/18 meeting the contract for the professional services agreement
to complete the Zone 2 EIR revisions
> Jim York
> General Partner
> Arizona Land Associates, LP
From: Emily Colborn
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:22 PM
To: Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Zone 2 EIR
Late correspondence
From: Andrea Joannou [mailto:andrearpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:13 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Zone 2 EIR
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Andrea Joannou, I have lived in the Portugese Bend for over 15 years. I consider myself a long time
resident. I am writing today in favor and support of the City's decision to investigate and finalize the very overdue
EIR report. Therefore approving the proposal for a consultant contract with "Rincon Consultants" for the purpose of
this which will allow the remaining 31 non -monks within zone two to have building entitlements. These people have
been waiting for many years, paying thousands of dollars in property taxes. They deserve to build on their lot. I
commend the City Staff to finally getting this on the agenda and look forward to attending the meetings in the next
coming months. Thank you City Council.
Sincerely,
Andrea .Joannou
Tel: (310) 941-0777 1 andrearpv@gmail.com I
a
s'RECEIVED
City Council Meeting 911812018: Contract4one 2 EIR Finalization
SEP 17 2018
Bob Nelson ZONE 2 EIR: A VERY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT
6612 Channelview Court
RPV, CA 90275 DEPARTMENT
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro -Tem Duhovic, Councilmen Dyda, Alegria and Cruikshank
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s),
official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its
employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City'), It should be if solely as the view(s),
opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction
or decision of the City.
These comments refer to your Sept. 18, 2018, Agenda: Regular Business: Item 21 i.e., awarding a
contract to Ricon Consultants 'to complete the Environmental Impact Report associated with
proposed revisions to Zone 2 of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance.'
Rincon is the natural choice as they completed the March 201.4•' Zorie 2 Landslide Moratorium
Ordinance Revisions - Final EIR.' That was only 4 years ago and 'completing' it now should be easy.
1.. I support staff recommendation on this item. There are 2 items l would like to address. I
understand, as I..ate Correspondence, the odds of you having the time to read this and consider
what I've written are nil but, at least, I hope it is retained in the public record for future reference
by those affected.
2. Issues needing your intercession:
a. The 40 -year delay Imposed by previous Councils on completing build out of Zone 2.
Of the 117 lots, 31 (26%) remain impossible to develop, latest because in 2014 a past
Council 'tabled' Zone 2's completed 'Final' EIR,
b.The denial for 6 Vanderlip Drive landowners to split their large lot (lots 6, 10,20,60,
85 and 99) - using the Moratorium as rationale.
3. Tonight you have the opportunity to craft the designs, etc. of these remaining 31 homes in
Zone 2 and correct our past denial for Vanderlip lot owners to Split their lot,
That is, once again you have chance to do this without outsiders dictating your, actions, as
has happened in the past with Zone 2 lots.
History;
4. Zone 2 has 117 lots; as of 2018 only 26% (31.) remain to be developed, These have not been
able to be developed for 40 years (I was 37 back then!).
5. In 1978 our then Council established a Moratorium Zone (hence 40 years ago) stopping
development in the landslide area.
6. In 1993 Dr. Ehrig's Memo dated May 26, with the subject'Suggested Guidelines for Permitting
Development in the Moratorium Area,' found Zone 2, where these 31 homes are, to be
'unaffected by large historic landslides (about 130 acres).' And in 1 1h pages he detailed the
then situation:
"The 25 undeveloped lots in tract .14195 and 15 in tract 14500, and an undetermined
number in parcels served by Vanderlip Drive, could be developed without affecting the
stability of the large ancient landslide. In fact, if development were combined with
installation of additional wells, stability would be improved."
7. For years a minority of our existing Zone 2 homeowners proclaimed the lack of an EIR as the
major reason to further delay development of their neighbors lots.
S. however, we came within a hair of finalizing this EIR in your August 5, 2014, meeting (4
years ago) when, after the threat of a lawsuit by the Portuguese Bend homeowners
Association's attorney Stuart Miller (pg. 3 of these Minutes) and Councilman Jim Knight
citing'fissures in storm drain systems,' Councilman Misetich, seconded by then -
Councilwoman Brooks, joined by Councilman Duhovic voted to 'table' the EIR, putting it back
onto our Planning Department's purgatory shell'.
�a
City Council Meeting 9/18/2018: Contract: Zone 2 EIR Finalization
9. However, In the Staff Report for that session, staff stated: 'No new substantive impacts have
been identified that were not already covered or addressed in the final BIR document.'
Nonetheless, it was 'tabled,' that was 4 years ago, 4 years delay for your 31 RPV homeowners.
10. And tonight, like the Phoenix arising form the ashes, hopefully the staff proposal is adopted and
this'Final'EIR of 2014 will be resurrected, that is, re -finalized!
Most Important, our homeowners look to you, their Council, to end - finally and as soon as
possible - their 40 -year RPV imposed inability to enjoy their property, including
economically beneficial use. Shouldn't be that hard. The 2 014'Final' EIR hasn't changed.
11, However, as is their right under our laws, again we'll listen to a minority of the 117 Zone 2
homeowners raise reasons why their 31 neighbors should continue to be under RPV's 40 year
denial to build their homes and our Vanderlip Drive owners be denied splitting their lots, despite
these large lots being zoned <=Idu/aci-e.
(One, lot 20, has been told two structures and a garage has 'built out' the 7 -acre lot! How (toes
that fit with the zoning? And this lot already has multiple sewer connections.)
In summary,'60 Minutes'this Sunday featured an MIT lab known as the'Future LaW One person
described their mission statement as, 'The easiest way to predict the future is to invent It.'
That is what these Zone 2 and Vanderlip homeowners are asking you to do - after 40 years of
waiting! Invent: their future!
As always, the decision is yours! Thank you for this consideration.
ell
Bob Nelson
Attached are three documents from our Staffs Report to you dated March 3, 2009 involving
Vanderlip Drive lot splitting requests and their page numbers in that report.
1. The late Jack Downhill's Feb. 18, 2009 memo discussing splitting his Vanderlip lot #20. Pg, 10-
63.
2. Kathy Snell's Feb. 22, 2009 memo discussing splitting Vanderlip lots. Pages 10-65 thru 10-67.
3. The Hastings Feb. 19, 2009 memo discussing splitting the lot at 10 Vanderlip Drive, Pg. 10-83.
To: The Director of planning, Building and Code (Enforcement , n
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA> 90275RECEIV
Subject: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration FEB 18 20019
Planning Case o: ZON2009-00007 PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCE Ni•
As the owner of one of the lots in Zone 2 of the landslide Moratorium Area I wish to he on record as
follows:
1. I am In favor of the enactment of the Ordinance Revisions.
2. i would like to request that the code amendment be modified to explicitly clarify the term
"Undeveloped" to recognize the existence of certain lots which because of their size should be
eligible to be subdivided or lot split into several Individual lots consistent with the overall zoning
of the immediately surrounding properties. Failure to do so would constitute an
unconstitutional taking of my property under the California Constitution.
as sewer provisions,
4. Every aspect of governance of this parcel over a period of years such as: ACLAD, County Flood
Control, County Park, and West Basin Standby Fees etc. have been applied In a manner
consistent with allowable separation of this property Into several building lots. The zoning
designation of this property in accordance with City Ordinance No. 405 Code Table 02A Exhibit
"B" is District RSal.whlch means one unit per acre. I have found that my tax on that kind of Tax
Item to be between 7 and g times larger than those of RS -3 and smaller Districts.
Jack Downhill
�20 Vanderilp Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 901275
From: KSnellOOOI@aol.com
Sent- Sunday, February 22, 2009 710 PM
To: planning@rpv.com; cityclerk@rpv.com; kitf@rpv.com
Cc: KSne110001@aol.com
Subject: Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions - Case No ZON2009-00007
February 22, 2009
City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90276
Page I of 4
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Case NoION2009.00007 (code Amendment
and Environmental Assessment) for the proposed "Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions'
To be included in Public Meeting March 3, 2009 or when heard by the City Council
Mayor and Council members:
The proposed "Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions" have neglected to add a
pathway for the four parcel owners, of 8, 10, 20 & 98 Vanderlip Driveway in Zone 2 to request
a lot split to have R -I one acre lots as designated by the RPV zoning code. The owner of
the parcel at 98 Vanderlip Driveway is a plaintiff in the case of Monks v. Rancho Palos
Verdes,
The City's prohibition against lot splits in Zone 2 is a "taking and an impermissible
Imped inne tit to the development" of the parcel owners' property. Acase can benlade
showing a "taking" based on the California State Court of Appeal's decision in the case of
Monks v. Rancho Palos Verdes. Why are the parcel owners on Vanderlip, Drive being
discriminated against? Will it be opening the door to development in Zone 1? Wasn't the
door opened with the Court of Appeals decision in favor of the plaintiffs?
#60 Narcissa and an adjacent lot totaling 1,5 acres sold for $.2,436,525.00 last Septet -Ober.
This is an example of property values in Zone 2 and represents potential losses for those
parcel owners in Zone 2 who are not allowed to split their parcels. Estimate value of one
acre housing site in Zone 2 = One million dollars.
Property off of Vanderlip Driveway has a higher degree of stability (exceeding 1.5)
than most of the other properties located in Zone 2. A new exception category in the City's
Landslide Moratorium Ordinance is requested to provide the ability to request lot splits in
Zone 2. Allowing lot splits in Zone 2 would provide Lip to 15 new building sites, one of which
is now included in "—sixteen (16) lots that are owned by the plaintiffs in the Monks
case,'"
The plan of Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency called for over 500 new homes.
Tax increment funding continues to be received by the RDA based on the RDA's plan to
remove blight and allow the construction of the new homes including low income housing,
2/23/2009 10-65
N
Page 2 of 4
The RDA planned for the same 15 building sites off of Vanderlip Driveway in Zone 2 once
"the blight" was cleared. Building homes on 1 acre sites can't be realized without a revision
In the "Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance" to allow a process to apply for a lot split.
The Abalone Cover Sewer line capacity was designed to accommodate these same potential
15 building sites off of Vanderlip Driveway. Sewer line laterals to serve the future
homes were installed in anticipation of the lot splits and. construction as promised by the
former City Council members,
Abalone Cove Abatement District (ACLAD) assesses an al'ITILIE11 Benefit Assessment to pay
for landslide abatement, The parcels on Vpnderill) Drive In Zone 2 have paid annually since
1984 based on 1 acre=1 unit. The parcel owners in Zone 2 on Vanderlip Drive have paid
ACLAD over $150,000.00 since 1984 to abate the slide so they can sub -divide and build.
Zone 2 hasn't moved for over 100,000 years.
Miss -information about the GPS monument on Lipper Cinnamon moving was reported by
a City Council member during the last hearin( gs an the Moratorium Ordinance, I was
surprised by this very serious accusation made by a Council member during the hearing
and gave up asking for the right to build. Factual information was released after the hearings
that the monument was moved during street paving, When the monument was placed back,
it was not placed exactly back in the same spot. LOL>
Roads, utilities and sewers are in for the 15 new building sites in Zone 2 on Vanderlip
Driveway. Minor grading will be necessary for some of the lot after one acre lot splits are
allowed.
In approximately 1985, the then Mayor Jackie Bacharach and City Council took away the
right of sub -dividing in the moratorium area with the promise that it would be reinstated in a
few years after the slide was abated. Mayor Bacharach further stated that paying the
"benefit assessment" to ACLAD would benefit the property owners by stopping the slide and
allowing subdivision and building to take place. L0L>
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved a lot split for John & Suzanne Vanderlip in the
1990's that created the lot on the south side known as 98 Vanderlip. A Monk litigate now
owns the property, Los Angeles County allowed lot splits of 8, '10 and 20 Vanderlip Drive in
(fie early 1970's. L. A. County continued granting lot splits and sub -divisions through the mid
1980's u til the City placed restrictions on them. Lot splits were granted after that by
exception until the City Council placed severe restrictions on the Moratorium area with the
coming of the NCCP, All lots were not sub -divided back in the 1940's.
Perry L. Ehlig, City Geologist recommended guidelines for permitting development in the
moratorium area to the City Council dated May 26, 1993, Zones were established by Dr.
Ehlig and approved by the City Council. Dr. Ehlig reported for Zone 2:
"...parcels served by Vanderlip Drive could be developed without adversely affecting the
stability of the large ancient landslide. Most lots can be developed with minimal grading."
Allowing the lot splits in Zone 2 will improve fire safety with developed lots next to the
potential Nature Preserve. Now there are weeds. The Increased payments to ACLAD will
assist with de -watering and projects, The increase tax increment going to RDA Will allow
further slide abaternent for Zones 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
2/23/2009
0XIM
Page 3 of 4
In the 1990's, John and Suzanne Vanderlip were allowed to build a double lined pool to Dr.
Ehlig's pool specifications in the Moratorium area. Not allowing the construction of pools and
fountains in the Moratorium area is also a further taking of property rights.
Your earliest attention to allowing a path for lot splits is required to prevent further financial
loss and hardship to the property owners in Zone 2 on Vanderlip, Driveway. Additional
delays or Court action will Cause Substantial losses due to property values going down with
the declining econorny. Time is critical to stop the losses. I would like to split off and sell 2
lots to recILICe the burden of maintenance, responsibility and cost then retire.
Why does one have to sue to protect prop6rty rights? Will my neighbors and I follow the
path of John Monks before we are able to split and build?
In Memory of John Monks:
"...1 think we all agree -that the right for individuals to own and make use of property Is absolutely basic in a
free, democratic society. Governmental prohibitions, conditions and restrictions on such ownership and use
only be imposed for good and clear cause and even then, If severe, may require compensation...
John Monks September 13, 2000
"—the finakiciat burden has been extreme and I wish to have the right ouse ant] build on my Land which Is
stable. You must agree with me that is unreasonable that while I continue to pay taxes and upkeep on my
land, It is not I who benefits..." John Monks October 4, 2000
I am personally very sad that John Monks didn't live long enough to enjoy his property. As a resident and tax
payer in Rancho Palos Verdes, I am very disturbed over the amount of attorney's fees the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes pays for litigation when a good negotiator could work most things out.
References:
Monks V, Rancho Palos Verdes including but not limited to California State Court of Appeal's
decision, testimony & depositions of all experts, all court transcripts and everything related to the case
including RPV Hearing records, correspondence and attachments.
Palos Verdes MLS for the lost 10 years for homes that have Sold In and outside the Moratorium area.
Les Evans' memorandum of January 25, 1997 and its attachments
Report of Keith Ehlert, C,E,G. 1242. & Stephen W. Ng. 6E 637.
Executive Summary of Panel of Experts stating Zone 2 meets 1.5 stability factor locally.
Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency EIR and Plan. Records receipts of Tax Increments that
have been paid to RPV RDA, to date, and disbursements including low income housing funds
L. A. County & Friends. of the Band VS Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency
Abalone Cove Sewer District FIR and Plan, amendments, supplements, hearings and correspondence
Stuart et all VS County of Los Angeles, Rancho Palos Verdes, (RDA)
Floran vs County of Los Angeles, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code & Cenerel Plan and all amendments
Changes to Rancho Palos Verdes Landslide Moratorium Area from 1973 to current date, all Environmental
Impact Reports, staff correspondence, hearing documents
MEMORANDUM: To: Trent Pulliam Frorn: Perry L, Efilig, City Geologist dated May 26, 1993
Establishment of Moratorium Zones & map
All correspondence to/from Perry Ehlig and Rancho Palos Verdes
Records of Lot Split for John & Suzanne Vanderlip for the parcel of 99 Vanderlip Driveway creating 98; 75, 79
& 83 Narcissa; 8, 110,20 Vanderlip and all other lot splits and boundary realignments.
Records of Dr. Ehlig's pool double walled guidelines
Records ofl approval of pool for John & Suzanne Vanderlip for 99 Vanderlip Driveway
Records of Fountains & Pool permb within moratorium area
All filmed Rancho Palos Verdes City Council nneetIngs and Redevelopment meetings back to 1979
Thank you for your consideration in protecting property rights,
2/23/2009
Aim
Michael and Sheri Hastings,
10 Vanderlip Drive,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2009 FEB 2 3 2009
February 19, 2009 PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMEW
Dear Sir,
This is a written comment in response to the "MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION"
regarding the proposed "Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions" letter
dated February 9, 2009.
The current Landslide Moratorium Ordinance document mentions provisions for a lot
line adjustment but does not reference applications for lot splits at all. In April of 2006
approached the Director of Planning for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and asked
about applying for a lot split on our property at 10 Vanderlip Drive and was told that I
'ro
v'
In0
A
erde
nd w
n
ps
rl
d
as to
I
0
0
ar
s
Id t
2
k
ha'o
0'
edt
6
t loll
splits were not allowed in the Landslide Moratorium area since development was not
1 .9
allowed on undeveloped lots. With the proposed change in subsection P to allow
I
development of undeveloped lots In Zone 2, property owners In Zone 2 should be
allowed to apply for a lot split. The City needs to add a paragraph in the Landslide
41 Landslide Area and Zone 2.
Tha 1 0
ichael Hastings
i