20181016 Late CorrespondenceOctober 15, 2018
Public Record s Request
1. Copies of all checks paid to the City of Green Hills as reimbursement for the
City's defense costs in defending the challenge of Sharon Loveys to the grading
permits issued to Green Hills in connection with the Arroyo Vista Development
(Sharon Loveys vs.City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al. Case No. BS 172886),
and the Alta Vista Development ( Sharon Loveys vs. City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, et al.BS 174859) both of which are pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court;
2 . Copies of all letters, correspondence, emails, or other written documents which
refer, request, or acknowledge receipt of payment by Green Hills to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes of the City's legal fees and other defense costs in
connection with the City's defense of each of the foregoing lawsuits:
3. Copies of all invoices (with redactions attorney-client privileged matters) from the
City's counsel to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes which reflect the amount billed
to Green Hills for the City's defense of the pending lawsuits to which Item No.1
refers;
4. Copies of Cemetery Maps or Plot Maps in the possession of the City which
depict the survey and subdivision of lots or plots within any sub-area of the
Green Hills Cemetery submitted to the City by Green Hills after January 31,
2017, pursuant to Condition No. 31 of Resolution No. 2017-03 approved by the
City Council on January 31, 2017 (copy enclosed);
5 . Copies of all checks paid by the City to the law firm of the City Attorney since
January I, 2018 on account of legal services billed to the City by each law firm
retained by the City to perform legal services for the City; and;
6. Copies of all invoices (with redactions for attorney-client privilege) which reflects
the sums paid by the City to Aleshire & Wynder on account of legal services
rendered in connection with the City's Investigation of Unauthorized Disclosures
from closed door sessions.
R ECE IVED FROM: ~G E NOA IT EM: fvb/10 f.om~
Shaam t..ovevs
AND MADE P.ARTO. FT.HE.RE7 0RD/}THE l COUNCIL MEETING OF: J..Q '' .a.of/(
'O FFICE Ofti t i-II C,lty ~L~R K '
31. Recordation of Final Maps. The property owner shall submit any map to the Director
to be recorded at least 30-days prior to recording of said map with the Los Angeles
County Recorder's Office. No later than 30 days after recordation, the property owner
shall submit a recorded copy to the Director.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03.
32. Fees and Costs. Except as otherwise specified, the property owner is responsible
for all costs complying with the provisions of the Master Plan and of this Conditional
Use Permit. The property owner shall be required to pay 110% of the estimated
amount of the cost of services to be provided on behalf of the City by any outside
consultants that have been retained by the City to render services specifically in
connection this project, in the form of a trust deposit account (or reimbursement
agreement or other instrument approved by the City Attorney), prior to
commencement of such services (e.g. City Attorney, City Engineer, Geotechnical
Consultants, Noise Consultants, etc.). The property owner shall adequately fund the
trust deposit account prior to the commencement of services, in amounts reasonably
requested by the City, based upon an estimate of the cost of services for the period
of at least 90 days for which services are rendered. In addition, the trust deposit
account shall be replenished within two weeks of receipt of notice from the City that
additional funds are needed.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 39 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03.
33.Defense of Claims Against Project.
a. Non-Liability of City. The Parties acknowledge that: (i) In the future there may be
challenges to legality, validity and adequacy of the Project approvals; and (ii) If
successful, such challenges could delay or prevent the ongoing use of the Project
as provided herein. In addition to the other provisions of the CUP, including,
without limitation, the provisions of this Section, City shall have no liability under
the CUP for the inability of property owner to develop the Property as contemplated
by the Master Plan or the CUP as the result of a judicial determination that the
General Plan, Master Plan, the Land Use Regulations, the CUP, or portions
thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law.
b. Revision of Land Use Restrictions. If for any reason the General Plan, Master
Plan, Land Use Regulations, this CUP or any part thereof of the property approvals
is hereafter judicially determined as provided above to be not in compliance with
the State or Federal Constitutions, laws or regulations and if such noncompliance
can be cured by an appropriate amendment thereof otherwise conforming to the
provisions of this CUP, then the CUP shall remain in full force and effect to the
extent permitted by law. The Master Plan and this CUP shall be amended, as
necessary, in order to comply with such judicial decision.
Resolution No. 2017-03
Exhibit A
Page 26 of 28
Written remark from a Rancho
Palos Verdes Resident,,,,,,
When, Where and How did RPV
make the decision to disregard the
numbers set forth in the Master
Plan?????
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 16, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
D
Description of Material
Email exchanges between Community Development Director
Mihranian and Jim York
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 15, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20181016 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Octavio Silva
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:05 AM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
FW: Exception "T"
Late Correspondence related to Item No. Don the City Council consent calendar.
Thanks
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
{310) 544-5234
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim York [mailto:theyorkproperties@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 1:16 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Gary Weber <gsweberconsulting@gmail.com>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Exception "T"
Ok. We have no choice. We will not give up our plans for 37 homes
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
>On Oct 15, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>
>Jim,
>
> If the Council is to consider that change, tomorrow night's item will have to pulled off the consent calendar and the
ordinance will have to be reintroduced.
>
>Ara
>
>Ara Michael Mihranian
>Community Development Director
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
>
>
> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. b.
1
> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
> 310-544-5228 (telephone)
> 310-544-5293 (fax)
> aram@rpvca.gov
> www.rpvca.gov
>
>
>Ill Do you really need to print this e-mail?
>
>This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential
and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized
dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
>Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:22 AM
>To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
>Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Gary Weber <gsweberconsulting@gmail.com>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
>Subject: Re: Exception "T"
>
>Ara and Octavio
>
>We request that the city council modify the language to specify that the subdivision restrictions only apply to the portion of
the property subject to the landslide moratorium
>
>Jim York
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
»On Oct 15, 2018, at 11:10 AM, Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>>
»Hi Jim,
>>
» I touched bases with Ara this morning regarding your inquiry and wanted to provide you with an update. With respect to
your first question, the Municipal Code includes provisions for the construction of a Second Unit (Chapter 17.10). The
development criteria for a Second Unit is more consistent with your description of the proposed 'guest residence', as standards
allow for structures 16' in height. In terms of maximum structure size, amended Exception 'T' code language limits the square
footage of residential buildings (i.e. primary residence and second unit) and accessory structures to a combined maximum of
8,000 (excluding the square footage of non-habitable accessory structures permitted through Exception Categories 'I' and 'S').
>>
» In regards to your second question, the current Exception 'T' code language indicates that a covenant on the "subject
property" be recorded restricting the future subdivision of said property. The covenant would be applicable to the entire
property, not just the area of the property under the Landslide Moratorium. Additional code language would be needed to
make that distinction.
>>
» If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach me at the information listed below.
>>
»Thank you,
>>
2
» Octavio Silva
»Senior Planner
»City of Rancho Palos Verdes
»Community Development Department
» 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
» Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
>> www.rpvca.gov
>> octavios@rpvca.gov
» (310) 544-5234
>>
>>
»-----Original Message-----
» From: Jim York [mailto:theyorkproperties@gmail.com]
»Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 12:15 PM
»To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
»Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Gary Weber <gsweberconsulting@gmail.com>
>>Subject: Exception "T"
>>
>>
>>
>>>
»>Hi Ara
>>>
>»We would like to clarify 2 items related to Ordinance No. 160 amending Exception Category "T"
»> 1. We would be able to build two separate residences not to exceed a maximum combined total of up to 8,000 sq ft. The
guest residence would have a maximum height of 16 feet and the main residence would not exceed 26 feet through the
approval of a Height Variance Permit.
>» 2. The covenant on the property prohibiting future subdivision of the property would relate only to the portion of the 94
acre property which is subject to the Landslide Moritorium.
>>>
»>Thank you
>»Jim York
>» Managing Member
»>York Point View Properties, LLC
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Octavio Silva
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:01 PM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
FW: Ordinance No. 610
Late Correspondence on Agenda Item No. D
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim York [mailto:theyorkproperties@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:09 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Ordinance No. 610
Please reintroduce for meeting in 2 weeks
Sent from my iPhone
>On Oct 16, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote:
>
>Jim,
>
>The City is in receipt of your email requesting a modification to the Ordinance language.
> If this matter is pulled off the consent calendar, any changes to the ordinance language will have to be reintroduced.
>
>Ara
>
>Ara Michael Mihranian
>Community Development Director
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
> Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
> 310-544-5228 (telephone)
> 310-544-5293 (fax)
> aram@rpvca.gov
> www.rpvca.gov J).
1
>
>
>Ill Do you really need to print this e-mail?
>
>This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential
and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized
dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:09 AM
>To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
>Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
>Subject: Ordinance No. 610
>
>We request that the Ordinance be changed as shown below. It was never the intent to prohibit subdivision of the property
outside the landslide moratorium area where we have a planned 37 lot Residental project.
>
>Jim York
>
2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 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, October 16, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Closed Session Email from RPVEA President Waters
Email from Sunshine
J Attachment A Resolution
1 Surveys for Rue Le Charlene Properties
3 Emails from: Sunshine (see Item I); Jean Longacre; Email exchange
between Public Works Director Sassoon and Madeline Ryan
4 Email from RPVEA President Waters (see Closed Session)
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20181016 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Matt Waters
Monday, October 15, 2018 5:16 PM
cc
Mary Bradley
Subject: Late Correspondence: October 16 City Council Closed Session & Item 4
Late Correspondence
Re: October 16, 2018 City Council Meeting: Closed Session Item 1 and Regular Business Item #4: Benefit Options
To Mayor Brooks and Members of the City Council:
The Rancho Palos Verdes Employees' Association (RPVEA) Board supports the possibility of additional and alternative benefits
options for our members, as detailed in Item 4 of the October 16th Council Meeting. As mentioned in an August 10, 2018 email
to City Manager Doug Willmore, "RPVEA is very much in support of exploring alternatives to our current benefits in the interest
of increasing choices for our members with either no additional cost to the City or a potential reduction in cost." These
additional options would be in addition to existing benefits.
At a recent meeting, Association Members expressed their support for the following benefit options:
• VSP Vision
• Delta Dental
• Kaiser HMO
• Blue Shield Platinum Trio HMO
We also believe it important to note that VSP, Delta Dental and Kaiser were all available to City employees and
Councilmembers in the past.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
RPVEA President
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
m£tJ':N@E.P.Yf£,.9J?.Y. -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f
1
CU>>£D (/S!:~t~l'J
~
IT5M ¥-~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:09 PM
cc
October 16, 2018 Council Agenda Items I and 3
Dear Madam Mayor and Councilmen,
I have not received a reply to the following email which implies that nobody is in charge of maintaining
the Trails Network Plan (TNP). And, nobody is doing it from an individual project point of view. Even
worse, nobody is using it in reference to new projects. What can be done about that?
In relation to Regular Business Item 3, the PVDE Roadway Safety Project, Equestrian Trail from
Bronco Drive to Lower Headland, three particular issues stand out. The design program data as
provided to the Engineer of Record does not address the directive to provide trail continuity in the trail
network. It does not include the design Standards/CRITERIA. And, it does not reference the fencing
and signage which is in the current TNP.
In relation to Consent Calendar I, the design is not all that bad. It just would have been better if Staff
had provided the Engineer of Record with the relevant parts of the RPV TNP.
It is up to Council to find a way for We, the People to be able to participate .
... S 310-377-8761
PS: Neither of the above project's Designers have returned my voice messages.
October 3, 2018
1
Subject: Implementing the RPV General Plan
Date: 10/3/2018 6:24:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: trails@rpvca.gov, ianaya@rpvca.gov, esassoon@rpvca.gov, coryl@rpvca.gov, aram@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, dwillmore@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Katie, Irving, Elias, Cory and Ara,
Attached is a Google map of the Top Of The Hill Loop Trail. It needs to be corrected in that the Top
Of The Hill Loop Trail is a part of the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network and not the Palos Verdes Loop
Trail. I can contact the Google trails guy about that.
Before I do, I need to know what RPV has done in the way of rerouting the trail connection across the
Sol-Y-Mar project and the Vista del Norte Reserve.
In the Conceptual Trails section of the RPV Trails Network Plan, the Top Of The Hill Loop Trail
segments are assigned as "D" trails. This part of the trail is in SECTION TWO. Some "wordsmithing
errors" were made in the 1993 update and the Marriott Lifecare Center it references was never
completed. I will be happy to write the text update of the 81 specific-course, TYPE 5 (easy) and
Category I trail if someone would document for me that this City Council directive has been
accomplished. What is the current, official, route of this piece of the Peninsula's trails network? Or,
has another "critical link" been "vanished"?
Notice that I have written to the Directors of Public Works, Recreation & Parks and Community
Development because all three of you are responsible for coordinating the implementation of this
General Plan Goal and the City Manager appears to know nothing about how overlapping this effort
is. "Enhancing" an existing trail from Category II to Category I takes a group effort.
I would appreciate a reply from each of you addressees explaining your contribution toward
answering my question in red above.
2
Best regards,
SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 15, 2018 11:35 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: PVDE and PVDW are just the current sabatage on the trails network
PVDE July 31, 2018 063.jpg
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 1:40 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PVDE and PVDW are just the current sabatage on the trails network
Hi John,
I am trying to work with Mr. Sassoon's July 31, 2018 Power Point presentation slides. Not to scale (NTS)
drawings make me crazy. They are so deceiving.
I did notice where this project went off onto the wrong track. See the attached slide. Staff is not working
with valid "KEY ISSUES". They are telling the Council what they have decided is required. The TNP
Standards suggest otherwise. Just see the Peninsula Pointe frontage. This should not be any more
intrusive on the two driveway owners than having horseback riders using a roadside trail anywhere else in
an Equestrian Overlay District.
As the City Attorney confirmed, 30 years of use of public land does not give them the right to keep using
it. Loss of the use of City property has nothing to do with their personal property's value unless the
newbies paid extra without being aware of where their property lines are. Foliage is "sound
invisible". Just like everyone else, they can plant all the screening foliage they want, on their own
property. Oops, RPV has height restrictions on fences, walls and hedges in the front yard setback.
I have figured out a way to send you my "visual" of Jerry, Ken, Eric and the TN P's notion of keeping trails
away from vehicular traffic. The exercise has brought up more questions which should have had more
public screening before Staff recommends to Council that we go straight to construction and landscaping
designs.
I i; 3.
1
The pilasters and the foliage are safety issues as in "line of sight" when exiting. Whether they go or stay
has nothing to do with providing a safe equestrian trail. Doesn't the "Complete Roadway Act" require non-
motorized circulation on both sides of the street?
The curve is the big deal. When people are coming down hill too fast, they cause head-on collisions. We
have a 90 foot wide ROW and we don't have enough room for a 2 foot thick Jersey barrier which would
physically stop people from crossing the center line in the roadway? I beg to differ.
A previous version proposed removing the fence and the foliage in the ROW on the inside of the Bronco
Curve. Making a left turn out of Bronco the way it is, is nasty.
Without knowing the details of the latest Staff Recommendation and not knowing the deadline on this
Grant, I can only say that Staff has put us between a rock and a hard place.
Please bounce Consent Calendar Item I, too.
"Sketch" soon .... S 310-377-8761
2
I
,, /I I
\(\ \J v
L
'/ KEY ISSUES I I
?vP
-Driveway entrances (2) located well within the street right
of way that will require modifications to the lower 8-feet
at each entrance.
-Mature landscape removal to create area for the
equestrian trail. Five foot high (max.) retaining wall
required.
-Limited sight distance opportunities to locate a roadway
crossing. Must be away from the curve at Bronco Drive.
-Four foot double-rail white vinyl fence behind 8" asphalt
curb will help separate bicycle traffic from equestrian.
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE APPLICATION FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION
FUND PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS FOR MALAGA
CANYON RESERVE AND OCEAN TRAILS RESERVE
SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California
Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for
grants to local agencies to acquire, enhance, restore or develop facilities for public
recreation and fish and wildlife habitat protection purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been
delegated the responsibility for the administration of the Habitat Conservation Fund
("HCF") Program, setting up necessary procedures governing project application
under the HCF Program; and
WHEREAS, the procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of the application
before submission of the application to the State; and
WHEREAS, the 1,400 acre Palos Verdes Nature Preserve ("PVNP"), located
in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is comprised of twelve individual Reserves
formed in 2006 to maximize benefits to wildlife and vegetation communities while
continuing to provide excellent public access. Located in southern Los Angeles
County, the PVNP provides urban residents the opportunity to experience protected
open space in close proximity to large metropolitan areas; and
WHEREAS, two of the Reserves within the PVNP, the Malaga Canyon
Reserve and the Ocean Trails Reserve (collectively the "Reserves"), are in dire need
of entry signage for public safety, rules enforcement, and interpretive purposes; and
WHEREAS, the application, submitted jointly by the City and Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy ("PVPLC"), as co-management for the PVNP,
proposes to install the necessary signage which will foster and facilitate public access
to, appreciation for, and stewardship of the Reserves; and
WHEREAS, due to the substantial need for the signage in the Reserves, the
City believes the application is a strong candidate for approval for the requested grant
funding; and
WHEREAS, successful applicants will enter into a contract with the State of
California to complete their respective projects.
01203.0001/513047.1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: That the filing of the above-referenced application for the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program grant is hereby approved.
Section 3: That the City Council certifies that the City has or will have
available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in the
application, the required match and sufficient funds to complete the project.
Section 4: That the City Council acknowledges the City's match funding
requirement in the amount of $38,500, and that if the application is approved, the City
Council shall authorize an appropriation in that amount in order to obtain the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program grant funds.
Section 5: That the City Council certifies that the City has or will have
sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project.
Section 6: That the City Council certifies that the City has reviewed,
understands, and agrees to the provisions contained in the contract shown in the
Grant Administration Guide.
Section 7: That Katie Lozano, Open Space Manager/Administrative Analyst
II, or such other person as may be designated by the City Manager, is hereby
delegated the authority to conduct all negotiations and execute and submit all
documents (including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and
payment requests) which may be necessary for the completion of the project.
Section 8: That the City agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state
and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.
01203.0001/513047.1
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 16th day of October, 2018.
Attest:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
State of California
County of Los Angeles
Susan M. Brooks, Mayor
)
) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2018-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on _, 2018.
01203.0001/513047.1
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2018-XX
Page 2 of 2
From: Octavio Silva
Sent:
To:
Thursday, October 11, 2018 8:04 AM
cc
Cc: Ara Mihranian; CityClerk
Subject: Rue Le Charlene Annexation Plans
Attachments: Rue Le Charlene_Annexation_Plans.pdf
Mayor Brooks and members of the City Council,
I have attached a pdf document that includes property surveys of the three Rue Le Charlene properties that are
requesting annexation at the next City Council meeting. The request is being considered under City Council meeting
agenda item no. 1. Hard copies of the surveys were inadvertently not included in your agenda packets.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ara or myself.
Thank you,
Octavio Silva
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5234
1 /.
\ ;,··:\ l '• .. _ .. , ' ' \\ ~-: \ \. ···\ . , I
... · ... \\
\ , .·· \I
\·
~\ . . -~ '··_·:\ \\ .. \ \·.· '·.\ ~' -~
PLEASE NOTE
i
i
IF Tl-llS QRAWING !S PROVIOEO IN AN Q<:CTRONcC FORMAT (VlA
8"/llL OR ON COMPUTE!< DISC) AS A COURTESY TO OIJR curnr. THE
DE:UVERY OF ™E ELECTRONIC FILE ooe:s NOT CONSTITUTE ™E
OCUVERY Of" OUR PROFESSlQNJ>l. WORK PROOUCT. IN THE EVENT
THE rucmONIC FILE •S ALTERW. TI-IE PRINT MUST SE REfl:RRW TO
F"OR 11-IE ORIGINAL 11:110 CORRECT SURVEY INFORl\IATION. PAC!f'lC
LANO CONSULTANTS. INC. SHAU. NOT 8E RESPONSIBLE FOR NW
NOOIFICATIONS MAOE TO THE ELECTRONIC Fll£ OR FOR ANY
PRODUCTS OERlV(Q FR()M Tl1E ELECTl<ONIC FILE WHICH AR( NOT
f:IE\o1EW£D. SEGNED ANO $£ALEO 8Y PAOFlC L.Jl.NO CONSULTANTS, <NC
\
',,~-, .. , \ ~ n\ JG
UNDERGROUND ununEs
~u~~soi:~n~~:o~~H~~I~ ~~~~tEG ~~NO
SOURCES NOT CONNECTED Wlflj THIS CQl.IPAN'Y ANO Wl-llLE SAID
INFORMATION IS 8EUE:'A'D CORRt::CT. NO LWJIU1Y IS ASSIJt.IEO
FORTHEACCURAC'r'ORC~PLETENESSOFSAIOOATA.
r-<-~ECIO r o l \_~)
LEGAL DESCRIPnoN
Tl-IAT PQRnON OF LOT Ill OF SUOOVtSWN Of" LOT "N"OF THE Rill'ICHO !,_OS PALOS
V(RCIES.INTHECITYOF"LOSANGELES.COIJNrYOF"LOSANGEl,.ES,STAfEOF
CAU•ORNIA, AS PER MAP RECOROEO IN BOOK l PAGE 47 OF RECORO OF" SURVEYS,
!NTI-IEOITICEOF"THECOUNTYRECOR~Of"SAIOCO\JNTY
LEGEND
A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE: PAVEi.JENT
8.r..I 8El'ICH MARK
C 8.W. CONCRETE El..OCK WALL
C 8 R W. CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL
CONC CONCRE"11'.
QW'Y. CONC. ORl\/EWAY APRON
E.P. EDGE 01'" PAV(MENT
F.F. FINISHED FLOOR
F.C FINISHED GRADE
F.H. FlREHYO~T
F.S FlNISHEOSURFACE
F.L. FLOW UNE
INV. DRAIN INvtRT
l.C.V. IRRIGATION CONTROL VAL.VE
L.P UCHT POLE
E.C. EDCEOFCUITER
(,),(. ELECTRIC ),(Ef'ER
E.V. ELECmlC VALVE
C.t-4. CAS I.JETER
P.B. PULL BOX
P.C.R.W POURED CONC. RETAINING W.o<.L
P.P. POWER POLE
R.R.W ROCK RETAINING WALL
s.s.),(.H. SEWER MANHOLE
S.D.M.H. STORi; DRAIN MANHOLE
T.C. TQP OF CURB
T.C. TOP OF QRAlN CRATE r.w. TOP 01'" WALL
W.!,i.H. WATER MANHOLE
W.V. WATER VALVE
----OVERH..WC
DCONCRETESURFACE
8-0 TREE ANO TRUNK OIAM(l"'ER
WOOO WALL
TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES
SHOWN ON TJ.115 TOPOGRAPHIC 5URVO'
FRO" RANOOM SPOr £L£VATIONS. TJ.1£
OF ACCUR4CY IS :J:1/2 OF TH£ CONTOUR
:D CLE.VATlONS. AS PLACED ON T!-1£ Pl.AT
M[ASUREO AT M'PROXIMATUY Tit£
~-T;./£/R tXP£CTrn LE.VF:l OF ACCURACY
2. IF 5P(C!FJC tl£VAT/ONS AR€ R£0UIR£0. Tltt UStR SHOULD
CONTACT PACIFIC LANO CONSULTANTS. INC., rtL: (.J/0~44-8689
FOR SAi.it. !NrtRPOl..ATlONS UAOt FROU TJ.115 TOPOCRAPHIC
SURVt:Y SHOUUJ 8£: DON!; IN ACCORDANCE Wlil-1 STANDARD
5URV£Yl/'IG PRACTICts. ANO LIABILITY FOR WrtRPO/..AnoNS
IS NOT ASSUMED er PACIFIC LANO CONSULTANTS. INC.
SURVEY CERnFICAnoN
I HEREBY C£1m""Y TJ;AT I AAI A RECISTERm LANO SUR\18'0R OF THE
STATEQFCAIJFORN!A.THATTHISPLATCONSlSTINGOFONESHEET
CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SUR\18' !ilAl)E UNOCR Pil'Y SUPERVISION !N
JUN, 2016; THAT >ti. PilQNU),((NfS SHOYIN HEREON PCTl.J>u.Y EXIST
ANO THE!R POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN THIS SUR\18' DOES
NOT INQUOE: EASEMENTS EXCEPT THOSE sPECIFICAUY OEUNEATUI
HEREON.
CJIR/Srr;PN£R W VASS4Ll0 P.L5. 8418
R£G/STRATION £XPIR[S 12-Jl-201(J
1· .. to•
PACIFIC LAND CONSULTANTS, INC.
28441 HIGHRIDGE RD. SUITE 230
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274
(310) 544-8689
DRAWN I r~gJE~&E s~~AftLENE
BY: A.P. RANCHO PALOS VERDE:S. CA
FlLE NA&E:; 18LOOLS.DT!'G
DATE: 6-6-2018
SCALE: 1 H=10·
JOB NO. 18100
SHEET I OF I
\\ \>., \.·· \ ··\ \\ \ .\ ~ ..... · .. \\ \. ; ~
\\;i\
\ '
PLEASE NOTE
II' IBIS QRAWING IS PROVIOEO IN AN Et.ECrRONIC FORMAT (VIA
8'.!AIL OR ON COMP\JTER DISC) AS A COUR'l'(SY ro OIJR CUENT. THE
OEU\IEJZI' OF THE ELECTRONIC FlLE DOES NOT CONSTITIJT<: THE
OCU\IER'Y OF O<JR PROf'ESSlONAL WORK PRODUCT. IN THE EVENT
THE ELECTRONIC FlLE 1$ ALTEREO. THE PRONT t.l\JST 8E RE!'ERREO TO
FOR THE ORICINAL ANO CORRECT SUR\IE'I' INFO~ATION. PA(:ll'IC
LANO CONSULTANTS. INC. SHAU. NOT SE RESPONSIBLE FOR »l'Y
M0QIF1CAT10NS MAOE TO THE ELECTRONIC l'ILE OR FOR »l'Y PROQucrs 0ER1V(0 f'i<OM THE ELECTRONIC FILE WHICH ARE NOT
REVIEW<:O. SlCNEO mo SE'.ALEO SY PAO>lC LANO CONSULTANTS. INC
i
y~·
i
\
i
i
\
\
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
AU. INFORMATION $KOWN HEREON ~CARDING UNDERGROIJNO
UTIUTIES WAS TAKEN FllOl.I YlSl8LE SURFACE EVIOCNCE OR
SO<JRCES NOT CONNECT(Q WlfH THIS CO'-IPANY ANO WHILE SAIO
INFORMATION IS 8EUEVEO CORR(CT. NO UASIUTY IS ASSUMED
FOR THE ACCURAC'l" OR COMPLETENESS OF SAIO DATA
"''"""';j_l ~. . . ~~AJ~0~REE & i !
I r:t--ir1·1 "°"''°"" °'' ~
[
I II ~ INSTRUMENT No'. I , ., I 2984, O.R. l : . ;/--r
1-: 1] /k/ i ~
~I
~ tr \\ l'I' I I'
40 , I ' I '
I l1 '1 ,'
u : lj3:
w II, I" ~ : ; ·al~
::i 11 ~l·O'l
.,1' °', ~i ~·~
'·~ I ,...-: g~ J,'I 1• : fie: ~z~ d'
I . "'=~ : ~~~ ft "~,I~~;: ~;§~ : ,"
l ~§f : -~~~~.11 ..
I s_i~o1y tf!
l ~-;;~I 11 1 ~·,······•·T·'·.. i ~
... , ••• c1 . • • :M;Ji_ __ \i
'r-"'K°'ali J"" ·GI ~~0~1.ll .1·, ,.(-,~! \·' ~ifigE wu J , (, ·O;.~ · Fa: .... o\ ~<r~:S 11i l ·~c S:o~51 ;l:;~1 1 : I
., .· I ~,,~~~~"01:1" i ~-]i F! ~ : ~ 1 i ~ 1 :Y:~ • 'I' i
LEGEND
AC. ASPl-IALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
8.r.I 8ENCH MARK
C.8.W CONCRETE BLOCK Willi
C.8.R.W CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING Willi
CONC CONCRETE
OWY. CONC. ORl\IEWA'Y APRON
E.P. EOGEOFPAVEr.!ENT
F.F. FlNISHEO FLOOR
F.G. >lNISHEO GR.ODE
F.H. FlREHYORilNT
F.S FINISHED SURFACE
F.L FLOW UNE
INV DRAIN INVERT
l.C.V. IRRIGATION CONffiOL VALVE
L.P UCHT POLE
E.G. EDGE OF GUTTER
E.r.!. ELECTRICt.ICTER
E.V. ELECTRIC VALVE
C.M GAS METER
P.8 PUU BOX
P.C.R.W. POURED CQNC. RETAINING WALL
P .P. POWER POLE
R.R.W ROCK RETAINING WALL.
S.S.N.H. SEWER MANHOLE
S.O.t.l.H. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
T.C. ToP OF CURS
T.C TOP OF DRAIN CRATE
T.W. TOP OF WALL
W.1.1.H. WATER MANHOLE
W.V. WATER VALVE
--OVERHANG
DCONCRErESURFACE
s·0 TREEANOffiUNKOIAMETER
TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES
Sl-IOWN ON THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVFY
FROll RANDOii SPOT EL£YAT10NS. TN£
OF ACCURACY IS :±1/2 OF THE CONTOUR
"D El.£YA1IONS. AS PLACED ON TN£ PLAT
11£ASUR£D AT APPROXIW.TEL'f THE
~. THEIR EXPECT[() l£\IEl. OF ACCURACY
2. !F SPECIFIC ELEVAnGNS ARE RF:OUJRED. TH£ US£R SHOULD
CONTACT PACIFIC LAND CONSULTANTS. INC .• TEL: (J/0):';44-8689
FOR $<WC. INT£RPOLA nONS llA0£ FR()!.I mis TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVrf SHOULD 8£ DCN£ IN ACCOROANC£ WITH STAND4RD
SlJRVE'Y'ING PRACnC£S. ANO UABJJ.lrr FOR !NT£RPOLATIONS
IS /'/OT ASSUllED BY PA<:JFIC LAND CONS<JLTANTS. INC.
SURVEY CERTIFICATION
IHERE8YCERTIFYTliATIN<ARECISTEREOLANOSURVE'r'OROFTHE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THIS PLAT CONSISTING OF ONE SHEET
CORRECTt.YREPRESENTSASURVO't.IAOEUNOERMYSUPERVISIONIN
J\JN, 2018; THAT AU MONUMENTS SHov.N HEREON ACTIJ.OUY EXIST
~0 THEIR POSITIONS ARE COR~CTLY SHOWN. THIS SUR\IE'I' OOES
NOTINQ.U()(~(NTS(XC(PTTHQSESPE:CIFICALLYOE\JNEATEll
HEREON.
CHRISITJPH£R W VASSALLO
RECISTRAT!ON £)(PtR£S 12-31-2018
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORnON OF LOT Ill OF SU$OIVISIOl'l OF LOf ..... OF THE RANCHO LOS PALOS
llf:RO(S,INTl-l(CITYOFLOS/IJ'IGELES.COUNTYOFLOSANCELES.SfATE:OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECOROEO IN 800K 1 PACE 46 OF RECORO OF SURVEYS,
IN THE omCE o• Tl-IE COUNTY RECORO£R OF 5'"0 COIJNTY
~~o.ys. PACIFIC LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. FrLE NA.!ilE: 1eossLS.owc ·c...'"'~,.. 28441 H[GHRlDGE RD. SUITE 230 DATE: 6-6-2018
;:; :e. ROLUNG HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274
~ ~ (310) 544-8689 SCALE· 1"=10.
'°' DRAWN PROJECT SITE: JOB NO. 18099
'(!~ISllED \~\. BY: A.P. ~gH~~~L;~,:~:s~ CA SHEET 1 OF 1
;·~\
-~
\
\ .. · \
\
·.. I\ · .. · \1
. \
V: ' \~ · .. : ·. \ t ·•·.·.: \1
PLEASE NOTE
IF THIS ORAWiNC IS PROVIOEO IN AN ElECffiONIC FORl.IAT 0/IA
f)llAIL OR ON COl.IPIJT(R OISC) AS A CO\.JRTESY TO OUR CUENT. THE
~~~~ g; ~~~~~AL Fl~~oo~i~. C~STl~T(~~
Tl-IE ELECT'RONK: >11..E !$ALTERED. THE PRINT "4\JST SE REl'"ERREO TO
F"OR Tl-IE ORIGIW.. ANO CORRECT S\JRV8' INl'ORl.IATION. PACIFlC
LANO CONSULTANTS, INC. SHALL NOT SE RE$?0NSl8LE FOR ANY
NOOIFICATIONS J.IAOE TO THE El.ECTRONIC FILE OR FOR ANY
~00~~ ~gi~-i:oAN~~~~E8YE~~~l~~L2o~~p;AN~ IN~or
~ • :· < .\' ii:.·."\ ,\ .... · ..
,\. ,. ·<
' ', ,'
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
ALL INFORl.IATION Sl"OWN HEREON R(GAROINC UNOEFICROUNO
UTIUTIES WAS TAKEN FFIOlll lllSIS~E SURFACE EVIDENCE: OR
SOURCES NOT CONNECTID WlTH THIS COMPANY AND WHILE SAIO
iNFORf\11\T!ON IS 0EUEVEO CORRECT. NO UASIUTY IS ASSUMED
F(lRTHEACCURACYORCO'-IPLEl"ENESSOFSlllOOATA.
\Ii
ti
t:
:1
'------............ ...... ,'</
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
~~S~L~o:s1i~°o.-~J~NR~ ~~~ ~~~~ou~g ~~~AT
VE:ROES,INTHECITYOFLOSANGELES.COUNTYOFLOSANG<:LES.STATEOF
CALIFORNIA. AS SHOWN ON M:.P I'll.ED IN SOOK 1. PAGE 47 Of" RECORD OF
SUfM'.YS.INT1'(0mcr:oF'rn(COUN1YRECORDEHOFSAIOCO\JNT'f
'~·11 I e~ t. r6i n~ l, gg~ : ~~~<n1·i,J
2i>z-.;t I l:;l5uci;ilL
~~~: ~m\'r ~·ov . O~"-I I
·.I a::_O I
I I
t ti 'I
i M
Wt
~. ~ HI
~ q
~
~ ~
~
~
~ ' g
p
t
G
i~ •m ij;
~ ~~ ~~
I I
l
1
LEGEND
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
6.P>i. 8EN01 l.IARK
C.6.W CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
C.8.R.W. CONCRETE BLOCK RETAlNINC WALL
g~~: C~~~R!VEWAY APRON
E.P. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
F.f. FINISHED FLOOR
F.C FlNISHEDCRAOE
F.H. F!REHYO~T
f'.S. FlNISHEIJ SURFACE
F.L FLOW l,.fNE
INV. DRAININV(RT
l.C.V. IRRIGATION CONffiOL VAl.VE
LP LICHT PQLE
E.G. EOGE OF GUTTER
E.M. ELECTRrG ME!"ER
E.V. ELECffilC VALVE
G.M GAS MCTER
P.B. PUU BOX
P.C.R.W POUREO CONC. RETAINING WALL
P.P. POWER POLE
R.R.W ROCK RETAINING WAU
S.S.M.H. SEWER MANHOLE
S.O.M.H. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
T.C. TQP OF CURB
T.G TOP OF DRAIN CRATE
T.W. TOP OF WALL
W.M.H. WATER MANHOLE
W.V. WATER VAl.VE
--OVERHANG
DCONCRETESURFACE:
8" 0 ffiEE ANO muNK OIAME:rER
TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES
2. IF SPECIFIC £Lf:VATIONS ARE R[OUIR[D. THE US£R SJ.IOULD
CONTACT PACIFIC WID CONSl.lt.TANT5. INC., T£L: (JIO):H4-8689
FOR SAJIF:. INrt:RPOLAnONS MAOF: FR0U 1"HIS TOPOGRAPHIC
SURl/8' SHOULD 0C DONE IN ACCORDANCE WIT/< 5TANIJ4RD
SURVE:rlNC PRACnCE;S. AND L/A81Lln' TOR INTERPOLATIONS
IS NOT ASSUJ./£0 Uf PACIFIC LAND CONSULTANTS. INC.
SURVEY CERTIFICATION
t HERt::SY CERTIFY THAT I ~ A REGlSTEREO LANO SU~OR OF Tl-<E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THAT THIS PLAT CONSISTING OF ONE Sl-IEET
CORRECT1..YREPRESENTSASU~W.0EUN0E:RMYSUPERVIS10NtN
JUN, 2018: THAT ALL l.!ONUMEl'ITS $H()W>I HEREON ACTUALLY EXIST
ANO THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORR!:'.CTV SHOWN. T\.llS SU~ ODES
~~~E;~uDE EAS8>1ENTS EXCEPT THOS<: SPECIFlCALLY OEUNEATW
CHRISTOPHE)? W. VASSALLO
RECISTR4TION EXPIRES 12-J!-2018
PACIFIC LAND CONSULTANTS. INC.
.28441 HIGHR!DGE RD. SUITE 230
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274
(310) 544-8689
FILE NAME: 16096[.S.OWG
DATE: 6-6-2018
SCALE: 1"':10'
JOB NO. 18098 DRAWN I r:1°iE~JE s~~RLENE
BY: A.P · RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA SHEET 1 OF 1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 15, 2018 11:36 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: PVDE. My "vision" and questions
PVDE trail alternative 064jpg; PVDE July 2018 trail Section drawings 065jpg
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2018 4:05 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PVDE. My "vision" and questions
Here is my sketch
Hi John,
I have done the best I can to put Bob Merrill's drawing into proportion. Given the drawing space available,
I have no clue why he didn't just make it to scale. For comparison, I have attached the two sections from
the July 3, 2018 Power Point presentation. I have changed and kept the height and location of the
proposed retaining wall simply to retrieve the angle of the slope between the curb and the northern
property line. Neither of the driveways are this steep. At the property line, both have a less than 5 percent
side slope and have anti-skid surfaces.
Our Staff Members are not stupid so I have to question their motives. What have they got against the
Peninsula's non-motorized circulation network? See you Tuesday. I hope you come up with half as many
engineering questions as I have. .. .S
In a message dated 10/14/2018 1:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, sunshinerpv(li!ag_L£2m writes:
Hi John,
I am trying to work with Mr. Sassoon's July 31, 2018 Power Point presentation slides. Not to scale
(NTS) drawings make me crazy. They are so deceiving.
1 3
I did notice where this project went off onto the wrong track. See the attached slide. Staff is not
working with valid "KEY ISSUES". They are telling the Council what they have decided is
required. The TNP Standards suggest otherwise. Just see the Peninsula Pointe frontage. This
should not be any more intrusive on the two driveway owners than having horseback riders using a
roadside trail anywhere else in an Equestrian Overlay District.
As the City Attorney confirmed, 30 years of use of public land does not give them the right to keep
using it. Loss of the use of City property has nothing to do with their personal property's value
unless the newbies paid extra without being aware of where their property lines are. Foliage is
"sound invisible". Just like everyone else, they can plant all the screening foliage they want, on
their own property. Oops, RPV has height restrictions on fences, walls and hedges in the front yard
setback.
I have figured out a way to send you my "visual" of Jerry, Ken, Eric and the TN P's notion of keeping
trails away from vehicular traffic. The exercise has brought up more questions which should have
had more public screening before Staff recommends to Council that we go straight to construction
and landscaping designs.
The pilasters and the foliage are safety issues as in "line of sight" when exiting. Whether they go or
stay has nothing to do with providing a safe equestrian trail. Doesn't the "Complete Roadway Act"
require non-motorized circulation on both sides of the street?
The curve is the big deal. When people are coming down hill too fast, they cause head-on
collisions. We have a 90 foot wide ROW and we don't have enough room for a 2 foot thick Jersey
barrier which would physically stop people from crossing the center line in the roadway? I beg to
differ.
A previous version proposed removing the fence and the foliage in the ROW on the inside of the
Bronco Curve. Making a left turn out of Bronco the way it is, is nasty.
Without knowing the details of the latest Staff Recommendation and not knowing the deadline on
this Grant, I can only say that Staff has put us between a rock and a hard place.
Please bounce Consent Calendar Item I, too.
"Sketch" soon .... S 310-377-8761
2
\.
\-l '\
~
11 ~ ..., ~\ l.;
<;>,-....
\._ ' ...,
-........ __
-_,
....
~. .;::!
~l f:?
(Q
~:cl
~
I
1 !ti I
I ' l l
i ~
l • ijl
: N' ~ I
i
~,~
1 ·1
L,...~i
,------1
I
·--5"
T ~Ff IC AND EQUESTRIAN
lFETY PROJECT
1ndto
"
Jlar
I
er
\ .•
.GLh.lCRTM \
45'+/-HAlf SlREET r--········---.-
t
CONST. 12' ~-· 6'
VEHICUlAR TRA11El LANE StlOUUl£R
'\----------~
\ :1 -----
\
4• 'Mi!TE ~·
EOOE UNE
'· t CONST. • R£PtAC€ EX. t OOVSU: YillOW R<.W'.D COR8 VtTH a• /..C CURB
ft
CONST. it
1-\<!}ltCUlM !RA v9. lANt
S!iOULOER
3' +
------1
s·-2·
/ '
r • lRIPl.E l RAIL
'Mi!TE
\.'IN'!l
FENO:
19' TO PROPERTY UNE t ··-1-···----·--Ss---l
2· ct'.MENT ~. ,,-/
Ma<TAR CW • -,,
4.o'
,/
s· MAX-a· o.1t1
BLOCK WAU
..-DfCOM!'OSED
/ Gl!AH!TE
-~~.-
lYPICAL SECTION
NTS
48'+/· !!Alf STREET
8' TO 12'
8' TO 10'
EXISTING
CU ARO RAil
0£CWPOSEO
GRANITE
?O~
21' TO PROPERTY UNE I(
5S--J
EX!STil<C W...U.-j
t.HERE OCCURS j
1YPICAL SECTION NEAR BRONCO
NTS
/I f'\f'\L<'lf\.lr-~f'\1 IT&-.!\
.;
.f
'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
jeanlongacre@aol.com
Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:42 PM
cc
PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
How did we go from looking into a safer option for this project to making it the same but less safe?
Will we get to see the new design before the meeting?
Will we get to see a design for the other side of the street? The previous design a few years ago showed the fence moved
back and the ivy removed where it impacted the line of sight around the bend.
Why is Bob Merrill making the decision to make the shoulder and trail narrower? I didn't get that idea from the Council
meeting and he works for an outside company.
I understand and agree with mitigating the loss of landscaping but safety should be the priority.
Sincerely,
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310)544-0105
1 3.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, October 15, 2018 1:37 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting, Tuesday, October 16 -Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 1:37 PM
To: 'Madeline Ryan' <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting, Tuesday, October 16 -Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
Hi Madeline:
Thanks for your email.
Per our conversation yesterday, the width of the shoulder can be reduced from 6' to 4' and the width of the trail can be
reduced from 7' to 5.5'. The consultant firm and Staff are confident that these changes will reduce the adverse impact to the
adjacent property owners without compromising safety.
Your email will be included as part of the late correspondence for this item.
Regards,
Elias !<. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
(:J1L.QLB.9Xl.fh9.l'Jtl92J/ e rd §Ji
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: "Madeline Ryan" <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 2:11 PM -0700
Subject: City Council Meeting, Tuesday, October 16 -Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
To: "CC" <CC@rpvca.gov>, "Nadia Carrasco" <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and Staff:
1
Without having seen the revised plan, I can't speak to the specifics of it, so will wait until
Tuesday to further comment.
I have read the staff report and it was enough for me to express my concern about the
reduction of trail width and shoulder width. That tells me the trail is being pushed closer to
the motor lane and reducing the recommended width of 8' for multi-use.
The City's Trails Network Plan calls for a 3' buffer between traffic and trail. Ideally then,
leaving some of the foliage along the frontages of 28335 and 28345, could accomplish this.
That also may require more recapture of the ROW, but if safety is the purpose of this traffic
plan, then it must be considered.
The rejected design had a (finished) trail width of under 7'. That was a concern then, but
deemed acceptable by all supporters of the trail, because the alternative was to continue to
use the motor lane for equestrians and unsafe crossing to the east side for pedestrians, dog
walkers and equestrians.
The TNP also calls out " .... graded width of the trail tread shall be 2' to 8'." If this trail were
exclusively equestrian OR pedestrian than the trail width could be as little as 2'-2 1/2', but
the City will be constructing an equestrian/pedestrian trail that should be given the full 8' of
trail tread to minimize user conflicts; i.e., dog walkers with multiple dogs, walkers with
umbrellas, strollers, etc.
The construction of this trail and the removal of any foliage will profoundly impact these
homeowners. No question about it. So, why not minimize that impact by not tearing out
driveways, but simply scoring the driveway to avoid slippage by pedestrians and
equestrians?
The rejected design directed trail users back to the traffic lane to cross in front of the
driveways. That didn't make any sense, but trail users could still be directed to the lower
portion of each driveway (behind the pilasters) where the grade doesn't exceed 10°/o. This is
common in Rolling Hills Estates where trails cross driveways, especially along Palos Verdes
Drive North.
I'm sure they may be more savings besides the retaining wall, if everyone is willing to keep
looking. But safety should never be compromised.
Thank you.
Madeline Ryan
28328 PVDE
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
2