6. Open Space                                                      Home Page

     Perhaps the most debatable issue of this campaign is the use of RPV open space. My definition of open space includes parks, recreation fields, golf courses and beaches as well as areas of natural habitat. PVP Land Conservancy (PVPLC), SOC II and associated organizations have a common vision to "preserve undeveloped land in perpetuity as open space for historical, educational, ecological, recreational and scenic purposes". Unfortunately, their definition of recreation often excludes most of the above noted items. While I enjoy and encourage hiking and nature walks the number of people who use existing areas for this purpose is a very small percentage of the RPV population of 42,000. However, the Palos Verdes Loop Trail promoted by Sunshine and others is an incredibly great asset. None of the other 3 Peninsula cities have dedicated open space acreage anywhere near that of RPV and many of the members of the noted organizations live outside RPV or even the Palos Verdes Peninsula. They see our city as the open space mecca for the South Bay at our expense.

     RPV currently controls about 715 acres including the purchase of Forrestal (163 acres) and Barkentine (98 acres) at a total cost of $11.8M It is currently proposed in the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) document to buy another 700+ acres at a cost of ~$27M through the use of state bond (tax) monies ($17M), Land Conservancy funds ($6M), RPV tax monies ($1M) and $3M TBD. There are several things wrong with this picture.

(1) The land is a mix of buildable and non-buildable areas and the estimated $40,000/acre appears to be a nice bailout for the developers whereas some safe development could result in the use of a major part of the 700+ acres at little or no cost.

(2) The $1M of RPV tax monies is only a down payment. To date the NCCP has cost RPV taxpayers almost $300,000 plus another $295,000 in state and federal grants (tax money). Additionally, $60,000 has been committed to pay for a lobbyist and at least $125,000 per year for maintenance. The PVPLC contribution is generally calculated in volunteer time while the RPV contribution is measured in your real tax dollars and is only the visible part of past and future costs.

(3) Although some "open space" is considered reserved for passive and active recreation any mention of the latter is almost always attacked by some group as violating conditional use language, Although the PVPLC is not as extreme as other groups it does not have a strong record of moderation. White Point in San Pedro is a good example where the use of a couple of acres out of 102 for playing fields and a dog park were not included in their plan. The site has been fenced off for decades with No Trespassing signs and after being approved 4 years ago only $1M has been raised for the project. Meanwhile most walkers, bike riders and our youth use the beautiful area across the street including the lone baseball diamond in the area. In fairness a few playing fields and a small dog park were included in other areas of San Pedro.

(4) The PVPLC plan for the approximately 1500 acres they want to control includes preparation of one-five acre parcel per year plus revegetation of 5 acres per year. Unless something has been overlooked this is approximately a 300 year project. In the meantime be prepared for more chain link fences and the No Trespassing signs; the 18 years of Long Point delays should give you a good idea of the view.
(5) Although the recent phone survey showed strong support for the acquisition of open space this support dropped dramatically when the need for a $3M bond issue was included.

I support the expenditure of your tax dollars in the above areas after city safety and infrastructure are fully funded and the needs of our youth and seniors are definitively committed in the City's plans.

Home Page