Loading...
20100601 Late CorrespondenceCarla Morreale From: Stasys Petravicius [stasys1 @cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:46 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Stasys Petravicius Subject: June 1, 2010 Council Meeting Agenda Item #3 - Grant proposal for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Honorable RPV Council Members: I was made aware of this Grant Proposal request a few days ago. Should not ample time be provided to citizens to review this proposal and comment? Have the three major neighborhoods adjacent to the park - Portuguese Bend, West Portuguese Bend Community Association and Upper Abalone Cove Association been notified and given time to comment? Will they be? Is this project as described ( 8 - 10,000 sq. ft. building, resurfaced parking lot, trail upgrades, cameras for viewing shoreline activity, ranger facility, sheriffs facility etc.) necessary? I know the parking lot requires maintenance as does the primitive trail to the ocean from the park, but the building may be a duplicate effort to the PVIC (which is relatively close by and has a lot of the proposed infrastructure (exhibit space, lecture room, outdoor amphitheatre)). Also- the park as it stands today is pretty much an open visual corridor and in a quite natural state. To start building, redoing the parking lot, and start with other uses for the park would change the natural ambiance of the park. Also- as we all know- the geology there is quite fragile. Respectfully, Stasys Petravicius RPV resident 1 LAWk. RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 1, 2010 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 3 Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Kenneth W. Swensen; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Ann Shaw; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Dan and Vicki Pinkham; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Bill Swank; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long Eva Cicoria; Emails from Kenneth W. Swenson; Lowell R. Wedemeyer; Lynn Swank; Jim Knight 13 Emails from Mark Wells; Jim Gordon; Fred Koehler 14 Staff Report and Follow -Up Agenda on the Re -Instatement of the Beautification Grant from 2002 and Excerpt of January 12, 2002 City Council Minutes; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Jon Cartwright; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Charles Ingraham; Email exchange between Mayor Pro Tem Long, Councilman Stern and Ruberta Weaver; Emails from Herb Stark; Marilyn Aldrich Johnson; Vic Quirarte Respectfully mitted, Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100601 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:46 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Grant Application From: Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:39 AM To: swensonsathome@aol.com Cc: carolynn@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com Subject: Re: Grant Application Dear Ken, Thank you for these and your other thoughts. Of course as you say this is only a grant application. The time to fully weigh all of the planning considerations is if and when we get the grant. If we did a full blown entitlement analysis before every grant application we may as well pack it in and never apply for a grant again --it's just too expensive. The building would be positioned at least in part on the existing parking lot which would be redesigned. As for enforcement --we get constant complaints about habitat destruction in this area so I think we would actually be helping enforcment. And note that we allocated more money to a park ranger program in our last budget --more than staff asked for. But we would welcome contributions from the PVPLC and others too if they would like to make them. I am sure you are familiar with the site. It has a large poorly designed and decrepit parking lot with various run down facilities. It is not clear to me why none of those things (particularly the lot -- which is far bigger than it needs to be to park the cars it parks and should be better designed and striped and currently wastes a lot of good land) get no negative reaction but even applying for a grant to do any sort of building does. What does it say about our planning that a large patch of degraded asphalt is thought of as superior to a nature center? Puzzling to me anyway. It's like the preference for a commercial for-profit farm given to the farmer for free rather than having the Annenberg center --odd choices it seems to me. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: Sent 5/31/2010 11:24:06 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Grant Application I am writing this message to provide my personal comments, not in any representative capacity, to the item that appears on the consent agenda as a grant application. I will speak more bluntly here than in my previous communication, which was in a representative capacity and addressed only those issues that were constructive in the context of my representation. I object to this appearing as (1) part of the consent calendar when the City has to know that further coastal building will be of public interest, and (2) failing to mention at all in the agenda item what it is really for (up to 10,000 square feet of construction in the coastal zone for a second interpretive center in the City). Even people scanning the agenda for items of interest would not be informed by the item as listed and would be less likely to go the staff report and learn the real story. I would request that one or more Council members have the item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. It may be said that the Council is only voting at this time on submitting a grant application, but let's be honest. If this grant is approved, no one is going to say no to it. A vote on this grant application is a vote to move forward with the project. Absent a few watchful citizens, this would have been done without any public debate and at 6/1/2010 o/- A 0 best a circumspect notice. 1 find this grant application to be something of a kid -in -the -candy -store approach to City planning. Rather than finding funding sources that will support the City's current vision plan to create appropriate gateways to vast bulk of the nature preserves, create community facilities around City Hall, or continue the revitalization of PVIC, the City is jumping at money that only tangentially serves the long term vision, but at the cost of creating substantial short and long-term obligations in staff time and ultimately City expense, simply because the money is there. This is how businesses, non -profits AND governments get into trouble by either failing to have a business plan or failing to stick to the one they have. I agree that the side benefits of this grant—better parking, good restroom facilities, better trails, better picnic areas, better signage, and so on—are desirable. But not at the cost of another, and frankly unnecessary, interpretive center. We can find another way to pay for those improvements. Let's combine our interpretive features into a single zone around PVIC. Plans are already underway to include new exhibits there; expand those plans and include the kinds of marine exhibits that would have been put in this new center. Make space at PVIC for the other uses that would have been put at the new facility. Perhaps most importantly, there are only two places of undeveloped coastline left in our City, Shoreline Park and the Preserve area including Sacred Cove and the archery range. Putting the square footage of two McMansions onto Shoreline Park means our City, founded on coastal protection, will have built on every available piece of land that can be built upon along the bluffs. The community would have thought that Shoreline Park, being a park and being City -controlled, would have been spared. There are other options for the facilities being sought, and I hope the City pursues them. 6/1/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:33 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: June 1 agenda From: ANN SHAW [mailto:anndshaw@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:15 AM To: tomlong@palosverdes.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: June 1 agenda I'm not objecting to improvements but want a public discussion about the scope of the improvements. My concern is that we not be "locked into" a plan that has had no public input. If the grant is sent and accepted and this does not obligate the City to a specific plan then I have no objection to the grant. If the grant is accepted and the "scope of work" outlined in the grant proposal places an obligation on RPV to adhere to the "scope of work" as proposed, then I am concerned. Ann To: anndshaw@msn.com CC: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 23:36:50 +0000 From: tomlong@palosverdes.com Subject: Re: June 1 agenda Dear Ann, Any building would have to go through a full entitlement process. It makes no sense to do that process now sinc we have no idea if we will get a grant. I would encourage you to go out and look at the proposed site if you have not done so. A visitor center could be build and the current degraded asphalt parking lot reduced in size such that the overall area that is "developed" would not change much. A building would allow a place for Sealab, park rangers and docents to provide educational programs and better public access and to protect the tidepools and work on Abalone restoration. All of these possibilities, though, need only be addressed if we actually get a grant. The fiddicult and expensive entitlement process is not done before the grant is received --that would make little sense. Of course you and others are free to urge us to refuse to apply for the grant if that is what you wish. It puzzles me that a site that is sorely neglected and that has much of the land wasted in a very inefficient and ugly parking lot only draws negative attention when someone proposes applying for a grant to build a nature center that would likely be deisgned to be compatible with the Lloyd Wright style of Wayfarer's. I just don't understand how a big ugly parking lot with degraded asphalt and other decrepit facilities are just fine. What does it say about our society that we don't care how much land is wasted on a parking lot but a small building footprint on 75 acres of land to help provide programs, environmental habitat protection and restoration and public access is unacceptable? Staff --please include in late correspondence. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: "ANN SHAW" Sent 5/29/2010 2:45:52 PM To: "RPV Council" Subject: June 1 agenda Please remove item #3 from the consent calendar. I applaud the staff for their enterprise in seeking grants for improvements at Abalone Cove but am concerned about the scope of the improvements contemplated in the grant, 6/1/2010 1 V�;" especially the size of the proposed building. A project of this size should be the subject of a public hearing and I am unaware that this project has been described or discussed previously. If the grant application were funded, would the City be obligated to construct the improvements as outlined in the grant application? If so, then the Council and the public should have an opportunity to air their concerns. I see in the staff report that the deadline for the grant application is July 1, 2010, which puts everyone in a time bind. This is unfortunate but I still believe it is necessary to examine the project closely before allowing the grant to go forward. Thank you, Ann Shaw 6/1/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:30 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Consent Calendar for Tuesday From: Tom Long[mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 4:41 PM To: pinkhamd@aol.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Subject: Re: Consent Calendar for Tuesday Dear Dan and Vicki, Since the deadline to apply for the grant is July 1, it really is not pratical to delay in my view. We may not get the grant. If we don't, why go through the entire entitlement process now? If we do get the grant, the entire entitlement process is still required. Thus there will be ample opportunity for public comment before anything is done. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: Sent 5/29/2010 1:31:13 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Consent Calendar for Tuesday RE: Grant opportunities for a Nature Education Center Mayor and Council members; We would like to have more time for the public to comment on the nature education center and it's grant. We would like to request that the item be removed from this Tuesday's consent calendar. This would give us the proper time to find out adequate information on this project. Thank you for your consideration. Dan and Vicki Pinkham 6/1/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:21 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Abalone Cove Development From: Tom Long[mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 4:24 PM To: Bill Swank Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Subject: Re: Abalone Cove Development Dear Bill, I think the idea of the building is a visitor center. I'll have to ask about the degree to which we are locked in by a grant application but my understanding is that the entire normal entitlement process would apply. If a visitor center would be acceptable --where and what size and what are the criteria for selecting size? I suspect what is being proposed won't be very visible from your home given its height, the topography and trees and I think your home is one of the closest to the proposed site. I suspect the site will not be visible at all from many other nearby locations. Thus it puzzles me why it draws a negative reaction. I am also trying to determine the specifics of what in the vision plan is inconsistent with having a visitor or nature center. Jim's comments were pretty general on that point. I can't agree that continuing to leave the park in its neglected state ("unmanicured is a kind euphemism for it!) is appropriate. I understand that many neighbors of parks prefer they be left neglected to minimize public use, but I don't think it is responsible for us to do so. I also think some improvements will make what public use there is less burdensome and will help protect the environment. I don't think dedicating so much of the site to parking cars is appropriate, particularly when the parking lot is so poorly designed and more cars could be parked on a well- designed smaller lot. We are probably wasting more land with the parking lot than the footprint of any new building would take. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: "Bill Swank" Sent 5/29/2010 1:51:53 PM To: "Tom Long" Subject: Re: Abalone Cove Development thanks. The parking lot is not in the NCCP. Improvements to the park and the park's use, however, were considered as part of the vision plan and the results of that work are correctly described by Jim. The parking lot as it is does not bother me nor does the unmanicured look of the park. The previously proposed improvements to the park were designed to increase public use without changing the nature of the park. A ten thousand square foot building will change the park experience for the worse in my view. All of the good things in the proposal can be achieved by less intrusive means either at this site or at another. While I recognize that all that is at issue at the moment is a vote to seek a grant, once you apply for a grant to build a ten thousand square foot building I do not think it can be amended. I am informed that these funds have been available for some time and that there was plenty of time to develop an alternative proposal had the city expressed an interest. With all the ways there are to increase public access (signs, better trails, a visitor center at the gateway, outdoor interactive exhibits), it seems wrong to me to construct a huge building. It sounds like we simple disagree. Bill On May 29, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Tom Long wrote: > Bill, Thank you for sharing your concerns. As I understand it the building location is not in a portion of the NCCP. I don't see how it necessarily conflicts with the vision plan. I also suspect it won't be visible much, if at all, from homes in your area and that the improvements of the site will actually be more consistent with properly 6/1/2010 a 3 maintaining parkland and providing reasonable public access than what we have there right now. The building's footprint will likely be only a fraction of the current degraded asphalt sqare footage which (amazingly) does not seem to trouble anyone. Maybe we will even be able to shrink the parking lot and park just as many cars. I think it is worth your having another look at the idea before rejecting it altogether. I am intrigued by the idea that the Annenberg Center should simply take the place of anything such as this. That development too is far from certain. All proposals for physical improvements in all parks and in institutional zones on private property meet with stiff opposition and often litigation from neighbors so all of the developments have uncertain and lengthy futures such that one cannot be relied on to take the place of another. I will copy you on my reply to Jim. Staff -please include this in late correspondence. > -----Original Message----- • From: "Bill Swank" > Sent 5/29/2010 11:06:08 AM > To: cc@rpv.com > Subject: Abalone Cove Development > I join Jim Knight's comments on the proposed Abalone Cove developments. Many of us spent a lot of time in "vision" meetings to work on a coastal and preserve plan. The proposal is at odds with that plan. If there is grant money available, perhaps it should be applied to projects that are consistent with the document that was developed as a result of those meetings. The arguments for the building are arguments that can be made for any building put in any location. If the building is to be associated with the preserve, it would be better built at the preserve gateway. In its proposed location, it is several miles from the preserve gateway and will not provide any additional parking or access to the preserve. While there may someday be a trail through a development leading to an isolated portion of the preserve, users would have to cross Palos Verdes Drive South to gain access to the trial and the preserve. An accident waiting to happen. If the building is not associated with the preserve, its proposed uses are better accommodated at the Annenburg center which will likely have large areas otherwise unused. The proposed building, if needed, is proposed for the wrong location and is contrary to the public work that has gone into the coastline plan. If all the community effort is ignored, one wonders what the point was. Thanks. > Bill Swank > 8 Seacove Drive > Rancho Palos Verdes, California 6/1/2010 � From: Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:47 AM To: cicoriae@aol.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Subject: Re: Nature Center Grant Application for Abalone Cove That's part of the proposed project --to improve parking. Not suprisingly the project includes improving public access. And you are right we don't "need" a nature center. We don't "need" open space preservation at all or parks or PV Drive South or much of the government service we get. Indeed we can just disincorporate because the County can take care of us. We don't "need" the city either. If that's the standard then let's just pack it in and not ever try to improve anything ever again. Of course the above is just hyperbole. The real focus should not be on what we "need" or don't "need" but on what we think is desireable or not and why. Other than a visceral dislike for buildings of any sort I don't hear what the negative aspects of a nature center would be. I am curious why it is a negative. 8,000 square feet on 75 acres of land isn't much compared to the houses many of our residents live in. But it is different because it is a facility mostly for others perhaps. And it is not "needed" to park cars, so it draws a lot more negative reaction than houses or parking lots on the bluff, oddly. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: Sent 6/1/2010 8:26:38 AM To: tomlong@palosverdes.com Subject: Re: Nature Center Grant Application for Abalone Cove Tom, If the issue is improving the parking, then improve the parking. Eva -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Long To: cicoriae@aol.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 7:24 am Subject: Re: Nature Center Grant Application for Abalone Cove Dear Eva, I was attempting to respond to the questions in your first paragraph. I am sorry if I seemed to be disregarding your views --I am not --I just come to different conclusions. I am sure you have visited the site many times. My thought was that a visit critically looking at what is currently there and pondering whether it can be improved might be useful. While I am sure you have a good view of what is there now I don't see much consideration of possible improvement. Perhaps there is little such possibility in your view, but I think another look at the parking lot might persuade you otherwise. I agree with much of what you say below but I am still puzzled as to why a nature center draws a negative reaction and a large poorly designed and decrepit parking lot does not. I think additional visitors is a good things within reason. But the refrain of most of those who oppose the city applying for this grant is different. They remain concerned about outsiders impinging on the land. I guess I just consider providing good facilities for people more important. What we have there now is deficient (except of course that we have ample parking and are wasting a lot of good land providing it). Tom Long 10,1-4 .3. -----Original Message ----- From: Sent 5/31/2010 8:45:03 PM To: tom long (a) -pa losverdes. corn Subject: Re: Nature Center Grant Application for Abalone Cove Dear Tom, With due respect, I would encourage you to read my correspondence more carefully. I'm sure that you get a lot of correspondence on various matters, so it's understandable if you only have time for a cursory review, but your reply to my letter indicates that you missed many of the points that I attempted to make. If you reread my letter, you will see that I visited the site just yesterday. Moreover, I read the staff report and I addressed many of staffs arguments in support of the grant proposal, including use of the site for rangers. I don't know what you're referring to by "additional ousiders may come." Are you saying that's a good or bad thing? Based upon my many visits to Abalone Cove to hike, body surf and kayak, alone, with family and with Girl Scouts, I believe that Abalone Cove currently serves a diverse population. I see that as a good thing. The "enormous" reference in my letter was to the proposed Annenberg dog and cat facility. My letter acknowledged that the proposed nature center and parking lot would not be in the NCCP. I hope you'll take a few minutes to reconsider my comments. Eva -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Long tom long apalosverdes.com. To: cicoriae(a)aol.com Cc: clehr(c)-rpv.com; carolynnQrpv.com Sent: Mon, May 31, 2010 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Nature Center Grant Application for Abalone Cove Dear Eva, Among other things the building would replace a large portion of the degraded asphalt lot and we would redesign the lot. We would probably end up with more land area properly used than we have now. It is puzzling to me that poorly designed parking lots that are much larger than they need to be to park the cars they park draw no protest but the idea of a building modelled on Lloyd Wright's style to provide educational support does draw negative protest. The building would also allow Sealab a better venue for habitat restoration and park rangers a good location for better enforcement of the rules designed to protect the tidepools. Perhaps we can even have a webcam monitoring the tidepools. Much of Abalone Cove is crowded with an ugly parking lot and decrepit facilities all of which are inefficient. While additional "outsiders" may come, I suspect we can still meet all the parking needs with a smaller, better designed lot. The proposed building is not in the NCCP. It is in a park. But the proposed use would be compatible with the city's responsibility to make our public lands accessible to all and to better take care of them. All that is on the agenda for June 1 is applying for the grant. IF we get the grant we can then address all of the concerns and we can even reject it if we don't like the conditions of it. On the other hand, going through the full entitlement process now would not be efficient since we may never get the grant. I understand that many people in this community don't like any change of any type and are concerned it will be undesireable. And it is probably true that we don't "need" anything. Indeed we don't "need" a nature preserve or many of the extra things the city does have that enhance the quality of life. Still I would encourage you to go out and look at the cite and ponder whether its current condition is the best we can do or whether there might be something better. And take a close look at the location of the proposed building. It will be well shielded and can hardly be described as enormous. Staff --please include this as well in late correspondence. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: Sent 5/31/2010 3:55:13 PM To: cc(o)rpv.com Subject: Nature Center Grant Application for Abalone Cove Dear Mayor and Council Members, Regarding the proposed grant application for a nature center at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, do we really need another building on our coastal bluffs? Do you hear the community clamoring for more coastal building? Is another building the best way to educate our children about nature and our relationship with nature? Most of our coastline has already been altered from its natural state: We've got Trump National on one end of our city, Oceanfront Estates and Terranea at the other end, and lots of homes and condos in between. The flags at Lower Pt. Vicente show yet another enormous structure being planned for that site. Can't we have any areas on the bluffs devoid of buildings? If the concern is improved public access, I have to ask, "Access to what?" There is already a parking area at Shoreline Park. (I drove by twice this weekend and saw two and three dozen cars in the lot each time.) There are already trails. Those give the public access to the views, beach, tide pools and Preserve trails, which, it seems to me, are the resources that we want the public to be able to access. The vision plan calls for enhancing the blulf-top trails for ADA compliance and that seems to me to be the kind of improved access we want for this site. A building isn't going to improve access to anything other than what's inside the building. It is going to change the focus of visitors here. Instead of coming to the site for what it offers as a natural resource, people will come here to go inside a building, taking parking spots away from those who want to enjoy the natural resource. If the concern is education, think back to your childhood and what experiences made the biggest impact on your appreciation for nature—being out in it or taking a walk through a nature center? Put up a building and that's where kids will spend at least a good bit of their time on school outings. In my experience, children learn the most about nature by being out in it. Moreover, they develop an appreciation and respect for nature when, rather than having adults talk to them, they can enjoy activities in nature with adults modeling respect for the fragility of certain resources and demonstrating our responsibility to protect these resources from adverse human impacts. As for having fun, there is something about coming to a place that is a bit rugged and off the beaten path that is compelling to kids. There is a different feel to the Abalone Cove experience as it exists today than to the experience of parking at Terranea or Trump National, among buildings, to go down to the beach, through lawns and landscaping, nice as it may be. Some adults may see Shoreline Park as vacant land underutilized, but to a kid, it's an open space to run around and watch lizards, bugs, and butterflies. Because it's not in the NCCP, there is less pressure to stay on a trail, so it offers a different parkland experience than other "natural" open spaces. This is not to say that some signage wouldn't be beneficial. At Terranea recently, saw that they have installed simple, straightforward signs that attract the attention of people walking by and tell of the importance of leaving the sea life alone. To me, this sort of thing is preferable to the heavy human hand of constructing new facilities, which sends the opposite message—that what we really want is to use the land to the maximum potential, based on some standard that more development is better, and not worry about the toll it takes on nature. If the concern is a place for park rangers, it seems to me that park rangers are most effective when they are interfacing with the public out in nature. Put up a building and that's where the rangers will spend their time. They may talk to people while in the building, but that will take away from the time spent out on the trails and out at the tide pools actually monitoring visitors' activity. The re is no substitute for having that presence. Just yesterday, hiking at Eagles Nest, I came upon a couple sitting under a tree. The man was smoking! I called the Sheriff, then 15 or 20 minutes later I came upon an MRCA ranger and reported to him what I'd seen. The ranger couldn't leave what he was doing—citing another couple with a dog, but may have walked up there later. Who is more likely to comply with rules on their next visit—someone whom a ranger "educated" within a building or someone whom a ranger "educated" out on the trail? If I'm going to critique a proposal, I think I should offer another solution, so here is an alternative proposal to consider: One of the objectives of the grant program is to fund facilities that would "provide collections and programs related to the relationship of Native American cultures to the environment." Instead of the Abalone Cove proposal, why not substitute a proposal for a similarly sized building at Lower Pt. Vicente to house an educational facility that would complement the Tongva village concept, creating a sort of living history museum in lieu of the 25,000 square foot dog and cat facility currently being considered for Lower Pt. Vicente. To my knowledge, there's nothing like that in the South Bay. It seems to me that type of structure would be more palatable to the community at that location. Moreover, that type of use would be less of a stretch in terms of fitting in with the themes of educating the public about our natural resources, wildlife, geology, and history and likely would be more attractive to Terranea visitors. As always, thank you for taking the time to consider my input. Very truly yours, Eva Cicoria, RPV resident From: swensonsathome@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:59 PM To: cc@rpv.com I am writing this message in my capacity as Board President of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to provide comments to the item that appears on the consent agenda as a grant application. The Conservancy is not an advocacy organization or policy -setting organization, and it is the Conservancy's policy not to comment on land use actions unless the action affects the Conservancy or lands the Conservancy has under ownership, easement or management. While the majority of work that would be performed under this grant, if approved, would occur outside of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, the work would impact the Conservancy or the Preserves in several key ways, which form the basis of my comments: 1) Diversion of resources from Gateway Park, Civic Center and PVIC 2) Dilution of enforcement in Preserves 3) Impact on Preserve management 4) Communication These comments are in addition to, and not in lieu of, comments provided by Conservancy staff, which may overlap these comments to some degree, but which may also identify certain practical issues relating to the project proposed in the grant. To be clear, the improvement of public facilities at Abalone Cove could be a beneficial enhancement to public enjoyment of our coastline. Many of the items included in the grant are along those lines, such as public restrooms, better parking, improved picnic facilities, improved trails, and improved signage. However, these items are incidental to the grant, and are only obtained at the cost of providing a substantial nature center, and it is the nature center portion of the grant which provides the greatest concern, although other aspects of the grant proposal also require some additional comment. 1) Diversion of Resources. Most importantly, this project diverges significantly from the Vision Plan or any other coastal plan of which we are aware, and in so doing, diverts time and resources away from what should be the City's priorities. From the perspective of the Preserves, opening the Gateway Park and eliminating the ugly and decidedly unfriendly fencing blocking the public from the Preserve's Palos Verdes Drive entrance should be a priority. Del Cerro is overused and lacks any real facilities to accommodate public use. The Gateway Park was envisioned as the scenic and principal public gateway to the Preserves, and the City does not have the resources to pursue that project and this project concurrently, along with all of the other projects it needs to focus on. Additionally, the Civic Center vision provides another gateway opportunity to the Preserves, while providing additional substantial benefit to the community that will not be particularly served by adding a nature center at the Abalone Cove site. Finally, the Point Vicente interpretive center in its second phase could easily accommodate the types of exhibits envisioned for the proposed building. City staff would know better what the proposed grant funds could be used for, but it seems hard to believe that environmentally -based grant moneys would require brand new construction and not permit a building addition; this would be a rather ironic encouragement of wasting resources. In short, applying for the grant for a new nature center has every appearance of going after money just because it is there, without regard to whether the project it supports is really part of the City's priorities. In so doing, it digresses from the City's previously envisioned priorities for supporting the Preserves. Although the current vote is solely to apply for a grant, we find it hard to believe that the City will not take the funds if they are offered, so we view this as a decision on the project itself. 6/1/2010 C 2) Dilution of Enforcement. A portion of the facilities is to include space for the MCRA park rangers. The Conservancy was not aware that engagement of the rangers included an obligation for the City to use its resources (which include staff time and the opportunity cost of applying or receiving one grant over other available grants) to provide facilities to MCRA. Moreover, some communication suggests that this facility would make it more possible to use webcams or other video monitoring. Presumably this means someone sitting in the facility watching monitors instead of being out in the Preserves. The Conservancy respectfully suggests that MCRA rangers are most effective at their combination of education and enforcement when they are in the Preserves and not in a back room watching monitors. They need to be seen by the public and be able to interact with the public, and they need to see and learn the Preserves (which to date they have being doing and we would hate to see that focus change). 3) Impact on Management Responsibilities. Even as Council considers this agenda item, a management agreement between the City and the Conservancy is nearing completion for the Council agenda. This agreement includes, among other things, who will have responsibility for trail maintenance. The proposed grant project includes trail improvements that will now need to be part of that discussion. Trail maintenance was one thing when the trails were to remain unimproved, but once portions of trails are improved, particularly for ADA, maintenance is a different and more expensive issue entirely. The Vision Plan also included the possibility of ADA trail improvements, but none of the current negotiations anticipated any such improvements so quickly. The Council will need to consider the effect that making such improvements will have regarding the costs of Preserve management. The Council cannot expect to improve trails and then ask the public to pay for their maintenance through donations, yet to our knowledge, the grant proposal does not include funding for long-term maintenance. 4) Communication. The Conservancy is troubled that we learned of this application only at the last minute (the Friday before a holiday weekend) and only through communication by a neighboring resident who first brought it to our attention. I have heard that this may have been because submission of the application is itself somewhat at the last minute, yet the Staff report suggests this has been going on for months. Lack of communication may have been because it was felt this project was outside of the Preserves, but the point of the project is to benefit the Preserves. A strong relationship between the Conservancy and the City benefits both parties, but any relationship requires good communication. Overall, the Conservancy has felt that communication with both council and City staff has been good, and we hope that this is an aberration from which we all can learn. We believe the City's efforts would be better support identifying resources that would support the existing vision. If the idea is to change that vision, then changes should be part of a public discussion, not tucked away in an agenda item that fails to disclose the actual nature of the project proposed. 6/1/2010 From: carolynn@rpv.com Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 7:57 AM To: Carla Morreale; terit@rpv.com Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: Fw: Abalone Cove Park, City Council Agenda Item 3, June 1, 2010. Attachments: ISSUES CONCERNING PROPOSED GRANT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ABALONE COVE BLUFF TOP PARK-RMV-2010-05-31.docx Sent from my B1ackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed From: "Lowell R Wedemeyer" <lowell@transtalk.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 23:10:57 -0700 To: <CC@rpv.com>; <citymanager@rpv.com> Subject: Abalone Cove Park, City Council Agenda Item 3, June 1, 2010. I am appending a memorandum listing issues concerning the proposed grant application to build a 10,000 sq, ft. new building in the bluff top park at Abalone Cove. I will forward photos separately. Lowell R. Wedemeyer President, West Portuguese Bend Community Association 6/1/2010 l -0 8 ISSUES CONCERNING PROPOSED GRANT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ABALONE COVE BLUFF TOP PARK This is a response to the inquiry of City Manager Carolyn Lehr last Thursday concerning the Staff proposal to apply for a grant from the State of California to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. building and other improvements in the Abalone Cove bluff top park. Although I received the inquiry and am responding as President of the West Portuguese Bend Community Association ("WPBCA"), please note that there has been no opportunity for a meeting of either the Board or the Membership. I have informally inquired of a few people to identify issues. No position has been officially taken the by the WPBCA. Here I only list some questions that are likely to arise in deliberations by the WPBCA membership, by the City Council and by the Planning Commission. For convenience, this memorandum roughly follows the analytical format used under the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly called an Environmental Impact Report or EIR. Initially, I wish to dispel any notion that the WPBCA will oppose in knee-jerk fashion any and all improvements to the Park. It has not taken such a position in the past. 1. NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PARK. The Staff Report states the arguments in favor of the proposed development so I will not duplicate that matter. A significant portion of the Community likely will see this issue as a contest to preserve the soul of the Park. The issue is likely to be intensely contested on principle, as a quality of life issue. Many see the Park as a rare environmental jewel precisely because it is a relatively undeveloped, large, flat, sea -bluff park with completely unobstructed views in all directions. It has ready access for people of all ages and abilities, is immediately adjacent to an arterial highway, and has adequate parking. It has few of the use restrictions that place most of the NCCP lands off limits. 1.1 Will the proposed building itself become a destination attraction, primarily as a meeting or gathering place? Will the building detract from, if not destroy, what some people perceive to be uniquely irreplaceable, readily accessible, open -space, park land? 1.2 Will the greatly increased maintenance and operation requirements of a large building create economic pressure to promote fee -paying, destination use of the new building, for such things as private organizational meetings, conventions, weddings, and other gatherings? Is there already sufficient ocean -front development for such public gatherings at Terranea, Trump National and Palos Verdes Interpretive Center? • 1.3 Can the Park's character be better preserved and utilized through a combination of better maintenance (such as weed control and landscaping), more picnic tables, less intensive upgrading of rest rooms, outdoor educational signs, hikes and events? 1.4 Do the excellent Palos Verdes schools and the Palos Verdes Interpretive Center already provide sufficient, appropriate space and opportunities for indoor nature education? 2. GEOLOGY AND SOIL STABILITY. It is well known that the Park is surrounded by both active and ancient landslides. The Abalone Cove active landslide adjoins on the east and southeast. The park is bounded by the Barkentine Canyon outlet on the West, with an active landslide at the mouth of Barkentine Canyon immediately adjacent to the Park. There is an active landslide on the west wall of Barkentine Canyon in the Three Sisters Conservation Area a few hundred yards to the northwest. The sea cliff of the Park itself is progressively failing as its toe is washed away by storm surf, compounded by storm runoff passing through the Park and over the cliff. The York Point View and Wayfarers Chapel properties on the north and northeast are afflicted with both active and ancient landslides. There is a long-standing unresolved dispute over the suitability of the York Point View property for major development. Thus, the bluff top Park is in an area of scientifically questionable soil. Under separate cover I will provide an area photo which labels landslides and photos of the failing sea cliff. 2.1 What must be done to scientifically determine whether construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. building is safe and prudent? 2.2 The City, for legal reasons of consistency and credibility, has taken the position that geology standards for public works construction should be at least as strong as the standards the City imposes on private developers. What testing would the City impose if a 10,000 sq. ft. building were proposed by a private developer on a site with geologic conditions similar to those at the Park? 2.3 Would the City require test drilling? Suppose test drilling costs $50,000 per drill hole. Would the City require a private developer to drill five or ten holes in similar circumstances? How would the City pay $50,000, $250,000 or $500,000 for such testing? If the City has to pay for this soils investigation, what,, priority would be assigned to such testing relative to other capital projects being planned by the City? 2.4 Would the City's grant application be credible and competitive while critical geology and soil stability issues are unresolved? Would the State fund a soils investigation? 3. PARKING OVERFLOW PRESSURE ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS. Will development of a large destination building create overflow public parking pressures on the residential streets of the Community? 4. Will a full EIR be required under the California Environmental Quality Act for an 8,000 to 10.000 sq. ft. building? If so, what will it cost and who will pay for such an EIR? 5. IS PUBLIC PLANNING BEING PREEMPTED INAPPROPRIATELY? Is the urgency of what apparently is a speculative, low-probabilit, grant application inappropriately preempting the planning process? If the State were to approve a grant application that has been made on an urgent basis without thorough community planning, will the Community then be faced with an argument that because the money has been approved therefore the building has to be built as represented to the State in the application? 6. Should the City take a more regional perspective on parks, cooperating with sister cities to support grant applications for construction of nature education facilities in other locations (such as George F. Canyon, for example) with less impact upon rare, bluff top, open -space park land? Again, I must emphasize that there has been no opportunity for the Board and Membership of the WPBCA to consider and adopt positions on these issues. Therefore, this memo only identifies issues likely to arise. Nothing in this list of issues should be construed as a statement of my personal position, or that of any other individual, on any of these issues. Lowell R. Wedemeyer, President, West Portuguese Bend Community Association M r, Y - _ L J . t'. L ,e �, { { -. 3 j f 3 �L s s � 3 J -- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: RPV Council Members: LYNN SWANK [lynn.swan k@cox.net] Monday, May 31, 2010 4:26 PM cc@rpv.com clehr@rpv.com; carolynp@rpv.com Agenda Item #3 — Nature Center Grant Application This project and is ill conceived and fiscally irresponsible. RPV does not need another Nature Center to educate the public in a formal classroom setting. Learning occurs in many different settings. We can't afford to write the application or maintain the building and provide the additional services stated in the application let alone provide staff and volunteer services. Money and volunteers do not grow on trees. ACTION REQUESTED: DO NOT ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR STATE FUNDS TO BE USED AS SET FORTH BY THE STAFF REPORT DATED JUNE 1, 2010. I urge the City Council to take a Time Out and consider if these funds represent what RPV really needs during these difficult financial times. Develop what we have so it is extraordinary before adding another layer of services that we may not be able to afford in the future. Have the courage to say no to money for a program RPV does not need. -Discussion Many aspects of this application trouble me and I think further facts are needed before the City Council votes on this resolution. -Duplication RPV already has all of the education elements requested in the application. Why do we need to duplicate the extraordinary resources that already exist? We should improve what we have. Has the City determined that PVIC no longer serves a purpose? Are you abandoning PVIC because Annenberg is willing to pay lots of money for their "domestic animal" building and grudgingly incorporate the education activities at PVIC? -Fiscal Responsibility Staff states that a cost analysis will be done after submittal of the application. Never in my entire business and volunteer career have I been asked to take action on or submit a proposal for $7,000,000 without providing a thorough analysis of revenue and costs for obtaining the revenue and then outlining how the funds will be spent once received. My vice presidents and Board of Directors required this and these standards were especially true for a capital improvement project. The same standard should apply to a city council and city staff. The cart is indeed pulling the horse in this instance. Is there really a willingness to spend $7m without discussion or analysis? You must make priorities and difficult choices. -Limited Volunteer and Staff Resources I think there is a danger of over committing resources. Who is going to staff the center or lead tours? If the intent is to use docents, you are 1 in danger of depleting this resource and overextending your volunteers. Annenberg may also want to establish tours using city docents. Volunteer labor is free, but many organizations want volunteers. If the city can't staff this nature center with free volunteer labor, are you willing to hire employees to lead tours of the nature center and other parks? Is this included in the budget? Park rangers used to patrol the cove is great if they will be in the cove the entire time that it is open during all park hours. -Education Education takes many forms, not just within four walls and a roof. Why do all city parks need structures? I recognize and support the need to provide playgrounds and athletic fields for our children. However, we now only have one remaining passive park - Abalone Cove. (The Preserve is not a park by definition.) This park is the only remaining natural park on our coast. We are able to educate the public and children about nature in a natural setting. Education about how land appeared before artificial development is just as important as providing a building set apart from the world and enclosing them in a building where they can't see, smell, touch, or hear nature as it really exists. Interactive exhibits simulating nature in an enclosed building diminishes a person's outdoor experience. Why do you think so many teachers and schools want to bring their students to Abalone Cove and Forrestal? They want the kids to be outdoors, away from indoor classrooms, asphalt parking lots and buildings. Many children have never seen the ocean, and they have also never walked in a natural setting on real dirt. My experience as a docent has been that when the bus pulls into the parking lot the kids focus immediately on the ocean and birds and lizards and snakes. The last thing they want to do is go into a building and told to look at stuff. Let the kids enjoy their day away from the school classroom and learn in nature's classroom, the outdoors. The proposed nature center also calls for amenities such as extra storage, office space, concessions, gift shop and rentals. What do these items have to do with education? -Community input/Vision Plan This is a departure from the intention of vision plan and gateway concept. All stakeholders agreed upon the Vision Plan improvements as stated in the staff report after a very lengthy discussion process. The improvements were reasonable and maintained the concept of a passive park while at the same time providing access for all to enjoy. By no means is this a case of neighbors not wanting park improvements in their adjacent park. Everyone agreed with these improvements and I for one thought that the City would proceed as agreed upon by all stakeholders, including city staff. Is staff now arbitrarily changing this agreement in order to implement their own vision and set City policy? Is staff paid a bonus if they bring funds to the City from other sources? Building this Nature Center would completely disregard all prior public input and thousands hours of volunteer and staff time spent over the last several years. Is this the message the Council wants to send the public? Are you saying: Give us input and we'll pretend we want it, but we are really going to ignore the public's input and do what we think is best for the City. -Staff Report Why was this item placed on the Consent calendar? The staff report makes assumptions and alters the original intent of the Vision Plan. I believe erroneous conclusions and factual mistakes are contained in the report to reach a conclusion and change policy decided by the City Council. I hope these mistakes are unintentional. The timing of the submittal of application is suspect. These funds were available for 2 application submittal since the beginning of 2010. Because the deadline for the application is near, staff is circumventing the public input process that could have been used to garner support from all stakeholders. Again this deadline has the cart pulling the horse. Staff cites access to a future development for which no plans exist, and that hasn't been approved. Has staff already approved this theoretical development? -Parking The City is the worst perpetrator of making the parking lot a mess. The lot has been used to store sewer building equipment, dirt, green waste and film production equipment. If the City wants to use the lot for expanded parking or to improve the aesthetics, these uses must be considered. If the parking lot is modified to accommodate more cars or fewer cars, the Council should be reminded that you chose to do nothing about the permit parking program. Spillover parking from public use will require permit parking on neighboring streets. With the current parking lot I felt that public parking needs was addressed and permit parking may not be necessary. If you now include parking for the nature center, public parking on adjacent streets will once again be a problem and require costs to implement permit parking. Were these costs included in this application? Take a step back and treasure and care for what the City already has. Respectfully, Lynn Swank, RPV Resident 3 From: jim_knight@juno.com Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 9:24 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: AB Cove building RE: Grant opportunities for a Nature Education Center May 28, 2010 Mayor and Council members; Your consent calendar item for this Tuesday to apply for a grant to build up to a 10,000 sq. ft. nature center at Abalone Cove was brought to my attention by accident. I am not aware of any notice to the public of such a proposal. Although I am glad to hear that there is a grant opportunity to enhance the public's education of the natural resources our city has to offer, I am not sure if an 8,000- 10.000 sq. ft. building at Abalone Cove is the right answer. The Coast Vision Plan for Abalone Cove identifies new park amenities with picnic tables, shade features, benches, trash receptacles, an ADA accessible bluff top trail, trail signage implementation of an invasive species removal and low profile shade tree planting program within the park. An 8-10,000 sq. ft. building does not fit within any of the recommendations of the Coastal Vision Plan and is a substantial change from that Plan with little public input. This site has always been more of a natural open space and a large building could change that character, especially if it required night lighting. I agree that educational opportunities for the public to better understand stewardship of the sensitive tide pools at Abalone Cove would be a good addition to the park but it doesn't necessitate a 10,000 sq. ft. building to achieve that goal. Outdoor informational kiosks or a modest pavilion, including interactive exhibits at the to educate the public on tide pools, marine life, trails, conservation and protection of the habitat, geology and Native American history, would all be more appropriate for this site. The other components of the proposal such as improving the trail system and landscaping could remain and qualify for the grant if they include "focused learning about the natural environment". I think there are additional opportunities for this grant that are not being explored. In reviewing the grant guidelines, it appears that the grant program is open for far more than just "brick and mortar" facilities". The grant guidelines define a facility as incorporating "indoor and/or outdoor elements and structures, including interpretive trails and native plant areas." Also included are related restrooms, interpretive signs, kiosks and parking lots. Structures that qualify can be: • Freestanding interpretive exhibits, either indoor or outdoor • Outdoor structures used for nature education, e.g., arbors, ramadas, pavilions. The Coastal Vision Plan specifically calls out Gateway Park as being the ideal location for a Nature Education Center as it is planned to serve as a major public access portal to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. An outdoor kiosk center or pavilion at Gateway Park would appear to qualify for the grant guidelines and could include a restroom and parking lot, as well as interpretive signs on the Preserve trails. In addition, native planting or restoration incorporated with a nature educational facility, as well as a trail with interpretive signage, qualifies for cost reimbursement. This would fit into the Coastal Vision Plan goals for this park which has greater access to the bulk of the Preserve than Abalone Cove. I think a modest ranger station, with educational components, would be better served at Gateway Park where they regularly patrol the Preserve. Abalone Cove is just down the road for patrol as well. Grant acceptance is based upon points and the greatest amount of points are awarded for showing a "deficiency of similar opportunities in the community", and the "project serving the needs of a 6/1/2010 / 6 f— broad range of people." as well as for providing "alternate means of access to the nature education". Unlike Abalone Cove, Gateway Park is currently chained off from P.V. Dr. South and this improvement would open up new educational opportunities and access to the Nature Preserve areas that currently does not exist for a large, diversified population of the Los Angeles area. It can be accessed both from P.V. Dr. South by car, bike or foot as well as from the Crenshaw entrance by hikers, bikers and equestrians. The grant program offers opportunities for the city to apply for several different grants in each tier. The number of applications is only limited by the number of site locations each applicant owns and/or operates. The site location is the specific property, park or place where the project will be located and there are several grant tier categories available for consideration by the CA State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services. The staff report states that the PVIC is not well-suited for this grant as this grant can only be used for new construction. But the program states that eligible projects include exhibit galleries, including but not limited to, annex, wing or room added to or, renovated in, an existing building to house interpretive exhibits as well as installation of new exhibits and related fixed equipment within an existing building. So it would seem as though the program could apply to the PVIC. The city has stated that it is interested in future capital improvement projects and grant opportunities for the Annenberg Foundation educational facility at Lower Point Vicente so this could be applied there as well for a Nature Education Center. Fiscal impact to the city would be less as the PVIC and Annenberg proposal is more centrally located for staff support and there will be a savings in maintenance and operational costs at PVIC as a result of the public-private partnership with the Annenberg Foundation. The Abalone Cove site would require additional funds for part-time staff and additional full-time staff supervision. Other considerations: 1) The staff report states "The facility would also include space for an ancillary Park Ranger/Sheriffs substation." and "The renovated building would... provide additional storage for the park." While providing for Park Ranger substation or park storage is a good idea, be careful of the grant guidelines which disqualify "Any part of a building or facility which is not related to the need to provide, or support nature education" including unrelated office, storage and equipment space. The Park Ranger or storage portion of the proposal should relate to the nature education and satisfy the requirement of a "plan to sustain, operate and maintain the project,,. 2) CEQA requirements: -All projects must have completed CEQA review. -The cost of the CEQA review can be included in the cost estimate if the costs are incurred during the performance period of the program. -Mitigation under CEQA is an eligible cost if the mitigation is within the project site but are subject to a 25% cap for non -construction. No offsite mitigation qualifies for grant monies and must be funded by other sources. Thank you and I hope the Council will include more public input to find the most appropriate means to utilize this grant opportunity. Jim Knight Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! 6/1/2010 6`- 6P �`"J Page 1 of 2 From: Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:03 PM To: RPV City Council Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: I guess some of my assertions are being confirmed. Greetings. Yes, yet another mailer was sent out to registered voters. This one seems to confirm some of my assertions and the simliar statements and assertions by a growing number of residents that Marymount was actually willing to use taxpayer funds, until the roar of the growing crowd stopped to make them finally listen. At least I hope I helped them see some light. Now it is time to get them to offer to pay 100% of the mitigation expenses for the three intersections in both The Project and The Marymount Plan. Dr. Brophy and I had a fun conversation while the last C.C. meeting was going on and I stressed to him that taxpayer funds would be necessary if their initiative qualified for the ballot. I guess he blinked. So now I think I want to get him and others to offer to pay for the mitigation at P.V. Drive South at P.V. Drive East, the intersection of Trudie Drive at Western Avenue, and I would very much like him to agree to foot the bill for the entire cost of the concrete median that should go around the bend on P.V. Drive East. Dr. Brophy continues to contend that there will not be a signal system at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and P.V.Drive East. I hope he is correct, but I don't think we should continue to ask him to pay the fair share now that he is willing to foot the taxpayers' costs to have the initiative on the November ballot. How about I and others request that once a determination is made as to the cost of signalizing the intersection at issue, he and his supporters place into an Escrow account the full amount of the costs associated with signalizing and restriping that intersection? He is already willing to spend up to $200K on the concrete median, but once the figures come out for the other mitigation and the potential costs of the initiative, I hope he can hear from lots of residents that he must live up to the advertisements that have been going around: "The Plan will be completed at no taxpayer expense." O.K., let's really hold him to that or offer proof that taxpayers' funds will be used. I don't know where Dr. Brophy allows for Marymount paying what he states they are paying in 'taxes' per year. I thought that as a religious institution, they were exempt from property taxes and other taxes. Where might I be wrong about that, if any of you know? This latest mailer also confirms my assertions that is has been and always be about residence halls on campus. I will add the proposed measure would restrict city government oversight and that is not necessarily such a safety issue in my eyes are dorms are but it is growing to become a very major issue with me, others, and hopefully all of you. I really really don't want to need to speak at the next C.C. meeting and I won't if Mr. Davis doesn't come 5/25/2010 1 0fCIA/3 Page 2 of 2 up with another letter with supporting documents to postpone your votes. I do feel as a'regular' member of the public, and representing them in some fashion by my appearances at P.C. and C.C. meetings that it is time for the Applicant and CCC/ME to keep their mouths closed and not be allowed any group presentation time. Naturally anyone who wishes to speak for or against the Resolutions must have the right to do so, but having a specified time for the Applicant and CCC/ME to speak should not happen. If they haven't done the jobs they needed to do during these last two weeks, too bad, so sad, sit down, and shut up! As I am still probably the only member of the public who is quite satisfied with the Resolutions you will be voting on, I encourage a unanimous vote so that you can demonstrate a unity that The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is the best thing for our city, its residents, and Marymount. It also can help demonstrate the resolve to promote and support The Project over The Plan which can never find unanimous support if I get a chance to vote on it. I do hope you also vote, when necessary, to unanimously oppose adopting The Marymount Plan as it will be presented to you and that you unanimously call for the special election. Please do what you can to make the initiative a part of the November 2 ballot so I can marshall more voters who are on the fence to oppose it as they vote on all the other items that day. I fear a Special Election where the initiative is the only thing being voted on would not get the vote out for residents who lean against its approval but don't feel strongly enough to send in a completed ballot or go to a polling place for just one item. Thank you again for all you very hard work and lengthy considerations. You are helping me demonstrate and confirm my assertions that it is all about dorms and restrictions on government oversight. Mark Wells 310-241-0599 5/25/2010 From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:46 AM To: aram@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com; melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com Subject: Continuing Concerns with the Resolution and Conditions Ara I wish to emphasize serious concerns with the specific Resolution language and Conditions (67) are currently drafted. There is an important "disconnect" between what the City thinks is required for soil stabilization remedial grading, and what has so far been omitted from the proposed Resolution and Conditions of Approval received yesterday evening. The City's failure to follow up on the Geologist's requirements to incorporate a soil buttress shear key is demonstrated by the fact that not a single Geologist -approved Geotechnical "Map", Plates I & II, have been referenced in the Resolution or Condition 67. There is also an error in the Resolution in referring to the March 13, 2007 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan that was supposed to show this shear key. It does not. It is an "architectural" plan that does not bear the approval of the Applicant's Geologist (ASE), or City Geologist. I had previously pointed out to the City Council and Planning Staff that the correct reference was the approved (by ASE) Geotechnical Map, Plates I & II, bearing an approval stamp of July 19, 2005. This should be corrected in the Resolution. The next failure by the current Resolution and Conditions of Approval is the Omission of any reference to the Applicant's approval and City Geologist's approval of the May 15, 2009 Geotechnical Map and corresponding Plates I & II (Cross Sections). That "Map" was also approved by the Planning Commission in their July 14, 2009 Approval decision. Said May 15, 2009 Geotechnical Grading & Preliminary Drainage Plan documents the revised requirement for the soil stabilization of the south facing slope of the Applicant's campus, slightly revised to change for the re,moval of the previously proposed Residence Halls to the East of the Chapel area. Those plans were wet stamped by ASE and the City Geologist, with attendant transmittal letters and references, including multiple signatures. However, contrary to my multiple submissions recently, Condition 67 continues to inappropriately reference the late -submitted "architectural;" Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan of March 5, 2010. It falsely states, in my view, that such plan was reviewed and approved by the City Council. That is false because said March 5, 2010 Plan was never included in any of the Staff Reports for that meeting, no accompanying transmittal letter was provided to the Council or Public, and therefore, even if that Plan was "approved" as contended in Condition 67, it was never actually read by the City Council, and therefore was "approved" without any direct knowledge or reading of said document. A most curious and unprofessional method of approval. Additionally, that document (the March 5, 2010 Plan) is in error because the Council did approve a location, "D-2" for the playing field adjacent to PVDE. As I had previously notified you and the City Council in late April 2010, such "D-2" approval of that field location changes the amount if balanced - on site grading by an additional 19,000 Cubic Yards. The correct amount of Grading for that admittedly non -geotechnical Plan is now over 98,000 Cubic Yards instead. I am suggesting and recommending that this be corrected in the Condition. 5/26/2010 A Further and unnoticed deficiency and change brought about by adoption of field location "D-2" is the new and unapproved addition of a very large 9' high 240' long retaining wall along the North East sideline of the field. Further, that "D-2" has added a new corner set of retaining walls at the S/W corner, also not yet provided with "findings" necessary for approval. Said proposed Condition 67 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan also incorrectly specifies a field elevation height F greater than was previously approved by the Planning Commission (May 15, 2009 Plan) and an increase in elevation (by 8+ feet) for the four tennis Courts. These changes are inconsistent with referenced heights of nets, etc. in the Resolution that limit certain heights allowed and retain the same visualization constraints previously used in obtaining approvals. The March 5, 2010 proposed (referenced by Condition 67) Plan does not incorporate anywhere the required additional remedial grading called for by installation of the soil buttress shear key across the entirety of the south -facing slope.A's previously noted to Staff and the City Council, inclusion and specific requirement to implement this key geotechnical safety item represents additional on-site balanced grading of approximately 130,000 Cubic Yards. There is no excuse that the Resolution and Conditions of Approval remain silent and ambiguous on this subject that potentially opens the City to further lawsuits by the Applicant when such additional grading is "discovered" in "Plan Check". That simply not the proper place to "discover" such a large discrepancy. In today's Daily Breeze, an Editorial letter by Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long appears to discredit this geological concern of a previous contributor, and makes half-truth statements about the selection of a field location with reference to the City Geologist. First, if such documented geotechnical concerns are not properly implemented and followed through with, as suggested and recommended above, is the same as a marathon runner failing to cross the finish line. All preceding efforts would be wasted and for naught. Second, Mayor Pro Tem Long is referring to the City Geologist's review of an absurdly located field suggested by Staff in Appendix D, which was never an appropriate solution for retention of the existing turf field which has withstood the test of 32 years in time. Staff s answer and location placed a re- graded field at the exact edge of the Applicant's property line atop the South Shores Landslide area and required significant excavation and cuts into the existing landscape. Staff s Alternative field location also incredibly re -located planned parking to a new paved area replacing the proposed field along PVDE, a solution both unnecessary and a cause for aesthetic concern. Subsequently, in reassessing that alternative field location as Alternative D-1, Option 1, and Option 2, Staff continued an inappropriate solution that required incredible new grading and retaining walls that CCC/ME's (ignored) Option 3 did not require. Staff s options were changed dramatically only 3 days after they were distributed prior to the May 4, 2010 meeting. Such revisions as were made clearly demonstrated once again that Staff is not capable of making reasonable grading or alternate field locations proposals, which were appropriately dismissed and rejected on the (de) merits. However, the proposed Option 3 was never considered by the Council on its merits which completely solved the prior objections created by Options 1 & 2 and the faulty Option in Appendix D. Such relocated field in Option 3 required no excavation on or near the eastern property line and Landslide area, moving the field away from that area and maintaining the existing elevation without dangerous re- grading or excavations. Further, instead of requiring 90+ parking spaces to be relocated, Option 3 presented a feasible and non-invasive or aesthetically objectionable addition to the Western parking 5/26/2010 C2 of 4? area that had already passed aesthetic muster there. Little if any grading was necessary to complete this alternative as it would be placed "on existing" grade. Staff and the City Council further ignored the valuable contribution such retention would have by removing the need for a new collision "Safety" barrier on PVDE, saving both the Applicant and City hundreds of thousands if not a million[plus dollars in the process, Nor did the Staff or City Council appreciate and understand the fact that this Option 3 would eliminate the additional grading for the PVDE proposed field, thereby saving the cost and grading of at least 30,000+ Cubic Yards and numerous new retaining walls for the "price" of a small corner set of walls easily disguised by previously -proposed landscaping that the College had offered. That was a bad choice .No field nets would be necessary either. Yet all these advantages were seemingly ignored, including the fact that the retained field alternative D-21 Option 3 also included improved engineered drainage. Nor did Staff or the City Council (on the record) appreciate or recognize that there were significant (reduced) Noise benefits (reductions) by retaining the field at its proposed Option 3 location. I do have a relevant background in Construction, specifically in grading estimation and actual implementation of roadways and retaining walls. I question Mayor Pro Tem Long's experience or background to judge these matters successfully as demonstrated above. I question Staff s capacity to appreciate these matters as well given their recent history of wildly fluctuating retaining wall heights and grading quantities as demonstrated by the questionable changes made just prior to the May 4, 2010 meeting. More on this subject follows, but my chief concern is contractual given the history of the Applicant's attorney in chastising the City Council and making serious assertions about legal action as reflected in the record. My concern is that, if left unchanged, the Resolutions and Conditions of approval could be a source of future costly litigation for which the City may well have left itself vulnerable. Jim Gordon Professional Designation in Government Contract Management - UCLA May 28, 1992 CONTINUE WITH PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF CONCERN I have a concern that inclusion of Marymount's off to "contribute" $200,000 to the construction of a Collision barrier is a "Gift of Public Funds" because 1.) This "improvement" was never part of the Records developed in previous hearings on this subject, despite Atty. Don Davis's remarks on May 4th, 2010 that this was always a component of the evolving PVDE revised roadway project. and, 2.) No firm figure of cost or design was approved by the City Council for this barrier either at the May 4, 2010 meeting or on May 18, 2010. 3.) The Barrier is solely and uniquely required for the City's protection from Marymount's choice of field location at that PVDE area - either "D-2" or where it was "approved" by the Planning Commission. 4.)As part of the Appeal hearing, that approval was reviewed "de Novo" by the City Council and found to be a problem caused by Marymount's selection of field location, other than retention - without significant grading - of Field Alternative D-1, Option 3. As such, construction of this costly new feature is solely the responsibility of the Applicant, and not the City. Thus, any contribution of City Funds must be considered as a "Gift of Public Funds" not otherwise required for the PVDE future revisions as previously well documented. I have previously informed Staff and the City Council of my serious concerns regarding reference to the recent and unregistered Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans of January 15, and March 5, 2010. 5/26/2010 ? 0� 60 These Plans were NOT reviewed or provided to the City Council for review during any of the subsequent meetings, including the decision meetings of March 30 & 31, 2010. Nor was any transmittal letter provided or ever shown to the CC or Public in that regard. Further, the College has failed to provide you and the City with the required detailed grading quantities itemized in your September 18, 2009 e-mail. And the College President subsequently stated in writing that all those issues had been addressed when they were not. That is in the record. I am concerned that reference to the (stealth) grading plan of March 5, 2010 in Condition 67 is misleading and will potentially allow the College not to properly implement the soil buttress shear key remedial grading that has since day one of this EIR review, been an integral part of that grading requirement. That fact is demonstrated by the Geotechnical Map, Plates I and II of the ASE approved (7/19/2005) Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan dated 08/25/04 and prepared by MAC Design Associates. This is the submitted plan on which Marymount's EIR was re -started. This plan shows the Cross sections of remedial grading at a number of points and is based on having the proposed Residence Halls constructed on the South slope. Subsequently, as shown in the May 26, 2009 Staff Report, without these Residence Halls, a new set of Geotechnical Maps and Cross sections was prepared (dated May 15, 2009) by ASE and reviewed by the City Geologist. All are wet stamped and signed. The referenced soil buttress shear key remedial grading is shown slightly revised to the East of the Chapel area according to that approved documentation. So, this requirement was only slightly changed to reflect the removal of the Residence Halls but remains in force West of the Chapel area, unchanged. These are the approved and controlling Geotechnical documents that should be referenced, not the more recent "architectural" Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans that are inconsistent in grading elevations and (D-2) Field locations as now shown in the March 5, 2010 version. I have previously submitted information to you and the City Council in late April 2010, that approval of field location "D-2" would add over 19,000 Cubic Yards of on site, balanced Grading as compared with the elevations and field/tennis court locations shown in the contested March 5, 2010 Preliminary Grading and Drainage plan that was not submitted or approved by the City Council to date. That plan, and/or its letter of transmittal has not been provided to the Public or CC at this time, although I personally do have copies (thank you) of both those undocumented plans and have carefully studied them. One further comment that you should recognize and that I have also submitted to you, is the error in the statement that *DEIR Section 5.6 Soil Stability) incorrectly refers to the soil buttress shear key as being shown in the March 13, 2007 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. That is an error because that plan is an "architectural" plan, not a Geotechnical Map, and does not show that referenced shear key. That is a fact that should be corrected to properly refer to the (above) Geotechnical Map that was approved July 19, 2005 by ASE. The reference March 13, 2007 plan does show a change in that the new requirement for balanced - on - site grading is incorporated into the overall grading quantity calculations, whereas the 7/19/2005 site plan shows 10,000 CY of grading being exported. But it is that 7/19/2005 approved ASE Geotechnical Map - Plates I & II, that does correctly show the soil buttress shear key referred to by the DEIR Section 5.6 Soil Stability document. It was with no small degree of amazement that I watched the City Attorney make a 180 degree turnaround in her opinions expressed to the City Council within 13 minutes regarding the appropriateness of simply retaining the Resolution language in its complete written form (plus a correction for Carbon Gasses). 5/26/2010 The real reason that I am so seriously concerned with the Resolutions as written and Conditions as written, is that I am convinced that the College is trying to pull a "fast one" on the City regarding their obligation to conduct the geotechnically-required "soil buttress shear key" remedial grading. The evidence is their two Revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage "Stealth" plans delivered to the City January 15, 2010, and March 5, 2010. Neither plan incorporates the approved location of the Council's Soccer Field "D-2" although the proposed Resolutions do include what I believe is a "gift of Public Funds" in allowing a $200,000 "donation" towards the Collision barrier without even acknowledging that the cost of such barrier far exceeds that donation amount. > 1. Neither of those stealth plans includes approved elevations of the soccer field or tennis courts. > 2, Neither mentions any shear key soil buttress remedial grading. Only that the latest total quantity is less - 79,155 Cubic Yards. Staff loved that! Must be good, they stated. Less is Best! They fell for the College's ruse, hook, line and sinker > 3. Contrary to the Resolution statement, the CC never saw or approved either of these stealth plans. That is a historical fact. And a key omission. > 4. It was CCC/ME that brought up that January 15th, 2010 stealth plan to the CC's attention, but no party ever received that or the subsequent Plan, or any accompanying transmittal letter! The Staff Report never mentioned receipt of that document or the transmittal letter if one was included. > 5. Condition 67 quantities (79,155 CY) are erroneous because they do not incorporate about 19,000 CY more (combined) grading required to implement "D-2" due to the differences in elevations of the field and tennis courts. That fact has been brought to the attention of thee CC previously - and IGNORED! This is in the record and needs airing now in the final resolutions. Please note that none of these plans includes the required shear key remedial grading which adds many times that amount based on the balanced on site requirement of this project. > > Davis previewed what will happen later to the City regarding these grading quantities when he made his threat Tuesday night, May 18, 2010, challenging the City to incorporate his proposed last- minute changes to the Resolution and Conditions. While it IS true that Staff may have misquoted Appendix A instead of Appendix D in some instances, the College's proposed history revisions need not be so directly incorporated, simply refer to Appendix D, including and Tables there instead, much as I had already done in presenting specific corrections ((in red) to the CC and Staff. Those were IGNORED! Of course they were ignored, for, among other reasons, they were sent after 4:00 PM on Tuesday. Just like Marymount's were on the day of the May 4th, 2010 Hearing. Those were not ignored! So you can see clearly where this is all leading. > > But Attorney Davis was not done as he foreshadowed another menace to the CC by correctly explaining the fundamental Contracting principal that any later different interpretations of a contract are settled by deciding AGAINST the Drafter. His words. This is important. Remember them because the remedial grading of over 100,000 Cubic yards is not presently mentioned anywhere in the Resolution or in the key Conditions. The Resolutions and Conditions should specifically include reference to DEIR Section 5.6 and the included section on "Soil Stability" where the need for the shear key was generated. It is suggested that such reference include the May 15, 2009 approved Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan and the accompanying Geologist's reports - by ASE & by the City Geologist. Both contain "wet stamped" approvals and signatures! The March 5, 2010 does not include validated 5/26/2010 Q� Geotechnical information or Cross Sections. > Remember that Ara stated to the CC that maybe the concerns about the remedial grading was a problem, but that it would be caught in "Plan Check" later! Plan Check is not the appropriate place to discover 130,000 of critical excavation grading is needed because the College will say that it is the City's fault and that they will not pay for this extra grading. Then, who pays for that EXTRA grading? Not Marymount! Who gets another time extension to do that? Marymount will now claim they need more time! It is simply my opinion that the College will not willingly pay for another 130,000 CY of grading that they can't find in their entitlement (Contract). They will trot out Don Davis once again and get the City to pay for that - and grant another 6 months time extension - or another summer period. And just what will Ara say then? What will the Council's position be then? You guessed it! The City of RPV pays, just like they are proposing to do for Marymount's Collision Barrier. > > This issue is a current and continuing concern because that shear key requirement is not presently included in either the Resolutions themselves or the Conditions of Approval, notwithstanding Condition 67. And geotechnical risk has been a major driving factor in this entire EIR. Now is not the time to let down our guard. > > In fact, since Condition 67 expressly refers to the College's own late submitted March 5, 2010 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, such inclusion is a huge mistake and naive oversight by the City. Staff has demonstrated repeatedly that they are incapable of understanding and/or computing grading quantities. So far Staff has been unsuccessful in extracting that information from the Applicant. Recall their unsubstantiated April 18, 2009 briefing on grading quantities to the CC. I wrote the CC on that with a piece entitled "The Fallacy of Staff'. This explains the true grading quantities involved with application of the required shear key remedial grading that had been left out. The amounts shown by Staff in that Presentation are and were completely without merit or documentation available to the Public. There is a fundamental reason that the College has been submitting new Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plans, and NOT to the Geologist -approved May 15, 2009 version, I am of the opinion that when, as said Condition 67 directs, that during "Plan Check" the Geologists will find the omission of that shear key grading - and it amounts to at least 130,000 MORE cubic Yards of grading at least - even without Residence Halls, the College will then point out that the "drafter" of this Clause and Conditions - the City of RPV - has erred and it is the College's interpretation of this "contract" that nowhere in it is the College required to excavate and re -compact another 130,000 Cubic Yards of grading. > > Presently, there is no mention in Appendix A of that May 15, 2009 Approved Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan, and there should be. That will correct the Record and protect the City. That is my issue and cause for concern. > Remember, Don Davis stated to the CC on May 18, 2010 at approximately 2:14:03 into the video transcript that.."I think on this occasion (we) are in complete disagreement - by striking (comments in his 14 page letter) you will cause us to challenge the City's action. ..and it is my legal duty to make sure you don't make errors of law. By striking our comment letter, you are going back to the Traffic Analysis in Appendix A; You caused us to wait a year (actually 9 months and the College caused that by waiting to disclose that they were applying to become a four-year College in early September 2009) -so we could do Appendix D and have the correct numbers. > Those numbers can easily be "corrected" by simply referring to Appendix D in appropriate instances. Not rewriting the history as suggested by Attorney Davis's late Comment Letter. If such "corrections" 5/26/2010 / J,' C� br are so important as to cause the College Counsel to state that "you will cause us to challenge the City's action..", is it not also true that the record should be corrected as submitted (above), to reflect accurately the decisions reached that require the College to comply with the geologic decisions and documented conditions reached and approved by the College's own Geologist and City's geologist as memorialized in their May 15, 2009 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan and transmittals thereof? > It is interesting to recall from that meeting that City Attorney Carol Lynch stated to the city Council (2:06:52) that "sticking to the original Resolution with that (Greenhouse Gases) change, is an appropriate decision if that is what the Council would like to do (2:07:27) . Mayor Pro Tem Long had asked whether or not it was necessary to make any of these changes tonight of the document that was handed out?" > But, following Don Davis' remarks (above), the City Attorney changed her advice in responding to Council's question (2:19:21) from Tom Long "is it necessary to make any of these (Davis's Comment letter)changes tonight of the document that was handed out." > City Attorney Lynch: "We do believe these are essential changes." (see my previous legal advice of 2:06:52!) > Tom Long: "OK, in light of that, I withdraw my motion." Night and Day. Black and White. > Because of the omission of any real reference to the shear key remedial grading that has so far been completely ignored by Staff and the Cc, despite numerous letters and inputs regarding this issue, I strongly am concerned that and believe the College could claim later - in "Plan Check", that they are only obligated to grade 79,155 CY and that others - the City - is responsible for "Detrimental Reliance" with serious financial implications for RPV and the Neighbors - as they did before in demanding a Front, Street -side setback variance that was so stated in their November 11, 2008 Variance Application, and that, as has been previously sent to the PC and City about that required remedial grading,.I had stated that... > > -We respectfully disagree because it is the Applicant's responsibility to provide a feasible design and process, it is not the City's responsibility to correct such major oversights later, after entitlements have been approved > > -Moreover, since if the project is approved as -is, and the Applicant moves forward, the City will be in an awkward position of "error" potentially requiring compensation to the Applicant for "detrimental reliance" > > -This is not a far-fetched possibility: It has already happened with the College's Variance Request for front, street -side parking that is quoted from their late Application for Variance; Marymount had claimed, in their Application for Variance that.. > > *"Each such site plan.. submitted by the College since 2000.. was accepted by the City without comment as to this setback other than discussions with and direction to the College to include a landscaped buffer of at least 10 feet. As such, the College justifiably and detrimentally relied on these submittals 5/26/2010 7o� when preparing more detailed development plans for its proposed improvements. " > > • "As such, the College justifiably and detrimentally relied on these submittals when preparing more detailed development plans for its proposed improvements. " > > • "the College has invested tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time on construction -related plans, which may need to be significantly revised if relief is not granted. Accordingly, the College believes that this prolonged period of reliance on what now appears to have been an erroneous administrative determination or oversight, at minimum, constitutes an additional special circumstance that supports the College's request for a variance. > > •It would be informative to find out why and who has the responsibility for significant omissions in this plan, including, but not limited to the requirement to_partlallydem.ol demolish portion of the Western side of the Student Union prier to pad grading of the Athletic building? > > -Why, for example, has the College or City not come forward with this late discovery? Where have the College's experts been? Waiting to sue the City later? > > This is a section extracted from the document delivered to the City and CC entitled "The Project is Infeasible — as presently designed" dated 3/31/2010. > > I don't know why the City Council and Planning Staff continue to ignore these vital concerns. > > Jim 5/26/2010 6 � 4? 25 MAY 2010 Sir, Yesterday I received a " letter" to the mayor and councilmen from Dr Brophy of Marymount, recommending that the city adopt their initiative (since the people have spoken), and an offer to pay the city's cost for placing the initiative on the ballot. I personally was offended by the arrogance of the letter and the method of presentation- a professioally prepared mailer and later a full page color ad in the newspaper. To accept their offer would compromise the city's and resident's powers and rights. I consider these offers to be threats and bribes. I REQUEST THAT YOU REJECT DR BROPHY'S OFFERS AND ALLOW THE CITIZENS VOTE THEIR WILL AND AT THEIR OWN UNCOMPROMISED EXPENSE. Another subject. Dr Brophy refers to the college as a resource and benefit to the community. This has always bothered me. I know its unpopular to be against the conventional wisdom beliefs of the ivy covered liberal arts and religious college but my own observations and browsing the internet make me wonder. I find from the internet that Marymount is an expensive college with a low academic rating. It also appears the students need considerable non-academic amenities. Look at the"expansion" intems.lf you think the college is really an asset I would like know the basis. Is there any documented evidence, quantitative studies, etc, that show for example: sucess rate of the students, increased revenue to the city and employment of RPV residents, increased property values, SIGNIFICANT local student attendace, specific cultural and educational benifits for RPV. If you have knowledge of such information would you please tell where I could obtain it.. Thanks for you indulgence and your service to RPV. Fred Koehler 310 541 1866 3352 Seaclaire Drive I of 13 COPY OF STAFF REPORT & MINUTES Staff Report for 01/12/2002 Item #8 Beautification Grant Program Award History. (Allison) Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program. Follow-up Agenda for 01/12/2002 Item #8 8. Beautification Grant Program Award History. (Allison) Action Taken: Directed staff to (1) Restore use of recycling funds for grants available to Homeowners Associations for neighborhood beautification and to encourage the use of community talent wherever possible to lower cost of projects. (2) Increase funding, if possible, for the beautification grant program based on data to be collected by staff. (3) Stop all work on the Hawthorne beautification program in order to revisit the Council's approach to goals and alternate funding, including using community talent to lower the cost of this project. (4) Re -publicize the availability of these grants and request that the Council of Homeowners Associations encourage homeowners associations to take advantage of this program, particularly those groups which have not already received grants. " 8. Beautification Grant Program Award History. (Allison) Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program. Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 12, 2002 SUBJECT: BEAUTIFICATION GRANT PROGRAM AWARD HISTORY Staff Coordinator: Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program. BACKGROUND This item has been brought to the City Council at the request of Councilmember Clark. Since 1989 the City has annually awarded beautification grants of up to $2,500 to homeowner groups for the purposes of beautifying the City. Over the past 12 years a total of 246 grants with a value of more than $ 535,000 have been awarded. The grants may be used only for the purposes of constructing improvements. The maintenance of any improvements constructed under the program is the responsibility of the homeowner groups. The grants have been used to fund many beautification efforts. Grant monies have been used to beautify entry walls to neighborhoods, install landscaping in parkways and medians, and to construct fencing to name a few. In evaluating applications nearly all applications were approved that in some way beautified the city and were visible from the public right of way. It is not clear if any grant application has been denied. Out of a total of 105 homeowner groups and schools that are eligible to receive grants, 91 have been awarded at least one grant. Homeowner groups are eligible to receive grants each year, and some homeowner groups have constructed costly improvements using a multi-year approach. The most successful homeowner group has received a total of $20,000 in grant monies over eight years. In 1998 the program guidelines were revised to allow applications from the City's school and library locations. Grants to the library and school require a 50% district match. Attached is Exhibit "A", A Summary of Beautification Grants. Also attached is Exhibit "B" which reports Beatification Grant Award Amount by HOA. Funding for the beautification grants comes from City's recycling fund. The primary source of funding is the redemption value of recyclables from residents. The recycling fund receives annual revenues as follows: fixed amount from its residential haulers Gross receipts from beverage containers redeemed from the curbside program IThe City's share of State Curbside Supplemental Payments t __.__._..__m.__._._,.._._._...__,___.___.,_.___.m._1_.�..____.___.__.___...__.�__ __. State Block Grant otal Revenues *These amounts fluctuate slightly from year to year and are not a fixed amount $ 80,000 * $120,000 * $ 40,000 $ 13,000' $ 253,000 In addition to funding the beautification grant program the city has traditionally used it's recycling fund for the Recycler of the Month Program, litter pickup along the City's arterial roadway, servicing recycling bins at parks, and to design and construct median improvements. The adopted fiscal year 2001-02 budget identifies the following expenses for the Recycling Fund: nual Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program of the month program ;Litter pickup along the City's arterial roadways iRecycling bins at City parks and Trails Median design and construction � nal Services, Administrative and Overhead $ 82,000 $ 7,000 $ 10,000 $ 3,000 $100,000 $ 15,000 $ 217,00 Notal 0 In 2001 the City Council established an adhoc committee to propose improvements to beautify the City. Mayor Lyon and Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart were appointed to the committee. The Committee considered a number of potential projects such as under grounding utility lines and constructing landscape improvements along the City arterial roadways. The committee concluded that constructing landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard is the highest priority. The committee together with the City's on-call landscape architect prepared a report on Hawthorne Boulevard which: o Evaluated median and parkway conditions o Developed a landscape theme for median and parkway improvements o Developed a costs estimate for landscape improvements along the entire reach of Hawthorne Boulevard at $6 million. o Identified the reach along Hawthorne Boulevard from Seamount Drive to Locklenna Lane as phase one of the improvements. o Prepared an engineers' estimate of $600,000 for phase one improvements A report was presented to the City Council on September 4, 2001. The report included a funding plan for phase one improvements as well as a multi-year funding plan for ongoing landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard. The funding plan for phase one improvements is as follows: The multi-year funding plan proposes to accumulate funds in the recycling fund and construct a $466,000 landscape improvement every other year. The plan for both phase one and future years costs reprograms funds formerly used to fund the Neighborhood Beautification Program to Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Project. Engineering $ 50,000 Recycling Fund Balance $430,0001 Construction $ 550,000lFund Balance Roadway $100,000! Beautification Fund lReprogramming of $ 96,000 'FY 01-02 Neighborhood i Beautification Funds i Total j $600,000 Total The funding plan for future years costs for landscape improvements along Hawthorne Boulevard is as follows: Total anticipated annual recycling revenues �� $253,000 s ..... Less Recycler of the month program ($7,000) Less: Litter pick up along the City's arterial roadways ($10,000) Less: Trash bid maintenance in the City's Parks ($3,000) IFunds available annually for Hawthorne Boulevard beautification $233,000 The multi-year funding plan proposes to accumulate funds in the recycling fund and construct a $466,000 landscape improvement every other year. The plan for both phase one and future years costs reprograms funds formerly used to fund the Neighborhood Beautification Program to Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Project. At the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting the City Council took the following actions: Approved the preliminary median and parkway landscape plan for Hawthorne Boulevard Authorized the design of phase one improvements Revised the expenditure plan for the Recycling Fund to re -program funds from the Neighborhood Beautification Program to Hawthorne Boulevard beautification efforts Requested staff to make periodic progress reports on phase one landscape plans. Councilmember Clark has requested that this item be brought back to the City council for additional discussion regarding the reprogramming of funds from the Neighborhood Beautification Program to the Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Program. Respectfully Submitted: Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Les Evans, City Manager Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" EXHIBIT "A" SUMMARY OF BEAUTIFICATION GRANTS Total Number of Known HOA's 80 Other Non -HOA groups (schools, library, PTA, Church) 11 Other HOA groups (ad hoc, branch -offs, name changes, etc) 14 Total Number of possible applicants 105 Total Number of applicants receiving Beautification grants 91 Total Number of HOA's not receiving Beautification grants 14 Total Number of grants awarded- Cycle 1 through Cycle 12 246 $535,428 Average amount of grant awarded- Cycle 1 through Cycle 12 $2,175 Applicants awarded 8 grants 5 Applicants awarded 6 or more grants 12 Applicants awarded 4 or more grants 21 Applicants awarded 3 or more grants 35 Applicants awarded only 2 grants 20 Applicants awarded only 1 grants 34 HOA's awarded 0 grants (HOA's that have not applied) 14 Applicants awarded at least $10,000 in grant funds 18 $253,700 Applicants awarded at least $12,000 in grant funds 13 $184,800 Applicants awarded at least $15,000 in grant funds 6 $103,600 Exhibit B The HOA's listed below have been the most successful in receiving grants. The total amount of grants received from the City since the inception of the grant program is: Ridgegate HOA $20,000 Seaview HOA $19,294 Ladera Linda HOA $16,750 The Hill Community (Hill Top Circle) $15,963 Miraleste Hills HOA $15,860 Mediterrania HOA $15,753 n ssignment. (3) The City_.Be�affcatio matte were disbanded_. dled by establishing ad hoc committees as nee _.�a saecific border issues. Beautification Grant Program Award History (1204 x 602) Director Allison presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 and the recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the future of the neighborhood beautification grant program. Mayor McTaggart wondered if a State beautification grant could fund the Hawthorne Boulevard Beautification Program or maybe if part of the beautification program acted as traffic calming, there might be a source of funds related to traffic calming. He suggested that the South Bay COG be consulted. Councilwoman Ferraro noted that at one time the program required that Homeowners Associations match funds but that associations did not always apply for the maximum of $2500. Councilman Gardiner asked what commitments had been made to spend recycling funds on the Hawthorne Beautification Program. Director Allison said that the design had begun but there was a 30 -day cancellation clause. He estimated that 10% of the work was complete on this contract cost of about $55,000 and estimated that the City would lose $5,000 to $6,000 if the work were stopped. Lois Karp, 31115 Ganado Drive, a past Homeowners Association president, spoke in favor of beautification grant program and listed the benefits as community involvement, encouragement to recycle, and spreading the beautification to all parts of the City rather than one, as in the case of the Hawthorne Beautification Program. John L. Beringer, 3412 Seaglen Drive, President of Mediterranean Homeowners Association and Treasurer of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations urged the Council to re -institute the beautification grant program. He detailed projects built by recycling grants his association received over the years. He echoed the previous speaker's sentiment about spreading the beautification over different parts of the City. Don Shults, 2129 Velez Drive, encouraged the Council to re -institute the Recycling Beautification Grant Program and he noted that the grants encouraging recycling and that the City would be subject to large fines if recycling decreased below mandated levels. Vic Quirarte, 24369 Quailwood, Vice President of the Mesa Homeowners Association, speaking for President Ray Mathys, who could not attend, spoke about past projects funded by grants received by his association and about future projects for which it was City Council Minutes Saturday, January 12, 2002 Page 7 hoped grants would be available. Brian Campbell, 6477 Charles Drive, President of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Associations, saw the real value in these recycling grants as the spark they provided to encourage neighborhood interaction and volunteerism. He cited neighborhood barbeques at which suggestions for projects were discussed and residents supplying labor to help complete the projects. He felt the process and the community pride was much more important than the actual funds received. Bill Dytrt, 6420 Sattes Drive, had worked with the City on two grants and found the experience very satisfying and he stated that much money was saved by using volunteer help within the neighborhood. Diane Weinberger, 4206 Exultant Drive, President of the Seaview Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the recycling grants and against the mandatory matching of funds. She agreed that community talent should be used to save money and she said that she had a design degree and would welcome the opportunity to help with City beautification projects. Councilman Clark expressed appreciation for the community comments and supported the reinstatement of the recycling grants program, which he felt was innovative and worthwhile. He agreed that alternate funding for the Hawthorne Beautification should be sought and that Phase One of the project should be studied again and community help encouraged. Councilman Gardiner was impressed with the spark of neighbor interaction which these grants have produced. Mayor Pro Tem Stern wondered if it would be possible to increase the total funding as well as the amount of the individual grants. Councilman Gardiner moved to (1) Restore use of recycling funds for grants available to Homeowners Associations for neighborhood beautification and to encourage the use of community talent wherever possible to lower cost of projects. (2) Increase total funding and per grant funding, if possible, for the beautification grant program based on data to be collected by staff. (3) Stop all work on the Hawthorne beautification program in order to revisit the Council's approach to goals and alternate funding, including using community talent to lower the cost of this project. Councilman Gardiner thought staff research was necessary before a decision could be made. Councilman Clark, as the seconder of the motion, motion proposed that the motion include a fourth element. He suggested re -publicizing the availability of these grants and request that the Council of Homeowners Associations encourage homeowners associations to City Council Minutes Saturday, January 12, 2002 Page 8 6� gj take advantage of this program, particularly those groups which have not already received grants. The maker of the motion agreed to this addition to the motion. The amended motion carried. Border Issues Status Report (310) City Manager Evans presented the staff report of January 12, 2002 an he recomm dation to review the current status of border issues and pr vide direction to the City Counci ommittee and staff. Regarding the bor Hills Community Center, City Managerans distributed a letter from L.A. County \rep iDon Knabe listing modi/ae o the development. (Said letter is on file with lerk's Office.) He noted project is now involved in the planning process thCity of Lomita becausee reduction of the parking lot. He suggested thatntative attend the Loming Commission meeting to speak in support ofer parking lot when thq'issues comes before that body. Mayor McTaggart suggested t t a member of a former Border Issues ad hoc committee attend this meeting. Regarding the Garden Village Shop "ng ter, and specifically the Albertson's Grocery Store, City Manager Evans distribute etter from geotechnical consultants Leighton and Associates regarding the integrity of o e underground private and public sewer and storm drain pipelines. Repairs are n ede and a representative of the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, as said at a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until repairs are made an approved. also distributed a draft report on the Garden Village Revitalization P oject from the Ci of Los Angeles. (Both items distributed are on file with the City Cler Office.) Regarding other border i ues, City Manager Evans rekorted that there was nothing to report on the Rolling Hi1A Covenant Church project or thkgolf course in Rolling Hills Estates but these de opments would continue to be mo " ored. He asked if the Cgpncil wanted to appoint ad hoc committees"Qr any specific border issues at this tim . Council consgfsus was to postpone appointments at this time. MayorP em Stern suggested that the format of the monthly border ues status report to in " to new information in bold print or some other means to highlight facts not inc ded in previous reports. City Council Minutes Saturday, January 12, 2002 Page 9 r From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:45 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Beautification Program Modifications --Comments to Staff Report Date June 1, 2010 From: Long, Thomas D. [mailto:tlong@nossaman.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:00 AM To: Jon Cartwright Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: Beautification Program Modifications --Comments to Staff Report Date June 1, 2010 bear Jon, I am sorry to hear about your problems and I wish you a speedy recovery. My mind is not made up- -I just have some serious concerns and questions which I am sure are not easy to answer. I do respond to almost all e-mails sent to me and tell people of my concerns. Were I not to do so I would be labelled unresponsive. When I do so I am told my mind is made up. Wrong no matter what I do I guess. The inability to address my concerns is perhaps all the more reason a committee looking at the situation may need the advice of the city attorney. Tom Long From: Jon Cartwright [mailto:RPVJon12@msn.com] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:41 PM To: Long, Thomas D. Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru Subject: Re: Beautification Program Modifications --Comments to Staff Report Date June 1, 2010 Dear Tom, Your questions deserve thoughtful answers, but, unfortunately, time does not permit me to do that. I have a bulging disc impinging on my sciatic nerve. Tomorrow morning I'm going into the hospital for the first of a series of surgical procedures. If the Neighborhood Grant Program survives, I will answer your questions in a more thoughtful manner. However, judging from the content and volume of emails going back and forth between you and CHOA members it appears that your mind is made-up. If this is true, that is unfortunate; I think the program has served the City well in the past and could be even better if it were broadened to include more homeowner groups. Jon ----- Original Message ----- 6/1/2010 From: Long, Thomas D. To: Jon Cartwright Cc: Carolyn Lehr ; Carol.ynnPetru. Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 5:30 PM Subject: RE: Beautification Program Modifications --Comments to Staff Report Date June 1, 2010 Dear Jon, Thank you for sharing CHOA's thoughts on the issue. What would you think of a committee that would include at least half of the members of the public from neighborhoods without HORS.? (Such neighborhoods have half the population of the city.) Also what about including the city attorney on the committee to help direct the committee toward solutions that are appropriate? I think some of the concerns about the program may not be fully understood. The concern is not merely that large HOAs get most of the grants but also that neighborhoods without HORS get few grants. So far, during the existence of the program, the staff report seems to show that most residents are not benefitting from the program. Also much of the work is on private property. I guess one could say that improving private property benefits the public --but then why not use public funds to paint homes? Where and how does one draw the line? I also don't understand why adding appointed, rather than elected, community leaders to a committee addressing the issue adds credibility. What are your thoughts on that? The council normally handles public funds. And we get little criticism of our handling of public funds, so it seems to me that we are handling public funds in a credible way. Tom Long From: Jon Cartwright [mailto:RPVJon12@msn.com] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 4:25 PM To: Stefan Wolowicz; Long, Thomas D.; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Douglas W. Stern Cc: Lois Karp; Mike Conner; Vic Quirarte; Betty Riedman; Prim Hamilton; Jon Cartwright Subject: Beautification Program Modifications --Comments to Staff Report Date June 1, 2010 RPV COUNCIL OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS (CHOA) 30630 Calle de Suenos Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 To the RPC City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Re: Recycle Beautification Program Modification Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council, 6/1/2010 C)L '0 Regarding the June 1, 2010, Staff Report concerning the Beautification Program Modifications, the RPV Council of Homeowners Associations (CHOA) has the following observations and recommendations. One observation is that the June 1, staff report does not address the Councils' concerns as expressed at the October 21, 2008 City Council meeting. At that meeting, Council members raised concerns that the grant funds may not have been optimally distributed among residents. They also indicated that it appeared that a disproportionate amount of funds was paid to certain groups. Staff was also directed to consider ways to distribute the grant funds to a larger portion of the community, and bring back alternatives for Council consideration. Staff began the process of revising the grant guidelines. CHOA officials met with staff in 2008 on two occasions to discuss ways to encourage more groups to apply and ways to improve outreach to increase neighborhood participation. CHOA suggested deferral of the grant program for one year with the current year funding ($75,000) kept in abeyance until the restart of the program and to establish an ad hoc committee comprised of two City Council members and three to five community leaders. The ad hoc committee would discuss and explore the issues, solicit input from the public, and make recommendations to the City Council on the revised guidelines for the Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program. We realize that there is concern that some of the HOAs with 100 or more members have been very successful at getting grants. It is not surprising that larger HOAs apply for grants most years: their projects are often quite large in scope and may include multiple entries, perimeter walls, sidewalks, etc. On the other hand, the large HOAs contribute a great deal more recycle material, which generate our recycle funds. There are several other issues that were raised at the October 21, City Council Meeting such as consider ways to distribute grant funds to a larger portion of the community; these concerns can also be addressed by the newly created ad hoc committee who will make recommendations to the City Council. CHOA does NOT support staffs recommendation to appoint a Council subcommittee to work with staff and seek public input to prioritize beautification projects to be funded by the recycle rebate revenue: a committee without members of the public would lack credibility. Nor did CHOA recommend that funds held in abeyance be used for the medians. CHOA strongly recommends that the Council establish an Ad -Hoc Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program committee of the City Council, consisting of two City Council members and three to five (3-5) community leaders. The ad hoc committee would be required to recommend revised guidelines for the program, increasing funds for grants, if possible; and encourage the use of community talent on other projects such as the Hawthorne Boulevard center medians. We also recommend that the funds held in abeyance be restored to the Beautification Program. We agree with most of the proposed revised guidelines in the June 1 Staff Report; however, we believe that two of the recommended changes need further discussion. Firstly, is the matter of ensuring that there were no perceived "gifts of public funds." According to the law, the determining factor in whether there has been an illegal gift of public funds is whether the expenditure was for a "public purpose." If the expenditure is for a public purpose within the jurisdiction of the appropriating board or body, it is not regarded as a gift even though there may be incidental benefits to private persons. The Beautification Grant Program has certainly benefitted the public, the City, and its residents. Secondly, is the recommendation that a project must be in a primary public view corridor so that it is visible by the general public. This is far from the intent of the original guideline, which states, that a project must be visible from a public right-of-way. A change of this nature would divide residents by 6/1/2010 3 of street classification. It would be unreasonable and unfair to those residents who contribute to the recycle funds, and it will significantly reduce the applicant pool. In summary, CHOA recommends deferral of the grant program for 1 -year with the current -year funding ($75,000) kept in abeyance until the restart of the program and establish an ad hoc committee comprised of two City Council members and three to five community leaders. This committee would seek public input, recommend revised guidelines for the Neighborhood Beautification Program, identify ways to increase funding (if possible), and encourage community involvement on other projects such as the Hawthorne Boulevard center medians. Finally, looking at all the wonderful projects throughout the City that were completed because of beautification grants, reminds us how much can be accomplished when the City and its residents work together. This program has truly benefitted our City and its residents. Sincerely yours, Jon Cartwright, President 6/1/2010. %%' Page 1 of 4 Carla Morreale From: Carolyn Lehr [clehr@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 3:49 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Subject: FW: AdHoc subcomittee for the beautification grant program Late correspondence. Thank you, Ca ro4yw Lem City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 clehr@rpv.com - (310) 544-5202 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. From: CHARLES INGRAHAM [mailto:cringraham@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:05 PM To: Tom Long Cc: J. Cartwright; clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Subject: Re: AdHoc subcomittee for the beautification grant program Dear Tom, First let me thank you for the care, effort and expediency you gave to your response to my letter. It reflects sincere attachment and concern for this issue. Also, I apologize for the length of this note; its just that having read the proposed revision as well as the background , I was struck by an inference of hearsay and innuendo attributed to a well meaning program. Therefore, in fairness to all parties, (RPV, Public Works and The HOA's), as well as in the interest of clarifying some of your anxiety concerning the role of HOA's in the beautification grant program , may I submit the following: In my years of working with the beautification program for Ridgegate, I have never seen an incident of preferential treatment given to any applicant regardless of size or nature. In point of fact, Pam Mitchell, of RPV Public Works, has always been an honest broker and scrupulously administers the program. As we know, the application process is quite demanding, requiring such data as proof of competitive bidding, 6/1/2010 Page 2 of 4 value for effort, and a mature rational as to the project's benefit to the City. HOA's, by their nature, are organized to handle this level of detail. Conversely, it is not known to what extant individual homeowners have this capacity --perhaps this is part of the reason for the inequity. As proof of Pam's fairness, while we were successful with the program on an number of occasions, the one time we were late in our submittal, we were denied participation in the program for that year --no exceptions! Do HOA's dominate the scene? In my years of attending RPV Council meetings, most of the issues needing City help were raised by individual homeowners, not condominium type HOA's. These include such things as bridle paths, neighbor's wall height, view restoration and rezoning requests, etc. Most HOA's prefer to resolve their concerns internally. It takes two to make a bargain. We always felt the City enjoyed a good return on their grant award, since our beautification project costs were in well excess of the grant. While the City's monies were not the sole sources of funds, they acted as catalyst for investing our own money (at least twice grant level) . This is "win, win", since the City received a more valuable project than program funding alone provided, and our people were happy to support it. What are public funds? The recycle product from HOA's must have some intrinsic value. In other words, it must have passed muster with a Benefit/ Cost analysis -otherwise no beautification program would exist. However, it is only supported voluntarily by the residents. We know of no law (outside of that for certain hydrocarbons) that says participation is mandatory. Conversely, if income is generated by the City from the HOA product, hopefully it will be used in a way that generates benefits for all participants. On the other hand, perhaps it is the City's position that monies earned from HOA recycled product are considered exclusive City property, with the City free to spend, or not to spend it , on those neighborhoods it deems fit. If so, then is it a stretch to say this draws a uncomfortable parallel to the concept of redistribution of wealth? In closing, we fervently believe that some community participation in a Beautification Program Ad Hoc committee would provide the necessary insight to enable a truly balanced and successful program. We all want to enjoy success in getting across -the -board -support for the City's program, and as they say in the old movie "We must a// take the water from the we//. Respectfully submitted, Chuck Ingraham, P.E. PS: role of committees Our HOA uses committees. They are governed by the Davis -Stirling Act. Committees are established for a specific task: to research, analyze and suggest, and then are dissolved. Each committee member must be approved by the Board and the committee functions only in an advisory ca aci , at the pleasure of the Board. Their results may be accepted or rejected in whole or part by the Board. The primary purpose of the Board member serving on the committee is to keep it on track and serve as the 6/1/2010 I Page 3 of 4 single interface with the Board. C From: Tom Long <tomlong@palosverdes.com> To: charles ingraham <cring raham @verizon. net> Cc: J. Cartwright <choajon@msn.com>; clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Sent: Sun, May 30, 2010 8:42:43 AM Subject: Re: AdHoc subcomittee for the beautification grant program Dear Charles, Thank you for your thoughts. I have not yet reviewed the proposal in detail but will do so. I remain concerned about the use of public funds for private purposes. The California constitution forbids gifts of public funds and councilmembers are subject to personal financial liability for violating that provision. I am also concerned that the data regarding the rewards of these grants show that almost all of the funds go to a small fraction of HOAs and many HOAs and the 50% or so of RPV's population who live in communities without HOAs get nothing. While I am interested in hearing more, it does seem to me that public funds should be used for improvements on public land (such as the Hawthorne median) and those seeking to improve private facilities should raise private funds to do so. And the city should not be abdicating its rols of allocating public funds to unelected community leaders who (presumably) would again represent only those neighborhoods that have HOAs. It seems to me that the entire beautification grant system, however well intentioned, may have been established by prior councils to direct funding to more politically active neighborhoods as a way of rewarding political supporters. If so, that really is not a good way to be allocating public funds that belong to all of us and not just to HOAs. Finally, ad hoc committees may not be subject to the Brown Act with only two members of the council. As a result their purpose is typically to gather information, not to make policy. The suggestion below is that they should make policy. I think using such committees to make policy outside of public view and without the application of the Brown Act violates the spirit of the Act. In essence decisions about public funds would be made behind closed doors --albeit that the recommendations would ultimately come to the council. Staff --please include this in correspondence on any agenda item relating to the below proposal. Tom Long -----Original Message ----- From: "CHARLES INGRAHAM" Sent 5/29/2010 6:49:29 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: U. Cartwright" Subject: AdHoc subcomittee for the beautification grant program Gentlemen, The Ridgegate-East Homeowners Association, which is a member of CHOA, wholeheartedly endorses their recommendation to employ community leaders as a part of the AdHoc Recycling Subcommittee makeup. Of course we all want fairness in the distribution of grant monies to worthwhile neighborhood beautification programs. However we cannot find any reference to the impact of the tonnage of recycle product yielded by some neighborhoods in proportion to the recycle revenues enjoyed by the city. For example, Ridgegate-East consists 352 homes along one half of Ridgegate Drive. All of our residents enthusiastically endorse the recycle program. In point of fact, we have over 100 receptacles for recycle materials. Subsequently, our HOA produces many tons of sorted recycle product per year. 6/1/2010 Page 4 of 4 It is reasonable to believe that this represents a respectable percentage of the city's recycle revenue. Correspondingly, there are a number of other HOA's in the city who perform at this level . Therefore, we earnestly request that your decisions concerning membership on the committee, in addition to the formula for apportionment of grants, consider the weight of contribution to the city's recycle revenue by our HOA's and hopefully, language dismissive of HOA's will be avoided in your efforts. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Charles J. Ingraham, P.E. Member, Board of Directors, Ridgegate-East HOA 6/1/2010 From: Long, Thomas D. [mailto:tlong@nossaman.com] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:46 AM To: Ruberta Weaver Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carolynn Petru; Douglas Stern Subject: RE: Beautifical Grant Program Dear Roberta, I don't see restricting public funds to public property as penalizing anyone. If you review the staff report you will see there are problems with the way we do it now. Imagine if we took the city's entire budget for street repair and all other infrastructure maintenance and gave it out only to neighborhoods with "good leadership." We would have the same problem we have now with the beautification grants --a fraction of the residents get all the benefit but all of us pay in. That just isn't fair. Asking you to accept only a fair share of funds and only for work on public property is not penalizing you. And I think most residents would rightly say --we may not be in a neighborhood with an HOA (about half are not) but we thought the city council was the leadership that controlled public funds. Why are our public funds being given away to private entities --particularly when the California constitution says there are to be no gifts of public funds? There is no good answer to that question, so the giveaway should stop. don't know how this system got created or why we let it last so long. Unfortunately people got used to it. But that doesn't make it right. To me it looks like it may have been created by councilmembers seeking to do favors for neighborhoods that are more politically active and have better leadership in exchange for votes. I can't prove that, of course, but the whole thing just stinks to me when I look at how public money is being used for improvements on the private property of only a few. Staff --please include in late correspondence. Tom Long From: Ruberta Weaver [mailto:ruberta@cox.net] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:01 AM To: Long, Thomas D. Subject: Re: Beautifical Grant Program Well, well. So we who are smart enough to organize are to be penalized because others have no leadership? (Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:00 AM Subject: RE: Beautifical Grant Program Dear Roberta, The biggest problem with the beautification grants is that a small fraction of HOAs get nearly all the money (most oother neighborhoods, including especially those without HOAs get little or nothing) and it is public tax money being used for private purposes. Half the people in the city live in areas where there is no HOA. Of the other half, while there is an HOA, the HOA is not always a member of CHOA. O /� In my view using an unelected group representing only a fraction of the city's residents is not a good means to allocate public funds. I represent all of the residents of the city, not just those who live in HOAs. Moreover, there is a provision of the California constitution that I am sworn to uphold that forbids gifts of public funds. Since I have come to realize the manner in which these grants are distributed, I think it is possible the city is violating that provision. Public funds should be used for improvements on public land (such as the Hawthorne median). People who want to improve private property should raise private funds to do it and should not expect to be subsidized by the taxpayers. As someone who lives in a neighborhood that does not have an HOA I am not happy to see public funds directed to essentially subsidize HOAs. Tom Long From: Douglas Stern [mailto:douglas.w.stern@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 7:52 PM To: Ruberta Weaver Subject: Re: Beautifical Grant Program Who would speak for those not in homeowners associations? Douglas W. Stern On May 29, 2010, at 6:54 PM, "Ruberta Weaver" <ruberta@u,cox.net> wrote: I would strongly support the COHA proposal to have community leaders as a part of the awarding of beautification grants. Who can better speak for local needs than the local leaders? Neither the City Council, nor City Staff, can have the feel, and needs of the neighborhoods served by the opportunities for local improvement that those do who know the neighborhood. �0� From: stearman@juno.com Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:25 PM To: cityclerk@rpv.com Subject: BEAUTIFICATION GRANT PROGRAM MODIFICATION Before the City decides to modify or delete the neighborhood beautification projects funded by the Recycling Rebate (CRV) revenue they need to be aware of the commitments made to the homeowner associations. For instance, prior to the commencement of the City's recycle program, the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association collected newspaper as a fundraiser. The Association, at that time, identified this as a major problem and as a result the City agreed to make available neighborhood grant funds from the recycle program for community beatification proj ects. Since that time the Ladera Linda Homeowners association has applied for and received grant funds for such projects as the beatification of Forrestal. If the City drops the grant program, the Association may consider going back to collecting their own recyclables as a means to pay for their projects. Herb Stark 32306 Phantom Dr. 310-541-6646 Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! AwesomePennyStocks.com 6/1/2010 / .1 From: msaldrich@aol.com Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 10:31 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Beautification Grant Program To Whom It May Concern: In regards to the current discussion, I wish to recommend that the City Council establish an Ad Hoc Neighborhood Beautification Grant Program made up of two City Council Members and three to five community leaders to be responsible for recommending revised guidelines for the Beautification Program. I feel it is important to use community talent on other projects such as the Hawthorne Boulevard center medians. It would be helpful to increase funding for the above types of projects. We do have a special community and we need to keep it that way! Marilyn Aldrich Johnson President of Stoneridge Homeowners (350 homes) From: Vic & Sil Quiarte [vicsilq@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 7:07 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS Gentlemen, I have reviewed Council plans regarding distribution of funds used by HOA'S for beautification of their neighborhoods. I feel that a Committee composed of 2 City Councilmen and 3 to 5 residents be established to determine how pending new rules may require a change in fund distribution. I do not feel that Council should act now on the new, if any, procedures. In discussion with friends and neighbors they are troubled by the fact that residents have to separate trash by recycle, green waste and trash without getting any benefit if all the funding will go into one "pot" such as a median on Hawthorne Blvd. I do think the median is necessary as I drive to PVIC, City Hall, or the Senior Center daily. The residents should feel they get some benefit from separating their disposable materials. The median should continue to get half the beautification funds and the residents the other half. They do the work separating disposable matter. Should their effort go to benefit City needs? If so, why should they continue to separate trash? I think a Committee can provide some answers, at least I hope so. Vic Quirarte 6/1/2010