Loading...
20120619 Late CorrespondenceTrio -/o wt( 4rfl� Hot 774 -on RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART6F THE RECORD AT THI COUNCIL MEETING OF IC41C OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Al �T r AWW �4 1 V: �1 � 'N" I 44P~' ry' Ilk. Page 1 of _yip •� y��.. - � � L� 'Y . T� � Y y A * !''1 ,`. , '• x �W' 't r � `''7l + � 3,.q�' �19+1:• � • - Y � ,�i L. - � : °.� - � � Y ' ''�T � Y t , _. - IFS C AA Az i * ♦ y�g -•�` > y. �'� ��',. ^ a �',•� e • �' �'� ', sir -' KIna :�' n � t 'f e�. Yui _. "T y.� ,^Y;��` ~.��• �t. -y1 �! ( L � y�. _ '.tW. ,* � k �td� � idh�° -a" , P�:•� � l +�A� • iii ?,I -uL L4- % IL V,,NN, `-A ;Z'f77 tFUMV 1 t �� U City d Rancho -Palos Verdes AUG 12.'2005 -701 V -4L KJ i -P, JR 1A4 D 0 Ot- eq a.^-.C;t oI, c0 C, 4-yC0%kw,&, I 5 I I l4A/ 1) = em (5 1+ RECEIVED FROM,„ 8 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF-:Jga�.. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK L IR RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 19, 2012 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 City Manager Report Email from Don Reeves U Respectfully submitted, Carla . - - Grant Summary Report ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 18, 2012**. W: AGENDA2012 Additions Revisions to agendas120120619 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Don [dreeves895@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Ranger's Happy Hotline, etc Attachments: The Rest of the Story. pdf Good Afternoon Just read about the Ranger's Happy Hotline and it reminded me of a letter I wrote about 7 years ago attached and below. It appears that I underestimated the cost and bureaucracy of this "experiment." Don dreeves895@aol.com Mr. Jim Kellogg, Chairman Wildlife Conservation Board 1807 13th Street, Suite 103 Sacramento, CA, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Kellogg The purpose of this correspondence is to document for the public record my opposition to the granting of $10.025 Million to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) for the $17 Million purchase of approximately 463+/- acres to be included in the proposed Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve. I believe that I can speak directly for over 1000 residents plus the silent majority that was not consulted by referendum or any other means in approving the long term (50 -year) commitment to this "experiment" as it was described in early documents. This project was sold on the basis of a survey of 3.3% of the RPV households under the guise of "Open Space" not a Preserve restricted by and for the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC). Even then, when the possibility of a $3 Million bond issue was raised support plummeted. The following points have been made many times and have not been acknowledged by the City Council (CC). They are repeated herein for the public record as previously noted. (1) There is no strong opposition to the use of public funds for the purchase of this land plus an additional 260+/ - acres if a private group like the PVPLC would take responsibility for the long-term (50 -year) costs and liabilities. Many of us, however, believe that the purchase of this almost totally useless land - the City has zoned the vast majority of the 424+/- acres "Open Space/Hazard" and have had a building moratorium for 30 years - at $38,000 per acre is a profitable bailout for two (2) land developers at the public's expense. (2) RPV currently has a total of about 800 acres of Habitat Reserve or about 18 acres per 1,000 residents compared with a National Recreation & Parks Association (NRPA) guide- line of 1 acre per 1,000 people. With 1500 acres in the Preserve this ratio jumps to about 33 acres per 1,000 people. By comparison the Community Piayfields guideline is 2 acres per 1,000 people and RPV has only 0.8 acre. While the $1 Million RPV has committed to these purchases could have been used to rectify this inequity, the fact that the city has spent almost another $1 Million for planning and pursuit of the other $20 Million in public funds and $6 Million in PVPLC funds for the two (2) developers is a greater concern. Page 1The RPV General Plan states "Encourage the building of playing fields for multiple uses by various recreational groups---" and "Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens---" but this has been superseded by the wants of special interest groups such as the PVPLC. The history of the PVPLC in managing properties such as White Point and Forrestal has hardly been in the best interest of those who promote any form of active recreation. While advertised as Open Space they formulate restrictive measures including potential laws that eliminate these activities. (3) While the city is bearing the brunt of the 50 -year operational costs the PVPLC will have the authority to control the property. The fact that the sub -area plan will "encompass the entire city" is a future concern although it is asserted by the proponents that rules and regulations will only apply to the 1500 acre Preserve which happens to be about 17% of the total city land (public and private). While sold to the public as Open Space the record of the PVPLC in managing Preserves has been very different. Forrestal and White Point are examples of how other users are severely restricted in the interest of habitat. Of course that is how the WCB and other agencies have been convinced to allocate funds. Perhaps the WCB needs to explain to the public why 17% of the total Rancho Palos Verdes land should be dedicated to coastal sage scrub habitat while the needs of our youth are neglected. (4) The CC talks about building a civic center but in reality 65 of the 79 acres plus "boundaries" will be committed to the NCCP. At the same time the PVPLC had originally planned to not only raise $6 Million for the purchase of the two (2) properties but to also create a $4 Million endowment to pay for the then estimated $200,000 per year opera- tional expenses. As we shall see the annual costs have escalated and as the endowment requirement increased this idea was quietly abandoned. Many of these bait and switch techniques have gone unpublicized while the city's Planning Director was named "Man of the Year" by the PVPLC. (5) The real long term (50 -year) total cost estimates are difficult to track but they have apparently increased from about $200,000 to almost $400,000 per year. This bounds the total cost at $10-20 Million in '05 dollars although the estimates were made 1-2 years ago. With COLA increases and real inflation the total cost could be $35-50 Million or more. Page 2 While there is disagreement on some of the in-kind costs the following is not unreason- able: paid to PVPLC ($100,000), in-kind costs including increased security ($113,000), lost RDA, property tax and ACLAD revenues ($57,000), and PVPLC contributions guaranteed by the city ($125,000) for a total of $395,000 per year. While the CC, the Finance Advisory Committee and the PVPLC will disagree on what it will cost the citizens of RPV it is equally likely that these numbers will increase under the terms of the contract. These groups have not exactly been forthright in telling the world how much has been spent to date and therefore their projections are questionable. At the 6/19/2012 ' o�' C iTtf ,rWAC)&1_. -kc-poe-1 same time the CC has asked the taxpayers to approve a Storm Drain User Fee because we cannot afford to pay for our infrastructure (6) Finally, according to the "flowchart" created by the Director of the PVPLC as well as the original plan and schedule (the Preserve was targeted by the City to open in March '05) it appears that none of the documents required to secure the $10.025 Million have been completed and/or approved and in some cases even started. This includes the EIR/EA, NCCP, Implementing Agreement, PUMP, CEQA/NEPA reviews/approvals, HOA agreements, etc. The Homeowners Association (HOA) agreements are of special note since their properties have been designated "Neutral Lands" with restrictions. One can only wonder how the City and the PVPLC will handle Neutral Lands and other private properties at some future date since the entire city is covered by the NCCP. I believe that the WCB should reject this application because it is not in the best interests of the citizens of RPV in its present form. However, I do not think that the WCB will change its mind on this matter since it is in their best interest to allocate the funds even if it takes another 3 years to complete the fund raising and document work at the expense of RPV residents. It appears questionable whether the PVPLC will be able to raise their $4M by the September 15 deadline and whether all of the other funds are truly available. It now appears that the purchase of the second property that was considered to be absolutely imperative is now in jeopardy due to financial and other issues. That developer would like to develop Point View as part of the deal and he will be fiercely opposed. I also believe that the public should be made aware of what this Preserve (not Open Space) will actually cost in terms of dollars and other impacts. Sincerely, Donald F. Reeves Page 3 d Cs 6/19/2012 Mr. Jim Kellogg, Chairman Wildlife Conservation Board 1807 13th Street, Suite 103 Sacramento, CA, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Kellogg The purpose of this correspondence is to document for the public record my opposition to the granting of $10.025 Million to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) for the $17 Million purchase of approximately 463+/- acres to be included in the proposed Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve. believe that I can speak directly for over 1000 residents plus the silent majority that was not consulted by referendum or any other means in approving the long term (50 -year) commitment to this "experiment" as it was described in early documents. This project was sold on the basis of a survey of 3.3% of the RPV households under the guise of "Open Space" not a Preserve restricted by and for the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC). Even then, when the possibility of a $3 Million bond issue was raised support plummeted. The following points have been made many times and have not been acknowledged by the City Council (CC). They are repeated herein for the public record as previously noted. (1) There is no strong opposition to the use of public funds for the purchase of this land plus an additional 260+/- acres if a private group like the PVPLC would take responsibility for the long-term (50 -year) costs and liabilities. Many of us, however, believe that the purchase of this almost totally useless land - the City has zoned the vast majority of the 424+/- acres "Open Space/Hazard" and have had a building moratorium for 30 years - at $38,000 per acre is a profitable bailout for two (2) land developers at the public's expense. (2) RPV currently has a total of about 800 acres of Habitat Reserve or about 18 acres per 1,000 residents compared with a National Recreation & Parks Association (NRPA) guide- line of 1 acre per 1,000 people. With 1500 acres in the Preserve this ratio jumps to about 33 acres per 1,000 people. By comparison the Community Playfields guideline is 2 acres per 1,000 people and RPV has only 0.8 acre. While the $1 Million RPV has committed to these purchases could have been used to rectify this inequity, the fact that the city has spent almost another $1 Million for planning and pursuit of the other $20 Million in public funds and $6 Million in PVPLC funds for the two (2) developers is a greater concern. Page 1 3 of The RPV General Plan states "Encourage the building of playing fields for multiple uses by various recreational groups---" and "Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens---" but this has been superseded by the wants of special interest groups such as the PVPLC. The history of the PVPLC in managing properties such as White Point and Forrestal has hardly been in the best interest of those who promote any form of active recreation. While advertised as Open Space they formulate restrictive measures including potential laws that eliminate these activities. (3) While the city is bearing the brunt of the 50 -year operational costs the PVPLC will have the authority to control the property. The fact that the sub -area plan will "encompass the entire city" is a future concern although it is asserted by the proponents that rules and regulations will only apply to the 1500 acre Preserve which happens to be about 17% of the total city land (public and private). While sold to the public as Open Space the record of the PVPLC in managing Preserves has been very different. Forrestal and White Point are examples of how other users are severely restricted in the interest of habitat. Of course that is how the WCB and other agencies have been convinced to allocate funds. Perhaps the WCB needs to explain to the public why 17% of the total Rancho Palos Verdes land should be dedicated to coastal sage scrub habitat while the needs of our youth are neglected. (4) The CC talks about building a civic center but in reality 65 of the 79 acres plus "boundaries" will be committed to the NCCP. At the same time the PVPLC had originally planned to not only raise $6 Million for the purchase of the two (2) properties but to also create a $4 Million endowment to pay for the then estimated $200,000 per year opera- tional expenses. As we shall see the annual costs have escalated and as the endowment requirement increased this idea was quietly abandoned. Many of these bait and switch techniques have gone unpublicized while the city's Planning Director was named "Man of the Year" by the PVPLC. (5) The real long term (50 -year) total cost estimates are difficult to track but they have apparently increased from about $200,000 to almost $400,000 per year. This bounds the total cost at $10-20 Million in '05 dollars although the estimates were made 1-2 years ago. With COLA increases and real inflation the total cost could be $35-50 Million or more. Page 2 q of 5 While there is disagreement on some of the in-kind costs the following is not unreason- able: paid to PVPLC ($100,000), in-kind costs including increased security ($113,000), lost RDA, property tax and ACLAD revenues ($57,000), and PVPLC contributions guaranteed by the city ($125,000) for a total of $395,000 per year. While the CC, the Finance Advisory Committee and the PVPLC will disagree on what it will cost the citizens of RPV it is equally likely that these numbers will increase under the terms of the contract. These groups have not exactly been forthright in telling the world how much has been spent to date and therefore their projections are questionable. At the same time the CC has asked the taxpayers to approve a Storm Drain User Fee because we cannot afford to pay for our infrastructure (6) Finally, according to the "flowchart" created by the Director of the PVPLC as well as the original plan and schedule (the Preserve was targeted by the City to open in March '05) it appears that none of the documents required to secure the $10.025 Million have been completed and/or approved and in some cases even started. This includes the EIR/EA, NCCP, Implementing Agreement, PUMP, CEQA/NEPA reviews/approvals, HOA agreements, etc. The Homeowners Association (HOA) agreements are of special note since their properties have been designated "Neutral Lands" with restrictions. One can only wonder how the City and the PVPLC will handle Neutral Lands and other private properties at some future date since the entire city is covered by the NCCP. believe that the WCB should reject this application because it is not in the best interests of the citizens of RPV in its present form. However, I do not think that the WCB will change its mind on this matter since it is in their best interest to allocate the funds even if it takes another 3 years to complete the fund raising and document work at the expense of RPV residents. It appears questionable whether the PVPLC will be able to raise their $4M by the September 15 deadline and whether all of the other funds are truly available. It now appears that the purchase of the second property that was considered to be absolutely imperative is now in jeopardy due to financial and other issues. That developer would like to develop Point View as part of the deal and he will be fiercely opposed. I also believe that the public should be made aware of what this Preserve (not Open Space) will actually cost in terms of dollars and other impacts. Sincerely, Donald F. Reeves Page 3 -OF Grant Summary Report (as of June 19, 2012) Due Date Grant Program Description and Status AM Federal Non -Traditional Section 6 Open space acquisition; City TBD Grant ($1.5 million maximum) negotiating purchase of Montemala a Canyon parcels LA County Dept. of Public Health Funding for projects promoting TBD ($125K/year for up to 4 years) healthy eating and active living; awaiting release of RFP West Basin Municipal Water District Funding for public demonstration On -Going Ocean -Friendly Demonstration garden projects; City preparing Garden ($35K available) application for demonstration arden at PVIC Assistance to Fire Departments ($1 Enhance safety of public and 7/6/12 million maximum with 20% match) firefighters for fire -related hazards; forwarded info to LACoFD California ReLeaf Program ($10K Support for non -profits with tree - 7/20/12 maximum with 1:1 match) planting and education; forwarded info to PVPLC and PVPUSD Highway Safety Improvement Improve safety on public roads, 7/20/12 Program ($900K maximum/$100K bikeways and pedestrian paths; City minimum with 10% match) evaluating ro ects for submittal Fire Safe Council ($200K maximum Funding for fire management 7/31/12 with 50% match) activities; City evaluating potential projects Funding for resource protection, Habitat Conservation Fund ($200K property acquisition, development of 10/2/12 maximum with 1:1 match) interpretive materials and programs; PVPLC is developing project in conjunction with City Land and Water Conservation Fund Acquisition/development of property 11/1/12 (No maximum but 50% match for outdoor recreation purposes; required) City developing project for outdoor exhibits at PVIC f +�: al',. ��3�. � < .1*}■r ���` � pp (>'� t �j� h ��., � � �Qt�� i. 5 Y E j5 4 ,�5 'Y� 3 ext 'iS. 'x,�� r s � f { x '' .Sn�i, VE©m'l'� fr, b '^➢, ...: i , :Y ,l����� i x Tads �Y$ j , . Funding for transportation projects TIGER IV Grant ($10 million that will significantly impact an area; 3/19/12 minimum with 20% match) City awaiting decision from US DOT on application for San Ramon Canyon Project Page 1 of 2 �• Due Date Grant Program Description and Status •' it d � Y5- ■■�7, l3 lC l{7 4b ' �' C i �Z Funding for projects to reduce and prevent storm water contamination Prop. 84 Storm Water Grant in rivers, lakes and streams; City 6/27/12 Program ($250K to $3 million with submitted (as co -applicant with 10% match) Torrance) for project to install catch basin screens to protect Machado Lake watershed area Funding for hazard mitigation activities aimed at reducing or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program eliminating future damage; City's 11/21/11 ($3 million maximum with 25% application for San Ramon Canyon match) Project denied funding, but City continuing to monitor program in case additional funds become available Funding for resource protection, property acquisition, development of 10/3/11 Habitat Conservation Fund ($200K interpretive materials and programs; maximum with 1:1 match) Awaiting announcement on PVPLC application for $131 K application for Nature Preserve Funding to hire/rehire law enforcement officers focusing on 5/25/11 COPS For Hire (1 deputy for 3 community policing and crime years with partial match) prevention; City awaiting announcement on application to fund 1 CORE Deputy osition Funding for project to manage Prop. 1 E Storm Water Flood storm runoff and reduce flooding; 4/5/11 Management Grant (50% match) City awarded $9.4 million and completing documentation to accept funds t r DAill' %1 10 �� ,. WE .,1, r? ' 4::, 5:sS Water Resources Development Act Possibility of Federal funding for N/A (WRDA) San Ramon Canyon Project; WRDA "on hold" at this time Possibility of Federal funding for N/A Federal Highway Bill San Ramon Canyon Project; MAP - Reauthorization (MAP -21) 21 passed in Senate, still under review in House at this time Page 2 of 2 LI aRk.s., RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 18, 2012 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 19, 2012 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material H Staff response to email received from Ken DeLong Respectfully submitted, rou 1/j" Carla Worreale W:WGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendasi20120619 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Carolynn Petru [Carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:29 PM To: Ken DeLong Cc: cc@rpv.com; Katie Howe Subject: RE: Skatepark PV, Inc. June 2012 Newsletter Attachments: RPVCCA_CC_SR-2012-06_19—H—Skate_Park—Project.pdf Hi Ken — Please see attached staff report for the June 19th City Council agenda recommending suspension of work on the skate park project. It is listed on the agenda as Consent Calendar Item H. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, earoeymm Carolynn Petru Deputy City Manager (310) 544-203 From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:10 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: FW: Skatepark PV, Inc. June 2012 Newsletter In case you missed the news. Might be appropriate to advise City Manager Lehr to cease further staff / consultant time for developing a skateboard park in RPV. A financial contribution by RPV towards the skate board park may be appropriate. Ken DeLong From: Skatepark PV, Inc. [mailto:ellen.november@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:51 PM To: ken.delong@verizon.net Subject: Skatepark PV, Inc. June 2012 Newsletter Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Vanguard Skate Shop sponsors Skatepark PV Girl Skateboards is a proud sponsor of Skatepark PV (Jur Sponsor: Whole Foods Torrance 6/14/2012 14- L As-& h RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: CAROLYNN PETRO, INTERIM DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARKS/ DEPUTY CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 19, 2012 SUBJECT: SKATE PARK PROJECT REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Staff Coordinator: Katie Howe, Administrative Analyst II'lf* RECOMMENDATION 1) Receive and file a report on the proposed skate parks in Rolling Hills Estates and San Pedro; 2) Suspend work on a skate park in Rancho Palos Verdes; and, 3) Discontinue the contract with Mia Lehrer & Associates. BACKGROUND In 2010, the City engaged in a process to create conceptual designs of Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park to improve public access and recreational opportunities. Towards the end of the process, a local skate park advocacy group, Skate park PV, Inc., asked the City to consider placing a skate park in Lower Hesse Park. Council expressed concern that a skate park was not properly vetted for Lower Hesse Park, but wanted to consider the recreational opportunity and directed staff to engage a consultant to perform a Peninsula -wide analysis to identify suitable sites for a skate park. In September 2011, Council authorized a contract with Mia Lehrer and Associates (ML+A) to assist the City with this effort. On December 20, 2011, staff provided Council with a project update and presented skate park site analysis criteria for approval. At that time, Council members expressed concern about the project's process and timing of community outreach and directed staff to bring back additional information. DISCUSSION Since the time the Council initiated the Skate Park Site Analysis Project and provided staff with initial feedback on the site criteria, two skate park projects located in adjacent cities have been initiated and are moving forward. A brief description and the status of each proposal is provided below. H-1 Skate Park Project June 19, 2012 Page 2 Ernie Howlett Skate Park Since the commencement of the Skate Park Site Analysis Project, the City of Rolling Hills Estates Parks and Activities Commission included a conceptual plan for a 9,000 square -foot skate park as part of the Ernie Howlett Park Master Plan. On June 12, 2012, Rolling Hills Estates City Council approved the Master Plan and skate park with the understanding that Skatepark PV, Inc. would fundraise for the skate park's design and construction. In past years, Skate Park PV, Inc., Rolling Hills Estates, and PCH Skate Camps have partnered to hold popular skate boarding activities at a temporary skate park set up on basketball courts at that park. Ernie Howlett Park is located on Hawthorne Boulevard, approximately two miles from the northern Rancho Palos Verdes City border. The president of Skate Park PV, Inc. shared with staff in the attached public correspondence that a skate park in Ernie Howlett Park best fits Skatepark PV's mission statement and goals and that the organization is going to focus on fundraising money for the design and construction of a skateboarding venue at that park. Peck Park Skate Park The City of Los Angeles is in the process of constructing an 8,000 square -foot skate park at Peck Park in San Pedro. Peck Park is located on Western Avenue, directly across the street from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' eastern border. The City has completed the conceptual park drawings, is in the process of finalizing construction drawings, and the next step is to go out to bid for construction. The City of Los Angeles anticipates the skate park to be finished by the end of 2012. The City has a second skate park in San Pedro, the 15,000 square -foot Channel Street skate park, located near the intersection of Channel Street and Gaffey Street which is scheduled for temporary closure in late 2012 during a 110 Freeway construction project. At this time, staff recommends Council discontinue an active search for a skate park, and assess the progress and success of the two potential skate parks in Rolling Hills Estates and San Pedro, and the extent to which they meet the need for skate facilities for Peninsula residents. This would entail discontinuing the agreement ML+A for skate park site analysis. ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, alternatives for Council's consideration include: 1. Continue with the Peninsula -wide skate park site analysis project. 2. Pursue the skate park site analysis project restricted to locations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Skateboarding on Public Streets Staff anticipates bringing an item to Council for consideration on July 3, 2012 to prohibit skateboarding on certain public streets pursuant to RPV Municipal Code Section 12.16.120. The proposed resolution is in response to a request from the Lomita Sheriffs Department to �id Skate Park Project June 19, 2012 Page 3 provide a mechanism to issue citations for skateboarding, particularly long -boarding, on eight City streets due to safety concerns and the streets' attractiveness to skateboarders due to their steep, circuitous character. The Traffic Safety Commission reviewed the item at its April 23, 2012 meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The contract with ML+A included $12,200 for the skate park site analysis. Approximately 20% of the funds have been expended to date on the development of the site analysis criteria presented to Council in December 2011. Should the City discontinue its contract with Mia Lehrer & Associates, it will result in savings of approximately $9,500. As a skate park on the Peninsula will benefit Rancho Palos Verdes skate boarders, once the.facility is built, Council may wish to make financial contributions to the City of Rolling Hills Estates to assist with operational costs of the potential Ernie Howlett Skate Park. The contributions could be considered annually as part of the budget process, and would be subject to the City entering into an agreement with the City of Rolling Hills Estates whereby Rolling Hills Estates would indemnify and defend Rancho Palos Verdes against claims arising from its contribution to the cost of maintaining the skate park. Attachments: Public Correspondence 9s] Attachment "A" Public Correspondence H-4 From: Ellen November [ellen.november@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:54 PM To: Carolyn Lehr Cc: Carolynn Petru; Katie Howe; cc@rpv.com; Susan Seamans Subject: Thank you Carolyn Carolyn, This afternoon the Rolling HIlls Estates City Council unanimously approved that a skatepark be included in the master plan of Ernie Howlett Park. The agreed to allocate the land. Skatepark PV, Inc. has agreed that the offer from RHE fits best with our mission statement and goals and that we are now going to focus on fundraising money for the design and construction of a skateboarding venue at Ernie Howlett Park. We greatly appreciate all the time, work and consideration you and your staff have put into our project. We know that our goals are the same, that is to provide a safe and welcoming venue for the 3,000 skaters on the Hill, to practice their sport in a safe and welcoming venue. We are all concerned to keep kids out of harms way, out of the. streets and in a safe area. We look forward to sharing this space with all. The programs and opportunities at this space will enhance life for all the Peninsula residents and we know that RPV kids will greatly benefit from the venue. We have aligned with A.skate Foundation which provides skateboarding clinics for kids with autism. We plan to host many events that will benefit the entire community. I hope you and your staff will join us in the future in celebrating a new recreational opportunity for our residents. I'm so grateful to be able to give back to the wonderful youth and family community of our Hill. Thank you to you and your staff for all your work. My best, Ellen November President, Skatepark PV, Inc. www, skateparkpv. ora Ellen November 6/13/2012 H -J Page 1 of Catie Howe 'rom: Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:02 PM ro: 'Ellen November' .Pc: 'cc@rpv.com' Subject: RE: Skate Park Project Tentatively Agendized =ollow Up Flag: Follow up =lag Status: Red lello Ellen, ust to follow-up after our phone call, on June 19th staff will provide Council with updates on the potential heck Park and Rolling Hills Estates skate parks and options for the City's skate park project. I will award to you the agenda item as soon as it's ready for public release, and would be happy to attach any ,ublic correspondence you would like included. 'he proposed skateboarding ordinance is in response to a request from the Lomita Sheriffs Department i provide a mechanism to enforce skateboarding (particularly, long -boarding) on the following streets due 3 safety concerns: fia Colinita halos Verdes Drive East diver Arrow Drive lawthorne Blvd 3anado Drive :rest Road (East and West) :renshaw Blvd Irowndeer Lane ;tall presented this issue to the Traffic Safety Commission at its April 23, 2012 meeting. The staff report ieeting minutes are located on the City's website at the following location: ftp:/Iwww.palosverdes.com/rpv/traffic committee/agendas/2012/2012-04-12/ staff anticipates bringing the skateboarding ordinance to the City Council at its July 17th meeting for onsideration. 'lease let us know if we can provide additional information. )isciaimer to City Council: Please do not hit "reply to all" to avoid violation of the Brown Act. 'hanks, .atie Howe tecreation and Parks Department ,ity of Rancho Palos Verdes .10-544-5267 Yom: Ellen November [mailto:ellen.november@gmail.com] ;ent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:23 PM 'o: Katie Howe ;c: Carolynn Petru; Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell 'ubject: Re: Skate Park Project Tentatively Agendized hanks for letting me know. 5/12/2012 H-6 Page 2 of . What do you expect to speak about on the 19th? What are the talking points? - I would like more information on Introduction of Skateboarding Ordinance' shown for July. Who initiated this and what is the wording. I'd like more info as this is vet alevant to a skate park. -hank you, Ellen )n Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Katie Howe <katieh 'i v.com> wrote: 3ood Morning Ellen, hope you are doing well. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that the Skate Park Project has been tentatively agendized f he June 19th Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting. Below is a link to the most recent Weekly City Manager Administrative teport. The tentative agenda for June 19th listing the Skate Park Project is on page 13 of the pdf. Please feel free to contact us wi my questions. Itto://www.oalosverdes.com/rov/citymanaaertweekly-administrative-rer)orts/2012/20120530 Administrative RepQrt.pdf "hank You, :atie Howe kdministrative Analyst tecreation and Parks Department %ity of Rancho Palos Verdes 10-544-5267 Illen November 6/12/2012 H-7 Page 1 c Katie Howe From: Ellen November [ellen.november@gmall.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:57 PM To: Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; susan.brooks@rpv.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; Carolynn Petru; Katie Howe; Carolyn Paddock; Cat Spydell; Chris Strong; Jackie Geiger; Jennifer Irwin JF Boisvert; jim@autoalert.com; Julie Turner; Kelly Parker, Lauren Perelmuter; Liz Cotton; Shannon Hartman; Susan Seamans; Vince Onei; Leon November; Bill Gerstner, Cindy Maxwell; Dr. Greg Alien; kristinandersonl5@hotmail.com; Mitzi Cress; Noreen Strong (Noreenstrong@cox.net); Jack Tingley Subject: Goals and Priorities C support your number one goal and priority of: "Public safety, trait issued, including crime prevention, traffic enforcement and bicycle safety" May I add that skateboarding is just as important a safft issue as bike riding. At the recent Skate ark PV, Inc. meeting, members addressed their concerns for both the safety of skateboarders who are skating on our streets, and their fear that they as motorists may hit skaters with their cars. The 3,000 skateboarders in our community live in our community. Most of the cyclists in our area come from other areas to ride the Hill. I know this first hand as I was part of the Team in Training road cycling community. I suggest that you amend your #1 goal and priority to include skateboarding as a safety concern. This will show your concern for the health and safety, well-being and best -interests of our youth. Just as our neighbor, Councilman Joe Buscaino publicly announced his concern for skateboarders on the day he was recently sworn into office, we as a city, can show our support for the safety of our youth. As parents and compassionate people, you as a group and as individuals can leave a legacy of concern to keep kids out of harm's way. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ellen November President, Skattepark PV, Inc. Ellen November 6/12/2012 H'8 Katie Howe From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:11 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: The location of a permanent skate park -----Original Message ----- From: skateparkpv@cox.net [mailto:skateparkpv@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:16 AM To: CCQrpv.com Subject: Fwd: The location of a permanent skate park > To: skateparkpv@cox.net > Subject: The location of a permanent skate park > From: dbrhl@aol.com > Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:35:49 -0500 (EST) > As much as I am in support of a Skate Park, I am not in favor of having a permanent park located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates due to the limited space available. I believe that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has much more land available to them and could easily incorporate a skate park in their City for all Cities on the hill to use. > > Thank you > Deborah Davis 1 H-9 Page 1 of ,atie Howe 'rom: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] lent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:11 PM 'o: 'Katie Howe' :c: 'Tracy Bonano' subject: FW: Article re: Death of Skateboarder on San Pedro Streets :ollow Up Flag: Follow up :lag Status: Red rom: Jlrbeck [mallto:jlrbeck@aol.com] ent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:45 PM o: cc@rpv.com ubject: Article re: Death of Skateboarder on San Pedro Streets :urrently, Miraleste Drive -in Rancho Palos Verdes is being used regularly for riding down the middle of ie street on skateboards. You should consider that a skate park will attract skateboarders from all over o. Cal. to our neighborhoods. Will this increase this street riding? We have some very attractive venues )r this activity. Please consider this as part of the discussion for a skate park and please ask the herrifs Dept. to patrol for this activity on Miraleste Drive. As a driver on this street it is frightening to ome upon groups of skateboarders using the middle of the street. incerely, Tandy Beck 02/2012 H-10 Page 1 o; Catie Howe From: Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:49 AM ro: 'Katie Howe' Subject: Skate Park Concerns - Pamela Evans As. Pamela Evans called January 24. She is concerned that a skate park may increase crime in the .ower Hesse Park neighborhood and increase traffic on what she communicated is an unsafe street. 6/12/2012 H-11 -----Original Message ----- From: EDWARD JORDAN[mailto:eddiejordaniv@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 6:28 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog/Skate park Good evening. Just a though about the dog and skate park issue that keeps returning because the prior members known more for yelling at people could not get to ANY decision on. RPV is the largest city on The Hill and I just hope we do not become the landfill of parks for The Hill. Dogs are great and I've had them all my life but a dog park! Geez, it's just not why a bought in RPV. I can tell you without a doubt that PVE, RH and RHE will find any reason available to pass on having in those cities. They know RPV will cave at some point so everyone in all the other cities on The Hill will make us the Central Poop Scoop. I love youngsters skate boarding too. I did it in the 70's as a teen myself but I did not buy in RPV to see, hear and pick up after kids/teens and adults who still think they are teens doing the hang 10 in RPV. These skate boarders will drive in from every city within 20 miles, daily to noise pollute RPV. My wife suggested we consider moving to PVE because the timing is good right now as far as home prices, and she/we know they will not even consider such a thing. They may bend your minds a little bit buy keeping you thinking they are considering locations but they are not. They want to keep a PV quality of life. Remember this, 'skate boarding teens do not pay for this quality of life, adults do. PVE, RH, RHE has a certain panache and tranquility of refinement when one drive along their streets. RPV does not quite have that feeling because we keep going with the mind set that this largest city on The Hill needs to do it all. The problem is we've done too much to even recapture certain qualities of PV life. We have tones of street lights that cost money other cities don't need to pay for, sidewalks to maintain that other cities don't need to pay for and on and on. Let's get back to RPV feeling like a special place to live instead of being the concrete, noise, light pollution city on The Hill. The other cities have living standards and we do not seem to. RPV has homes that people do not even have to maintain in any way whatsoever right next door well kept homes. We just do not have teeth on anything it seems. The other cities have minimum standards to keep a nice neighborhood throughout. I hope this is the new change RPV has been needing for at least 30 years. All of you new members have an opportunity to do something great so please go for it. I know the economy is bad which makes it easy to make excuses about what all you can or can not do but those are excuses. Put on your thinking caps here. I know people who have lived on this hill for over 30-50 years and in the good and great times along with the bad times but one things stands out that they all recall. RPV always has an excuses to cheap out. This is no longer a hamburger hill stereotype of old. people like myself have paid good money to be here and we want the city to look and feel like the other cities on The Hill, as it relates to minimum standards to look and feel like the Palos Verdes Peninsula. M1K Page 1 of Catie Howe From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:10 PM Ib: 'Katie Howe' ft c: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: PV Skate Park :rom: Heidi & Chris Morris [mailto:mcats4@cox.net] ient: Sunday, January 01, 2012 4:05 PM 'o: cc@rpv.com :c: Heidi & Chris Morris ►ubject: PV Skate Park n order to maximize the park usage by our PV residents I suggest the park also be open to BMX ind scooter riders too: I recently started taking my son to the Wilmington skate park where katers, BMX and scooter riders can all be seen enjoying the park at the same time. If crowds iecome a problem, other parks solve this by having separate times for each type of rider. 'hank you for helping this much needed facility. :kris Morris tPV 6/12/2012 H-1 3 Page 1 of ,atie Howe 'rom: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Writ: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:37 AM 'o: 'Katie Howe'; 'Tracy Bonano' ;ubject: FW: Skate park comments rom: M Nitz [mailto:mmnitz@yahoo.com] snt: Monday, January 02, 2012 3:24 PM o: Brian Campbell; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetech; Jim Knight; Jerry Whovic; city manager lubject: Skate park comments We understand that the RPV City Council is asking for comments regarding a skatepark in RPV. Last summer we had the opportunity to meet a person who is familiar with a skate park in her Colorado i police are regularly called to the park because of various illegal activities, and graffiti removal is a conste search the Internet for cities with skate park problems. Please look at some of the (18) attached websites regarding skate park problems, and the issues that of before considering a skate park in a residential area of RPV. Regards, Michael and Marilyn Nitz 26129 Birchfield Ave. RPV mfr nitz0vahoo.com http://www.nctim�-s,com/news/localtylstatarUcle cd79a8546670-555f-9aOa-15cedaee116e.html http://www.aenes x.com/sk831799.h-tml http:/jwww.dal[yintedake.com/newsAoc.aI montana/article 6a238050-246c-5c27-aeOf-2c4a719148a0.1 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1089188 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/may/20/edaerton-council-closes-skatepark/ http://www.carrollcountvtimes.com/newsAocal/at-skate-parks-probloms-vary-by-location/article f15ab 001 cc4c002eO.html http://www.americancanyon.comfforum§&iewtopic.php?f=1 &t=67 http://community.seattietimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040714&slue=skatel4n htl:y:L/www.darIenDaft.com/Skate Park.aspx http://www.krtv.com/news[areat falls-skate-park-issues-addressed-at4orum/ http://www.skaters2gfe.com/archivefndex.12hp 85283.html hft2://www.nctimes.coMLnews/local-/Doway/article c7daf7dd-cdf6-5915-b4ac-9968Qd655244.html http://www.kccommunitynews.com/`johnson-county-sun-news/27673915/detail.html hftp://triblocal.com/hinsdale/2011/03/1 OAwo-sides7face-off-over-skate-park-fundin-c3/ http://www.boulderweekly.commrticle-5864-skaj_epark skulduage[y.htmi http://www.coffscoaodvocaW.com.au/story/2010/06/08/nambucca-heads-skate-park-mixed-views/ http://www.thenorthemecho.co.uk/newsAocal/bishopauckland/9173363.Police take action to stop rx 5/12/2012 H-14 Page 2 of hftp://darrenfower.mycouncillor.grci.uk/201 I /05/20/graffiti-problems-new-skate-park/ http://readinneagle.coWLa_rticle.aspx?id=324128 6/12/2012 H-1 5 Page 1 of Catie Howe From: John Freeman Urfree@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:27 AM Po: cc@rpv.com ,".c: Carolynn Petru; Katie Howe Subject: Skate Park & Dog Park site analysis agenda item Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red /layor Misetich and City Council members: "hank you for your concern and support to include the public in the site field trips. At his time we are only vaguely aware of which sites the city staff has selected for visits. lon't want to read about the sites or field trips in the newspaper or in an after -the -fact :tall report. Our residents want to attend the same site at the same time as you, our ;lected government officials. also don't agree that publishing a map for a residents' driving -tour -on -your -own is a lood idea. If that's such a great idea, then pass those maps out to you, the council, as veil and let city staff abdicate everything. lust because the city staff had an unruly public council field site trip 7 years ago, loesn't mean we should abandon joint public visits. 1 can remember a few city council neetings at Hesse Park that became almost unruly. So, should we conduct closed :ouncil meetings (perish the thought) because it's easier? Of course not. We should earn and move forward. And try again. >ee if you can recognize (and apply) these slogans/promises from the recent election :ampaign: Increase Citizen Participation Re-establish transparency Enhance community involvement Putting residents first Maintain an open, friendly and transparent environment for residents ... to express their concerns. F you want community buy -in for these important projects, then we must have :ommunity participation. Together! Please direct staff at the next council meeting to an men inclusive aol,roach for the field trip site visits. thank you. John Freeman, President 'acific View Homeowners Association 6/12/2012 H-1 6 Page 1 of Catie Howe From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com) Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 20115:24 PM fo: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Skate Park and Dog Park °rom: Yarber, Sharon [mailto:SYarber@firstam.com] ►ent: Tuesday, December 20, 20114:58 PM 'o: cc@rpv.com iubject: Skate Park and Dog Park )ear Councilmembers: am a longtime supporter of a dog park (perhaps several) on the Peninsula. What I am having a hard ime with, however, is trying to understand why we are proceeding to develop criteria, identify sites and ;ontemplate selecting them when there is no indication that the other cities on the Peninsula are the Bast bit interested in working collaboratively with RPV to find locations within their borders that will erve the overall community. Obviously, OUR Council can visit all the sites it wants to, but it has no authority to do anything with respect to sites located outside the city limits. Are the other cities on ►oard with considering THEIR parks for such uses? If not, let's be honest and admit we are only looking it places within RPV. also fail to understand why the criteria are essentially being developed by Mia Lehrer, The McGowans end Ellen November, and the community outreach is going to be done AFTER all the preliminary work ►as been done. The community outreach needs to be done, first, and include residents of the entire Hill. 'ou have scheduled a date in March for the public outreach meeting. Have the other cities agreed to hat date and agreed to give notice to all of their residents so that community wide input can be ►btained? "his looks a lot to me like giving lip service to a community wide approach, while actually intending to iltimately place the burden of accommodating these parks squarely on the shoulders of RPV alone. also note with some humor that the site criteria for the dog park now says that 3 acres is ideal — 2 for arge dogs and 1 for small dogs. This is interesting, given that Ms. Lehrer previously indicated that a park n the neighborhood of only ONE acre, split between large and small dogs, was the optimum size after I Mated during the last go around re: Grandview and Upper Hesse Parks that we needed THREE acres and hat one acre was woefully inadequate. I guess the McGowans have successfully persuaded the expert hat a much larger park is required. In that regard I would like to point out that if you are going to try to lave one park that serves the entire community, it does, indeed, need to be about 3 acres; HOWEVER, he community would be far better served, in my view, if we had several smaller parks scattered hroughout the Hill (and turned parks that are now being used, unofficially, as off leash dog parks into ictual approved dog parks). encourage you to fully explore the interest of the other city councils before wasting any staff time :onsidering properties over which you have no jurisdiction. Maron Yarber (ice President >enior National Underwriting Counsel 6/12/2012 H-1 7 Wanna Buy Stuff? Skatepark PV now has its own online shop where you can get t - shirts and other stuff in all different sizes. Check it out here. Beachsports will be hosting skateboard day camps during the summer at Ernie Howlett Park, Check out their site and sign up! Thank you City of Rolling Hills Estates: Ernie Howlett park is the future home for Skatepark Skate Plaza Skatepark PV, Inc. is stoked to announce that the City Council of The City of Rolling Hills Estates voted unanimously to include a skate park at Ernie Howlett Park as part of their Park Master Plan. Special thanks go out to Mayor Suzy Seamans and RHE Community Services Director Andy Clark for their interest and assistance in the three year search for a location. The land that has been allocated is adjacent to the basketball court at Ernie Howlett Park. Over the past several years, The City of RHE has partnered with Beachsports to provide skateboarding day camps. Open skate events called SK8 the Hill have also been a big success and a great opportunity for the whole family to spend the day together. Skatepark PV, Inc., a 501(c)3 non-profit has pledged to raise the funds for design and construction of the skate plaza. Pro skater Kenny Anderson, a local resident and committee member, will have final say on the plaza's design. When we get to wwwo the design stage, we'll call on all the local skaters for their input into the design. This park is for the entire community. We'll have info on our fund raising campaign very soon' Thanks Spy and Globe SkateparkPV Aligns With A.Skate Foundation for donating prizes to our free drawing at SK8 the Hill! The kids were stoked! CONTACT US: 6/14/2012 Website: www.skateparkpv.org Email: skateparkpv@gmaii.com Phone: 310-384-6912 HIgh Five from a skater at an A.skate skateboard clinic Skatepark PV, Inc. has aligned itself with The A.skate Foundation, a non-profit that allows children with autism to be a part of our social world through skateboarding. By hosting clinics for kids with autism, Skatepark PV will be be helping our greater community. Mission of A.skate NO TEAM, NO COACH, RIP SOLO Foundation Overview The A.skate Foundation is a pending 501(c)3 non-profit that allows children with autism to be a part of our social world through skateboarding. We hold clinics for children with autism at no cost to the families, give grants to children with autism for skateboard gear, as well as promote awareness and educate families about the skateboard industry. We embrace the parts of autism that are hard to understand and give these kids an outlet that is free of rules or judgment, and allows them to be social without being "social". Children with autism often struggle with the ability to follow directions, play on a team due to the lack of social skills, and many require activities to be performed on their own terms. Skateboarding and autism just fit! No team, no coach, rip solo. http:lNoutube.com/askatefoundation General Information www.askate.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Staa, Tuned for updates on the skate park plans I L---------- Y -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i Forward this email 6/14/2012