20150421 Late CorrespondenceRE: 29029 Sprucegrove -So vim Page 2 of 2
Per your request, I forwarded your fo rn ial complaint to Ms . Julie Peterson so t hat she can
open a code enforcemeht case again s · 1our neighbor (29023 Sprucegrove) for th e alleged
non-permitted improvements in the r .r yard and interior remodel.
Secondly, attached is the radius/map s :abets in struction sheet that may h elp yo u achieve
completeness with your current appli c.i tion pending with Leza.
In regards to the Fence/Wall Permit p 1ding for your neighbor, I will be withdrawing his
application. What this means is that l will be able to build a fence or a solid wall without
obt aining Pl anning Division approval l to 8' in height from his side and 7' from your side,
even if it impairs your ocean view. B'" · cally this means no more than 8 ' from his side . This is
becaus e the City 's Code does not reqi e a Fence/Wall Permit if the fence or wall is located
where the grade differentia l between Li 1e building pads of adjacent pads of adjacent lots,
measured pe rp endicula r to the bou rn '·,ry between the two properties contiguous to or
abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is t .1 feet or less in elevation. In measuring the pad
elevation difference of your property \d your neighbor's this morning, it was clear that the
pad elevation was less than 2' In hei gi . Your picture showing the one single area where it is
more than 2' will not apply as the Co r says the difference between the 'building pads' has t o
be 2' or more.
-Lastly, I understand that you obtaine
that your neighbor has removed/reb ·
your refe rence and will not affect th E'
now be withdrawn.
Please feel free to contact me with a1
Si ncerely,
So Ki m
As s oc iate P lanne r
Cit y of Rancho Pal o s Verdes
0 (310 ) 544 -522 8 I sok @r p v.cc:
https ://owa.rpv.com/owa/
surveyor as you believe that the property lin e fence
' i s on your property. rp_e survey will be pu r ely for
.m ding Fence/Wall Permit as we discussed since it will
concerns or additional questions.
611 ~02436
CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
APRIL 21, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
SS2 C
3
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Email from John A. Girardi; Letter from Del Cerro
Homeowners Association Board; Email exchange between
Recreation and Parks Director Linder and Troy Braswell
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst
Waters and Lynn Swank
&:l7J!MA:tde -Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, April 20, 2015**.
W :IAGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150421 additions revisions to agenda .doc
April 20, 2015
Mr. Douglas Willmore
City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Crenshaw Parking/Traffic Issues
Gentlepersons:
I am a member and fonner President of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowner's
Association. It is fair to say that there is considerable concern about the proposed
changes in parking in the area of Del Cerro Park, Crenshaw and the Crenshaw extension
(Burma Road).
The angled parking along Crenshaw Boulevard is a lawsuit waiting to happen and
whoever makes the claim would have a very good argument that it represents a dangerous
condition of public property. Parking a vehicle may be done without a problem, backing
up into the traffic on Crenshaw with a 40 mile per hour speed limit is a prescription for
serious injury. I believe that the City would be hard-pressed to locate professional
literature in the highway design field which suggests this is a safe practice.
At least part of the reason for the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowner's concern is the
behavior of those who would take advantage of the hiking trails. If one were to spend a
little time observing their behavior, it is apparent that most of the hikers believe their hike
starts when the engine is shut off. Doors open into traffic when people put on their
running shoes or attend to their bicycles.
1126 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. 90017-1904
TELEPHONE: 213-977-0211 •FACSIMILE: 213-481-1554
WWW. GIRARDIKEESE.COM
SS;< C
Mr. Douglas Willmore and City Council Members
April 20, 2015
Page 2
Whether or not such behavior is thoughtful, it is the reality and it should be considered.
Along these same lines is the striping along the Crenshaw extension. While the no
parking on the east side has ameliorated the congestion, the red paint on the northwest
curb of Burrell and the Crenshaw extension should be extended by at least one car length.
The car parked in the first position closest to the trail blocks the view of drivers exiting
Burrell Lane. Since there are a modest number of spaces, many vehicles use the end of
the Crenshaw extension to make u-tums. There is a problem with adequate sight lines for
both the Burrell drives and the Crenshaw extension drivers.
I understand there has been a suggestion for increasing the number of available spaces at
Del Cerro Park. It is unfortunate that the loss of park land is a consideration. There is a .
modest amount of such park land available in the Island View/Del Cerro area of Rancho
Palos Verdes and the tradeoff of a handful of additional parking spaces where the loss of
the use by the members of the community would seem to be out of balance.
While there is concern about the congestion, it is likely self-regulating. While the City
would want the public to take advantage of the hiking trails, that would be balanced
against the interests of the homeowners. That the hikers have to walk a modest distance
to begin the formal hike on the dirt trail is a modest enough inconvenience. If they found
that the walk-up to the trail was too much, there would be less pressure on the available
parking. I believe this is a tradeoff best made by the users of the trail rather than the City.
Lastly, I understand that there has been some suggestion of reducing the speed along
Crenshaw. This would appear to be vital to the safety of the neighborhood. With the
frequent level of inattention by the driver/pedestrian, open doors, bikes in the street, u-
turning vehicles at the end of Crenshaw or at the end of the Crenshaw extension, the
speed limit is inappropriately high. All of us in the Homeowner's Association believe the
City and the safety of the vicinity would be well served by lowering that speed limit in
this congested area.
If there is further information you would like from any of the homeowners, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
With kind regards,
John A. Girardi
JAG:gk
Subject: FW: Del Cerro HOA Comments re: 4/21/15 CC Study Session Item # C
Attachments: Ltr to RPV City Council re Traffic Parking Issues 4-19-15.pdf; ATTOOOOl.htm
From: Doug Willmore
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:09 PM
To: Cory Linder; Michael Throne; Carolynn Petru
Subject: Fwd: Del Cerro HOA Comments re: 4/21/15 CC Study Session Item# C
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Date: April 19, 2015 at 7:37:11 PM PDT
To: Jim Knight <jim.knight@rpvca.gov>, Susan Brooks <susan.brooks@rpvca.gov>, Jerry
Duhovic <jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov>, Anthony Misetich <anthony.misetich@rpvca.gov>, Brian
Campbell <brian.campbell@rpvca.gov>, "Doug Willmore -RPV City Manager"
<dwillmore@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Del Cerro HOA <delcerrohoa@gmail.com>
Subject: Del Cerro HOA Comments re: 4/21/15 CC Study Session Item# C
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
Attached please find a letter from the Del Cerro Homeowners Association Board regarding the
4/21/15 City Council Study Session Agenda Item # C (Del Cerro Park Parking Capacity Update)
for your consideration.
Thank you.
Kathy Edgerton
1
55;( c
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
Dear Mayor Knight and RPV City Council members,
19 April 2015
Thank you for the opportunity to address parking, traffic, and facilities issues that the
Del Cerro community is experiencing as a result of the increasing number of visitors to
the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve -and the Portuguese Bend Reserve ("preserve") in
particular.
De! Cerro is a neighborhood of 120 properties located at the southern end of Crenshaw
Blvd. -adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. The community has a single
entrance into/exit from the neighborhood which is at the intersection of Crenshaw Blvd.
and Seacrest Drive, across Crenshaw from Del Cerro Park, and a few hundred feet
from the main entrance into the preserve.
We will cover the following topics in this document:
$ Traffic and parking issues on Crenshaw Blvd.
'10 Traffic and parking issues in the Del Cerro residential neighborhood
@ Inadequate visitor facilities (impact on Crenshaw Blvd. and within Del Cerro)
® Cumulative impact of the above issues on Del Cerro residents' quanty of life
• Del Cerro recommendations to ameliorate the conditions being experienced
• City's proposal for additional parking on Crenshaw Blvd. and in Del Cerro Park
(staff report for the 4/21/15 City Council study session agenda item #C)
Traffic Parking Issues on Crenshaw Blvd.
Currently visitors begin arriving shortly after dawn on weekends and holidays and
continue arriving all day. By around 10:00 am, vehicles are parked on both sides of
Crenshaw from the end of Crenshaw (at Seacrest) up almost to Crest Rd. This situation
continues until well into the afternoon. We have even noticed over the last few months
that on weekday mornings, up to 50 -60 preserve visitors' cars are parked near the
adjacent trailhead -filling up the Crenshaw Extension (10 cars), all available parking on
Park Place (25 cars), with an additional 20 -30 cars parked on Crenshaw Blvd. This
number will undoubtedly increase as summer approaches and the school year ends.
Visitors open their vehicle doors without looking for passing cars -often letting their
children and off-leash pets out of the cars without proper control. Street-side doors are
left open while visitors change their clothes and shoes, take equipment out of their earn,
chat with companions, use their cell phones, etc. -apparently oblivious to the passing
traffic in a 40-mph speed zone. Many visitors treat the end of Crenshaw as a parking lot,
walking in the middle of the street while cars are trying to pass instead of using the
1
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
sidewalks on either side of the street The result is that cars entering or exiting Del
Cerro must often drive down the middle of the street (crossing the yellow line into the
lane for opposing traffic). Often 2 cars going in opposite directions cannot at the
same time.
Complicating this condition is the fact that the asphalt walkway on the Del Cerro side of
Crenshaw is very narrow and irregular. When visitors leave car doors open on the curb
side of the car, the open doors almost completely block the walkway, so walkers are
forced to walk in the street
The current speed limit on the segment of Crenshaw south of Rd. is posted at 40
mph. However, travelers cannot possibly pass through that area safely at that speed on
weekends.
Drivers frequently make U-tums at the end of Crenshaw to exit the area or to find a
parking place on the other side of the street -despite double-yellow striping indicating
that U-tums are prohibited -restricting traffic flow into/out of Cerro, the Crenshaw
Extension (including Burrell Lane) Park Place. At least two accidents have occurred
when a driver decided to a make U-tum apparently without realizing there were other
cars behind him, and the 2nd driver didn't realize that the 1st driver was planning to make
the U-tum and hit the driver's door. In one of the accidents, the 1st driver was taken
away in an ambulance.
Some drivers do adhere to the rules and continue onto Seacrest, then make U-tums at
the intersection of Seacrest and Oceanaire, clogging traffic flows there.
Other drivers make U-tums from parking spots on Crenshaw or from the traffic lane in
the middle of the block to find a parking on the other side of the street or to exit
the area.
A!! of these actions interrupt traffic flow and create very unsafe driving conditions for
residents entering and exiting Del Cerro and for the visitors to preserve.
Traffic and Parking Issues in Del Cerro
Visitors generally feel compelled to park as close to the trailhead as possible to begin a
hike, leading to a strong preference to park in Del Cerro when parking on Park
Place and the Crenshaw Extension begins to fill up, but long before all available parking
space on Crenshaw Blvd. is fully occupied. Our residents have counted up to 45 cars
continuously parked on lower Oceanaire on weekends -experiencing the same issues
that clog traffic flow and create unsafe driving conditions on Crenshaw (leaving doors
open causing passing cars to have to cross into the opposing traffic lane, letting children
and off-leash dogs out of cars without control, etc.}. In addition, visitors often damage
resident landscaping as they enter and exit their vehicles. Some are verbally abusive to
2
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
residents when residents ask the visitors to move out of traffic or close their road-side
car doors.
In addition, vehicles are often parked next to fire hydrants, putting resident lives and
property at risk.
The area mail carrier has commented that on weekends, she often finds it difficult to
deliver mail to residents because parked cars block access to mail boxes. In addition,
residents and their guests often have trouble finding a place to park near their
residences.
Home and vehicles break-ins and burglaries have increased dramatically in the last 18
months. Many residents feel the increase has been caused by people becoming aware
of the community via continued advertising of the preserve. We have all noted that the
appearance of a large article in the Los Angeles Times in January coincided very
closely with an exponential increase in visitors to the preserve.
Inadequate Facilities to Accommodate Visitors to the Preserve
(Impact on Crenshaw and in Del Cerro)
The preserve, Del Cerro Park, and Crenshaw Blvd. lack adequate trash cans and mutt
mitt dispensers to accommodate the large number of visitors. Trash (including burning
cigarettes, empty fast food containers, partially eaten food, banana peels, dirty diapers,
tissue paper, and bags of dog excrement) are often left in the streets and on sidewalks.
(One especially favorite place to drop used mutt mitts is next to the trail marker at the
Rattlesnake Trail trai!head.) On Monday mornings, several of our residents carry plastic
bags and mutt mitts on their morning walks to pick up debris left by weekend visitors
(both on Crenshaw and Del Cerro streets).
There is one porta-potty in the preserve for use by up to 1,000 visitors every weekend,
and it is a half-mile from the trailhead. As a result, visitors use trees, bushes and
sidewalks along Crenshaw as neighbors pass by.
Cumulative Impact on Dei Cerro Residents' Quality of life
The cumulative impact of these conditions is traffic congestion in lower Oceanaire and,
to a lesser extent, on Amber Sky and Crestwind, causing difficulty for residents to safely
!eave or enter the De! Cerro neighborhood; an unkempt look to the community; and an
overall negative impact on resident safety and quality of life, community peace,
tranquility, attractiveness and ambience, and property values.
Recommendations
Del Cerro property owners and residents request that the following actions taken to
ameliorate the conditions being experienced:
3
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
• Extend the "No Parking" zone {currently indicated by red striping near Seacrest)
on the De! Cerro side of Crenshaw to the Rattlesnake Trail trailhead at the far
end of the iron fencing above the canyon (near Island View) to where the street
widens -to reduce congestion from parked cars and open doors, to enable safe,
in-lane travel along Crenshaw, and to allow unobstructed use of the adjacent
walkway,
.. Extend the "No Parking" zone on the Park Place side of Crenshaw about 50 ft to
improve visibility for cars exiting from Park Place onto Crenshaw, to allow cars to
safely exit without causing an accident, and to further reduce congestion at the
end of Crenshaw, (There is currently not enough red striping to provide visibility
for cars to safely exit from Park Place when high-profile vehicles such as SUVs
are parked close to this intersection.)
ill Replace the asphalt path on the Del Cerro side of Crenshaw with a wider
concrete sidewalk to provide a path for walkers to use instead of the middle
of Crenshaw,
® Add a crosswalk at the end of Crenshaw to shift walkers to the ocean side of
Crenshaw and add a decomposed granite walkway parallel to the Crenshaw
Extension from the crosswalk to the trailhead,
.. Conduct a speed study on weekends to establish a lower speed limit at the end
of Crenshaw. Drivers cannot possibly drive safely at the current speed limit on
weekend days.
® Place additional trash cans and mutt mitt dispensers in the preserve and park, at
the Rattlesnake Trail traiihead, and adjacent to a widened concrete sidewalk on
the Del Cerro side of Crenshaw. (Every bus stop has a trash can to
accommodate far fewer people than Crenshaw and the preserve accommodate
every weekend,)
• Include Monday morning clean-up of Crenshaw Blvd. and the Crenshaw
Extension in the park maintenance contract
• Place additional porta-potties in the preserve away from (and out of the sight of)
adjacent De! Cerro homes.
* Conduct an outreach program to sensitize visitors to their impact on the
neighborhood,
4
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
" Place signs at the park and at the preserve entrance reminding visitors of
appropriate behavior.
• Look for solutions to eliminate U-tums at the end of Crenshaw (without forcing
them to use the Seacrest-Oceanaire intersection or lower Oceanaire cul-de-sac
to tum around). Review options with the Del Cerro community before
implementation.
* Implement permit parking in De! Cerro before extending the red striping
requested on Crenshaw. Otherwise, the additional red striping will increase non-
resident parking in Del Cerro until permit parking is in place.
A survey of residents was taken in the last month to assess Del Cerro residents'
level of support for a neighborhood permit parking program. Seventy-nine
percent (79%) of the property owners indicated they want to implement permit
parking. By far, the strongest preference was for permit parking to be in effect 7
days a week, 24 hours a day.
However, the current process for obtaining guest permits is overly difficult and
untenable. To maintain the current level of resident support, it is critical that the
City allow the Cerro HOA to develop and administer a process that is
acceptable to the community.
Residents are very concerned that the City's guest permit acquisition and
utilization process is so cumbersome, strict, and inflexible that it unnecessarily
complicates residents' lives to comply with the mies. While undoubtedly well-
intentioned, the City's current practice attempts to anticipate every conceivable
problem that may occur and to develop airtight solutions to prevent them from
happening -making the process excessively difficult for neighbors to assure that
a simple forgetful moment doesn't result in one of their guests receiving a parking
ticket
While that approach may be a worthy goal, the neighborhood would realistically
accept an 80% or 90% solution that might allow an occasional uninvited intruder
into the area in exchange for a less burdensome process and reduced threat of
embarrassment when guests receive tickets due to a forgotten guest permit
placard. It's really the hordes of uninvited visitors that are troublesome to
residents, not a few strays.
The level of resident support for permit parking is also heavily dependent on the
city agreeing to limit the required signage to no more than two signs on Seacrest,
5
De! Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
using existing sign posts to prevent sign blight from destroying the semi-rural
ambience of the neighborhood.
The Del Cerro Homeowners Association would like to take responsibility for
administering the permit program, using some or all of the following strategies:
-First assess whether the 2 signs at the entry will be sufficient to stop
parking in the neighborhood without enforcement measures that may be
as likely to catch a forgetful resident as an uninvited intruder.
-lf the signs are insufficient to stop uninvited visitors from entering the
neighborhood, ask the Sheriff's Dept to enforce permit parking during a
few consecutive weekends -after coordinating the timing with an HOA
representative who would be responsible for notifying residents of the
planned enforcement, so that residents will be careful to distribute all
necessary guest permits during the applicable time period.
-Following a brief period of enforcement by the Sheriffs Dept, allow
residents to be the first line of enforcement by placing "official-looking"
warnings on cars, notifying uninvited visitors that the area allows parking
by permit only and that violators will be ticketed the next time they park in
the area.
-· Ask the Sheriff's Dept. to only issue tickets when requested by a resident
-not on random patrols. (We would rather them spend their time catching
bad guys!)
-Notify affected neighbors of upcoming parties or gatherings and ask that
residents call the hosts to see whether a car without a permit might be an
invited guest before contacting the Sheriff's Dept Courtesy notifications to
neighbors regarding planned events have historically been done
voluntarily without a problem.
-Assign a designated HOA representative to contact the City or the
Sheriff's Dept. when a large special event is planned and request that
enforcement be suspended on the applicable street for the duration of the
event -to eliminate the need for distributing and retrieving scores of guest
permits.
Some or al! of these strategies would empower the residents to work together to
maintain the quiet community we have enjoyed while continuing to host
occasional social events that have been occurring for many years without
6
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
problems (and as happens in any neighborhood, as a normal part of community
living).
If, after trying these alternatives, Del Cerro concludes that the process is not
working as we would hope, we would return to the City staff to ask for stronger
enforcement measures.
City's Proposal for Additional Parking on Crenshaw and in Del Cerro Park
(staff report the 4/21/15 City Council study session agenda item #C)
We do not feel that the City should consider adding more parking spaces to the area.
Demand for preserve parking is essentlaliy unlimited and will fill whatever space is
made available in short order. We would ask that the City focus its efforts on addressing
the conditions caused by the current level of visitors that are negatively impacting the
residential areas surrounding the preserve entrance before considering options to
increase the number of visitors.
In addition, angle parking specifically brings a set of issues that will cause more unsafe
conditions. it will reduce the already limited width the lanes of traffic. !n addition,
SUVs with rear side-hinging doors (that are often 4 ft. in width or more) will have to be
opened into the on-coming traffic in a 40-mph speed zone while visitors take out their
bicycles, hiking gear, or other equipment, further limiting usable traffic lane width and
potentially putting the visitors accessing items from the vehicle rear in harm's way.
Furthermore, when leaving the area, vehicles with limited visibility will have to back into
on-coming traffic traveling at up to 40 mph. These concerns were discussed at length in
a Traffic Safety Committee meeting in June 2013 as part of a review of a plan to
eliminate parking on one side of the Crenshaw Extension. (Angle parking on Crenshaw
was considered as a rneans to restore the 10 parking places being eliminated in the
Crenshaw Extension.) The ultimate motion that passed did not include any further
action to be taken regarding angle parking, and we considered the issue to be closed
until reading the staff report for this meeting. Unfortunately, we were unable to review
archived staff reports and minutes from that meeting, as they have not been posted to
the City's new website yet
Parking meters on Crenshaw or around the park would be a major visual blight to a
beautiful pastoral residential area. Parking meters may be appropriate for a commercial
zone, but not a residential area. Are there other residential areas in RPV that have
parking meters installed in or immediately adjacent to their neighborhoods? Rather than
lining up parking meters along Crenshaw and on Park Place, the City might consider
setting aside the parking space on Park Place and the Crenshaw Extension for RPV
residents (since those areas were intended for use by visitors to the neighborhood
pocket park long before the preserve was acquired) and designating the areas for
"parking by permit only" using a few signs rather than degrading the beautiful aesthetics
7
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
of the area with a long string of parking meters. This approach would also have the
benefit of assuring that at least a few parking spaces can be used by RPV residents,
without having to compete with visitors from outside the area.
Finally, our residents would be devastated to find out the City would consider converting
part of Del Cerro Park to a parking lot for the benefit of preserve visitors, at the expense
of the enjoyment of the local community. The park serves a very different recreational
purpose from the nature preserve. It is a gathering area similar to a small town village
square frequently used for famHy and neighborhood picnics, soccer games, on-leash
dog socialization and daily neighborly chats during morning walks. (You'd be surprised
how much neighborhood business is accomplished on those morning encounters!)
Several of the current City Council members will recall that, at the request of previous
Councils, Del Cerro and nearby HOAs hosted 2 pancake breakfasts at the park for over
300 first responders and grateful residents to thank the firefighters and deputies from
throughout LA County for their efforts in fighting the wildfires in the preserve in 2005 and
2009.
In addition, has the City reviewed the deed restrictions under which the park land was
acquired to see if converting the park into a parking lot would be permissible? If a
portion of the park is converted into a parking lot now, would there be pressure to
convert increasing portions to accommodate the continually expanding demand for
parking Where would it stop?
If the City Council feels that more parking space must be made available to
accommodate increasing numbers of visitors to the preserve, we would recommend that
visitors be instructed to park at City Hali or another location and that the City provide
shuttle service from the parking area to all entrances into the preserve -not just the
trailhead at Crenshaw.
A fundamental question that needs to be answered is: Does the City have an obligation
to provide parking for an ever-increasing number of visitors to the preserve -regardless
of the impact on nearby residents?
Conclusion
In 2005, when the City of RPV and the PVP Land Conservancy were trying to raise the
funds to acquire the nature preserve, both City Council members and Conservancy
officials recognized that additional parking would be needed to accommodate
visitors to the preserve. Council members and Conservancy officials often commented
that additional parking down on PV Drive South would be implemented to spread out
the users throughout the preserve, so that Del Cerro and other neighborhoods near the
Crenshaw entrance to the preserve would not bear the full impact of the number of
8
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
Rancho Palos Verdes CA
visitors. Over 60% of Del Cerro residents at that time (that we are aware of) contributed
funds to acquire the preserve, based on that understanding.
We have patiently waited while plan after plan for parking on PV Drive South has been
abandoned. Most recently, the PV Drive South realignment plan included a plan to
accommodate some parking at Gateway Park, but the plan for parking was severed
from the realignment plan in 2012-2013 and "deferred" so the realignment effort could
move forward. A subsequent plan to provide parking farther above PV Drive South was
floated last year, then abandoned. In fact, the PUMP document that this Council
approved in 2013 includes a plan for parking at Gateway Park.
Now 10 years after the acquisition of the preserve, we have seen little progress while
visitors to the preserve have increased dramatically at the Del Cerro entrance.
We welcome visitors to the preserve. We are grateful for the City's and Conservancy's
leadership in seeking the federal, state and local funds that enabled the City to acquire
the preserve and believe it is a wonderful asset that should be shared with visitors.
However, we need the City's help in sensitizing visitors to their impact on the adjacent
residents and in requiring them to respect the residents' efforts to re-capture and
maintain the quiet, peaceful neighborhood they have enjoyed for many years.
We greatly appreciate that this Council is willing to take the steps needed to improve the
conditions that are degrading the quality of life of Del Cerro residents. We urge you to
give our request a high priority and move it through the City's review, approval and
implementation process as quickly as possible, as we are very concerned that summer
is rapidly approaching and will bring a further increase in preserve visitors to our
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of our request We look forward to working with staff to
implement the actions requested herein.
!f you have any questions or comments, please fee! free to contact Kathy or Al Edgerton
(310-544-7390 or They will help coordinate any issues that arise
with our residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Del Cerro Homeowners Association
9
From:
Sent:
To:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:43 AM
Troy
Cc:
Subject:
CC; Doug Willmore; Carolynn Petru; Michael Throne; Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
RE: Del Cerro Parking
Hello Mr. Braswell :
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. The park and the preserve do receive a lot of attention
especially during the spring and summer months. New construction of additional parking stalls at Del Cerro was
considered as in your concept plan but the staff report only included the maximization of parking along Crenshaw at this
time. The staff report presents these various options to the Council for their consideration and ultimate decision .
Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Thanks, Cory
CORY A. LINDER, Director
Department of Recreation and Parks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310.544.5260
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR
CONTACTS PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM CORYL@RPV.COM TO CORYL@RPVCA.GOV
From: Troy [mailto:troy@eworld-media.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 6:51 PM
To: Cory Linder
Cc: CC
Subject: Del Cerro Parking
Hello Cory,
Well I guess our little secrete is out. The world knows about our wonderful open space and now we have to deal
with the consequences.
I agree with all of the proposals presented except metered parking. I don't think it will significantly reduce
overcrowding. Dealing with vendors to install, administer, and enforce a metered parking program creates a
new level of issues for the city .
I strongly disagree with annual parking passes for city residents. This will be about as popular as the dreaded
1
S.s 0< C
Wilderness Pass program. This is our city and we should not have to pay to use our parks.
Additional parking could be easily added by extending the parking lot on Park Place (below). Based on my
observations, the small strip of grass is seldom used anyway.
Now, how about the restroom issue?
Good luck,
Troy Braswell
2
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Lynn,
Matt Waters
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:08 PM
'Lynn Swank'
CC; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner
FW: Abalone Cove Parking
Thank you fo r your email. Responses to your questions are below. Please feel free to contact me with any additional
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Pa lo s Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Pa lo s Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes .com/rpv
mattw@rpvca .gov -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL AND
IF I AM IN YOUR CONTACTS, SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM mattw@rpv.com TO mattw@rpvca.gov
From: Lynn Swank [m ai lt o :lynn.sw a nk@cox.ne t ]
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:09 PM
To: CC
Cc: Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: Abalone Cove Parking
RPV City Council Members:
I support the parking fee increases for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park if there is enforcement of the permit-
parking only designation on Sea Cove Drive. I believe that the ramifications of this increase will affect
residents and resurrect an old and continuing parking problem.
1 3
Increased usage of the park is a good thing. Residents, staff and the city council worked very hard these past
years to make this a park that celebrated the natural setting of our coastline and allowed all visitors to
experience the ocean front experience that our city offers. Nature is the best teacher and we do not need
buildings to conduct nature education in this setting.
An issue not discussed in the staff report is parking enforcement and the many problems experienced by
adjacent residents due to overflow parking.
-Will staff be a parking enforcer? Staff will not function as a parking enforcer. In addition to educating the
public and enforcing park rules, they will be available to answer questions and assist with parking-re lated
questions and problems. Like many automated lots, vehicles will not be able to exit until they pay the full
amount of their parking fee.
-Who will cite or tow cars if the time period expires in the parking lot? Patrons will pay any balance due when
exiting the parking lot, so they will not be cited. For example, if a patron pre-pays the $5 rate but stays beyond
the two-hour maximum, they can pay the additional $5 when they exit.
-Who will cite permit-parking zone violators who park on Sea Cove Dr. or other streets adjacent to or near
the park? Parking enforcement on private streets will remain the responsibility ofthe Lomita Sheriff's
Department.
-Has the Traffic and Safety Committee reviewed this proposal? No, they have not. The proposed changes are
to parking fees, not access or traffic patterns.
-Will staff absence impact prevenf problems that occur at the park when an attendant is not there? The
automated parking system is intended to allow for greater flexibility by Recreation staff to address problems
both at the parking lot area and other parts of Abalone Cove when necessary. Currently, staff are limited in
their mobility due to the need to be in the parking booth to take payments. We are looking to increase
staffing presence at Abalone Cove, especially during busier parts of the year.
As you are aware, overflow parking is a major issue in parts of our city and while the amenities provided to our
residents and visitors are wonderful there has been a downside to our residents who live near these
"experiences". I refer to Del Cerro and the Preserve, Marymount, and Abalone Cove. These are the most
dramatic examples.
I fear that the city has not carefully examined the impact that improvements such as these will have on nearby
residents. In particular, PV Drive South has seen increased traffic due to the success of Terranea, Abalone
Cove is a user friendly park, the Parks Master Plan is proposing an upgrade in experiences at PVIC and Lower
Point Vicente Park, and Gateway Park may or may not offer more parking congestion. The City Council
recently approved the Heritage Museum adjacent to Abalone Cove Park and concerns were raised about
overflow parking for the museum at that time but assurances were made that this was not a concern. The
California Coastal Trail will also wind its way through the park and will be a major rest point or drop off/pick-
up for visitors statewide. Additionally, the residentially-zoned Point View area has an Event Garden and the
Planning Commission has allowed them to hold an increased number of events and expanded agricultural
uses on the property further adding congestion to PVDS.
Since the 1960s parking for Abalone Cove has been an issue and the residents on Sea Cove have had to
contend with visitor parking on this residential street. A parking lot was built and that seemed to alleviate the
2
problem for a time. However, over the years, even with a parking lot, many visito rs do not want to pay a
parking fee ($5) and choose to park on Sea Cove. Even though this is a permit-parking only street there has
been no enforcement. This past weekend, April 18 and 19, there have been Abalone Cove user cars on our
street even though the parking lot has not been full. Even if the Sheriff is called, there still is no enforcement
because this is a low priority item for them, and appropriately so. The City has a positive ongoing working
relationship with the Lomita Sheriff's Department. Staff can certainly relay concerns about identifiable,
ongoing parking violations on private streets.
As I stated, I support a fee increase if there is enforcement of permit-only parking. Increased fees will further
encourage visitors to seek free parking elsewhere. If $5 is too much to pay, an increased fee will be
considered excessive by many more people. It is not fair to place such a burden on your residents if there are
no plans to deal with the impact of this problem. Does the revenue from increased fees outweigh the
problems those of us on adjacent streets must suffer? Impact on neighbors is always a significant concern. A
certain number of people may be willing to park on private streets, even illegally, to avoid paying parking fees,
regardless of the cost. The reasons for the proposed increase are outlined in the staff report, but they include
a survey of other California beach and nature lots that show that the current $5 fee is well below average, the
City has recently upgraded Abalone Cove at significant expense, and parking fees have not been raised in over
20 years . Will the City compensate residents for this intrusion on our private residential experience?
Compensation for private residents is not included in this report. Will our concerns also be addressed
simultaneously when this item is discussed at the City Council meeting April 21? The concerns you have raised
as well as our responses will be included as Late Correspondence for the 4-21-15 meeting. Staff will also be
ready to answer these concerns at the Council meeting.
Lynn Swank
RPV Resident
3
CITY OF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
APRIL 20, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 21, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
H Email from Lili Chan
3 Email from Lynn Swank
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150421 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello-
Amy Seeraty
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:52 AM
Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka
Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
FW: Staff Report on Thursday
Please see the email below as late correspondence for the Nantasket Time Extension on the consent agenda
for the 4/21 City Council meeting. Thank you.
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5228
From: Lili Chan [mailto:lili@lilichanrealtor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 11:56 PM
To: Amy Seeraty
Subject: Re: Staff Report on Thursday
Hi Amy,
I just talked to my client. They said the reason for extension is mainly because they need some time to select the
right architect who can do minor changes to the current plan and submit it to the city. Since they live overseas,
this process has taken longer time than they expected.
Hope the explanation above helps. Looking forward to the staff report.
Thanks,
Lili Chan, MBA
KW COMMERCIAL
c: (310) 938 -6192
f: (888) 901 -6423
www.l ilichanrealtor.com
BRE #01490939
On Tue , Apr 14 , 2015 at 2:37 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
1 f +
Thank you Lili-
Actually, I have to wait until the Staff Report is approved and finalized by the City Manager, so I will
be sending you a copy of the Staff Report most likely on Thursday. Thank you and I'll look for your
email with additional information regarding the reason for the time extension.
Amy Seeraty
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5228
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HA VE
ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM AMYS@RPV.COM TO
AMYS@RPVCA.GOV.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RPV City Council Members:
Lynn Swank < lynn.swank@cox.net>
Sunday, April 19, 2015 8:09 PM
cc
Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Abalone Cove Parking
I support the parking fee increases for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park if there is enforcement of the permit-
parking only designation on Sea Cove Drive. I believe that the ramifications of this increase will affect
residents and resurrect an old and continuing parking problem.
Increased usage of the park is a good thing. Residents, staff and the city council worked very hard these past
years to make this a park that celebrated the natural setting of our coastline and allowed all visitors to
experience the ocean front experience that our city offers. Nature is the best teacher and we do not need
buildings to conduct nature education in this setting.
An issue not discussed in the staff report is parking enforcement and the many problems experienced by
adjacent residents due to overflow parking.
-Will staff be a parking enforcer?
-Who will cite or tow cars if the time period expires in the parking lot?
-Who will cite permit-parking zone violators who park on Sea Cove Dr. or other streets adjacent to or near
the park?
-Has the Traffic and Safety Committee reviewed this proposal?
-Will staff absence impact prevent problems that occur at the park when an attendant is not there?
As you are aware, overflow parking is a major issue in parts of our city and while the amenities provided to our
residents and visitors are wonderful there has been a downside to our residents who live near these
"experiences". I refer to Del Cerro and the Preserve, Marymount, and Abalone Cove. These are the most
dramatic examples.
I fear that the city has not carefully examined the impact that improvements such as these will have on nearby
residents. In particular, PV Drive South has seen increased traffic due to the success of Terran ea, Abalone
Cove is a user friendly park, the Parks Master Plan is proposing an upgrade in experiences at PVIC and Lower
Point Vicente Park, and Gateway Park may or may not offer more parking congestion. The City Council
recently approved the Heritage Museum adjacent to Abalone Cove Park and concerns were raised about
overflow parking for the museum at that time but assurances were made that this was not a concern. The
California Coastal Trail will also wind its way through the park and will be a major rest point or drop off/pick-
up for visitors statewide. Additionally, the residentially-zoned Point View area has an Event Garden and the
1 3
Planning Commission has allowed them to hold an increased number of events and expanded agricultural
uses on the property further adding congestion to PVDS.
Since the 1960s parking for Abalone Cove has been an issue and the residents on Sea Cove have had to
contend with visitor parking on this residential street. A parking lot was built and that seemed to alleviate the
problem for a time. However, over the years, even with a parking lot, many visitors do not want to pay a
parking fee ($5) and choose to park on Sea Cove. Even though this is a permit-parking only street there has
been no enforcement. This past weekend, April 18 and 19, there have been Abalone Cove user cars on our
street even though the parking lot has not been full. Even if the Sheriff is called, there still is no enforcement
because this is a low priority item for them, and appropriately so.
As I stated, I support a fee increase if there is enforcement of permit-only parking. Increased fees will further
encourage visitors to seek free parking elsewhere. If $5 is too much to pay, an increased fee will be
considered excessive by many more people. It is not fair to place such a burden on your residents if there are
no plans to deal with the impact of this problem. Does the revenue from increased fees outweigh the
problems those of us on adjacent streets must suffer? Will the City compensate residents for this intrusion on
our private residential experience? Will our concerns also be addressed simultaneously when this item is
discussed at the City Council meeting April 21?
Lynn Swank
RPV Resident
2