Loading...
20150630 Late CorrespondenceNathan Zweizig From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:43 AM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Parks Master Plan -- presentation contents Attachments: Freeman Master Plan Update for CC 06 30 15.pdf Here is the powerpoint to be added to late correspondence Teri From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:36 PM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: Parks Master Plan -- presentation contents Hello Carla and Teri, Please include my attached PowerPoint presentation document in the "Late Correspondence" material for the June 30, 2015 City Council meeting public input. Thank you. John Freeman, President Pacific View Homeowners Association www.palosverdes.com/pacificview "Working Together for a Better Neighborhood" John Freeman, Pacific View Homeowners Assoc. 06/30/2015 "It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve,' protect, and enhance its natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region. C"hira development shall recognize the sensitivity,of the natural environment nnI4 ka accomplished in such a Manner as to maximize the x tection"bf it." ro Photo by John Freeman 'Pacific View HOA November '12,2010 301 25 20 15 10 5 4 ■ M■ Shade Structure Hesse Park Public Workshop Tape Dot Exercise Results 111 Fitness Stations I A , 11 1 m Improved Expand McTaggart Drought Resistant Viewpoints Hall Patio Landscaping ■ Great Idea It's OK ■ So So ■ No 5 a Hesse Park PublicWorkshop Tape Dort Exercise Results Tricycle Park For Bocce Ball Courts Enhanced Picnic Tots Tables & Benches Replace Storage Containers w f pe rrn ■ Groat Idea It's OK ■ So So ■ No Picnicking at Upper Hesse Park, Sunday, April 18, 2015 Picnicking at Upper Hesse Park, Sunday, April 18, 2015 k ,�t, x _•k 4 o� �k� p \i ,tl�" ♦7 _ M M_ 1ZI; S r5 4! "4 I j� kik ILI k r +; N Picnicking at Lower Hesse Park, Sunday, April 18, 2015 a r _ •fi /r r M � T a :r V ry . r y► _ Ltr�i�ie 'i, `�* a i��� .�4/�i�_ .t '� a.i •/w ►k 1 • �k r• � �• t4 •.. 'Sr Rh� � � Set( r� . .rte � _.•�.1 �� -� "It is thetY oal of the Ci of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve," g �' protect, and enhance its natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and _ enjoyment of its residents end the residents of the entire region. Future development shall recognize the sensitivity,of the natural environment and be Photo byJohn Freeman 'Pacific View HOA accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the tection'�of it." , _ 6/30/2015 Compensation for Extended Outages I PG&E =Sr2GENCY Safety About search rc> 'vt fS.H M qE My H USINLS; ll & Account Service _s Outagr:s Few - . - �­ve Additional Ser,rc .. Language & Speech Service Compensation r'or I Y,'Ce(ided ©i..tacfes Energy unoice _ -- - Energy System Status STORMS MESSAGE: If residential customer and have gone — — -- without power for at least 48 hours due to severe storm conditions, you Addit(onat Info t3rochchw es &Fo1. rms may qualify for a payment under PG&E's Safety Net Program. This PG&E Contacted Me program provides for the automatic payment of $25 - $100, which is Contact Us pard about 60 days following the storm outage. In some cases, Outage Compensation FAQ Departing Load processing may take 90-120 days (heavy storm season). Underground Conversio _ n White our crews and emergency response teams at PG&E do everything Share My Data they can to keep the lights on, there are rare occasions when Mother More Services Nature impacts our ability to keep power flowing to every one of our customers. Safety Net Frogman We understand how inconvenient it is for customers who go without power for 48 hours or longer due to severe events, such as a storm. That is why PG&E created the following: Call our- outage hotline at 1-888-PGE-4PGE or 1-888-743-4743 to speak with someone about your particular outage. PG&E wilt provide payments to residentiat customers we determine were without power for more than 48 hours due to a severe storm. The payments will range from $25 up to $100, depending on the length of the outage. Of course, PG&E is working to minimize the potential for outage problems in the future. White we cannot guarantee that Mother Nature wilt never behave badly, we can tell you, day and night, over 20,000 men and women are focused on providing our customers with responsive service at fair prices. We are constantly working to improve and strengthen our electric system and find ways to safeguard against future outages. Eligibility The Storm Inconvenience Payment provision of the Safety Net Program applies to residential customers only (rate schedules E- 1, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, EM, ES, ESR, ET, and EV); customers also may be enrolled in programs such as CARE and medical baseline. Businesses, agricultural accounts, multi -family building common areas, streetlights, and all other customers other than residential customers are ineligible for Storm Inconvenience Payments, Storm Inconvenience Payments wilt not be issued to customers in areas where access to PG&E's electric facilities was blocked (mud slides, road closures or other access issues). Also, if customer equipment prevented restoral or extended customer outage (ex. weatherhead, service drop, etc.). ` The outage must have occurred during a major weather-related event that caused significant damage to PG&E's electric distribution system. REC The outage must have tasted more than 48 hours. a AND MADE +aAp+ , e)r— THE RECOAF) r r Storm Inconvenience Payments are in increments of $25 ($100 it , ?F 30 !s s CC}I)NC!I.1.j1,i^%T(1 {,r � �.�...........:... . maximum per event(. Payment levels are based on the length of L: C, {:rr'�E CITY CIER'r; the customer's outage: (.,AR 'r l,), it SALE, CITY CU: 0 48 to 72 hours $25 .A 72 to 96 hours $50 96 to 120 hours $75 http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/addservices/energystatus/extendedoutagesfiindex.page 112 6/30/2015 Compensation for Extended Outages I PG&E 120 hours or more $100 Both bundled service and direct-acc re_- en*:�I ci r rs qua5fyfor Stu, r, Inconvenience Payments. Storm Inconvenience Payments will be issued to the customer of record. A customer with multiple residential services such as a primary residence and a vacation home is eligible for Storm Inconvenience Payments at each location where there was a storm -related outage of more than 48 hours. — Customers must have an open account (service agreement) in good standing at the time of the outage and at the time payment is issued [generally 45 to 60 days after the event]. For master -metered accounts such as mobile home parks, the customer of record will receive the Storm Inconvenience Payment for the master meter only. Mote: Customers who experience an extended outage not relaled to a storm or severe event may be eligible for the Service Guarantee Program_ Fight global My Usage warming by �. Evolution Energy See your energy Evolution screwing in a usage based on time, s ener light bulb costs or even the I 7 See turewi h weather, future Grid Flndoutmore - Smart Grid about Ms. -< Logln now Careers Privacy Accessibility Contact Us Newsroom Regulation Pacific Gas & Electric Company http://www.pge.com/erVmyhomeladdserviceslenergystatus/extendedoLdagesrindex.page 2/2 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR TRACT 16540 Portuguese Bend Club East 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Petition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attention: Council Gateway Park The Board of Tract 16540 and the homeowners object to the plans for Gateway Park off Palos Verdes Drive South in the Portuguese Slide Area for the following reasons: 1. The proposed parking lot will create traffic hazards from cars, motorcycles and trucks pulling horse trailers as they make right and left turns into and out of the parking lot. These hazards add to those that already exist because the road is narrow, curvy, and hilly and the surface is constantly moving creating challenging driving conditions (uneven surfaces and cracks). 2. The proposed parking lot will generate more foot traffic along and across PV Dr S. creating hazards for drivers and risks to the pedestrians. 3. More social media attention to our area may result in the small 40 car parking lot being overwhelmed by non-residents on weekends and holidays and undermining the wonderful area we all pay taxes to enjoy. 4. The increase in visitors to the Portuguese Bend slide area increases the risk of brush fires from careless smokers or use of fire pits. The increase of visitors will also result in more trash carelessly discarded and graffiti on signs, fences and even the natural rocks and soil. 5. The parking lot is intended to be for visitors to be able to park, hike and ride horses along the trails in the City's Reserve on the inland side of the road. Our concern is many people will use the same parking lot to access the beach across the road even though there are no trails there. 6. The Portuguese Bend slide area and beach present natural hazards that may result in injuries and drownings. It is rough terrain that is constantly moving with crevasses and fissures in the soil and a very rocky coastline with strong ocean currents. There will be no life guards on station or any other supervision of activities. Thus, the undersigned request that plans for Gateway Park be abandoned. CEIVED FROM D MADE APART OF THE REC RD AT TH iUNCIL MEETING OF:=o I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK WAWA M0FJREAL , CITYITY CLK� Date Print name & street address : jidn name Date Print namb & street address MMIWAMW- M name & street, n name 21 - Date et fL A 0 Date Da Date M Date of Print name & street address �,t�4-fti.,CJM �j is -- 415"1-1 !r - I Date Date -in name Date i Wki,f, ov 6-�k)t n namp.,--- it nqmp & street Address n narn) rt�- 1.1 ktiv, A' 7 Date Date 1.5 - Date Sign name C6t4 vz Print nye & street address jn name Date �,t�4-fti.,CJM �j is -- 415"1-1 !r - I Date Date -in name Date i Wki,f, ov 6-�k)t n namp.,--- it nqmp & street Address n narn) rt�- 1.1 ktiv, A' 7 Date Date 1.5 - Date n name f &O�My R, Ac name Streat address f- name Clac, / 0 /,)// - 'A�l n name UjWQ it name & L , _§'reet address ,-%ign names dKFj 41WV 4,6- C4-0— ","rint name & street address lk, nt name & street address Date Date Ol 4 1L.,i, L Date tq L41to 'bate )P -b 40, -ate) IIA �n name Date -Z� \,\rxN, o'A A" 'Drint name & street address V -(A nt nahne & street address VA6A Print name & street address > L-)-- at6 OW'm 21. Sign name Date Print name & street address 22. Sign name Date Print name & street address 21 Sign name Date 24. Sign name Date CA" �- -1 ,- ian* & street address-, name � Print name & street address .H. to 711 - Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address ME= Print name & street address, N Sign name Date Print name & street address -bate Sign name 6-1 - ?tDxs ign na Fe N Date 11 ,.4gn name Print name & street address 35. Sign name Print name & street address 36. Sign name Date M MM Print name & street address 37. Sign name Date Print name & street address 38. Sign name Date Print name & street address 39. Sign name Date Print name & street address 40. Sign name Date Print name & street address sign name" Date Sign name Date MW Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address 0 Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address Print name & street address 2. Sign name Date M 3. Sign name Date Fill Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date 6._ Sign name Date 7. Sign name Date 8, Sign name Date M ME= t name & street address wn 3. Sign name Date *inf-6a---m­e'& -str--eet`address 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date 6. Sign name Date 7. Sign name bate IOJKQIQIQ�� 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address name Date Print name & street address 3. Sign name Date Print name & street address 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. Sign name Date Print name & street address � I plizarklo-on- Print name & street address IM Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address :'Agn name nt name & street address name Date Date "zo name & strep address Wr name Date lfinm"��A M # Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address FA Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address �ami D to S CA Print name & street address 2. Sign name Date Print name & street address 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address i•1 Sign name Print name & street address Date 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address -lign n#M Date TIM uf I 1 (1,11, A-4111 KA -1, Print name & street address 2. Sign name Date Print name & street address 3. Sign name Date Print name & street address 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address 3. Sign name Date 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date I a71MIM 9 W --M- I Me re �:sign name Date Si n name Date Print name & street address 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date LI -I Sign name Date Print name & street address Z. Sign name Date Print name & street address Print name & street address MR Sign name Wat Z4 i C G- 6 iz , S Print name & street address 4. Sign name Print name & street address 5. Sign name aa-116— MME Print name & street address 6.— Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. sign name Print name & street address 8.--- sign name Print name & street address Date Date NM= _s t 2/> Z, Date Print name & street address Is sign name Date \Sdu--�t YAtcw :�rq:?-75"s Print name & street address M= 8.— Sign name Date XMIN M Oname C-),ej C x) Print name & street address Date 2. Sign name Date Print name & street address 3. Sign name Date Print name & street address 4. Sign name Date Print name & street address 5. Sign name Date Print name & street address 6. Sign name Date Print name & street address 7. Sign name Date Print name & street address 8. Sign name Date Print name & street address CITY OFI�Af ICHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 30, 2015 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 C Letter from Mark Blackburn 2 Emails from: Mickey Rodich; the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowner's Association; Bill and Marty Foster; Sunshine; Herb Stark; Madeleine McJones; Oliver Hazard; Email exchange between: Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Sue Mittlestaedt; Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and John Schoenfeld Respectfully submitted, Teresa Takaoka ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 29, 2015**. W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150630 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Lauren Ramezani Sent: Tuesday, June 30,20l53:l6PK4 To: [adoMonea|e Cc: ToresaTakamka; Michael Throne; Doug VWUmore Subject: FW: letter Attachments: SKM364el5O63014570.pdf The attached letter, Late Correspondence is from Mark Blackburn from UWS. LounsnRan7ezon/ Sr, Administrative Analyst- Public Works LCity ofRancho Palos Verdes 320'544'5245 ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks ***** From: noicheUe [noaihn:miche|hu@uvvsnnnopany.conn] Sent: Tuesday, June 30'20152:57PK4 To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: letter Hi Lauren, Mark asked me to send this over. Thank you for everything and it's been a pleasure working with you these past 11 years (D Michelle Newsham Bins -Roll -offs &- llortal)le Toilets 562-205-9237 OUX) UNNERSALWASIESYSrEMSM, LAHOK SHOUGH 10 rElIVE, SMALL EROVOH VO CARE June 30, 2015 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Mayor and City Councilmernbers, 9010-9016 Norwalk Blvd., Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 P.0, Box 3038, Whiltier, CA 90650 562-941-4900 Universal Waste Systems, Inc. (UWS) has been honored to serve the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the past I I years. I personally apologize for not making tile meeting tonight. My father was placed on hospice today. I am thank:ftil for all of the support that we have received from the community. I am proud to have been a part of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes, We have serviced a very unique service area, and we are committed to making sure that this is a smooth transition. Our employees will work. closely with. Edco and its staff'. Should you have any questions now or in the future, please feel free to contact me at (562) 941, - 4900, Sincerely, %✓lark Blackbtirn Universal Waste Systems Inc. President From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:24 PM To: CC Subject: Parks Master Plan Update For CC Meeting on June 30 th Attachments: img008 jpg; imgOlOjpg; img011jpg Attached please find comments that I have made on the Parks Master Plan Update. I have attended some of the Workshops for Ladera Linda and Gateway Park. I also attended the recent CC Meeting for Del Cerro Park. Parks Master Pian Update -- Comments for CC Meeting on June 30, 2015 I think that as a result of events that have transpired in the last week, you the CC, must really be careful of the decisions you make concerning the Parks Master Plan Update. One of our biggest concerns has been the effects of Social Media. We already have had recent problems at Sacred Cove, where Twitter showcased the area as being very desirable. That drew crowds and we also had a death that occurred there. In some of the Public Workshops on Gateway Park, residents were concerned about people parking at Gateway Park and crossing PVDS to get to Sacred Cove. We now have even worse scenarios. a) On Saturday June 27, 2015 an article appeared in the LA Times (Saturday Section) titled "Step Lightly For A Swell Time At Tranquil Cove", featuring Sacred Cove. They show photos, maps, directions and other information like parking at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park for $5.00. They,also list things such as distance, difficulty, duration, summer hours and dogs on a leash, etc. This will bring in another trove of people into our area and cause greater traffic congestion. b) Also on Saturday, the Forrestal Gate was open and more than 50 cars and 99 people from the Santa Monica Hiking.com Club descended on Ladera Linda. One neighbor talked to some of them and was able to get information along with their internet site. A view of their internet site shows that they have 9,264 members. Their site went on to describing the hike in great detail with driving directions, a map of the hike along with the social events afterward at Swan Thai restaurant in Golden Cove and then on to Terranea for drinks after that. The hike was shown to be 4.5 miles with an elevation change of 800 feet. Needless to say "We Have A Problem". Staff has led us to believe that by placing Gateway Park's proposed parking lot as far North as possible, that it will discourage people from hiking to Sacred Cove. We now know that this plan will NOT work because they are willing to hike from Ladera Linda, which is a lot further away from Sacred Cove than Gateway Park. This is a serious problem and must be dealt with. Improving the amenities in our various Parks will only bring more outside visitors, which will in effect prevent our residents from having access to our Parks. LADERA LINDA I attended the Ladera Linda Workshop on Nov. 12, 2014. The following is my understanding of what happened at that meeting and the difficulty I have trying to find pertinent information in the Parks Master Plan Update. 1) The overall report is very confusing. If you were interested in the Parks Master Plan Update results and its recommendations for Ladera Linda Park or Gateway Park, you would have to bounce back and forth throughout the whole 150+ page report and piece together different bits of information. It is very confusing when you must look through a whole report just to find the data from one Park. The data for each venue should be in the same section of the Report and be written so that it is easy to follow. 2) 1 question the creditability of the online surveys. When you attend a workshop you have the advantage of hearing different talking points on the same issues, which gives you a much better perspective and allows you to make a logical decision. However, with an online survey one provides their answer without hearing any other important comments, many of which you may have overlooked. You also have a better idea of how to arrive at an answer, to the questions asked, when you have an opportunity to hear other people's comments, ask questions and discuss the issues thoroughly. 3) Some of the analysis is confusing and the open ended questions make it worse. I don't think that the analysis should include all Parks combined. Each Park has its own unique characteristics and requirements based on its size, location, neighborhood compatibility and immediate resident's desires. It's not a matter of "one size fits all", it's a matter of what is best for the residents who live next to that Park. What does an increase of amenities do for that neighborhood's security, accessibility and expectations? Reading some of the combined 6,1 0/,_S7 - analysis shows that Ladera Linda residents are pro Pool by an 80 % majority (page 9 & 10, charts). This is not true. Asking open ended questions distorts the data so that the Staff can justify their survey results any way they wish. 4) When Staff combined Tennis Courts and Paddle Tennis Courts in the same grouping for Ladera Linda, Staff emphasized Tennis Courts. Attending the Ladera Linda Workshops, I clearly heard the people say that they would prefer another Paddle Tennis Court and not a Tennis Court. Ladera Linda, I believe, is the only City Park with Paddle Tennis Courts. Again combining both Paddle Tennis Courts and Tennis Courts is confusing. Even more confusing is when Staff combines Paddle Tennis Courts with Basketball Courts as they did in the chart for Ladera Linda on page 57. Also Appendix "G" is in conflict with other parts of the Plan, Residents are in favor of another Paddle Tennis Court NOT a Tennis Court. S) Something that this Report completely ignores is the traffic problems we have due to this increased soccer activity. The City conducted a recent PVDS Traffic Study that was flawed. It never included any auto traffic at all. Instead it only included bicycle traffic. So of course there was no study as to the significance of increased auto traffic on PVDS and Forrestal due to the increased soccer activity. It should be the responsibility of the PVUSD and AYSO to have a traffic person at PVDS and Forrestal, on weekends during soccer games or any other high volume event at the Park or the Soccer Fields, to allow people to make left-hand turns safely without waiting for 15 minutes. 6) 1 would like to summarize what I feel are the important issues for Ladera Linda: a) The most important thing that I heard at the Workshops was to preserving our undeveloped land. b) Because the present facilities at Ladera Linda are rated "F", neighbors would approve a low key Community Center. Seeing the problems that have attracted crowds for Sacred Cove, we are in favor of NOT providing additional amenities that would draw such crowds. Safety is critical. Since the nearby Soccer Fields have had increased activity with more cars and crowds than ever before, we have had a marked increase in burglaries in our homes and cars. The Community Center does not have to be elaborate, but should be designed that an addition can easily be added if necessary at a later date. c) A Sheriff and/or Park Ranger drop-in office. d) An expanded Nature Center. DEL CERRO PARK I also attended the Dec. 3, 2015 Gateway Park Workshop. This Workshop was attended by many residents from the Del Cerro Park area and as a result quite a bit of this Workshop was devoted to the parking issues around Del Cerro Park. The Del Cerro residents were quite upset over the parking problems they experience almost daily and feel betrayed by previous City Councils. This Council is in the process of making positive decisions to improve the conditions they experience. I feel part of the solution for Del Cerro Park must involve the Land Conservancy. They are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, by RPV, to manage the Forrestal Reserve. Del Cerro Park is the main gateway to enter the trails in the Forrestal Reserve. They should be active in Del Cerro Park area and control the access to the trails. The City should control the parking problems surrounding Del Cerro Park. A number of people made this suggestion at a recent CC meeting on Del Cerro Park and I agree that we institute a shuttle bus (PV Transit) and charge a fee to transfer the trail users from a City Hall parking lot to and from Del Cerro Park during the peak traffic times. GATEWAY PARK I attended the Gateway Park Workshop on Dec. 3, 2014. In attendance were people from Ladera, Linda, Portuguese Bend Beach Club, Del Cerro, Equestrian people, Land Conservancy people, CHOA, City Councilman Jerry Duhovic and others. There were some much heated discussions on a range of issues. The Del Cerro residents said that a previous CC promised them parking relief at Gateway Park. Everyone was sympathetic with their problem, but the fact of the matter is that providing parking at Gateway Park will not solve their problems, because people will not drive S miles to get to the very lowest access to the trails and hike all the way up to Del Cerro Park area. The Equestrian people felt that they should have portable corrals, water, portable toilets and a portable structure on the Gateway Park site. The more the discussions got along, there appeared to be a near unanimous decision that it would not be a good idea to develop Gateway Park at all. Some of the negative comments were: 1) The proposed Gateway Park is located in the most dangerous area in the whole landslide area. 2) The area is full of deep fissures and makes walking in that are quite dangerous. Even when they are filled up, it only takes a week or two before new fissures begin to form. Just look at PVDS in that areas: a week after it is re -paved new cracks appear. Some of the land movement directly across PVDS moves up to 25 feet per year 3) Access from PVDS will create traffic hazards and congestion. Many of the people will park there and walk across PVDS to get access to beaches and Sacred Cove. Plus the proposed entrance is on curves. 4) Maintaining this area will be very expensive. In summary, the vast majority of the people are opposed to making any improvements in Gateway Park and I agree with them. It is located in the most active slide area and people will be parking there and cross PVDS, which will create congestion on PVDS and may lead to pedestrian accidents. And then you have the Social Media issues that I have shown above, at the beginning of my report. MICKEY RODICH Resident of Ladera Linda Teresa Takaoka From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:44 PM To: CC Subject: CC Meeting 6/30/15 Parks Master Plan Update Attachments: img012 jpg; img013 jpg; img014 jpg; img015 jpg Enclosed are 4 attachments that belong to my 3 page comments submitted yesterday. Please put them together. Thank you. E&S Angeles ?dimes LATIMES.COM MINI) &BODY j= << M MICK� Dice, NWtographs by CHR18TUTA H0t78E For The T)mes EDUARDO RAMIREZ, left, and Hilario Ortega navigate a tidepool on the Abalone Cove Trail. THE VIEWS along Olmstead Trail include TAKE IN the emerald scenery of Sacred Cove Lloyd Wright -designed Wayfarers Chapel. from the Portuguese Point trail. WALK carefully along the slippery tidepools for a look at the sealife that includes crabs. p��os I01 Downtown D ©lefacs0, ■ Cbipsrnrs d Los Angeles n. O Abalone AMlew Cow 110 `) � R►we�e MI ' wit 10i 71fL Tr',+ OlmsMsd 110 Long Abalorw Core i Tell' . Palos Verdes Bench Pennlnsula Abskm Gm 4160061" Ph** wo FM POMPM Pacthe oeetn &R mapb". OOwt!lbe~ POW Lott SPIRtTO Los AIIgRIPB Times F8 SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 2015 MC�.�u��C L.A. 'WALKS Step lightly for a swell time at tranquil cove BY CHARLES FLEMING Tucked into the Palos Verdes coastline, this quiet cove offers good walk- ing, great ocean views, a secluded beach and some of Southern Callfar- nia's most accessible tidepools. Wear shoes that can get wet to get a close look at the aquatic animals. Park and pay the $5 parking fee atAbalone Cave Shoreline Park. (Parking on nearby residen- tial streets is by permit only.) heave the parkinglot headed toward the water, and follow the Abalone Cove Trail along a cW--side fence. Con- tinue as the trail cuts through some bushes and turns steeply downhill. When you hit a wide stretch of asphalt, head right to visit the beach or left to continue to the tidepools. Then bear right and downhill onto Sea Dahlia Trail as it winds along the water. You're now on part of the California Coastal Trak. Begun in 1976, it will even- tually extend 1,200 miles from Mexico to the Oregon border. The rocky trail will curve around and spill onto a wide beach. Just beyond are terrific tidepools, where you can see star- fish, sea anemones, crabs and maybe even one of the shiny shells of the abalone that give the park its name. Watch for incoming waves The stats Distance 2.5 miles Difficulty: 3, on a scale of 1 to 5 Duration: 1112 to 2 hours Details: Parking is $5. Dogs on a leash are OK on bluffs. No dogs allowed on beach or trails. Summer hours: noon to 4 p.m. Mondays to Fridays, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. and slippery rocks. With the beach behindyou, climb past a public restroom to wide Olmstead Trail. (The Olm- stead design firm, which was re- sponsible for New Yorks Central Park and San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, also designed parts of Palos Verdes Estates.) Follow this trail as it arcs up and to the right, climbing to the bluffs above. At the top of Olmstead Trall, turn right to circumnavigate Portuguese Point. Er>,joy broad ocean views to the west of Santa Catalina island and to the south of adjacent Sacred Cove. On the inland hill above you is Wayfarers Chapel, the "Glass Chapel" de- signed by Lloyd Wright. It's one of the South Coast's premier wedding locations. Finish the Portuguese Point circle, follow Olmstead Trail back downhill and retrace your steps back along the rocky coast — or make the walk more arduous by taking the bluff trail to the right Just before Olmstead hits the beach. But watch your step on this narrow, steep trail, which rejoins the Sea Dahlia Trail just before it heads back uphill to the parking Iot. Fleming is the author of "Secret Stairs: A Walking Guide to the ' Historic Staircases of Los Angeles" and the just -published "Secret Walks: A Walking Guide to the.Z.. Hidden Trails of Los Angeles." rharinc flaminwA"10fi- - Al —1,19f V" kJ Illy, � 1 Y ���y�,+ 1 Com' h /jG �- i � ..•� G -y C L "-7 " r �(w-.q C tIle (. ✓L.�. — )_ L "� Home Members Sponsors Photos Pages More SMUGGLERS COVE SEA CAVE - TIDEPOOIS - 99 went PALOS VERDES - Swan Thai • Terranea Resort Yesterday • ii:oo AM Y — at JOHN G. Forrestal Nature Prese.ne CO-ORGANIZER HIKE overlooking the OCEAN... we'll see tidepools, EVENT HOST the Loch Ness Monster and a duple sea caves... Kim C .: Phil 1) the HIKE is 4.5 Hailes... in places it is STEEP with loose dirt, Chuck so bring shoes with TRACTION! I there's an 800 foot elevation change David V. we'll travel a snort distance next to the road... the TIDE will be LOW at 12:16 Annie BRING a SNACK for our stop by the Sea Caves... we'll stop there for at ]cast 20-30 minutes Richard B. 2) drive to SWAN THAI for lunch (drive down the hill and turn RIGHT on Palos Verdes Drive for Howie +3 approx 4.5 miles... turn RIGHT into the shopping center where Trader Joes, Starbucks and Swan Thai is) 31206 Palos Verdes Drive Panagiota 3) Drive to Terranea Resort for drinks after lunch Surxtit S. +, i mile south from Swan Thai on the beach side $10 Valet parking per car or FREE parking with 1/4 mile walk in parking lot just north ofTerranea Shannon M meet in main building where there is indoor, outdoor seating and a BAR all with terrific views of the ocean Glo Karsten """ Note... sometimes the gate to the parking area to the trail - head is locked, in which ease there's plenty of street parking just �- before the gate. IF the gate is open, drive PAST the gate t/s mile to the end of the road and park there. if the gate is locked, park on the street and walk to the trailhead, i/a mile past the gate. MAP to Swan Thai / Asaka / Subway / Starbucks and TERRANEA RESORT Terranea Website GREAT VIEW OF THE OCEAN111 BRING A semi NICE CHANGE OF CLOMESt!! Terranea is a CLASSY yet semi -casual resort. 4 1 1) vb�p , Wo',Wol Murielleh Bonnieann kat Saida Rex ... canyon c. +� "ME WANT COOKIE" Traveler -Lisa Evan B. Kevin H. Heather Carmen A Risse sboy Kevin Q. Fred S. Prakash Jane Farah From: Angela Jarasunas <angeleromas@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:29 PM To: CC Subject: Response from the Palos Verdes Park Place HOA on the Parks Master Plan Update Attachments: response to city council from PVPP HOA.docx Attached is a letter from the Palos Verdes Park Place HOA on the Parks Master Plan Update, specifically addressing our opposition to the the changes proposed for Del Cerro Park. Please view the text of the letter below. I also included our letter as an attachment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To the Honorable Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City Council: I am writing on behalf of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners' Association, Our HOA includes the 7 homes on Burrell Lane and the 3 homes on Park Place. 3 of our homes on Park Place are next to Del Cerro Park (the park is across the street from our front yards), and 3 of our homes on Burrell Lane are contiguous to Del Cerro Park (the park is next to our backyards). We have reviewed the Parks Master Plan Update, which is to be presented to the City Council on June 30, 2015. Although we are grateful that the City Council agreed to new parking restrictions to address the congestion and the safety of those traveling to and from this area, we are strongly against any further improvements to Del Cerro Park, including installing a restroom building and installing additional picnic tables. We would also like further clarification on a contemplated shift to drought tolerant landscaping. First and foremost, any additional concrete structures or permanent fixtures in Del Cerro Park could hamper future rescue efforts of emergency personnel during wildfires and compromise the safety of our homes and the entirc peninsula. During the last 2 significant wildfires that affected RPV and this area, Del Cerro Park was used as an emergency staging ground for water -dropping helicopters, fire engines and other emergency vehicles. This park only has 2 acres of flat grassy area, and using some of this limited space for a permanent restroom facility would interfere with future access for emergency personnel. There are frequent 'staging' and 'practice exercises' (lx / week) by LA County Fire Department in one fashion or another now. Other large vehicles that are involved in staging as well as in major events include not only Fire but Police, Health 8s Safety AND many Sheriff and Fire helicopters as well. For all these exercises and real events, the Park must accommodate the likelihood that Fire, Police, other Emergency vehicles AND Helicopters be able to literally drive onto - and land - on Del Cerro ... and having picnic 1 tables and bathroom buildings, etc. 'in the way' would be significantly more problematic and potentially catastrophic. We also oppose additional picnic tables in the area because they seem to attract park visitors interested in using portable barbeques. The use of illegal barbeques in Del Cerro Park has been a problem for some time, even though there is a sign posted which strictly prohibits barbeques. Our residents frequently call the Lomita Sherriff's station, or more recently the RPV Park Ranger, to report the use of these barbeques. The police have historically been slow to respond. Our residents have dialed the ranger twice this summer to report barbeques in the park; we are not sure if the ranger responded at all. More picnic tables will likely lead to more illegal barbeques in our park, and this situation is outright dangerous given our ongoing drought and Del Cerro Park's location in an extreme high -fire - danger zone. Our HOA is also surprised that the RPV Recreation 8v Parks Department is proposing improvements to our park that will likely attract more visitors. We had hoped that the recent parking discussions in front of the City Council and the Traffic and Safety Committee had significantly highlighted the congestion and safety concerns for both drivers and pedestrians in this area. Although Del Cerro Park has posted hours of operation, the general public often ignores these rules, and our homeowners frequently call the police or the RPV ranger to report late- night partygoers to the park, If a restroom building were to be constructed, it would have to be locked and unlocked every morning by staff; it would be unacceptable to leave it open 24/7 because there would be no way to prevent access to the restrooms when the park is supposed to be closed. If the PRV Recreation 8, Parks Department feels we need more restrooms (and we agree that 1 portable toilet on the trail can't support up to 1,000 visitors per weekend to the trail), then the city should place more portable toilets along the trail in inconspicuous areas, including at the base of the trail, not just at the Del Cerro end. Any toilets should be out - of -sight of residents' homes. No one wants to have a view of toilets (whether portable or permanent) from their front or back yard! Overall, Del Cerro Park was designed as a small quiet neighborhood park. We want the public to be able to enjoy Del Cerro Park and take in the incredible views from the bluff, but this 4.5 acre park with only 2 acres of flat grassy area wasn't designed to accommodate large crowds given the limited parking in our area and the fact that the park is surrounded by private residences. Additionally, in reviewing the materials presented in the Parks Master Plan Update appendices, we saw very little mention of RPV residents wanting toilets or other improvements in Del Cerro Park. Thank you for your time. The Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners' Association 2 To the Honorable Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City Council: I am writing on behalf of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners' Association. Our HOA includes the 7 homes on Burrell Lane and the 3 homes on Park Place. 3 of our homes on Park Place are next to Del Cerro Park (the park is across the street from our front yards), and 3 of our homes on Burrell Lane are contiguous to Del Cerro Park (the park is next to our backyards). We have reviewed the Parks Master Plan Update, which is to be presented to the City Council on June 30, 2015. Although we are grateful that the City Council agreed to new parking restrictions to address the congestion and the safety of those traveling to and from this area, we are strongly against any further improvements to Del Cerro Park, including installing a restroom building and installing additional picnic tables. We would also like further clarification on a contemplated shift to drought tolerant landscaping. First and foremost, any additional concrete structures or permanent fixtures in Del Cerro Park could hamper future rescue efforts of emergency personnel during wildfires and compromise the safety of our homes and the entire peninsula. During the last 2 significant wildfires that affected RPV and this area, Del Cerro Park was used as an emergency staging ground for water - dropping helicopters, fire engines and other emergency vehicles. This park only has 2 acres of flat grassy area, and using some of this limited space for a permanent restroom facility would interfere with future access for emergency personnel. There are frequent 'staging' and 'practice exercises' (1x / week) by LA County Fire Department in one fashion or another now. Other large vehicles that are involved in staging as well as in major events include not only Fire but Police, IIealth & Safety AND many Sheriff and Fire helicopters as well. For all these exercises and real events, the Park must accommodate the likelihood that Fire, Police, other Emergency vehicles AND Helicopters be able to literally drive onto - and land - on Del Cerro ... and having picnic tables and bathroom buildings, etc. 'in the way' would be significantly more problematic and potentially catastrophic. We also oppose additional picnic tables in the area because they seem to attract park visitors interested in using portable barbeques. The use of illegal barbeques in Del Cerro Park has been a problem for some time, even though there is a sign posted which strictly prohibits barbeques. Our residents frequently call the Lomita Sherriff's station, or more recently the RPV Park Ranger, to report the use of these barbeques. The police have historically been slow to respond. Our residents have dialed the ranger twice this summer to report barbeques in the park; we are not sure if the ranger responded at all. More picnic tables will likely lead to more illegal barbeques in our park, and this situation is outright dangerous given our ongoing drought and Del Cerro Park's location in an extreme high -fire -danger zone. Our HOA is also surprised that the RPV Recreation & Parks Department is proposing improvements to our park that will likely attract more visitors. We had hoped that the recent parking discussions in front of the City Council and the Traffic and Safety Committee had significantly highlighted the congestion and safety concerns for both drivers and pedestrians in this area. Although Del Cerro Park has posted hours of operation, the general public often ignores these rules, and our homeowners frequently call the police or the RPV ranger to report late-night partygoers to the park. If a restroom building were to be constructed, it would have to be locked and unlocked every morning by staff; it would be unacceptable to leave it open 24/7 because there would be no way to prevent access to the restrooms when the park is supposed to be closed. If the PRV Recreation & Parks Department feels we need more restrooms (and we agree that 1 portable toilet on the trail can't support up to 1,000 visitors per weekend to the trail), then the city should place more portable toilets along the trail in inconspicuous areas, including at the base of the trail, not just at the Del Cerro end. Any toilets should be out -of -sight of residents' homes. No one wants to have a view of toilets (whether portable or permanent) from their front or back yard! Overall, Del Cerro Park was designed as a small quiet neighborhood park. We want the public to be able to enjoy Del Cerro Park and take in the incredible views from the bluff, but this 4.5 acre park with only 2 acres of flat grassy area wasn't designed to accommodate large crowds given the limited parking in our area and the fact that the park is surrounded by private residences. Additionally, in reviewing the materials presented in the Parks Master Plan Update appendices, we saw very little mention of RPV residents wanting toilets or other improvements in Del Cerro Park. Thank you for your time. The Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners' Association To the Honorable Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City Council: I am writing on behalf of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners' Association. Our HOA includes the 7 homes on Burrell Lane and the 3 homes on Park Place. 3 of our homes on Park Place are next to Del Cerro Park (the park is across the street from our front yards), and 3 of our homes on Burrell Lane are contiguous to Del Cerro Park (the park is next to our backyards). We have reviewed the Parks Master Plan Update, which is to be presented to the City Council on June 30, 2015. Although we are grateful that the City Council agreed to new parking restrictions to address the congestion and the safety of those traveling to and from this area, we are strongly against any further improvements to Del Cerro Park, including installing a restroom building and installing additional picnic tables. We would also like further clarification on a contemplated shift to drought tolerant landscaping. First and foremost, any additional concrete structures or permanent fixtures in Del Cerro Park could hamper future rescue efforts of emergency personnel during wildfires and compromise the safety of our homes and the entire peninsula. During the last 2 significant wildfires that affected RPV and this area, Del Cerro Park was used as an emergency staging ground for water - dropping helicopters, fire engines and other emergency vehicles. This park only has 2 acres of flat grassy area, and using some of this limited space for a permanent restroom facility would interfere with future access for emergency personnel. There are frequent 'staging' and 'practice exercises' (1x / week) by LA County Fire Department in one fashion or another now. Other large vehicles that are involved in staging as well as in major events include not only Fire but Police, Health & Safety AND many Sheriff and Fire helicopters as well. For all these exercises and real events, the Park must accommodate the likelihood that Fire, Police, other Emergency vehicles AND Helicopters be able to literally drive onto - and land - on Del Cerro ... and having picnic tables and bathroom buildings, etc. 'in the way' would be significantly more problematic and potentially catastrophic. We also oppose additional picnic tables in the area because they seem to attract park visitors interested in using portable barbeques. The use of illegal barbeques in Del Cerro Park has been a problem for some time, even though there is a sign posted which strictly prohibits barbeques. Our residents frequently call the Lomita Sherriff's station, or more recently the RPV Park Ranger, to report the use of these barbeques. The police have historically been slow to respond. Our residents have dialed the ranger twice this summer to report barbeques in the park; we are not sure if the ranger responded at all. More picnic tables will likely lead to more illegal barbeques in our park, and this situation is outright dangerous given our ongoing drought and Del Cerro Park's location in an extreme high -fire -danger zone. Our HOA is also surprised that the RPV Recreation & Parks Department is proposing improvements to our park that will likely attract more visitors. We had hoped that the recent parking discussions in front of the City Council and the Traffic and Safety Committee had significantly highlighted the congestion and safety concerns for both drivers and pedestrians in this area. Although Del Cerro Park has posted hours of operation, the general public often ignores these rules, and our homeowners frequently call the police or the RPV ranger to report late-night partygoers to the park. If a restroom building were to be constructed, it would have to be locked and unlocked every morning by staff; it would be unacceptable to leave it open 24/7 because there would be no way to prevent access to the restrooms when the park is supposed to be closed. If the PRV Recreation & Parks Department feels we need more restrooms (and we agree that 1 portable toilet on the trail can't support up to 1,000 visitors per weekend to the trail), then the city should place more portable toilets along the trail in inconspicuous areas, including at the base of the trail, not just at the Del Cerro end. Any toilets should be out -of -sight of residents' homes. No one wants to have a view of toilets (whether portable or permanent) from their front or back yard! Overall, Del Cerro Park was designed as a small quiet neighborhood park. We want the public to be able to enjoy Del Cerro Park and take in the incredible views from the bluff, but this 4.5 acre park with only 2 acres of flat grassy area wasn't designed to accommodate large crowds given the limited parking in our area and the fact that the park is surrounded by private residences. Additionally, in reviewing the materials presented in the Parks Master Plan Update appendices, we saw very little mention of RPV residents wanting toilets or other improvements in Del Cerro Park. Thank you for your time. The Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners' Association From: marty foster <martycrna@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 10:33 AM To: CC; Douglas.wiImore@rpvca.gov Subject: Gateway Opposition We join our neighbors in strenuously opposing Gateway Park The site poses many safety risks to both pedestrians and drivers Our fragile peninsula arterials need less traffic not more. Staff report was very complex but the comments there are stark declarations of the many objections Low key plans for LL seem to draw favor Look forward to the discussion tonight Thank you for all your time, talent and hard work Respectfully Bill and Marty Foster LL residents X This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com i From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:14 AM To: CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Cory Linder; Matt Waters; So Kim Subject: A quick note about agriculture MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties RE: Historic and educational agriculture programs in relation to the Parks Master Plan draft update. June 30, 20155 City Council Agenda Item 2. All it takes is a little housekeeping in the City's Zoning and Land Use Maps and it will be official. There is no more land in RPV which is designated for agricultural use. That is a serious "update". See the table in the Staff Report pages 19 and 20. First off, who is kidding whom? There are no agricultural opportunities at Fred Hess Jr. Park, Gateway Park, Los Verdes Golf Course nor Robert E. Ryan Park. Educational agricultural programs have been proposed at Upper and Lower Pt. Vicente Park. But, they are not included in the Proposed Land Use column. Only Council can direct Staff to pursue these offers of "hands on" program management and equipment. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:52 PM To: CC; PC Subject: City Plan updates beyond tonight Please don't get bogged down in the minutia. Your directions to Staff should be focused creating documents which somebody will actually reference in order to preserve and improve the special things we have here in RPV. Don't wait until you have to review the whole, bloated, disgusting draft update of the General Plan. There are thousands of errors, omissions and redundancies. The real point is that Staff doesn't pay any attention to the Plans we have. Why make mo bigga ones. ...S 310-377-8761 From: ptl7stearman@gmail.com on behalf of Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:09 PM To: Matt Waters Cc: CC; CityClerk Subject: Gateway Parking Lot I would like to speak against having a parking lot in Portuguese Bend slide area until the land movement is slowed or stopped. The City is already spending close to $700,000 a year in maintaining the road through the slide. Maintaining an access road and the parking area will only add to the cost. A second issue is safety. The parking area will provide easy access to the beach area and Sacred Cove. We have already had a negative experience with the death a swimmer. When Abalone Cove parking area was closed for repair and upgrading, the parking area on the south end of the slide was opened. This resulted in a large increase in the use of the trails leading to Sacred Cove. Rather than providing access to the preserve, the parking would be used as a trail head to Sacred Cove. Because of the danger, the City would be forced to provide lifeguard, security and rescue service adding an unintended cost to the general fund. Base upon the above I hope you would reject a parking lot in the slide area until staff adequately addresses the two issues. Herb Stark 32306 Phantom Dr. RPV N From: homecoding@gmail.com on behalf of Madeleine Mc Jones <madeleine@homecoding.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:08 PM To: Matt Waters; CC; CityManager; Parks Subject: Gateway Park To the City Council and Respected Managers, This weekend I walked over the landslide to the beach and there due to that awesome access were 5 people with buckets plucking away and taking things from Smugglers tide -pools, the tide -pools once full of octopus are now wiped clean. I did not see one ranger protecting the wildlife. Yea for Access! and most where definitely not residents. There were plenty of dogs on the beach to! These folks where not spending money in your city, but the brought in product because now there is much fine trash on a beach that used to be clean. Hey, Nature can take it! Of all the things that need to be done in our city how can adding more pavement over open -space that is actively moving should not even be on the city agenda. What is the unspoken target? Realty check is that this park project it has been in the works for so long City cannot drop it without loosing face? Be honest! Will it really increase your revenue that much? Do we not already have a park with in a mile? This park is not for your city resident! Now that you have ruined the remote beaches with "ACCESS" my family seldom goes to them. I would gladly take the nudist back. I have basically given up, I feel in my heart you have the dump trucks primed from the last tame the landslide archery party project will not drop this no matter how loud we cry about it. How can we fight your dogged agenda of pavement and cement to natural surroundings? All logic fails us. Even if your work is resulting in some revenue why is adding maintenance and cost to our city and opening our budget to injury law actions make any sense? We know this logic seems to fall on deaf ears, the powers are so set on this park so they can have a statue named after themselves? Shame on any name who puts up a monument to this park. We already have a park just like this one only 400 feet away, Parks look awful compared to open space ask Malibu! We have needs in this city, but you reject these in this super macho need to pave the landslide and make it accessible. What is driving this long term agenda? Do we need another dolphin bronze statue with someones name? Who needs this access? Not the residence to be clear, so only drive out of city human traffic needs this access. Why are they your target audience not your tax payers who really want a pool at Ladera Linda. Again you are opening this area up to accidents, crime, and maintenance and all of this does not target your tax paying city dweller, it targets the visitors who are not going to be shopping here but having accidents. It is not well policed now and it will take away more of the special view it will make us the same as every other city, as pavement and curbs and toilets are found at Torrance beach. It will make some money but it will be lost in maintenance and accidents due to missed maintenance. This abuse of the land impacts the voiceless, who speaks for the animals there have no voice in you meetings. Not the eagle whose scream will be lost or the bunny or the snake. You pick away at the open space for humans, not even the tax paying ones and you ignore the animals and the beauty of natural dirt and brush for the all powerful not green automobile parking. The more people that have access, the more disturbed will 0 be the preserve and the birds whose scrub nest will be jogged by every ten minutes like Western Avenue. They will not longer breed. Who complains for them? I feel beaten but ...one last plea for the ravens that breed in the cliffs and need peace and no people. Please turn your back on these old plans, just because they are long in the making that can also make them long in the tooth, they are with out regard to nature and citizens. What you thing is improvement it chipping away at the very thing and animals makes RPV special. Please look at the needs of your citizens and preserve animals. Please the City can still turn away, turn green and spend this money for the people of this city, please bring outsiders and cars to the places of business not the last places of nature. Madeleine McJones #3 Tangerine Road RPV From: Oliver Hazard <perryhappy@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:28 PM To: CC Subject: No gateway parking lot. Dear city council men and woman, We do not need a parking lot in an active landslide! I hope you are all on the same page. No ocean safety to guard the caves, where we have had drownings. Are community does not even have it's own police, we rely on Lomita which takes a long time to respond. The park rangers can not handle what they already have, so we should not give them more to deal with. It will cost a lot more than you think to build and to maintain. Pluse add to the traffic when they have to fix pvds every month or so. It is a dangerous landslide that we should not be encouraging people to go to. We need to solve Del Cerro parking problem before anything else! Hope these few points can help you make the right decision, Thank you for your time, Oliver Matt Waters From: mittelstaedt@verizon.net Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:50 PM To: Matt Waters Subject: Re: RE: FW: Parks Master Plan Update Staff Report Importance: High Thank you, Matt My concern is regarding Hesse Park, which I (and many others) use regularly. The trash containers placed throughout are an eyesore, and unsafe, falling apart, as follows * Many of the original stone/concrete containers are falling apart - cracked, broken, some have dark stains (mold?) * These stone containers are missing their original lids (with central holes), and someone has placed thin plastic trash cans inside them, which are too tall, and stick up out of the stone cans (again, no lids) Trash is in the open, flies around, etc. " There are some other types of cans in a few places - bright blue plastic, etc, etc. I see mostly the area around the sports field and the picnic area, and the main building, when I exercise, etc. So, that is the location of these cans, but I am surmising there is probably a similar issue in other areas of the park, due to the age of the facility, etc. My suggestion is that new trash/recycle containers be supplied for Hesse Park as part of the planned renewal. Thank you! Sue Mittelstaedt On 06/29/15, Matt Waters<MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Ms. Mittelstaedt, Absolutely you still have time. Any comments you submit in advance of tomorrow's City Council meeting can be attached as late correspondence for Council's consideration. Please submit to me by email as soon as possible and I will forward them to the City Clerk's office. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv mattw(d-)-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 0 From: mittelstaedt@verizon.net [mailto:mittelstaedt@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 6:01 PM To: Matt Waters Subject: Re: FW: Parks Master Plan Update Staff Report I attended meetings during the park planning process, but didn't mention an item regarding Hesse Park. Can I still bring up a concern regarding something that needs attention? Thanks Sue Mittelstaedt On 06/26/15, Matt Waters<MattW rpvca.gov> wrote: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Parks Master Plan Update is on the June 30th City Council Meeting. Click the link below to access the June 30th CC agenda and then go to Item #2. June 30th City Council Agenda Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv mattw(aD-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 mattwna,rpv.com TO mattw(uu�rpvca.2ov Matt Waters From: Matt Waters Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:45 AM To: John Schoenfeld Cc: Cory Linder Subject: RE: Pool Proposal for RPV Master Plan Dear John, Nice meeting you as well and thanks for sending in your pool proposal. Your email and attached submission will be attached as late correspondence to the June 30th City Council Agenda. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rp mattw(@-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO ANEW 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 Par From: John Schoenfeld [mailto:john@jalexanderco.com) Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 1:58 PM To: Matt Waters; Cory Linder Subject: Pool Proposal for RPV Master Plan Cory, Matt, Attached is the letter discussed at Tuesday's meeting. Please advise if anything further is required. Good meeting you and look forward to making something wonderful happen! Best regards, John JAw C THF 1. AMANOCR Cc)MPANY, INC. rotir, A, Schoenfeld, President 24255 Hcwthomo Pvo, Suile 102 Torrance, CA 90505 BUILDERS DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS DES#GN-CJUILD Office; 310 375 9731 Fox: 310 791-8270 Cell: 310-528-Ag',12 joM Ciplaxarcafco.com -.yvewjoleXandefco.com 24255 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 102 JCC O BUILDERS Torrance, 90505 -8270 l7EVF_4_©RER8 (310) 375-9731, Fax (310) 79 791-8270 _ 1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS www.jalexanderco.com I HE. J. ALEXANDER COMPANY, INC. DESIGN -BU L O license number 596199 June 24, 2015 Messrs. Cory A. Linder and Matt Waters CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Gentlemen: We much appreciated your having taken time to meet with us yesterday to discuss our vision for a swim training facility and hope we can be included in the master plan being developed for the City Hall property. Attached conceptual site plan contemplates an active multipurpose facility complete with public areas, a gym, a weight room, offices, locker rooms, bleachers and more all built around an Olympic -size pool. The facility itself is expected to require approximately 1.8 acres plus parking which is assumed to be shared with other components of the master plan. The scope could increase or decrease depending on how the City's overall master plan evolves. A resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for more than 32 years, our team's principal, Bill Kao, foresees a partnership with the City wherein the City provides a land concession and Bill's group finances, builds and operates the complex for a prescribed number of years after which the complex reverts to the City. We feel certain our project will be an asset to both the City Hall development and to our community, and we look forward to being an integral part of your new master plan. Again, we thank you for your kind consideration. Yours truly, John A. Schoenfeld President attachments N TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE: JUNE 29, 2015 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 30, 2015 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Emails from: Gary Randall: Jarel and Betty Wheaton; Chris Del Moro Respectfully submitted, Teresa Takaoka W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150630 additions revisions to agenda thru Tuesday.doc From: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 9:06 AM To: CC Cc: CityClerk; Matt Waters; CityManager; Parks Subject: NO to Gateway Park Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: I am writing this note to you to express my strong opposition to any development (including a parking lot) at Gateway Park. There are many reasons why this is not a good idea ... all of which have been voiced by numerous residents and are included in Appendix D of the staff report and do not need to be repeated here. Even more important than those reasons, however, is that the majority of the most affected residents who live in the area do not wish to have it developed at all. The following chart is from page 12 of the staff report: A i a 4 r4j, v iu Roto, Loatcn oiEan receives a SUD5tanuai nlrrnoer OT ernaus regarding uaie,.%lay-rant ane uerc,erro rarx. /A spreadsheet of the emails is in the Public Outreach Appendix D. Below is a chart showing combined Gateviay Workshop attendee responses. Gateway Paris Public Workshop Exercise Results Picnic Sitting Ate as €dtKalloM Kiosks ■ Great Idea .J Stafil Ranger i'afsabie Emefgemy Response i'erkiog Sett Tr;wior AccmA It's OK 0 S So 8 N It is clear from this chart that the only feature residents are in generally in favor of is making sure there is adequate emergency response access thru this area. I honestly was quite surprised to read, on page 26 of the staff report, the indication that "As Gateway Park was by far the most controversial topic addressed during the public outreach process, staff is seeking particular direction from the City Council on how it should be addressed in the Park Master Plan Update." Given the chart above, and the overwhelmingly negative response from local residents to any development at Gateway, this does not seem to be controversial at all. On the contrary, it is very clear what the staff should be recommending: no development at Gateway Park! Since staff has asked for your direction, I encourage you to provide direction to staff to simply remove development of Gateway Park from the Master Plan (including removal of any re -zoning requests). This will allow staff to focus their time, energy, resources (and taxpayer dollars) on parks projects the residents do want. Respectfully, Gary Randall Ladera Linda Resident RPV Resident for over 40 years From: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 9:20 AM To: CC Cc: CityClerk; Matt Waters; CityManager; Parks Subject: Support for Staff Recommendations for Ladera Linda Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: I am writing this note to you to express my general support for the recommendations staff has made for the Ladera Linda site in the recently published staff report. I attended both workshops, and I believe the general consensus from the local residents was that replacing the existing buildings with a modest community center would be good for this area. The other "additional site improvements," which would be done in conjunction with a new center, also generally make sense, although once again, emphasis should remain on them being "modest." I would like to thank the parks staff, particularly Matt Waters and Cory Linder, for all the work they have put into gathering public input and putting together his report, and for facilitating and moderating all the emotionally charged workshops this past winter. Respectfully, Gary Randall Ladera Linda Resident RPV Resident for over 40 years NO, From: Jarel Wheaton <jwheat2007@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:54 PM To: CC Subject: Comments for June 30 City Council Meeting: Master Park Pian Update In reviewing the staff report for the Master Park Plan Update we strongly recommend against consideration of Upper Point Vicente as a location for a skate park for the following reasons: 1. A skate park would be a single use facility that primarily serves a single age group. Any recreational use for this prime location should be multiple use and serve residents of all age groups. 2. Skate parks and other over development of park facilities are likely to become a big attraction in the region and increase the type of parking and safety problems currently experienced at Del Cerro Park. We recommend that any discussions of placing a skate park anywhere in RPV be put on hold until the city has successfully implemented a solution to handle the large number of people being attracted to the trails in Rancho Palos Verdes. Jarel and Betty Wheaton Rancho Palos Verdes From: Chris Del Moro <collectic@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 1:30 PM To: Chris Del Moro Cc: CC; CityClerk; Matt Waters; CityManager; Parks Subject: NO to Gateway Park Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: Unfortunatly I am out of town on work for the next meetings so I am once again writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Gateway Park project. Even after the community's input and the overwhelming plea to not go forth with the project why are we still pushing for this dangerous project to come to fruition? I've been to and heard everyones input , all of which are very valid points and I can assure you that the first people held responsible when bad things happen will be the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Even if you only give a 3 day notice and bury the facts deep in the city report, we are following/listening and you will be held accountable. As I see it, impact on the preserve is only getting worst, on my last journey through the preserve I came across many feces piles accompanied by toilet paper, trash in all areas of the park shows me that the usage and lack of care for the area is increasing by the month. I have also noticed that people are bushwalking and creating many new veins of trails that are effecting erosion and the sensitive natural habitat. Imagine all the new foot traffic and then add the last few weeks of traffic, earth moving, road maintenance and pedestrians crossing the road to get to the beaches, the place will be ripe with accidents of all shapes and sizes. We already have a mis-managed piece of coast line, if we cannot manage this piece of land now, how will we do so when you open it to the masses? My main concerns are still as follows SAFETY - Deaths via land slide fissures Un - guarded beaches - drownings etc... July 4th weekend and even last month. Traffic crossing - blind corner, j walking etc... Illegal activity Le - camping, drugs, drug runner pick up and so forth. Management We already have an issue with rangers presence or lack of, trash pick up and so forth. Creating a chair lift for Bikers to continue carving up the hill and adding fuel to the Biker, Horse, hiker trail wars. Abalone Cove project has been a great easement to add accessibility to visitors to this sensitive area. Its a great alternative to this plan, lets focus on properly managing that area and the best thing is it's up and running and has been for many years. Please listen to the people, protect our land and keep it pristine. This will not help the Del Cerro area, intact it will only make things worst by essentially creating a chair lift for mountain bikers. The last thing we need is more turmoil between bikers, horses and hikers. Thank you for your time and please do the right thing The Del Moro family 30 years plus Rancho Palos Verdes residents