20150707 Late CorrespondenceSIDNEY TINBERG
ATTORNEY
21 S. California Street, Suite 206
Ventura, California 93001-2862
Telephone: 805/585-2116
Telecopieh: 805/585-2118
E-Mail: stinberg@gmail.com
RECEIVED FROM ....... ..._ ____ _
AND MADE A PART OF~~ ECORD AT T~
COUNCIL MEETING OF~Ll i :5
OFFICE OF THE CITY CL AK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
July 7, 2015 BY EMAIL AraM~epvca.gov, ~c@rpvca.gov, pc@rpvca.go\'.
Ara Michael Mihranian, ACIP
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Lower Point Vicente Park, cc Meeting Item #3 Objections
Our File Number: 3658
Dear Ara, Planning Commission, and ~PV City Council:
I am writing to object to the proposed Jongva Village, geology display, interactive
archaeology exhibit, interactive archa~ology exhibit and dry farming water wise
landscaping demonstration proposed tor incorporation in LPV.
I also object to any trails proposed for ,LPV that fall within the areas designated
as "natural ground" in the original Pro~ram of Utilization ("POU") in the
Application for Surplus Federal Real Rroperty for Park and Recreation Purposes
("Application, etc.") because any suchltrails could not possibly comply with ADA
rules and regulations without destroying in perpetui'y the natural beauty of LPV,
instead of preserving in perpetuity the natural beauty of LPV. Some of the trails
are, in any event, mapped too close to the adjoining homes, which would cause
unnecessary problems and subject the City to possible lawsuits and burden law
enforcement with potential complaints.
Furthermore, I object on the basis that farming exhibits and paved flattened
asphalt pedestrian roads would destroy the "natural ground" of LPV and do not
constitute "passive recreation pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the
Pacific Ocean" as required by the POU.
During our meeting with Valerie Blitz, Katie Traeger, and myself on April 14,
2015, you orally represented to us that the depiction that has been presented to
the public and to the National Park Service ("NPS"). as well as the City Council
Printed on
Recycled Content Paper
was not the current depiction of the site. You represented that the "Tongva
Village" and the trail on the north side of LPV will be moved at least an additional
50 feet toward the center of LPV and away from the properly line bordering the
residences to comply with ADA rules and regulations.
It is obviously imperative that any documents submitted for public review and for
review by NPS be accurate and current and consistent with what is orally
represented to members of the public.
During our meeting in which you presented a large depiction of the site with
various proposed purported improvements, which had already been superseded,
you stated that a copy of the same depiction was available on the website of the
City.
The Vision plan that you directed us to at the City's website apparently has the
Tongva Village, geology display, interactive archaeology exhibit, interactive
archaeology exhibit and dry farming water-wise landscaping demonstration as all
part of one site (Outdoor History Museum/PVIC Phase Ill components), directly
adjacent to the Interpretative Structure. However, in the depiction you are now
using, all of these exhibits are separate, and dispersed throughout LPV including
within the "natural ground to remain" areas depictE~d on page 16 of the
Application for Surplus Federal Real Property for Park and Recreation Purposes
("Application, etc.").
As you know, the Program of Utilization ("POU") in the Application, etc.
contained a reference to an "Interpretive Structure" (Page 14). The purported
Tongva Village, geology display, interactive archaeology exhibit,, interactive
archaeology exhibit and dry farming water-wise landscaping demonstration
(Outdoor History Museum/PVIC Phase Ill components) (which consume 7.8% of
the square footage of LPV in addition to the square footage consumed by the
Interpretive Structure) are not related to "the attributes of the Pacific Ocean" and
if they belong anywhere, they should be in the "Interpretive Structure" referred to
on Page 14 of the Application, etc. and should not infringe on the area denoted
as "natural ground to remain" depicted on page 1 () of the Application, etc.
Otherwise that use on the "natural ground" is not consistent with the public
outdoor parks and recreation purposes of the land transfer and POU and is not
consistent with maintaining the natural ground ("natural ground to remain") in
perpetuity.
Also in discussing the impetus behind the idea of a Tongva Village you
acknowledged that the impetus is not the public but rather the docents who
work at the Interpretive Structure, which is confirmed by the Coast Vision Plan on
the City's web site to which you directed us.
You also represented to us in our meeting that "the base plan developed by the
Focus Group" was vetted by NPS and by State Parks, however, Valerie has
never been contacted by Rosemary Campbell, (who you pointed out is an
Oceanfront Estates homeowner, as is Ms. Blitz), to hear Valerie's suggestions
and objections to the purported "base plan." Nor has Eva Cicoria ever addressed
Ms. Blitz's objections. How was this "Focus Group" formed? We feel that it is
not an !objective or representative group. In fact Valerie has sent her objections
directly to you and the City along with a revised map, yet those objections
apparently are not included in the file regarding the project, and instead of
posting her objections which we also went over with you in detail, you and/or Joel
Rojas or the City instead decided to post mostly non-substantive
corres11>ondence from this "stakeholder".
When the homeowners purchased their properties that are adjacent to LPV, they
did so in reliance on the POU and in reliance on the City of Rancho Palos
Verde& obeying all laws and restrictions governing the use of LPV. We contend
that your proposed plan is in violation. This homeowner was informed that the
only construction to be completed at LPV was the Interpretive Center, which was
under construction at the time.
Finally, during our meeting you represented that the plan had been vetted by the
NPS but apparently the so-called vetting occurred during a telephone call
regarding Upper Point Vicente and involved a brief discussion of preliminary
ideas c;md does not constitute in any way any endorsement of any specific plans,
especially plans that have been superseded, and especially any plans that
remove in perpetuity land that should remain natural ground, in contravention of
the POU.
Thank you.
y~~v~
Sidney Tinber~~
ST:bm
cc: David Siegenthaler by email ( daY!SL.siegenthaler@nps.gov)
Pacific West Region
:National Park Service
333 Bush Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104-2828
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (CC@rpv.com)
Printed on
Recycled Content Paper
CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 7, 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.
3
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Emails from: Bob Nelson; Barry/Judy Hildebrand and Kelly
Klepper; Lynn Swank; Sunshine; Ed Stevens; Lenee Bilski;
Mickey Rodich; Judy Herman; Sharon Yarber
Emails from Sharon Yarber
Revised Resolution; Emails from: Susan Seamans; Ellen
November; John Maniatakis
/ ; a -, -~ 0h &t1c:/i.~'!Pt4t!tti!z m •
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 6, 2015**.
W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150707 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nelsongang < nelsongang@aol.com>
Monday, July 06, 2015 5:56 PM
cc
July 7, 2015 Council Agenda Item 3. Lower Point Vicente Park Vision Plan
Mayor Knight, Mayor ProTem Brooks, Council members Duhovic, Campbell and Misetich
Written as a private citizen and not as a member of any city group.
My emails are getting crowded with citizen comments on this item. So I'll throw my two cents in.
1. Maybe we should take a second look at these plans.
2. I would favor something that more RPV citizens would use.
3. Such as soccer/lacrosse field, softball field(s), baseball field(s).
Key point -kinda think usages being proposed will not be as patronized by RPVers as is thought and residents
will wonder why we did these.
Please do not respond to this email.
Bob Nelson
310-544-4632
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
bjhilde@aol.com
Monday, July 06, 2015 6:22 PM
cc
Annenberg Light -Lower Point Vicente Vision Plan-Agenda Item #3
This sounds like a dieted version of the 2008 Annenberg Vision. Can any of you tell me why it is
being re-cycled rather than dumped into one of EDCO's blue waste container. It wasn't any good
7 years ago so what makes the staff think a bit of aging will help it. That works for alcoholic
beverages, not paper. Kill it once and for all by burning, then spread the ashes on the grounds (that is
if the overbearing EPA will allow that).
Barry/Judy Hildebrand and Kelly Klepper
3560 Vigilance Drive, RPV, CA.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2015 4:50 pm
Subject: July 7, 2015 -RPV Council Agenda I# 3 -Lower Point Vicente Vision Plan
The Amended Lower Point Vicente Plan is basically the same document that Annenberg developed in 2008. RPV
residents previously opposed this concept, why is it back again?
The proposal includes the exhibits listed:
-Tongva Village
-Geology I Fossil
-Archaeological Dig
-Spanish Rancho
-Dry Farming
-WW II History and Restrooms,
-Wall of Honor
That Council member Knight, docent representatives and several others comprised the focus group that approved the
plan, does not label this small group as representing RPV residents.
As an RPV resident I question how this development meets RPV's General Plan. It is not that I disrespect the sacrifices of
WW II, but Fort MacArthur has a very extensive WW II museum just a few miles away.
A Wall of Honor. What is this about? A Wall of Honor for what?
The LA County Museum has extensive exhibits of early life in California. Does the focus group perceive that they can
duplicate LA County museum exhibits?
Who will go there? Few RPV residents. Why do we want to encourage more transients that do not contribute to the
betterment of the Peninsula?
Who will pay for this development? The Docents, not likely. RPV is already subsiding the Docents over $150,000 annually
for operating the PVIC. Grants are not free money.
The Council needs to decide what is best for all RPV residents, not just a few special interest groups.
The proposed Lower Point Vicente development is unneeded and a waste of taxpayer funds. To presume that there is a
justified need in this community for such illogical exhibits demonstrates a lack of respect for the taxpayers. Why not
something useful like recreational sports field (soccer I girls softball) or perhaps a Boy I Girl Scout campground?
1
3
Ken Delong
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
City Council Members:
Lynn Swank < lynn.swank@me.com>
Monday, July 06, 2015 9:09 PM
cc
Lower Point Vicente Agenda Item #3
You have now received my correspondence about LPV dated February 23, 21015 that was not included in your agenda package. My thoughts
articulated in that email remain the same. The public workshops were useful but I thought the public would have a longer period of time to comment
on the Melendez proposal. This was not the case and I did not receive the staff report until this past weekend along with the entire CC agenda
package. Clearly very few changes were made in spite of the public comments and I thought a more thorough discussion would take place.
As a Los Serenos docent and RPV resident 1 am concerned that LPV complies with the intended purpose of this park and the deed restrictions.
believe the primary purpose of anything that is done at LPV is interpretation of marine life and the natural environment. Land uses over millions of
years are part of this interpretation but should not be the primary focus ofLPV.
Lower Point Vicente Park is a precious resource and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes must be careful stewards. The Point Vicente Interpretive
Center already addresses the proposed Phase 2 topics for the public and I am not convinced we need to expand their interpretation by going
outdoors. PVIC was never intended by the Federal Government to provide a thorough presentation of our cultural history; other local museums do so
quite well. Visitors and school tours come PVIC to experience the sights, sounds and smells of the Pacific Ocean. The docents are there to help
interpret them. Please remember this as plans are developed for Lower Point Vicente. Keep it simple and let the space speak for itself and with
docent interpretation if necessary.
I suggest that the City Council approve all of the Melendez recommendations except for Phase 2. Phase 2 needs a great deal of discussion before
outside funding sources are solicited or the docents agree to spend their money on this portion. Phase 2 is duplicative of what we already have; the
park master plan survey indicates a desire for a nature center at Forrestal; and 1 don't know ifthe City even has a goal to provide fu1iher education
outside of the existing school district programs.
Parks Master Plan
In light of your discussion at the last city council meeting, Lower Point Vicente is a city park yet was not included in any discussion of the overall
parks master plan. 1 acknowledge that a task force/focus group already existed, but the reality is that LPV is the showcase of the RPV park system.
(As distinguished from The Preserve). To have a Parks Master Plan without considering LPV is a mistake and should be considered a part of the
master plan. A good deal of time was spent on the skateboard venue but LPV, UPV (City Hall) and The Preserve all face the same
problem: infrastructure and management of these venues to accommodate increased visitor use and the problems associated with this. What about a
new eity hall? How much revenue will be lost when Terranea ean no longer use city hall for weekend parking? Why do we need to provide parking
for all visitors? Why ean 't we tell/eneourage visitors to use pub lie transportation?
As our city councils continue to provide more and more amenities to our residents and visitors alike, the very character of the city has changed and
our infrastructure and management of the associated problems of increased use have not been addressed. PY Drive South has received increased
traffic because of the addition of Point View and its event garden, vineyards, and a garden and dinner venue for Terranea; the Heritage Museum that
is not yet open but has created a. myriad of environmental problems; events at Trump; marathons, etc. And all approved by the Planning Commission
with little or no oversight from the city council and staff apparently not paying attention to the ramifications of the implementation of these
approvals.
Less is More
Please consider the overall city needs as you consider whether or not to add attractions that will draw more people unless infrastructure, management,
and enforcement are implemented in conjunction with these additions. A piece meal approach to this process is a disservice to our residents; we
need to see the big picture, how we get there and what it means to the city.
Lynn Swank
RPV Resident
1
Subject: FW: Partial Coast Vision Plan "update" Re: FW: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:31 PM
To: lynn.swank@cox.net
Cc: CC; PC; Doug Willmore; ken.delong@verizon.net; lowell@transtalk.com; mothermac@mac.com;
cockeandco@verizon.net; farmer_g_iv19131864@yahoo.com; judyfrankel@gmail.com; greg@groystonlaw.com;
ldb910@juno.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com; EZStevens@cox.net; radlsmith@cox.net; momofyago@gmail.com;
cprotem73@verizon.net; gardner4@earthlink.net; garlandk77@gmail.com; Michael Throne; Cory Linder
Subject: Partial Coast Vision Plan "update" Re: FW: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan
Hi Lynn,
Thank you ever so much for taking the time to share all this history. I became a Los Serenes Docent
in order to help implement the Living History Museum as presented to the Open Space Planning and
Rec. & Parks Task Force and subsequently approved by the RPV City Council. I soon learned that
until the site's drainage problems are resolved, nothing is going to happen.
Well, the Japanese, irrigated, farming element (let people learn to grow food on the Hatano farm) has
gone away and the vegetables and orchard proposal with a Master Gardner as program manager,
has been rejected by the "focus group".
None of the original elements were to be "structures" or "exhibits". Each one still has a program
manager waiting in the wings. Local people of all ages can simply enjoy doing things the way they
were done decades/centuries ago and share the information with the next generations.
The Caucasian style dry farming element is still possible at Upper Point Vicente as described in the
draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan with all the equipment and Farmer G the
Fourth as program manager before he dies like Farmer G the Third did at age 95.
When it comes to Lower Point Vicente Park, all that is needed is a Hydrology Engineer who is aware
of the trails network and the proposed activity sites. It has been around fifteen years since the
erosion became a noticeable problem. I just can't understand why Staff doesn't take care of the most
basic of ours City's treasures .
... S 310-377-8761
1 3
Subject: FW: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan by Lynn Swank
From: ezstevens@cox.net [mailto:ezstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 12:07 AM
To: CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian
Cc: ken.delong@verizon.net; lowell@transtalk.com; mothermac@mac.com; cockeandco@verizon.net;
farmer_g_iv19131864@yahoo.com; judyfrankel@gmail.com; greg@groystonlaw.com; ldb910@juno.com;
dlfriedson@gmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net; momofyago@gmail.com; cprotem73@verizon.net; gardner4@earthlink.net;
garlandk77@gmail.com; Michael Throne; Cory Linder; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Lenee Bilski; lynn.swank@cox.net; Joyce;
'jessica'; Emeric Radich (mickeyrodich
Subject: RE: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan by Lynn Swank
Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan by Lynn Swank
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council,
I really appreciate what Lynn & Sunshine both have written to the City Council & Staff about lower Point Vicente
Park that NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO ENJOY ITS NATURAL BEAUTY.
We were able to stop the Annenberg proposal process & we now need to stop the RPV City from destroying this
natural Beauty.
Lynn's well written letter should never have been inadvertently left out of the July 7th City Council Staff
Report because I am sure just as the Gateway parking lot was put to rest this issue with lower Point
Vicente Park should have also been put to rest.
Lets us preserve the Beauty of our Coast & open the view for all to enjoy.
One of these days I would like to see the City trim the trees along PV DR S. in front of the lower
Point Vicente Park so everyone can see our wonderful Open Coastal View Corridor also the Light
House Trees could use a good trim.
Ed. Stevens
3.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lenee Bilski < leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 11:58 AM
CC; Carla Morreale
Ara Mihranian; PC
CC item #3 Lower Point Vicente Park
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am disappointed in this conceptual plan for Lower Pt. Vicente. I could support phase I with some changes, but
not phase II.
There has never been widespread support or need expressed by the community for outdoor interpretive stations
or more structures. Keep the property more open to allow people to enjoy just being there to enjoy the scenery
and the fresh air.
SIGNS: Where is the Sign at the entrance to Lower Point. Vicente acknowledging that this parkland was a Gift
from the Federal government through the Lands to Parks program? There currently are lots of other signs. I
can't find any reference in the proposed concept. The the parkland was transferred to the City in 2003 and a
sign should have been erected by now!. Twelve years and still no sign even though the National Parks Service
called the City's attention to this in 2010. Also, Point. Vicente Park received assistance from a Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant. Please direct staff to make this gift/grant signage a priority.
PARKING: I find it hard to understand how the "focus group" could agree to put a parking lot on a prime
portion of the park that has a sweeping view of the ocean and channel islands and Malibu (and the Lighthouse
if the trees were laced/trimmed) and would be ideal for both a picnic area and a larger lookout point because it
is at a higher elevation on the site than the PVIC building (see illustrations -next to 9. and 10.) and is relatively
flat now. Another location for parking cars should be planned ..
COMMUNITY INPUT: It seems to me the focus group should have been larger and included some ofRPV's
talented, accomplished residents including facilities planners, and specialists in trails, geology and gardens. We
have heard them speak or read their comments at various city meetings. I wonder how many of them were
approached to be part of the focus group to help develop a conceptual plan? The community needed more
representatives. Also the two meetings were held on weeknights only and not given much advance notice
-the one week for one and only two (2) days for the other. How many people from the community attended
each of the public workshops? I find no statistics in the report. Please provide. We are looking for widespread
community support. The National Park Service is looking for widespread community support of any design
plan. Let's try again!
GOALS: I had difficulty reading the text and but I noticed no mention in Goals of preserving and protecting the
view. That should be the first goal listed in my opinion. Where else in southern California can you find such a
sweeping view and dramatic land formations?
General Plan was not updated when this parkland was transferred from the County of LA to the City of RPV
and still is not. The Coastal Specific Plan needs to be addressed for compliance before any plans are
undertaken.
Finally, I read and agree with all the points that Lynn Swank and Sunshine wrote in their letters to you. Please
1
3
continue this item to another time when after further Workshops and a revision we can say there was much
public input and there is widespread community support for a revised plan.
Thank you for all you do for RPV !
Ever vigilant,
Lenee Bilski
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 2:06 PM
cc
Lower Point Vicenti Vision Plan
Tonight you will be asked to approve Staffs recommendations, with regard to the Lower Point Vicenti Vision
Plan. The Staff has recommended a series of features to be added to the PVIC site. They include ; trails, trail
heads, grasslands, 150 parking spaces, remove an existing asphalt parking lot to make a lawn area and add
numerous outdoor stations. It was just a few weeks ago that a similar Plan, the Parks Master Plan Update, was
presented to our City Council. After many public meetings and discussions, the Update was discussed at the
City Council meeting on June 30, 2015.
There were many residents there who voiced opposition to Gateway Park as well as other Park proposals. You
the City Council listened to the residents and decided to remove Gateway Park, forever, from the Park Master
Plan. For that I commend all of you. You also made the decision to follow the mantra of "Less is More". I
commend all of you for that. The Parks Dept, asked for direction and you instructed the Parks Staff to modify
their plans and provide you with low key solutions in all of the Parks. I commend you for that. You also
recommended that the Staff improve the maintenance and cleanliness of our present Parks and looking into
providing Staff to have a presence in some of our parks. I again commend all of you for that.
I feel, that based on that previous meeting on June 30, 2015 you should continue your good work and remove
this Plan from further discussion. As with the reasoning you used on the Park Master Plan Update, the same
should be applied here. These Staff recommendations will only create problems that will be multiplied by
Social Media. As with the Park's Plan, your should listen to our residents who are not in favor of this Plan.
Yes, we have funds ($60 million in cash according to our May Cash Balance Report) to make many
improvements in our City, but I feel that you should choose wisely where this money will be spent.We have
many future needs that must be addressed and It will be up to you to prioritize those needs. This Plan is not one
of them. It seems that our Staff feels that this money is burning a hole in our pocket and they want to spend it as
fast as they can.
1 3.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Judy Herman <judyherman@cox.net>
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 2:23 PM
CC; Carla Morreale
Ara Mihranian; PC
Lower Point Vicente Park
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
Lenee Bilski is absolutely right on all these points, especially her first paragraph. The reason the community
rejected the Annenberg plan was that we want to preserve the views and feeling of openness at Lower Point
Vicente. Let's not waste money on structures and gimmicks that will clutter up the site.
And yes, the issue must be continued to allow more community input.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judy Herman
From: leneebilski@hotmail.com
To: cc@rpvca.gov; carlam@rpvca.gov
CC: aram@rpvca.gov; pc@rpvca.gov
Subject: CC item #3 Lower Point Vicente Park
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 11:57:57 -0700
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am disappointed in this conceptual plan for Lower Pt. Vicente. I could support phase I with
some changes, but not phase II.
There has never been widespread support or need expressed by the community for
outdoor interpretive stations or more structures. Keep the property more open to allow
people to enjoy just being there to enjoy the scenery and the fresh air.
SIGNS: Where is the Sign at the entrance to Lower Point. Vicente acknowledging that this
parkland was a Gift from the Federal government through the Lands to Parks program? There
currently are lots of other signs. I can't find any reference in the proposed concept. The the
parkland was transferred to the City in 2003 and a sign should have been erected by
now!. Twelve years and still no sign even though the National Parks Service called the City's
attention to this in 2010. Also, Point. Vicente Park received assistance from a Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant. Please direct staff to make this gift/grant sign age a priority.
PARKING: I find it hard to understand how the "focus group" could agree to put a parking lot on
a prime portion of the park that has a sweeping view of the ocean and channel islands and
1
3.
Malibu (and the Lighthouse if the trees were laced/trimmed) and would be ideal for both a
picnic area and a larger lookout point because it is at a higher elevation on the site than the
PVIC building (see illustrations -next to 9. and 10.) and is relatively flat now. Another location
for parking cars should be planned ..
COMMUNITY INPUT: It seems to me the focus group should have been larger and included
some of RPV's talented, accomplished residents including facilities planners, and specialists in
trails, geology and gardens. We have heard them speak or read their comments at various city
meetings. I wonder how many of them were approached to be part of the focus group to help
develop a conceptual plan? The community needed more representatives. Also the two
meetings were held on weeknights only and not given much advance notice -the one week for
one and only two (2) days for the other. How many people from the community attended each
of the public workshops? I find no statistics in the report. Please provide. We are looking for
widespread community support. The National Park Service is looking for widespread
community support of any design plan. Let's try again!
GOALS: I had difficulty reading the text and but I noticed no mention in Goals of preserving and
protecting the view. That should be the first goal listed in my opinion. Where else in southern
California can you find such a sweeping view and dramatic land formations?
General Plan was not updated when this parkland was transferred from the County of LA to the
City of RPV and still is not. The Coastal Specific Plan needs to be addressed for compliance
before any plans are undertaken.
Finally, I read and agree with all the points that Lynn Swank and Sunshine wrote in their letters
to you. Please continue this item to another time when after further Workshops and a revision
we can say there was much public input and there is widespread community support for a
revised plan.
Thank you for all you do for RPV!
Ever vigilant,
Lenee Bilski
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council,
sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 7:25 AM
CC;CC
Lower Point Vicente and Sunnyside Ridge Trail
I will keep this brief as I am pressed for time.
I support the Phase I improvements for Lower Point Vicente, except that I would like to see any increase in
parking kept to a minimum. I am opposed to the Phase II projects. There is no need for these exhibits, there is
no money to maintain, repair and replace them (there will no doubt be graffiti and other vandalism to rectify),
they will no doubt create yet another attractive nuisance to have to contend with in the future, just like the dog
park, and the Del Cerro and Abalone Cove nightmares. Do we want social media to broadcast this new
wonderful playground?
There is no evidence to suggest there is widespread support within the community for these exhibits. The "focus
group", comprised of a very non-diverse group of 5 people, does not indicate community support. The proposal
lacks sufficient specificity to truly understand the size and scope of the buildings and exhibits and what their
cumulative impact would be to this treasure of a park. Even David Siegenthaler expressed concerns about the
project and whether it was compliant with the POA and only gave half hearted support to it (subject to receipt of
more detailed information) based on his understanding that there was widespread community support for these
exhibits. Please think LONG and HARD before moving forward.
As for Sunnyside Ridge, I support the plan. I would like for you to ask staff to obtain two bids, one for a ten
foot trail across the canyon and one for eight feet. If it is not too much more expensive I would advocate for ten
feet the whole way. As long as the stretch lying between the two homes is the full ten foot width of the
easement I can support 8 feet across the canyon if the price savings is sufficient.
Thank you your attention.
Sincerely yours,
Sharon Yarber
1 3./'/
From: Lauren Ramezani
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 7:52 AM
Carla Morreale
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka; Michael Throne
FW: Sunnyside Ridge Trail
imageOOljpg
Late Correspondence for the 7 /7 /15 City Council meeting.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
L. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
.UJ.~LCQ!JI@r.P.Y...C:..9J5QY.
'!:!..YY .. ."!:!....JJ2Y. c a..,g_ ov.
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks*****
From: momofyago [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:10 PM
To: Lauren Ramezani; Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Thank you for your reply but it suggests that you do not intend to get an estimate for a 10 foot trail, or have you
already obtained that and not included the numbers in the staff report?
Se11t Jh)ln my V<erizon Wir<eless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>
Date: 07/06/2015 2:33 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov>, Doug Willmore <DWillmore(aJ,rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>, Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>, Michael Throne <MichaelT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Good afternoon Sharon,
Thank you for your email and questions. You are correct to say the trail is for equestrian and pedestrians
only. The trail is not for bicycles. The references you site were from the first Public Outreach Meeting in
December 2014 and were discussed at the initial preliminary design phase and have not been pursued any
1
further. As mentioned in all the meetings and in the more recent attachments and design, the trial is for
equestrian and pedestrian use only.
As for the width of the trail, the trail will utilize the full 10 foot easement width between the two residences, and
widen to 1 O feet at PVDE. The trail switchback areas are 8 feet wide for budget purposes. We might consider
adding an additive alternative for a 10 foot wide trail throughout or in more segments, if sufficient funding is
available to increase the adjacent retaining wall heights, if desired.
Thank you.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
L City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks*****
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 9:06 PM
To: Lauren Ramezani; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC; CC; Doug Willmore
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Hi Lauren and Ara,
A couple of things. I noticed in one of the documents (I think it was the first Exhibit) that there were two places
where bicyclists were mentioned as trail users. Please confirm that bicycles are not, in fact, allowed on this trail.
It has always been my understanding that this trail is pedestrian and equestrian only.
2
Also, I do not concur with your statement that the public approved of the trail being narrowed to 8 feet. It was
mentioned several times that 10 feet was the preferred width of the trail, especially in the area commencing at
the trailhead and ending at the end of the 10 foot wide easement. As far as the remainder of the trail is
concerned if there is a considerable cost saving by going 8 feet instead of 10 that would probably be OK
because the visibility will be excellent and one can move off the trail if need be to accommodate another user.
After all, the easement at the rear of the Padatoori home is 100 feet wide and there is no requirement that a user
stay within the trail bed (this is not the preserve). I do think it is appropriate to obtain two cost estimates -one
for 8 feet and one for 10 feet to see what the difference is so an informed decision can be made. But I do think it
is essential that the full 10 feet be used in the area between the two houses as there is no ability to move out of
the way of another approaching user as there will be walls on either side. I trust you do not intend to go 8 feet in
the area between the houses. Please confirm that as well. Thank you.
Sharon Yarber
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES ESTABLISHING THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF SKATEBOARDS,
AND SIMILAR NON-MOTORIZED WHEELED DEVICES ON ABBOTTSWOOD
DRIVE, BROWNDEER LANE, CASILINA DRIVE, CORINNA DRIVE, CRENSHAW
BLVD, CREST ROAD EAST, CREST ROAD WEST, CROWNVIEW DRIVE,
DALADIER DRIVE, DELUNA DRIVE, GANADO DRIVE, GRANDPOINT LANE,
HAWTHORNE BLVD, HIGHPOINT ROAD, KNOLL VIEW DRIVE, LOCKLENNA
LANE, LUCANIA DRIVE, MIRALESTE DRIVE, NARINO DRIVE, PALOS VERDES
DRIVE EAST, SILVER ARROW DRIVE, VERDE RIDGE ROAD, VIA COLINITA AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2012-47
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES
HEREBY FIND, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Section 12.16.120 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
authorizes the City Council to prohibit the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline
skates, non-motorized scooters and other similar non-motorized devices with wheels of
six inches or less in diameter upon a public street, sidewalk, alley, or roadway within the
City by resolution; and
WHEREAS, Deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who
perform law enforcement work on behalf of the City, and City residents have observed
dangerous behavior by skateboarders on certain streets within the City, which are steep
and circuitous; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously determined that there was a need to
prohibit skateboards and similar non-motorized wheeled devices on the streets,
sidewalks, alleys, and roadways that were designated in Resolution 2012-47 to protect
the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians, motorists, and persons using the
skateboards and other similar non-motorized devices;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need to prohibit
skateboards and similar non-motorized wheeled devices on the following additional
streets, sidewalks, alleys, and roadways, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
pedestrians, motorists, and persons using the skateboards and other similar non-
motorized devices: Abbottswood Drive, Casilina Drive, Corinna Drive, Crownview
Drive, Daladier Drive, Deluna Drive, Grandpoint Lane, Highpoint Road, Knoll View
Drive, Lucania Drive, and Narino Drive;
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Required Findings. Based on the foregoing recitals, all of which are
incorporated herein by this reference, the City Council finds that skateboards and
similar non-motorized wheeled devices are hereby prohibited on Abbottswood Drive,
Browndeer Lane, Casilina Drive, Corinna Drive, Crest Road East, Crest Road West,
R6876-0001 \1852243v1 .doc
Crenshaw Blvd, Crownview Drive, Daladier Drive, Deluna Drive, Ganado Drive,
Grandpoint Lane, Hawthorne Blvd, Highpoint Road, Knoll View Drive, Locklenna Lane,
Lucania Drive, Miraleste Drive, Narino Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East, Silver Arrow
Drive, Verde Ridge Road, and Via Colinita. This prohibition is necessary to reduce
traffic hazards created by skateboarders and other users of non-motorized vehicles on
steep streets within the City and, accordingly, is necessary to protect the health, safety
and welfare of pedestrians, motorists and persons operating skateboards and other
non-motorized devices on these streets. For these reasons, the City Council finds
pursuant to Section 12.16.120 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, that the
prohibition of skateboards and other similar non-motorized wheeled devices on the
streets listed in Section 2 of this Resolution is necessary to avoid the adverse impacts
upon public safety caused by the use of these activities at these locations.
Section 2. Designation of Prohibited Streets. Based upon the findings in
Section 1, the use of skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, non-motorized scooters
and other similar non-motorized devices with wheels of six inches or less in diameter is
hereby prohibited on the following streets:
Abbottswood Drive
Browndeer Lane
Casilina Drive
Corinna Drive
Crenshaw Blvd
Crest Road East
Crest Road West
Crownview Drive
Daladier Drive
Deluna Drive
Ganado Drive
Grandpoint Lane
Hawthorne Blvd
Highpoint Road
Knoll View Drive
Locklenna Lane
Lucania Drive
Miraleste Drive
Narino Drive
Palos Verdes Drive East
Silver Arrow Drive
Verde Ridge Road
Via Colinita
Section 3. Designation of Prohibition. The prohibition of the use of
skateboards, roller skates, inline skates, non-motorized scooters and other similar non-
motorized devices with wheels of six inches or less in diameter listed in Section 2 above
shall be set forth as follows:
"PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12.16.120 OF THE RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE, NO SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES,
INLINE SKATES, OR UNMOTORIZED SCOOTERS ARE PERMITTED"
Section 4. Posting of Signs. The prohibitions contained in Section 3 of this
Resolution shall not become effective until signs have been posted giving adequate
notice of the prohibitions imposed by this resolution on the streets designated herein.
The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to erect such signs.
Section 5. Resolution No. 2012-47 is hereby repealed.
-2-
R6876-0001 \1852243v1 .doc
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this __ day of _____ 2015.
JIM KNIGHT, Mayor
ATTEST:
CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby
certify that the above Resolution No. 2015-_, was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2015.
CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk
-3-
R6876-0001 \1852243v1 .doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Suzy Seamans <suzyseamans@cox.net>
Monday, July 06, 2015 6:06 PM
cc
Item 5. Ordinance banning bombing
Skatepark PV supports your ordinance banning skateboarding bombing on certain streets in your city. Our organization
is as concerned as your council is about this kind of skateboarding especially on Hawthorne Blvd. leading to Upper Point
Vicente Park where our new skateboard plaza is to be built.
Please support this ordinance.
Susan Seamans
Skatepark PV
Sent from my iPhone
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ellen November <ellen.november@gmail.com>
Monday, July 06, 2015 7:03 PM
cc
Re: Regarding Bombing
To clarify, there is a difference between bombing and skateboarding.
Let's not confuse the two.
People need to be free to skateboard as it is a mode of transportation as well as a sport, just as bicycles are.
Do not let this proposed ordinance worm its way to ban skateboarding. It is not necessary, not wanted and not
needed.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Ellen November <ellen.november@gmail.com> wrote:
As founder of SkateparkPV, I would like to let it be known that I am against skate bombing on hills and find it
life threatening. Skaters need to be safe which is why I founded the organization -to provide a safe location for
skateboarding athletes.
Best
www.ellennovember.com
k. 310-384-6912
Ellen November
www.ellennovember.com
mobile: 310-384-6912
1 s
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jmaniataki@aol.com
Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:25 AM
cc
Skateboarding ordinance Item #5
In reference to prior e-mails sent to the council, please insure that all of Mira Catalina is included in the ordinance to stop
skateboarding on the streets of our neighborhood.
John Maniatakis President, Mira Catalina HOA
1 5
CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 6, 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, July 7, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Public Comments Email from Whitney Wilson
3 Emails from the following: Dena Friedson; Sunshine; Lynn
Swank; Ken Delong
4 Email exchange between Sharon Yarber and staff; email
exchange between John DeGirolamo and staff
W:IAGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150707 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear RPV City Council
Whitney Wilson <whitncj@verizon.net>
Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:22 AM
cc
Doug Willmore; Michael Throne; CityClerk
Recycled Water for Peninsula Public Spaces
Recycled Water Summary.docx
I plan to address the City Council at the next meeting, July 7, on the potential for receiving recycled water for our golf
courses, parks and cemetery.
Since I don't think I can cover this in the three minute Public Comment section, I'm sending you this summery in
advance.
Sincerely,
Whitney Wilson
Forty eight resident
1
RECYCLED WATER FOR PENINSULA PUBLIC SPACES
CONCEPT
Recycled water could be made available to replace the potable water now used
on the city's golf courses, parks and cemetery.
This project could alleviate future droughts, not the current one.
RECYCLED WATER SOURCE
A large quantity of recycled water is currently piped from the Joint Water
Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson thru the San Pedro -RPV border
and discharged into the ocean. This water already has secondary treatment and
minimal additional treatment is required to be suitable for use on golf courses,
parks and cemeteries.
The amount of this recycled water now dumped into the ocean is approximately
seven times as much as consumed in the California Water Co. -Dominguez
Service Area, which includes the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
FEASIBILITY
The West Basin Municipal Water District, supplier to the California Water Service
Co., is initiating a feasibility study to look at expanding recycled water deliveries
into the Palos Verdes area. Construction had been planned for FY20-25. The
biggest cost to provide this water to the peninsula would be the pipeline
infrastructure. Since this water is now wasted, it might be delivered to the
peninsula at a reasonable cost.
With increased grant opportunities and the drought impacts, funds for this
expansion might be available. The $7.5 billion Water Bond authorized last year
included $725 million for water recycling. West Basin is seeking funds for
construction of recycled water facilities.
RPVIMAGE
The Peninsula has been described along with Beverly Hills as using excessive
water per capita. Using potable water on five golf courses, parks and a cemetery,
with no one living in that space, makes per high per capita water use, and makes
us look like water wasters. As a result, we have received a 35% water reduction
mandate, instead of 25%. Replacing that potable water with recycled water could
help repair our public image.
RPV ACTION SUGGESTED
Support West Basin's feasibility study -Harold Williams
Encourage early construction.
Whitney Wilson
July 2, 15
Subject: FW: Proposed Lower Point Vicente Park Plan
-----Original Message-----
From: Dena Friedson [mailto:dlfriedson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 10:55 PM
To: dlfriedson@gmail.com; Ara Mihranian
Subject: Proposed Lower Point Vicente Park Plan
To: Mayor Jim Knight and City Council Members Susan Brooks, Brian Campbell, Jerry Duhovic, and Anthony Misetich
and Project Director Ara Mihranian
From: Dena Friedson
Re: Proposed Amendments to the Lower Point Vicente Park Plan --City Council Meeting on July 7, 2015
Please vote to approve Phase I of the staff report and to remove Phase Ill from the proposed amendments to the Lower
Point Vicente Park Plan.
Lower Point Vicente Park is a beautiful place. According to a guest book, kept by the people that count the migrating
Pacific Gray Whales, visitors from many states and countries come to the Interpretive Center to watch the migration to
and from Alaska and Baja California.
Many families also come to the Park to enjoy picnics.
The staff report recognizes the unique qualities of Lower Point Vicente Park. The first phase of enhancements complies
with the City's General Plan Land Use Map and General Plan Book. It also conforms to the United States National Park
Service's Deed Restrictions and Program of Utilization. The Program of Utilization requires that Lower Point Vicente Park
"will provide for passive recreation pursuits closely oriented to the attributes of the Pacific Ocean and will accommodate
individuals as well as groups." It also allows a lawn surface, shrubs, indigenous plants, and grassy picnic areas. It
permits a small building (now the approved Interpretive
Center) to offer information about biological species found at the site and about ecological phenomena of the Palos
Verdes area.
A map of Lower Point Vicente Park shows the locations of the following:
New grasslands;
Grassy picnic areas with low-growing trees that will not block views;
Shrubs and native plants in areas that will benefit nesting birds and small animals;
Trails that do not intrude upon habitats;
A bioswale that carries water away from the cliffs to ease their erosion;
A 150-foot planted strip that borders neighboring homes to afford privacy;
The 150-foot planted strip will also provide a corridor to the native growth on the other side of Palos Verdes Drive
and food for foraging birds and animals.
Also, all of the above attributes are consistent with one of the City's goals: "To conserve, protect, and enhance its open
space ... "
Phase II permits the docents to change exhibits inside the Interpretive Center building.
1
Phase Ill proposes that the docents place structures (i.e., a small Spanish ranch house, a view platform, a Tonga village,
etc.) wherever they choose. Lower Point Vicente Park was given to the City by Los Angeles County for the passive
recreational use of the general public.
The planning staff has acknowledged that the same Deed Restrictions and Program of Utilization, mentioned above,
apply to the entire Park.
Structured developments are not consistent with the common definitions of passive recreation.
As requested earlier, please remove Phase Ill from the proposed amended Plan. I hope that you will find grant money
soon to proceed with Phase I.
Thank you for your consideration.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Friday, July 03, 2015 3:26 PM
CC; PC; Doug Willmore
Ara Mihranian
July 7, 2015 Council Agenda Item 3. Lower Point Vicente Park Vision Plan Amendm
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: July 7, 2015 Council Agenda Item 3. Lower Point Vicente Park Vision Plan Amendments.
This is another example of why the RPV Parks Master Plan, Coast Vision Plan, Natural Communities
Conservation Plan, Public Use Master Plan, Trails Network Plan, Conceptual Trails Plan, Preserve Trails Plans
and Parks/Preserve Signage Plan should be merged into one comprehensive document. Nobody is able to get a
grip on the whole picture.
The RPV General Plan "update" is turning into a monster. It needs to get back to being "general". Then, all of
these other plans need to provide subservient details with city-wide consistency.
Notice that the proposed amendments to the Lower Point Vicente Park Coast Vision Plan are not in sine with
the other plans. The RPV City Council chose the Living History Museum over the Girl's Softball 4 diamond
proposal. These were not "exhibits". The RPV City Council permitted the Ocean Front Estates developer to
move the Palos Verdes Loop Trail improvements onto City Property. Only the pedestrian corridor of the
California Coastal Trail is mentioned.
I do not support Staffs recommendation. None of these pretty pictures are going to happen until solving the
drainage and bluff top erosion problems get through the Capital Improvement budget, priorities process.
,,.,~ .. "'' ~ J ,,
1
_,
'--·")
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sunday, July 05, 2015 11:26 AM
CC; Doug Willmore; PC; Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder
cprotem73@verizon.net; ken.delong@verizon.net; greg@groystonlaw.com;
momofyago@gmail.com; EZStevens@cox.net; ldb910@juno.com; radlsmith@cox.net;
paul@agajanianlaw.com; jeff@broedlowlewis.com; mothermac@mac.com;
cockeandco@verizon.net; happyisles@aol.com; verikon@cox.net; vicsilq@cox.net;
itsthebarrys@att.net; gardner4@earthlink.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com;
jeanlongacre@aol.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; pdownjac@hotmail.com;
judyfrankel@gmail.com
More specific comments RE Lower Point Vicente Park and the bigger picture
MEMO from SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: July 7, 2015 Council Agenda Item 3. Lower Point Vicente Park Vision Plan Amendments.
Although I have not found a supporting, official, policy statement, I agree with the former, Interim Director of
Public Works, that people who purchase homes adjacent to undeveloped school sites, parkland, public rights of
way and existing trails should be prepared to provide privacy screening on their own property. The City of
RPV already has view protection and noise abatement ordinances. As these public lands are improved, these
homeowners should not expect more than what the laws provide for all property owners in the City. The
proposed 150 ft wide "buffer" along the north side of this site is simply a matter of the "bush huggers" taking
over more of what should remain parkland which is accessible to the public.
As a professional Facilities Designer, I paid special attention to what Los Serenos proposed as elements of the
"Living History Museum" back in 2004. I am not finding the same level of detail in the currently proposed
"exhibits" in The Coast Vision Plan. Without more specific "structure" descriptions, the Feds, the State and I
can say no more than ... "a label on a map does not produce anything to respond to, yea or nay."
On the same topic of "lack of detail'', the RPV City Council adopted the TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I
MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. The proposed Coast Vision Plan "concept" does not use this
tool to specify what sort of trails are proposed, where. For instance, this portion of the pedestrian corridor of
the California Coastal Trail CCT can very reasonably be designated as TYPE 1 along the bluff top fence, from
Ocean Front Estates to the Lighthouse parking lot with ADA compliant access to parking, restrooms and picnic
tables. The Palos Verdes Loop Trail should be designated as TYPE 3 from the PV Drive West crossing to
Upper Point Vicente Park down to the bluff top CCT on a route which connects with the trail head amenities at
PVIC (parking, restrooms, picnic tables). The Equestrian corridor of the CCT can remain on the PV Drive
West roadside as at least TYPE 4 with the PV Loop Trail as access to the PVIC trail head amenities. All the
rest of the proposed trails should have specific "destinations" and TYPE designations. It should be noted
somewhere that the bicycle corridor of the CCT is in the roadways and access to the PVIC trail head amenities
are to be accommodated.
These trail TYPE designations are particularly important because the grading for them can be included with the
design that needs to be done to resolve the site's watershed and bluff top erosion problems. This work needs to
be in the Capital Improvements Plan.
I assume that the Annenberg Foundation is no longer paying Melendrez to produce these pretty pictures.
1
Please deny this Staff Recommendation and make an end to the ridiculous number of isolated, ignored and
ineffective City Plan "updates".
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ara Mihranian
Monday, July 06, 2015 2:53 PM
cc
Joel Rojas; lynn.swank (lynn.swank@cox.net); Doug Willmore
FW: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council,
The following email from Lynn Swank, dated February 23, 2015, was inadvertently left out of the July
7th City Council Staff Report regarding Lower Point Vicente. Ms. Swan k's email raises concerns with
the outdoor exhibits proposed as Phase II for the park improvements at Lower Point Vicente. A hard
copy of the attached email will be transmitted to the Council at the July 7th meeting.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Deputy Director of Community Development
CiTVOF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM ARAM@RPV.COM TO ARAM@RPVCA.GOV.
~*1 Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If
you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Lynn Swank [mailto:lynn.swank@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:09 AM
To: Ara Mihranian
Cc: Cory Linder
Subject: Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan
1 3
Ara,
Thanks for meeting me regarding the Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan. I couldn't attend the last meeting
and you were gracious to fill me in about the comments expressed at the meeting and to help me understand
the specific plan elements. I have copied Cory Linder because I addressed some issues related to the Master
Plan and PVIC.
We have discussed on numerous occasions the need for a park at Lower Point Vicente that allows our
residents to appreciate the RPV coastline and while doing so to enjoy, with their families or by themselves, the
wonderful space and natural elements of a park so near the ocean. I believe a setting that allows users to
walk through the entire park and play Frisbee, fly kites, or engage in other unstructured recreational activities
is needed in our City.
The grassland/play area, overlook, minimal trail network around the perimeter and bioswales are very good
features of the plan. The Wall of Honor to recognize residents in our City is long overdue and I am glad the
City Council approved this. My only comment here is that maybe it should be closer to the ocean providing a
view both of the City and ocean, rather than adjacent to the parking lot.
I have previously expressed concerns about the scope of the Concept Plan originally presented by the focus
committee and I see nothing in the current rendition that allays my concerns.
The Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC} has become an important element of this park as it interprets the
natural features of the ocean environment such as whale watching while giving visitors a brief overview of the
geology and cultural history of our City and the peninsula. The relationship between our land and the ocean
has been an important one throughout the decades and a clear understanding of prior land uses helps all of us
to appreciate the joy of Lower Point Vicente and the need to maintain this park with a minimalist imprint on
the surrounding land. Both the Federal and State governments made this clear to the City during the
Annenberg proposal process as it related to the deed restrictions and POU.
!. I don't see the overriding reason for considering LPV separately from the overall General Parks Master
Plan Process. Yes, when the focus group was formed years ago the City wanted to expedite the future plans
for this park. The intervening years have clearly indicated that there is no need to consider LPV separately
from other parks because nothing has been done and there are no approved grant funds that need to be
spent immediately. This is different from the Abalone Cove situation in that the City had grant funds that
needed to be spent by a date certain and therefore an expedited process was necessary.
2. There are several different plans within the City that directly impact what can and cannot be done in our
parks. The General Plan, The Coastal Plan, The Vision Plan, NCCP, etc., all impact what can be done in our
parks. To consider park use without examining and sharing with our residents any restrictions about park use
is not transparent and should be clearly stated as each park use is discussed.
3. The passive/active use definition is of particular concern to me as all parks are discussed, and especially
LPV. The City has struggled with this definition and often seemingly applies a different definition depending
on situational convenience of the department or commission rendering a decision. I have seen the Planning
Commission discuss this issue and often reach different conclusions depending on the group that makes the
presentation or who is now on the Planning Commission. I have heard for 20 years that the General Plan
needs to be updated and a definition will be forthcoming that will enable residents and the City Council to
weigh in on this very important issue. I am still waiting.
2
How can we really have a Parks Master Plan or a Lower Point Vicente Plan without a clear understanding and
agreement about the meaning of passive and active?
4. The Deed Restrictions and Program of Utilization for LPV should be clearly stated as part of any Plan for
Lower Point Vicente. As you said, the National Park Service was advised of the concept elements of the LPV
Plan and saw no glaring problems. However, they were not given the final plans, construction or otherwise, so
this opinion by the NPS is only an opinion based upon information that the City provided. Our City must
decide what we want and is best for our uses and needs and not try to "get away with" what we can just to
satisfy a verbal OK from the NPS. While the current plans may seem acceptable to some, others do not
agree. A thorough discussion of this issue by the residents is needed before the Plan is presented to the City
Council.
5. The Master Plan Survey, while not completed, shows that there is no (zero) desire of our residents to
have more educational exhibits in our parks. Prior controversies throughout the years have demonstrated this
(Annenberg, the proposed $7M Nature Center at Abalone Cove). Perhaps the question wasn't framed in the
proper context of park usage, but I suspect that residents DO NOT give educational exhibits requiring city
maintenance or staffing to be a high priority in RPV. A great deal of taxpayer money and resources are already
provided at the school district level.
6. What does the City really want to do with PVIC? Do we want a small interpretive center that already
exists or do we want to expand our educational footprint and use Lower Point Vicente Park to do so and turn
it into a museum? This question needs to be answered either through the General Plan or City Council before
any decisions can be made. As a resident I don't want a small interest group to tell me what I need in this very
special park. Elected representatives need to make this decision. Are the Los Serenos Docents considered
part of City staff and be treated as such? Do they control what happens at LPV? What role does the City want
them to play, and is this consistent with their mission statement?
7. Regardless of what is decided about the future use of this park, I like the idea that you mentioned: a
phased-in approach. Some things can be done right away such as the grassy area, parking, perimeter trails
and parking/bioswales. Of course there are costs associated with these elements and the IMAC probably
should be aware of the infrastructure elements, but I'm sure you've done this.
8. Los Serenes Point Vicente docents have made an important contribution to the City at the Interpretive
Center, Abalone Cove and Ladera Linda (Forrestal). I have been a member for over 20 years and served in
many leadership positions including President. I recall quite vividly having discussions with Diana Mcintyre
about ideas to help teach children about our diverse resources, and in the fledging years of tours for school
children we used the front outdoor patio to discuss geology, cultural history and of course whales. A small dirt
patch that could be used for a "seeded" archeological dig or village were discussed but never done because
there just wasn't enough time during a school tour to teach about both the exhibits in PVIC and the
outdoors. The teachers and the children both wanted to learn about the ocean because their inland schools
didn't have this resource. They went other places to learn about ranchos, fossils, animals, etc. The ocean and
outdoor environment was something they could not duplicate elsewhere.
It now appears to me that Lower Point Vicente is now regarded as the sole "playground" for docents, and
other users are insignificant compared to the needs and desires of the docents. This simply should not be the
case -Lower Point Vicente Park is for the use of all residents. The focus group does not represent the
interests and opinions of all docents. It should come as no surprise that a docent education committee and a
city-paid curator would want all of these outdoor education elements -that is their interest.
3
The Point Vicente Interpretive Center is just that -it was built and received permission to build from the
Federal Government solely for the purpose of interpreting the surrounding marine environment. It was never
a museum as some people want to call it. PVIC exists solely to simple interpret the surrounding environment
as simple as possible without lots of bells and whistles. In fact, PVIC was expanded in order to add more bells
and whistles. We simply don't need more outdoor exhibits.
Specifically:
Docent Tours
Who is going to lead tours of all of the outdoor exhibits? Docents scheduled in PVIC are not hikers; they want
to stay indoors or in the confines of the small patio. The hikers are at Abalone Cove and Forrestal. Many PVIC
docents can't walk too far, don't want to lead outdoor tours and don't want to have anything to do with
children's tours. Will the City provide staff to conduct tours of these costly exhibits?
Maintenance and Vandalism
Someone will need to pay for these recurring expenses.
Docent Support
Has a survey been done of docents as to whether they want this or will staff it? I am a docent and have not
been asked. The focus group should be cautious when or if they claim that this has been reviewed and
approved by the docents.
Bunker
This is a structure that needs to be built and is in violation of the POU. WWII bunkers already exist at City Hall
and Abalone Cove. We don't need another one that is brand new.
Tvonga Village
Again, this is a structure that needs to be built that is counter to the POU. An exhibit already exists inside the
PVIC building so why duplicate this? The Palos Verdes Historical Society has designated an Indian Village in
Palos Verdes Estates as an historical site. The RPV City Council has recently recognized this society as the
prime designator of historical sites on the Peninsula and RPV, so I don't think the council will consider a newly
constructed village not even positioned on space once occupied by a village to be adequate for the high
standards of the Palos Verdes Historical Society. Why have a fake village when a real one exists close by?
Spanish Rancho
This is covered inside PVIC, and a large Rancho already exists elsewhere and is used by teachers for lessons
covering only our Spanish heritage.
Dry Farming
How much was really done in RPV? Will equipment be used to demonstrate how this is done? This could be
interesting given the City's and State's emphasis on the drought and solutions to conserve water, but more
details are necessary.
4
Archeological Dig
This would be better situated in Abalone Cove because a midden already exists there.
Missing Elements
Not discussed but certainly conspicuously missing from the plan is storage for all the new exhibits and
restrooms. While there may be a need for storage if the exhibits are approved, there is no mention of a
possible location. Is there a need for new restrooms? I don't know the utilization of the current indoor and
outdoor facilities at PVIC, but there is no discussion and if either element is needed they should be discussed
as part of the plan.
Ara, I know this email covers a wide scope of topics under the umbrella of the Lower Point Vicente Concept
Plan, but I think they are all interrelated and must all be considered in constructing a Master Plan. While this
is the concept stage of LPV, I have seen things quickly go from concept to construction plans without fully
addressing all of the concerns one might have about the concept.
Again, thanks for your help and I look forward to talking to you in the future. Please call if you have any
questions.
Lynn
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>
Monday, July 06, 2015 4:51 PM
cc
July 7, 2015 -RPV Council Agenda I# 3 -Lower Point Vicente Vision Plan
The Amended Lower Point Vicente Plan is basically the same document that Annenberg developed in 2008. RPV
residents previously opposed this concept, why is it back again?
The proposal includes the exhibits listed:
-Tongva Village
-Geology/ Fossil
-Archaeological Dig
-Spanish Rancho
-Dry Farming
-WW II History and Restrooms,
-Wall of Honor
That Council member Knight, docent representatives and several others comprised the focus group that approved the
plan, does not label this small group as representing RPV residents.
As an RPV resident I question how this development meets RPV's General Plan. It is not that I disrespect the sacrifices of
WW 11, but Fort MacArthur has a very extensive WW II museum just a few miles away.
A Wall of Honor. What is this about? A Wall of Honor for what?
The LA County Museum has extensive exhibits of early life in California. Does the focus group perceive that they can
duplicate LA County museum exhibits?
Who will go there? Few RPV residents. Why do we want to encourage more transients that do not contribute to the
betterment of the Peninsula?
Who will pay for this development? The Docents, not likely. RPV is already subsiding the Docents over $150,000 annually
for operating the PVIC. Grants are not free money.
The Council needs to decide what is best for all RPV residents, not just a few special interest groups.
The proposed Lower Point Vicente development is unneeded and a waste of taxpayer funds. To presume that there is a
justified need in this community for such illogical exhibits demonstrates a lack of respect for the taxpayers. Why not
something useful like recreational sports field (soccer I girls softball) or perhaps a Boy I Girl Scout campground?
Ken Delong
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good afternoon Sharon,
Lauren Ramezani
Monday, July 06, 2015 2:34 PM
sharon yarber
CC; CC; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian; Ron Dragoo; Michael Throne
RE: Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Thank you for your email and questions. You are correct to say the trail is for equestrian and pedestrians
only. The trail is not for bicycles. The references you site were from the first Public Outreach Meeting in
December 2014 and were discussed at the initial preliminary design phase and have not been pursued any
further. As mentioned in all the meetings and in the more recent attachments and design, the trial is for
equestrian and pedestrian use only.
As for the width of the trail, the trail will utilize the full 10 foot easement width between the two residences, and
widen to 10 feet at PVDE. The trail switchback areas are 8 feet wide for budget purposes. We might consider
adding an additive alternative for a 10 foot wide trail throughout or in more segments, if sufficient funding is
available to increase the adjacent retaining wall heights, if desired.
Thank you.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
L.. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
La urenr@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks*****
From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 9:06 PM
To: Lauren Ramezani; Ara Mihranian
Cc: CC; CC; Doug Willmore
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Hi Lauren and Ara,
A couple of things. I noticed in one of the documents (I think it was the first Exhibit) that there were two places
where bicyclists were mentioned as trail users. Please confirm that bicycles are not, in fact, allowed on this trail.
It has always been my understanding that this trail is pedestrian and equestrian only.
Also, I do not concur with your statement that the public approved of the trail being narrowed to 8 feet. It was
mentioned several times that 10 feet was the preferred width of the trail, especially in the area commencing at
the trailhead and ending at the end of the 10 foot wide easement. As far as the remainder of the trail is
concerned ifthere is a considerable cost saving by going 8 feet instead of 10 that would probably be OK
because the visibility will be excellent and one can move off the trail if need be to accommodate another user.
After all, the easement at the rear of the Padatoori home
1
is 1 00 feet wide and there is no requirement that a us¥
stay within the trail bed (this is not the preserve). I do think it is appropriate to obtain two cost estimates -one
for 8 feet and one for 10 feet to see what the difference is so an informed decision can be made. But I do think it
is essential that the full 10 feet be used in the area between the two houses as there is no ability to move out of
the way of another approaching user as there will be walls on either side. I trust you do not intend to go 8 feet in
the area between the houses. Please confirm that as well. Thank you.
Sharon Yarber
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carla-
Lauren Ramezani
Monday, July 06, 2015 7:57 AM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka; Michael Throne
FW: Notice of City Council Meeting-Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment
Please add this as late correspondence to the Sunnyside Ridge item on 7 /7 /15.
Thanks.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
f.. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks*****
From: JOHN J. DEGIROLAMO [mailto:jdegirolamo@me.com]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 2:59 AM
To: Lauren Ramezani
Subject: Re: Notice of City Council Meeting-Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment
Dear Council Members,
Let It be known that the departments involved in this Sunnyside Ridge Trail Project have been more than courteous to
us and considerate of our concerns regarding aesthetics and privacy. We appreciate their efforts and we will continue to
do our best to help in any way.
Sent from the iPad3 of
John J. DeGirolamo, CEO
Johnny's Auto Clinic, San Pedro
On Jul 2, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Johnny,
Since you won't be at the meeting and your comments have been important to this project, I suggest
that since you are pleased with the design and feel that your comments and concerns were addressed,
to send an email to the Council regarding that. Or you can send it to me and I can forward it to the
Council. As one of the affected property owners, it is valuable to have your voice heard. i.e.
acknowledging your support of the design.
Thanks
1 4
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
L,. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your
records.Thanks*****
From: JOHN J. DEGIROLAMO [mailto:jdegirolamo@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:43 AM
To: Lauren Ramezani
Subject: Re: Notice of City Council Meeting-Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment
Thank you Lauren but I'm in Italy until August 2nd ... Please keep me informed ...
Sent by Siri, the personal assistant of John J. DeGirolamo
CEO, Johnny's Auto Clinic
On Jul 2, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good morning,
The approval of the final design for the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Segment project
will be presented before the City Council on Tuesday July 7, 2015. The meeting
starts at 7 pm at Hesse Park. Notices of the meeting was mailed to the
properties in the 500" radius of the project. See copy attached.
The links below are to the meeting agenda, staff report and several
attachments. There are separate links so you can open them easier.
One friendly suggestion-There are some lengthy attachments. So please see the
number of pages for each link before you press the print button.
Agenda: http://rpv.granicus.com/AgendaViewer. php?view id=5&event id= 12
id=5&event id=12&meta id=1338
Attachment A (3 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1338
6
Attachment B Part 1 (65 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1339
1
Attachment B Part 2 (65 pages) :
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer. php?view id=5&event id= 12&meta id= 1340
~
2
Attachment B Part 3 (73 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1340 z
Attachment C (18 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer. php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1342
5
Attachment D (83 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1342
6
Attachment E (190 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1343
Q
Attachment F (51 pages):
http://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer. php?view id=5&event id=12&meta id=1343
~
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me or Ron Dragoo [
rond@rpvca.gov ] by email or phone.
Thanks and have a nice and safe 4th of July celebration.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
<image001.jpg>City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please
update your records. Thanks*****
<S35C-415070208520245.pdf>
3