Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20160802 Late Correspondence
From: Howard B. Spielman To: Michal Haynes Cc: Tom Frazier; Terry T. Tao Subject: Re: Fwd: Procedure 5 Guidelines and Rule 1403 Notification Date: Friday, July 8, 2016 12:23:47 PM Attachments: hbs.ona Mr. Haynes: SCAQMD's insistence that a Procedure 5 is necessary is puzzling. This presumes that you have concluded there is a need for clean up of ACM, particularly since you apparently no longer feel further assessment is warranted. Discussions with your agency have revolved around whether ACM could be expected to be present in the top 3 feet or even as deep as 15 feet. I need to express to you my professional reservations about your Notice to Comply and this email to which I am responding. As you already know, on November 20, 2015 ALTA Engineering collected 7 hand auger borings ranging from approximately 0.5 to one foot below ground surface. Three were collected from the northern portion of the site, three from the southern portion and one from the center of a soil stockpile at the west end of the site. No asbestos was detected in any of these soil samples. On October 29 and November 20, 2015 ALTA collected 15 samples of what appeared to be construction debris from the surface. Only 3 of these were determined to contain asbestos and only one of those, the paper backing of a small piece of sheet vinyl, was friable. On July 1, 2016 the plastic sheet covering was removed and replaced. During this activity I collected 7 site perimeter air samples and walked the entire surface. During the walk I collected 9 samples of observable debris, effectively removing all remaining such debris from the site. The prevailing southerly to northerly breeze persisted throughout the day. The PCM analyses of all of the air samples were non - detect for airborne fibers. The PLM analyses of all of the debris samples were non - detect for asbestos. The above facts represent the only objective information of which I am aware regarding any potential ACM contamination of the site. The weight of evidence strongly suggests that the soil is not ACM nor is there any remaining surface debris that contains asbestos. As an environmental health professional I cannot in good conscience ask my client to spend very substantial amounts of education dollars to further evaluate this site for asbestos contamination or to remediate a site that would appear not to need an asbestos cleanup or removal, and likewise not to need plastic covering and perimeter warning signage and demarkation. So what I need to know is what do you know that I don't know. What information or data do you have and are willing to share that would have justified your issuing the Notice to Comply? Until I can acquire such knowledge that might change my o inion I need to advi in accordance with the knowledge I currently have. RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THEIR CO D AT � E COUNCIL MEETING OF n OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK co �,vnG CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Respectfully, Howard Spielman, PE, CIH, CSP, CAC, REHS HOWARD B. SPIELMAN 10771 22 ���Lc's� � PE, CITE, CSP, RENS, CAC CONFIDENTAIJTYNOTE This email menage and any attachments toitareintendedonlytathenamed recipients and may contain confidential information, # you not the intended recipients, please do not duplicate or forntvard this e-mail message and immediately delete from your computer. MISSION STATEMENT: To prouidelmowtedgeaatdeand accurate assistance Inthe anticipation, recognition, evaluation and control of potential health and safety hazard in thewo#1 ace and community, Ici)ltd ence LEAD.RSWOCCUPATION4LHEA�TH&SARWANDENWRONNIENTAtSOLUTIONS ratex, PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING TH IS EMAIL On 6/30/2016 10:56 AM, Michal Haynes wrote: Per my legal department, I am sending to you the following: See attached documents showing P5,guidelines And current R1403 Notf / fees to be submitted by abatement contractor. Upon completion of P5, send via email your completed procedure and notification to Rule] 403notificationsUagmd.gov. License Search for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Licensee Name: SPIELMAN HOWARD BENJAMIN License Type: SAFETY ENGINEERS License Number: 2845 License Status. CANCELLED Qefiriitjo D .Expiration Date: September 30, 2006 :Address: '3948 COUNTRY CLUB DR -City: LAKEWOOD State: CA Zip: 90712 'County: :LOS ANGELES ;Actions: No w 40 rm 1 RI LLJ I24) U 0 � W qT 'U -Y 0 J CL E • i ow T �� On Friday, July 29, 2016 2:53 PM, "Rowe, William @DTSC" <W1lliam.Rowe@dtsccagov> wrote: As you are aware, the Governor's budget of 2012 deleted the Registered Environmental Assessor program. Whether an individual was previously registered as an REA is no longer pertinent to their current work. The "validity" of a "soil report" is not determined by the DTSC. The DTSC may require certain provisions in any given report, on a case-by-case basis, at sites under DTSC oversight where the parties are directly working with the DTSC. To understand the broader context of soil sampling report requirements: a sollsampling effort requires preparation of a sampling work planand a sampling report by a California Professional Geologist pursuant to the definition of the practice of geology by the Business and Professions Code Section 7802, as enforced by the Board for Professional Engineers, LandSurveyors, and Geologists (California BPELSG). Based on BPELSG enforcement actions, a soil sampling report (and the antecedent work plan) must be signed by a Professional Geologist who maintains responsible charge of work for the project. Their previous REA status was not and still remains irrelevant to their authority to sign a soils report. I hope this answers your question. If you wish to discuss this, please go ahead and contact me by phone, but considering my travel requirements, it would be best to email me first and then we can set up a time for discussion on the phone. 10704M. MALAGA COVE ADMINISTRATION CENTER 375 Via Almay Palos Verdes Estates California 90274-1277 (310) 378.9966 vr=2Musd. not Donald B. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Boerd of Education Malcolm S. Sharp President Anthony Collatos Vice President Linda Reid Clerk Barbara Lucky Member Suzanne Seymour Member OeAanmenl Extensions and FAX Numbers Superintendent, x 404 (310) 378-0732 (FAX) Business Services, x 418 (310) 375.4140 (FA)) Educational Services, x 163 (310) 791.2919 (FAX) Human Resources, x 417 (310) 791.2948 (FAX) Pupil Services. x 551 (310) 378-1971 (FAX) Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Sent via U. S Certified, Return Receipt Mail and Email July 15, 2016 Barry Hildebrand 3560 Vigilance Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Williams Complaint — Facility Conditions Dear Mr. Hildebrand: This letter responds to the Williams Uniform Complaint you filed with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District ("District"), in accordance with Education Code section 35186 and District Administrative Regulation 1312.4 ("Complaint"). The District received your Complaint on May 13, 2016. This correspondence shall constitute the District's report to you of the resolution of your Complaint in accordance with Education Code section 35186(b), Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations section 4685, and District Administrative Regulation 1312.4. The District has investigated your complaint and makes the following findings: NATURE OF COMPLAINT You alleged that possible toxins (DDT and others), asbestos, and building materials refuse do not make for a clean school environment and could be present at any of the 16 schools in the District. Specifically, you wrote that conditions exist at one or more school campuses in the District where unknown amounts of (so-called) clean dirt was deposited after being moved from the District maintenance yard, where it had been stockpiled for several months after being delivered originally from unknown locations to the Portuguese Bend site, for field leveling at the AYSO soccer facility (licensed from the District). You also alleged that the original delivery took place in April or May of 2015, and no toxin tests were performed before original deliveries were made. You also alleged that, after testing was performed, the results were withheld from the public. You further alleged that the District hired another environmental test house, which proclaimed the soil "clean." II. FURTHER INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY COMPLAINANT None, III. STANDARD FOR EVALUATION OF THE COMPLAINT Complaints brought pursuant to Education Code section 35186(e)(3) and Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations section 4683 regarding the condition of a facility are to be evaluated according to the "emergency facilities needs" standard set forth in Education Code section 17592.72(c)(1): For purposes of this article, "emergency facilities needs" means structures or systems that are in a condition that poses a threat to the health and safety of pupils or staff while at school. These projects may include, but are not limited to, the following types of facility repairs or replacements: (A) Gas leaks. (B) Nonfunctioning heating, ventilation, fire sprinklers, or air- conditioning systems. (C) Electrical power failure. (D) Major sewer line stoppage. (E) Major pest or vermin infestation. (F) Broken windows or exterior doors or gates that will not lock and that pose a security risk. (G) Abatement of hazardous materials previously undiscovered that pose an immediate threat to pupil or staff. (H) Structural damage creating a hazardous or uninhabitable condition. IV. FACTS FROM INVESTIGATION AND CONCLUSION The Complaint does not implicate emergency facilities needs under the standard set forth in Education Code section 17592.72(c)(1) and thus does not require action beyond what has already occurred. In early to mid -2W, soil was transported to the Ladera Linda soccer field area by Palos Verdes American Youth Soccer Organization ("PV AYSO"). Some of this soil was also transported to the District's maintenance yard. That soil has recently been used at various fields throughout the District. The District requested that PV AYSO conduct soil sampling on the soil, and PV AYSO immediately agreed to do so at its cost. PV AYSO offered three qualified environmental consultants that had no prior affiliation with PV AYSO. The District picked one of the offered consultants, Leymaster Environmental Consulting, LLC. That consultant performed soil sampling and analyses. Leymaster Environmental Consulting, LLC collected soil and analyzed soil samples in accordance with federal and state law and requirements. All soil analyses indicated no contaminants present above any relevant environmental standards. The full report dated December 23, 2015, prepared by Leymaster Environmental Consulting, LLC, is available on the District's website under the Business Services tab and at: htip://www.pvpusd. netlapps/pageslindex. j sp? uREC_ID=3 61563 &typed&pREC_ID=820440. The District has taken the appropriate measures to ensure the soil transported to the District by PV AYSO does not contain hazardous materials that pose an immediate threat to pupil or staff. Thus, there is no need for the "abatement of hazardous materials previously undiscovered that pose an immediate threat to pupil or staff," pursuant to Education Code section 17592.72. V. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS / REMEDIATION Although your Complaint did not identify emergency facility needs, be assured the District responded to the situation with due diligence. As detailed above, all soil analyses indicated no contaminants present above any relevant environmental standards. The District has provided information to the community and has taken all necessary measures to comply with regulatory requirements. VI. APPEAL If you are not satisfied with the resolution of your Complaint as described above, you have the right to describe your Complaint to the District's Board of Education at a regularly scheduled Board meeting. (Cal. Code Regs., Title 5, § 4686.) If you desire to do so, please let me know in writing so that this matter can be included on a Board meeting agenda. Additionally, pursuant to Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations sections 4632 and 4687, you are hereby notified that if you are dissatisfied with the District's resolution of the allegations of your Complaint alleging a condition of a facility that poses an emergency or urgent threat to the health and safety of pupils or staff, you may appeal the District's determination of that allegation to the California Department of Education by filing a written appeal with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction or his designee within 15 days of receiving this report of the District's resolution of your Complaint. In filing an appeal, you must specify the basis for appealing the District's decision and whether the facts are incorrect and/or the law is misapplied. An appeal must include a copy of the locally filed complaint and a copy of this report of the District's resolution. We thank you for the concerns you have expressed. Respectfully, Donald B. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REVIEW PURSUANT TO RPV MUNICIPAL CODE &17.78.050 & X17.90.010 TO: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES — CITY CLERK FROM: NOEL WEISS (COUNSEL FOR SHARON LOVEYS) DATED: JULY 18, 2016 The City Manager's grant of permission to Green Hills Memorial Park to store vaults on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum was communicated in a letter dated June 28, 2016, to Green Hills Memorial Park, a copy of which is attached to this Request for Interpretation Review. The allowance to Green Hills of the right to use the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to store 600 vaults has created an ambiguity and uncertainty with respect to (i) the scope and meaning of the Green Hills Master Plan (i.e. whether such use is authorized under the terms of the Conditional Use Permit initially granted in February, 1991, as modified by the Planning Commission in April, 2007, and then further modified by the City Council in November, 2015), and (ii) whether such roof -top (storage) use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is even contemplated or permitted under the Cemetery Zoning Law of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (as set out in Chapter 17.28 (§§17.28.010-17.28.040)). Background Facts: 1. Under the Master Plan in favor of Green Hills Memorial Park approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in February, 1991, and as later amended first by the Planning Commission in April, 2007, and later by the City Council in November, 20151, no 1 The November, 2015 City Council action did not deal specifically with any issues attendant to the development of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Rather, the City Council's focus in overruling the views of its prior City Attorney and the Planning Commission was solely directed to the contentions set out in Green Hills' appeal of what Green Hills contended was an adverse Planning Commission determination that it was necessary for Green Hills to apply for and procure (i) an (after the fact) variance from the development standard incorporated into the City's Zoning Code requiring the building envelope of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum to be set back 40' from the (southern) property line of the adjacent Vista Verde condominium complex; and (ii) to procure an (after the fact) conditional use permit allowing for the interment of human remains on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (a use never specifically contemplated by the Planning Commission or staff in April, 2007, when the Green Hills Ma, ter lan, and Conditional Use Permit were amended). FND IVED FROM 1 MADE A PART OFTHE REC11 RD TTHE CIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Kd conditional use right or permission was given to Green Hills allowing anv use of the roof- top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoluem for anv purpose beyond that of serving as a roof atop the mausoleum structure. 2. Green Hills has never formally applied for an amendment to its Master Plan specifically allowing for such use (i.e. as either vault storage or as allowing for the interment of human remains on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum); nor has Green Hills applied for a special permit allowing for such use. 3. Instead, beginning in or about January, 2016, and continuing through June 28, 2016, Doug Willmore, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager, and representatives of Green Hills Memorial Park engaged in a series of oral and written discussions premised on the unsubstantiated and undocumented notion that the current Green Hills Master Plan "contemplates the possibility of roof -top burials" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (while omitting any reference to the allowance or permitting of "roof. -top vault storage"). Back,around Law: § 17.28.030(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that a conditional use permit is required for the following uses relevant to this Request for Interpretation Review: (i) Burial Park for earth interments, (ii) Mausoleums for vault or crypt interments, or (iii) Columbarium for cinerary interments'. While the terms `Burial Parr' and "Mausoleum" are not defined in the City's zoning code, California state law provides the following definitions pertinent to the requested Interpretation Review of Mr. Willmore's unratified, unauthorized action in purporting to grant Green Hills land use entitlement rights which have never been formally applied for, and for which no formal approval by the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, or the City Council has been procured: 1. "A burial park means a tract of land for the burial of human remains in the rr ound, used or intended to be used, and dedicated for cemetery purposes". (§7003(1)(1) of the Health & Safety Code) (Emphasis Added). ' Thus, only the following three identifiable categories of allowable "interments" are created under the City's zoning law: (1) Earth interments; (2) Vault (or crypt) interments: and (3) Cinerary interments. No category is created or stated which is identified as "roof- top interments, or "roof -top burials"; nor is there any referenced category created under the RPV City Cemetery Zoning Code for "ground burials" or "above -ground burials"; or any formal legal category which otherwise makes use of the term "burials" when describing the type of uses permitted under the provisions of the City's Cemetery Zone. 2. "A mausoleum means a structure or building for the entombment of human remains in crypts or vaults in a place used, or intended to be used, and dedicated for cemetery purposes". (H&S Code §7005) (Emphasis Added). 3. "Entombment means the process of placing human remains in a crypt or vault". (H&S Code §7012) (Emphasis Added) 4. "Crypt or vault means a space in a mausoleum of sufficient size, used or intended to be used, to entomb uncremated human remains". (H&S Code §7015). (Emphasis Added) 5. "Interment means the disposition of human remains by entombment or burial in a cemetery...." (H&S Code §7009). 6. "Burial mean the process of placing human remains in a grave". (H&S Code §7013 (Emphasis Added). 7. "Grave means a space of earth in a burial park, used, or intended to be used, for the disposition of human remains." (H&S Code §7014)(Emphasis Added). As such, State Law does not explicitly make provision for the interment of human remains on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. In fact, it can be contended that state law contemplates that "graves" and "burials" solely involve the placement of human remains in the earth (below -ground (or below grade)); while Mausoleum use contemplates the placement of human remains inside a building or structure built for that purpose. Nothing in state law appears to contemplate or envision use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue for "burials" (as defined under California state law). The City's Zoning Code does not specifically define the terms "interment", "earth interment", or "below -grade interment" (the latter term being used in § 17.28.040(A) of the City's Municipal Code (which establishes set -back standards as it draws a distinction between the set -back distances for "structures" on the one hand, and "below -grade interments" on the other)). Nor does the City's Zoning Code make any definitional reference to the terms "burials", "ground burials", "roof -top burials", or "interments". Equating (by mere implication) the term "burials" with "interments" absent any clear, specific definitional structure identified within the City's Cemetery Zoning Code creates needless ambiguity and confusion; and in the absence of the needed clarification called for by this Interpretation Review Request, avoidable confusion will exist in how the provisions of the Green Hills Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit are to be applied and enforced; all of which can lead to controversy, litigation, uncertainty, and a lack of predictability; and all of which is needlessly prejudicial to the City, Green Hills, RPV citizens, and the Vista Verde Condominium owners. The City's Cemetery Zoning Code (and specifically §17.28.030(A -G)) does not identify any specific category allowing or permitting the creation or maintenance of "roof- top interment sites"3 as a lawfully permitted "conditional use." Instead, RPV Municipal 3 The City's current practice in using the word "burials" as a substitute for the term "interments" is a misnomer and is confusing and ambiguous. This is because the term "burial" is defined under state law but not under the RPV Cemetery Zoning Code. As so defined under state law, "burial" does not equal "interment". Therefore, it cannot reasonably be said that the "burial" of human remains automatically or logically contemplates the "interment" of human remains on the roof of a structure. For Green Hills or the City Manager to state or imply to the contrary creates confusion, ambiguity, and lack of clarity; all of which are supportive of this Interpretation Review Request. The City's Zoning Code speaks only in terms of "earth interments" and "below -grade interments"; neither of which are consonant with the notion of "roof interment". A clarification is thus needed as to whether, under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code, it is lawful to inter human remains on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (versus inter human remains inside the "four walls" of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum). The placement of "fill", "sod", "soil", or "grass" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum also embraces clear and obvious limitations and issues attendant to the broader public health, welfare, and safety. With the exception of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, nowhere else in California has a mausoleum roof been used as a venue for the interment of human remains. The requested Interpretation Review also impacts other aspects of the Green Hills Master Plan such as (i) the total number of authorized "interments" to be allowed under the Master Plan (i.e. are "roof -top interments, even if authorized, included in the total number of "interments" allowed under Green Hills Master Plan); (ii) where "fill" is to be stored and the limitations on where "fill" generated from earth interments is to be stored, and (iii) where, within the geographical boundaries of the Green Hills Master Plan are vaults, crypts, and other material items permitted to be stored. There is a portion of the state Health & Safety Code which imposes strict requirements on how a Mausoleum is to be built (i.e. Health & Safety Code §§9600-9603; and §§9625- 9647). No reference exists in those statutes to the use of a structure's roof for the interment of human remains. Until this Interpretation Review Request has been acted upon, the City's Planners, the City Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Council should cease and desist from using the term "roof -top burials" or "ground burials" when referring to the Green Hills Master Plan. This includes the (misleading (by omission)) use of the term "rooftop burials" in Mr. Willmore's letter of June 28, 2016, particularly when the focus of the letter is supposed to be limited to Green Hills' use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue to store 600 vaults. Accordingly, the Map of the Green Hills Master Plan prepared and maintained by the City's Planning Department (where it is contemplated that the interment of human remains is to occur on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum) should be revised to remove all references to "ground burials" as confusing, ambiguous, and inconsistent with both state law and the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. Instead, (i) the words "earth Code §17.28.030(H) gives the "Director" discretion to permit "such other uses as the Director deems to be similar and not more intensive" (with such determination being exercised following the submission of a formal application). This lack of definitional clarity with regard to the if, when, and under what conditions "roof -top interments" or "roof -top vault storage" are to be allowed under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code has resulted in an ambiguity which necessitates that the provisions of RPV Municipal Code § 17.78.050 (Interpretation Procedure for Approved Applications) be invoked to further define, clarify, and enumerate the conditions incorporated into the current Conditional Use Permit possessed by Green Hills under its Master Plan, and whether the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to either (i) store vaults, or (ii) inter human remains engenders and raises new issues never contemplated by the City when it initially approved the Green Hills Master Plan in February, 1991, or amended it in April, 2007 (Planning Commission), or when the City Council acted in November, 2015, to "clarify" certain matters attendant to the Green Hills Master Plan (as per Green Hills' appeal to the City Council) and thus formally amend the same with regard to the matters incorporated in Green Hills' appeal (and without benefit interment" (where appropriate) should be substituted to identify those geographic areas on the map where human remains are placed in the earth (or in the ground; i.e. below (earth) grade); and (ii) the words "roof -top interments" should be used to identify those structures where (assuming it is otherwise lawful) human remains are to be interred on the roofs of one or more of the Mausoleums identified on the Map. This aligns with the precise issues raised by this Interpretation Review Request; namely: (1) Whether "roof -top interments" are permissible under the RPV Cemetery Code, (2) Whether the Green Hills Master Plan contemplates the use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue where "roof -top interments" are to occur; (3) (If so), whether Green Hills has applied for and procured a conditional use permit allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for the interment of human remains; (4) (If not), whether Green Hills is required to procure a conditional use permit allowing for the same after a formal hearing, consistent with the City's Zoning Code; (5) Whether Green Hills is required to apply for and procure a conditional use permit to store vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in advance of its being permitted to do so; and (6) Whether the City Manager on his own initiative possesses the right, power, and authority to authorize the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue on which to store vaults (be it with or without any formal contractual indemnity) absent Green Hills having first applied for and procured either (i) a temporary permit, or (ii) a conditional use permit, or both, allowing for such specific use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum beyond that of being simply used as a roof. of Green Hills ever having made formal application to amend its Conditional Use Permit or procure a variance from the set -back requirements referenced in the development standards incorporated into the City's Cemetery Zoning Code). This formal Request for Interpretation Review is also appropriate under Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal Code (Interpretation Procedure) concerning whether the City's current zoning code even allows roof -top use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for purposes of either vault storage or the (roof -top) interment of human remains. Questions Presented: 1. Is anv use of all or any portion of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for either vault storage or for the interment of human remains currently permitted under the (Green Hills) Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit? If so, how and pursuant to what provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is such use (vault storage or interment of human remains) permitted?; 2. If not, should Green Hills be required to apply for and procure a conditional use permit (after Hearing and Notice) amending its Master Plan to allow for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a storage venue for unused burial vaults?; 3. If not, whether Green Hills should be required to apply for and procure a conditional use permit (after Hearing and Notice) amending its Master Plan to allow for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a space within the Green Hills Memorial Cemetery for the permanent interment of human remains?; 4. If not, whether Green Hills should be required to apply for and procure a special (temporary) use permit allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for any other purpose other than solely as a roof?; 5. Whether Doug Willmore, acting in his capacity as City Manager, is possessed of the right, power, or authority to unilaterally grant special permission to Green Hills allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for any purpose other than as a roof, in the absence of Green Hills having made formal advance written application to the City to amend the Green Hills Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit? 11 C ITV UE RANCHO PALOS V[I----\IDES OFFICE OF 11 iE_ Cl] Y MANAGER Jule 28, 2016 Mr. John Restch Chairman of the Board Green Hills Memorial Park 27501 S. Western Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Ree Inspiration Slone Rooftop Burials; Waiver of Claims .near Mr. Resieh: This letter memorializes the agree.nrent between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) and Green Hills Memorial Park (Green hills) regarding the placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (the Mausoleum) by Green Hills. The representatives of the parties reached an oral understanding to permit placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum provided that Green Hills agrees that the placement of the vaults does not provide Green dills with: (i) any entitlement to conduct .rooftop burials on the Mausoleum; or (ii) any claims for damages concerning the placement of the vaults should the City deny Green Hills' application for rooftop burials on the Mausoleum. This letter agreement confirms the oral understandings. 1- Factual Background Green Hills operates a t-nemorial park and cemetery located in the City. Green Hills' operation and development of the memorial parr is governed by the 2007 Master Plan, including all later amendments (the Master flan), and by City Council Resolution No. 2015-12, revising and amending conditions of approval for Green hills' Conditional Use hermit (CUP) and amending the Master Plan. (the Resolution). The Master Plan contemplates the construction of the Mausoleum in Area 2 of'the memorial park, and further contemplates the possibility of rooftop burials thereon. The CUP's conditions of approval were revised and updated due to a recent controversy surrounding rooftop burials at another of Green 1 -Till's mausoleums, the Pacifac Terrace/M.emorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. The rooftop burials in the Pacific Terrace Mausolcumn are visible frorn the condominium building just north of the structure, and have generated complaints and litigation.. The City has expended sigrmiticanL public resources to resolve the issues surrounding the rooftop burials, and will expend significant further resources in the foreseeable future to resolve the litigation. �3"t1,9�10 f �t\ VTI10R11` �tl��l)_ / �VlhCI1 i;R; VI ;QUI -S, CA 90,) �1) 5391 / (3140) 544 5?)0-1 !FiAX (310) 5! a-5NI i �1>>d'tEt'lil'1�( :1.I3CxV PRINTED (IN R6 ;YC1J 1) 1 WIFR Mr. John Resich .lune 28, 20116 Page 2 Green. Hills acknowledges that the Resolution amended Green hills' CUP, which now provides for an administrative substantial compliance review so that, except for improvements consistent with the Master flan or those subject to the .Planning Commission, all improvements must be reviewed by the Director to determine if they substantially comply with the Master Plan (Condition 11.). Condition l.lc. specifically provides that review of an application for :rooftop burials can be perforated by the Director. The Director can, at his or her discretion, refer a matter directly to the Planning Commission. Condition 2 provides that the following matters are directly reviewable by the Planning Commission: (i) the construction or modification of a mausoleum or other significant building, (ii) any significant change to the grading, (iii) any development of a Suture phase of Green Hills where the Master Plan has not designated a development plan or uses, or (iv) any antendtment to the Master Plan. Thus, while rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope are contemplated in the Master flan, Condition 1.k. of the CUP now provides that Green Hills may not perform such burials prior to obtaining administrative approval froin the Director or the Planning Commission, pursuant to the Resolution. In anticipation of possible rooftop burials, Green Hills has purchased and with the oral understanding memorialized herein, installed concrete vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum. Green Hills intends to cover the vaults with dirt and ground cover, per Condition 22 of the CUP. However, Green Hills has not to date filed an application to conduct rooftop burials at the Mausoleum per Condition 1.k of the CUP. Unless and until Green 1=Tills obtains permission froze the Director or the Planning Commission, Condition Lk provides that Green Hills may not perform rooftop burials at the Mausoleum. Green Hills does not have a readily available storage space for the vaults which have been ordered and has requested that it be allowed to (i) install the vaults on the roof top, and (ii) bury and backfill them. "Fhe City Manager has agreed that Green Hills may store the empty concrete burial vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum, and that such vaults shall be buried and the entirety of the roof shall be backfilled with dirt and ground cover, provided that Green Hills waives any claims for damages against the City related to the placement of the vaults should rooftop burials not be approved for the rooftop at the Mausoleum,. Accordingly, if Green Hills submits an application to -perforin rooftop burials at the Mausoleum, and should the application be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be utilized for that purpose. However, in the event that the City decides to deny any application by Green Hills to perform rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, Green Hills agrees not to utilize the buried concrete vaults for rooftop burials unless and until it complies with applicable laws and releases the City :front any liability or damages to Green Hills related to the placement of the vaults arising from such decision, and assumes all risks therefore, as provided below. Based on the above, and on. the City's police power expressly granted to it by state law, Green Hills agrees that the provisions of this Agreement are reasonable and do not impose an undue burden on Green Hills, and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the agreed -to conditions of approval in the Resolution. Mr. John Resich June 28, 2016 Mage 3 2. Waiver of Cl�ai���s A 6ai��t tl�e Cid Green Hills acknowledges that any future application For rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is within the City's police power expressly granted to it by state law to grant or deny and is consistent with Condition 41.a. of the CUP. Further, the City shall not be liable to Green Hills for any loss or damages related to the placement of the vaults whatsoever arising out of the City's denial of any such application for rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope. Green hills waives all rights to future claims for damages arising out of the City's rejection of Green Mills' application for rooftop burials at the inspiration Slope Mausoleum, but reserves the right to legally challenue the validity of any such denial except as may be otherwise provided herein. Green Hills further acknowledges that the denial of such an application does not constitute a compensable interest that would give rise to a takings or other monetary claim. 3. Police Power. Green Hills acknowledges that the City has the authority to grant or deny discretionary applications for uses within the City in part based on concerns of public health, safety, and welfare. Green Hills agrees that the City .retains its authority to determine the appropriateness of rooftop burials at the Mausoleum at a future date. Nothing in this Agreement, shall limit the City's authority to exercise its police powers or governmental authority, or take other appropriate actions to address issues of public health, safety, and welfare. Green Hills acknowledges that no rights arise under this Agreement as to the City's police power, including but not limited to, the approval or denial of any required permits. Further, this Agreement does not constitute a development agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, and thus the Mausoteusn remains subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and codes. 4. Ilnd� 11111lt . Green Hills, as a material part of the consideration to the City, shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold the City, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, City Council members and employees (collectively, "City") harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever which may arise from this Agreement or in the exercise of Green Hills' rights hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), losses or damages arising from City's agreement to allow the placement of the, concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, or any act or failure to act of Green Hills or Green Ililts's agents, employees, construction workers, or .invitees (collectively, "Green Hills"), except those arising out of the sole willful misconduct of the City. 5. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542. ,By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unknown as provided herein, Green Hills expressly waives any and all rights under California Civil Code Section 1542 in connection with any Claim or Liability against the City. Civil Code Section 1542 provides: Mr. John Resicll June 23, 2016 Page 4 A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH 'ITIS CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EX.l CU`I,ING -]--HE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFl- CTE'D HIS SETTLEMENT' WITH THE DEBTOR. Green Hilts waives and relinquishes any and all rights and benefrts which it may have under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any similar code provision or protection. Green Hills represents that it has performed a fill and complete investigation of the facts pertaining to this Agreement. Nevertheless, Green Hills acknowledges and is aware that it may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different than those which it now knows or betieves to be true with respect to potential claims, allegations, events and facts set forth herein, but it is Green Hill's intention hereby to fully and finally settle and release any and all matters, disputes, and differences, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which may exist, as against the City, and in fiirtherance of this intention, the release herein given shalt be and remain in effect as a full and complete general release notwithstanding discovery or existence of any such additional or different facts. Inte ation; Amends -?eat. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and cannot be modified, terminated, or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by an instrument in writing signed by alt parties hereto. Green Hills acknowledges that it was peri'nitted to commence installation of the concrete vaults based on an oral understanding consistent with the terms hereof and which is memorialized in this letter agreement. Green Hills agrees that it cannot use the fact that it was allowed to install the vaults pursuant to this agreement against the City or the validity of the City's actions in any marnler in any subsequent legal proceeding. 7. Interpretation a nd 'En orceinent; Governing I;aw, This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter arising out o:[ or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or in any other appropriate court with jurisdiction in such county, and the parties agree to submit to the personal .jurisdiction of such court. 8. Prevailfnt; PartV Att€)rney I4 ee,s. In the event that either party shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The venue [or any litigation shall be Los Angeles County. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding, the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty Mr. John Resich June 28, 2016 Page 5 to exist or against the drafting party. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. 9. severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible. Please carefully review the terns of this letter agreement and, if you find there acceptable; execute the enclosed copy. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and by fax signature. By signing below, Parties represent and warranty that they have authority to bind the Parties to this Agreement. Please return the executed letter agreement by fax and by enclosing an executed original in the envelope provided. :sincerely, Doug Willmore City Manager Cc: City Council City Clerk I HAVE RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL OF THIS LETTER AGREEMENT AND UNIDERSTAND TILE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND AGREE TO THEM. I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN ON BEHALF' OF AND BIND GREE HILLS. GR:[ I,N RU -J-, R[Al, PARK Dated.: June 28, 2016 By: John Resich lej Chairman of the Board TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 2, 2016 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 F Email exchange between Deputy Director of Public Works Jules and John A. Girardi; Letter from John A. Girardi Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 1, 2016**. W:\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160802 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Nicole Jules Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 3:43 PM To: John Girardi; CC; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich Cc: Doug Willmore; Michael Throne Subject: RE: Sidewalk on Crenshaw Extension Attachments: 20160801202619858.pdf; 20160801204729344.pdf; R -W Line.pdf Greetings Mr. Girardi, Thank you for your letter regarding the Del Cerro Park accessibility project. Staff would agree that implementation of the parking programs and restricted parking zones have improved safety conditions. As you may be aware, the purpose of this project is to improve accessibility to the park and Nature Preserve for all users, including the elderly and those with disabilities. This location will be the only ADA accessible entrance to the Preserve. The grant is administered by the LA County Community Development Commission through the Community Development Block Grant Program and as such, the grantors have specific criteria for the use of the funds. Unfortunately, the grant does not allow decomposed granite to be used on ADA compliant surfaces due to problems related to maintenance, erosion and its characteristics of becoming muddy, slippery and sticky when it rains, which defeats the purpose of all-weather accessibility. The cost to repair or replace any existing landscaping not designated for removal or replacement will be borne by the contractor and enforced by our construction manager and inspector. Our arborist will be on site to ensure that tree health is protected if roots need to be trimmed. The route chosen provides a connection from the park to the uppermost level of the Preserve entrance at Burma Road, all within the public right of way. It is not desirable to have pedestrians and especially those with mobility issues to walk on the street from the parking lot, and given the concerns raised by the community over safety issues on Crenshaw Blvd south of Park Place, handicap parking spaces in that stretch of roadway are not feasible. It was also chosen to keep vehicles and their occupants on the same side of the road and not crossing over Crenshaw Blvd at a crosswalk. Additional signage at your gate, both for pedestrians and drivers, may be necessary to alert both groups that there is pedestrian activity. The private landscape area and irrigation that is currently encroaching into the public right of way, will be restored after completion of the sidewalk by the City's contractor. This should not impose financial implication to the HOA as the cost of restoration is included in the project budget. The restoration activities will be closely coordinated with the HOA's involvement. We apologize for the miscommunication but feel confident that this project will benefit the community as a whole. Thank you. Nicole Department of Public Works 310-544-5275 From: John Girardi[mailto:jgirardi@girardikeese.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 8:23 PM F To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <JerryD@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov> Subject: Sidewalk on Crenshaw Extension I R.A, R. D I K ES E L AW Y F. R_9 August 1, 2016 VIA ELECTROATIC'MAIL The Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Sidewalk on Crenshaw Extension Dear Council Members: Our residence at 5 Burrell Lane is contiguous with Del Cerro Park and the Crenshaw Boulevard extension. It is well known to the Council that over the last several years, the popularity of the Preserve led to a dramatic increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the trail, on Crenshaw and on the Crenshaw Boulevard extension. Commensurate with the traffic were concerns for traffic and pedestrian safety. The response to the residents of Burrell Lane and the Del Cerro community which included the changes of red curbing and permit parking has more than adequately addressed the issues of pedestrian and vehicle safety on the Crenshaw extension. The pedestrians walking either to or .from the trail tend to walk next to whatever curb is on their right hand side. It is the consensus of opinion of the residents that the changes have clearly made a difference and enhanced safety. It was, then, disappointing news when we were e given to learn that the concrete sidewalk on the Crenshaw extension was an item for the consent calendar. When the idea first became known to the residents over the spring, we met on site with James Flanagan of the Public Works office to discuss the decision to place a sidewalk, where the sidewalk was to be laid and the material used. Several questions were presented: the location of the proposed sidewalk which in part was under the drip line of the trees (a decision arborists suggest is a recipe for potential tree failure), decomposed granite (as was suggested to be used sometime earlier) versus concrete but the most significant issue, however, was whether the sidewalk was necessary 1 126 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 0 90017-1904 TELEPHONE: 213-977-0211 • FACSIMILE: 213-48 1-1554 WWW.GIRARDIKEESE.COM /F The Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Page 2 at all. It was understood that the purpose of the sidewalk was to make access easier for those with disabilities. We did communicate., though, that safe access has been accomplished by virtue of the red curbing and pedestrian behavior and a sidewalk would not alter or improve access for the disabled. There are also additional financial considerations for the Burrell Lane residents of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association in that construction of the sidewalk will force a replanting of the landscape and rewiring of the landscape lighting for those areas broader than the sidewalk but necessary to complete the construction. There is one additional consideration. At the perimeter of our residence, there is a wall in various places iron with vegetation and for the approximately 40 feet closest to Burrell Lane, solid brick. and stucco. For drivers exiting Burrell Lane, the view to the left is somewhat compromised by that wall. For pedestrians who are walking along the Crenshaw Boulevard extension, even those close to the right hand curb, there is an opportunity for drivers to observe their presence and drive accordingly. I am sure pedestrians waking along a sidewalk placed closer to the solid wall are less capable of being observed. This situation will not enhance the overall safety for drivers or pedestrians, and, if anything, makes the area less safe. On a personal note the approximate 22 foot distance between the property line and the street operates as a form of 'sound barrier' from the noise of the approximate 1,000 visitors to the Preserve on a busy weekend. This feature would be lost without any benefit to any resident of Burrell Lane, Whether or not this is a taking is a question that will have to wait for another day. It is worth mentioning that at the conclusion of the meeting in April, Mr. Flanagan said that he would consider the suggestions, speak with Ms. Nicole Jules and then contact use None of the residents ever heard from him again and it was only serendipitously that it was learned this issue was on the consent calendar. On behalf of the residents of Burrell Lane, we would strongly urge the City Council to reconsider the expenditure of grant money or any City funds for the proposed sidewalk. With kin,d regards, (E ,7,1 a. John A. Girardi JAG:gk cc: Ms. Nicole Jules ti Y k.;'+'.. .ti f ! K""' .. ` y� Y ` a i J ,r :t a' 11.niy e . N ✓ .il��r # 40 � t i � � ,. � • �r�h (,�,, Y4 �►L�jr�'� �,i�'�,: «•, aSytJ.� , ' Y � j RM}�4r�e t tFj ? rr`�h '�°`°t w. • 'a' Or 0,. q'v«t ar , �.,: �y yr }i ,ad's`., a n'., 71„ fr J+- ,{. §• - r - • "- `e • r '�cY4 *y.,,.q ^ iii r S` #� ! ka e , .p e �, p' ° , ���_ t• �d� ~ 1, , m _✓ k. lr.Ixt S `^sem .,.; ' v , .ti `r Y` ♦, 9 «4 ',A . _! Fs t' a �'. ' - •'s alb' ✓ # , �+ • r`Y_'FW ,'wl.. 4j7'f +`..".q,/A 1( •. f1�. J _ tri; ' % r r21' �` + «R ` � � �i� /A' 'ami > r±•"� ` - .i 166 151 "mama" ' A i yt • - ! LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes R/W Crenshaw Boulevard and Burrell Lane. 150.7 0 75.34 150.7 Feet © City of Rancho Palos Verdes The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet contact the City for more information. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 1, 2016 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, August 2, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material F Email exchange between Public Works Director Throne and Del Cerro HOA Board; Email exchange between Public Works Director Throne and Romas and Angela Jarasunas; Letter from Barry Rodgveller R Email from Sharon Loveys Email from Maureen Megowan 3 Los Serenos Docents PowerPoint Presentation; Emails from: Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Trautner; Herb Stark; Betty Riedman; Robert and Joan Barry; Eva Cicoria; Jim Knight; Yvetta Williams; Stephanie Brito; Email exchange between Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Trautner and Jim Knight; Email exchange between Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Trautner and Eva Cicoria Respectfull bmitted, Carla Morreale W:AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160802 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc Subject: FW: Del Cerro HOA concerns on 8-2-2016 City Council Agenda Consent Calendar Item F Attachments: del Cerro Walkway Plan.pdf From: Michael Throne Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:52 PM To: delcerrohoa@gmail.com; purplezebra796@yahoo.com; ingrid.hextall@gmail.com; kirkhvde@me.com; brlinrpv@aol.com; rdaniels@priobi.com; Iauraamom55@gmail.com; lmooremom@cox.net; mir3var@icloud.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Andy Winje <AndyW@rpvca.gov>; James Flannigan <JamesF@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CorvL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Del Cerro HOA concerns on 8-2-2016 City Council Agenda Consent Calendar Item F Dear Dol Cerro HOA Board: Thank you for your message regarding the recommendation to the City Council to approve a construction contract to install a pathway and curb ramps at Dol Cerro Park. It is good to hear that the parking restrictions are performing as hoped.. 1"he City Council has reviewed the need and scope of this project several times in the last two years: during the FY15-16 budget workshop, at the public hearing on acceptance of the Community Development Block Grant from the state, and at the award of the design contract. The project will provide all --weather accessible access from the handicap parking spaces at the park to the end of Crenshaw Boulevard, Public Works has shared with the HOA our plans to meander the pathway along two sides of the park and a single tree will have to be removed (shown as red on the attached plan). Paving material samples and colors have been shared with the HOA and you will be asked to provide your input on the selection of the final walkway texture. The grant does not allow decomposed granite due to issues related to maintenance, erosion and its characteristics of becoming muddy, slippery and sticky when it rains, which defeat the purpose of all-weather accessibility. Our arborist will be on site to ensure that tree health is protected if roots need to be trimmed The route chosen provides a connection from the park to the uppermost level of the Preserve entrance at Burma Road. It is not desirable to have pedestrians and especially those with mobility issues to walk on the street from the parking lot, and given the concerns raised by the community over safety issues on Crenshaw Blvd south of Park Place, handicap parking spaces in that stretch of roadway are not feasible. Regards, Michael Throne, PE, PWLF Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 f :310 544-5252 From: Del Cerro HOA. [mailto:delcerrohoa@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 5:15 PM To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <JerrVD@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro HOA concerns on 8-2-2016 City Council Agenda Consent Calendar Item F Honorable City Council members, Regarding 8-2-2016 City Council Agenda Consent Calendar Item F Consideration and Possible Action to Award a Contract for Construction of the ADA Access Improvements Del Cerro/Burma Road Entrance to Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Project (Flannigan) We, the residents of the Del Cerro neighborhood, register our surprise and dissatisfaction for the placement of this project on the consent calendar for the City Council. In initial discussions of measures to increase security of pedestrian traffic at the southern end of Crenshaw, we had discussed potential inclusion of a DG pathway to provide a separate path on the Crenshaw Extension, while not distracting from the rural atmosphere of the area. We reviewed the plan several months ago with staff and expressed our concern that a now cement pathway would potentially damage the mature trees in the park, destroy the lovely landscaping and detract from the park's ambiance. And now we have seen that the Crenshaw Blvd. and Extension curb painting additions have successfully limited the pedestrian traffic in the street to the south side Crenshaw sidewalk. This movement has subsequently directed pedestrian traffic to the south side of the Crenshaw Extension also, negating the need for further intervention. We have had no further conflicts with pedestrian traffic on the Crenshaw extension. This area has been made much safer, and we are grateful to you for spearheading these changes. The cement sidewalk as described is too close to many of the trees surrounding Del Cerro Park, which will damage the tree roots and can make the trees less able to withstand wind. Additionally, the tree roots can damage the proposed sidewalk. So we believe we now have a proposal before you for a project that we just don't need, one that would be a waste of the City's financial resources, and that we believe would be destructive to the neighborhood and park environment. We appreciate your time and attention to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Del Cerro HOA Board delcerrohoa@gmail.com President: Mark Martin: purplezebra796@yahoo.com Secretary: Ingrid Hextall: incirid.hextall@g-mail.com Treasurer: Kirk Hyde: kirkhyde@me.com Board Members: Bonnie LOO: brlinrpv@aol.com Rick Daniels: rdaniels@priobi.com Mark Abrams: lauraamom55@?qmail.com Past President Megan Moore lmooremom@cox.net Past President: Miriam Varend mir3var@icloud.com Del Cerro Website http://www.palosverdes.com/delcerro/index.html t t,9 $sg PA4RK A RAMP czr� 1. r� --------------------------- --LOG A LOG A �3 PLACE � - ---- - ---- -- - - ---- --_-- -_ --- -- ROCK e — 8'SS_-------- C TRASH t --- -••. .-.t. { a..:< '' "Y IF --T --- -T- - �� qac 4 - — -- L6 I� LOG LOG A •_ C i V7 LOG AQ , ll LS' 4 U L4 1 LL DEL CERRO PARK 1-0 40 FEET 9101110 lisfolkilerw SEACREST DR I '" CRENSHAW I I f f I 1 —------- f/ 1 f / CURB &GUTTER A -- --------------- C+ SIGN _ # ----� — — / ---- — `A s A WV i{• 12 w AN SIGN A A WATER 4 ` FDllNTA� c WM A i - L7 I SIGNA ; / ti 'r ', ;f.. LOGED1 LB CU A LOG 4j A ROCK DEL_ CERRO PARK 4l rn � y i LOG A � RSG � SEE �.OW►�► ROLLED CURB ■ � J SIGN A 12"w v z"w GROUND LIGHT A 12�" R` ter® METAL GATE BURMA RD. GROUND LIGHT GROUND GROUND LIGHT C ` STRUT 4 ..... - .. � ..,. I SIGN 4GN y4. GROUND I A A GUARD POST D LIGHT � k FH D CURB R — GHT A — r GROUND A GROUND A PENCE LUGHT LIGHT BURRELL LN ELECTRICAL PULLBOX Subject: FW: cement walkway in Del Cerro Park and along the Crenshaw Extension Attachments: cement walkway in Del Cerro Park.pdf From: Michael Throne Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:22 PM To: Angela Jarasunas <angeleromas@yahoo.com> Cc: CC <! C vca.gov>; Andy Winje <And W r vca. ov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.Rov>; James Flannigan <.6amesF r vca, ov>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: cement walkway in Del Cerro Park and along the Crenshaw Extension Dear Mr and Mrs Jarasunas: Thank you for your message regarding the recommendation to the City Council to approve a construction contract to install a pathway and curb ramps at Del Cerro Park. The state ADA grant does not allow decomposed granite due to problems related to maintenance, erosion and its characteristics of becoming muddy, slippery and sticky when it rains, which defeat the purpose of all-weather accessibility. The cost to repair or replace any existing landscaping not designated for removal or replacement will be borne by the contractor and enforced by our construction manager and inspector. Our arborist will be on site to ensure that tree health is protected if roots need to be trimmed. The route chosen provides a connection from the park to the uppermost level of the Preserve entrance at Burma Road. It is not desirable to have pedestrians and especially those with mobility issues to walk on the street from the parking lot, and given the concerns raised by the community over safety issues on Crenshaw Blvd south of Park Place, handicap parking spaces in that stretch of roadway are not feasible. It was also chosen to keep vehicles and their occupants on the same side of the road and not crossing over Crenshaw Blvd at a crosswalk. Additional signage at your gate, both for pedestrians and drivers, may be necessary to alert both groups that there is pedestrian activity. Again, thank you for your letter. Regards, Michael Throne, PE, PWi_F (director of Public Warks City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 310 54'4-5252 r. From: Angela Jarasunas [mailto:an eleromas ahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 7:37 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca. ov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorl<s@rpvca &ov>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@r vca.gov> Subject: cement walkway in Del Cerro Park and along the Crenshaw Extension Please see the attached letter AGAINST the proposed cement pathway in Del Cerro Park and along the Crenshaw Extension. thank you - Angela Jarasunas 3 Burrell Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 31, 2016 Honorable City Council Members: We understand that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is considering a proposal to construct an ADA -compliant cement walkway from Del Cerro Park along the south side of the Crenshaw Extension to the entrance of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. We strongly oppose this proposal. First, we don't understand the need for an ADA -compliant cement sidewalk to a nature preserve that doesn't have any paved walkways. Second, we are not in favor of clearing existing mature landscaping along the south side of the Crenshaw Extension, taking away from the rural feel of our neighborhood. Additionally, it's not clear who would bear the cost of replacing damaged plants or moving sprinklers, low -voltage lighting, existing boulders, etc.... Third, we also understand that there is some risk that a cement pathway could harm and even kill existing mature trees at the base of Del Cerro Park and along the proposed pathway. These trees greatly contribute to the rural look of the parkland. If there is to be a pedestrian walkway built in Del Cerro Park and along the extension, we would propose an additional decomposed granite walkway, just like the existing decomposed granite walkway from the parking area to the view area at the top of the park. Finally, as residents of Burrell Lane, we are concerned about the safety of a walkway that funnels all of the preserve pedestrian traffic to the front of our gate. When driving from Burrell Lane onto the Crenshaw Extension, we as drivers are blind as to the pedestrians, runners, or bikes that are approaching our gate. Any designated walkway to the front of our gate might give pedestrians, runners, or bikers a false sense of security that they are not crossing an active street. When we last met with James Flannigan, we proposed an alternative placement for the walkway on the north side of the Crenshaw Extension. We proposed that the city create a crosswalk where Crenshaw Boulevard meets the Crenshaw Extension; pedestrian traffic would be directed to the north side of the Crenshaw Extension and the pathway would end at the informational sign for the preserve. This crosswalk would give drivers from both directions a line of site as to impending pedestrian traffic, greatly improving safety for both pedestrians and drivers. We never heard back from James on the merits or negatives of our proposal. In conclusion, we ask that you reconsider the construction of a cement walkway along the south side of the Crenshaw Extension. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Romas and Angela Jarasunas RECElVEb City Of Rancho Palosvew" JUL.9 kUi PUBLIMORKSO&PARTAENT July 29, 2016 Honorable City Council Members, 6 Burrell Lane Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 My family and I came to Palos Verdes 41 years ago and have lived on Burrell Lane, where we raised three daughters, for the last 33 years. We moved to PV for some of the same reasons most of us did; its natural beauty, the safety for our families, the great school district for our kids and a place away from the hustle bustle of the city. These are still true all these years later because our community and its leaders understand and protect these values. This is why young families continue to come to live on the Hill. We all treasure our community and feel fortunate to be here and love to share Palos Verdes with our neighbors in other communities. In the past the Council has been very understanding of our neighborhood's concerns. I hope you will be as understanding now with this issue. There is a plan to build an ADA approved cement, pedestrian walkway from the passive Del Cerro Park along the south side of the Crenshaw Extension to the entrance of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Previous action by the City Council by red stripping both sides of the Crenshaw Extension and the North side of Crenshaw Blvd. seem to have solved the issues of obstructing access to the trailhead for emergency vehicles, entry to Burrell Lane and directed pedestrian traffic to the South side of the Crenshaw Extension. There doesn't seem to be a need at this time to create additional access to the PV Preserve. If the city wants to further delineate a walkway for pedestrians perhaps painting a pedestrian lane on the south side of the street on the Crenshaw Extension, somewhat like cities have done for bicycles.. The present proposal would remove 5-6 feet wide of trees and shrubbery that were planted by our HOA 30 years ago. The loss of the existing landscaping along the Crenshaw Extension would strip away the beautiful rural atmosphere that now exists. We are strongly against this proposal that would construct a cement pedestrian walkway in our neighborhood. Sincerely, B ry Rodg eller F Subject: Green Hills / July 1, 2016/ funeral Attachments: IMG_1963.JPG; IMG_1964.JPG; IMG_1975.JPG; IMG_1976.JPG -----Original Message ----- From: Sharon Loveys [mailto:sharon.loveys@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:17 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: Carla Morreale <CarlaM@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: Green Hills/ July 1, 2016/ funeral Hi So, The following is what I would appreciate be put on a power point for Council meeting August 2, 2016. Thank you for your message regarding the digging, in the eight foot illegal area to check on vault status. You requested Mr. RESICh send me his photos , still anticipating his response ! Common sense dictates a few questions,. Why would you dig in the eight foot set back to check on a vault that is perhaps illegal. Plus, put that fake green grass on top of it, it looked to me like they were getting ready for the next step. A FUNERAL! At that point I asked the gentleman if this was a companion plot ..they just stared at me as I know they are requested to not communicate with me! I was just wondering why they would prepare this area to check on the crypt in this manner! Wouldn't you rather dig in the correct area first thus exposing if a problem crypt exists !!! I am baffled at this logic!! Since I WOULD never intentionally invade a funeral .. I took the following two photos and left! After I left I drove down the driveway connecting eyes with Mr. Nick RESICH, obviously he was called to the site!! Days after the funeral I took the next two photos, exposing the longest grave in Green Hills history. I was personally told by their attorney at the last council meeting that no one is in the ILLEGAL set back. Since I was informed that Mr. RESICH has his own photos and it has been almost a month, I have concerns. I have requested Mr. Nelson and Mr. Mihranian come and visit the actual area. What would you think? F . 14. a '..�...� .:. :, ,. .� .. n Y• °. _M� � `} ,_ a WG i Y.. _ ,4;_ ? xi y z -�. ,��, ��� c �£ _> „- °�4' - �' ,• } "� -_ .� ..� �_ .. � �. r � ��� _ - � ;tSt a �, a ..� .?t -., t r ;_. r.; .x>{ :: - 6., �. ^"- 11 .. � �,,...y... ' � e j�., sy 4��.. ... _ � ..-,�.:. _. �. sY � , 5 �ayra. .y -+dam. n.ay.,...... .., r w. .v »r.s .. �d sr. �; s ,, _ _ 'rC`�*..�� ,. �. w. __�,.. .e,....._.. � r'�fie"�iR:w '� �a z �, . 9 ..�..=o- ,».�_ From: Maureen Megowan <mdmegowan@gmail.corn> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 6:19 PM To: CC Subject: Withers and Sandgren contract Attachments: Cala Vista Concept Plan 2016-06-27jpg I just wanted to add my recommendation for the firm of Withers and Sandgren for design services for lower hess park. Lacey Withers just completed a conceptual site plan for a 28 acre parcel I am marketing for sale in upper Portuguese Bend and did a fantastic job. See attached RE/MAX Estate Properties 310-541-6416 /310-259-7124 BRE License #01368971 www.maureenmegowan.com Jake o f eat. J U da the wit! I REDONDO BEACH RANCHO PALOSVERDES ABALONE COVE P C"C OCEAN LONG BEACH TRAIL ACCESS`54 ■ 27.5 Acres of unimproved land in the Portuguese Bend area ■ Panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island to the south ■ Adjacent to open space preserve with extensive trail system ■ Minutes away from Terranea Resort and the Trump National Golf Course ■ Potential for 8,000 square feet of roofed structures ■ Zoned for four horses ■ Suitable for possible agricutural development PONY TRAIL FILIORUM NATURE RESERVE F ZPAI , CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THIS ISA CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY AND SELLER DOES NOT WARRANTY ENTITLEMENTS pro ITENNIS PAVILLION RESIDENCE E ENTRY E �\ PASTURE \ y OCEAN VIEWS PORTUGEUSE BEND RIDING CLUB NARCISSA DRIVE TRAIL ACCESS % 1 VANDERLIP / ESTATE STABLE `� C,�2� Oz \ e CINNAMON LANE 1 I,NORTH , o zs so ioe zoo Frr Rancho Palos Verdes, CA , , PORTUGEUSE BEND RIDING CLUB NARCISSA DRIVE TRAIL ACCESS % 1 VANDERLIP / ESTATE STABLE `� C,�2� Oz \ e CINNAMON LANE 1 I,NORTH , o zs so ioe zoo Frr Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Lower Point Vicente Outdoor Educational Exhibits Los Serenos Objective To seek City Council approval to reinstate the concept of the outdoor exhibits in the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan Enhancing the Educational Experience • Bring the Abalone cove experience to the PVIC • Teachers try to motivate the children with books and Videos in Class • Physical and Hands- on activities brings the learning to life Remember This is About the Children AftwM06w-AL Eft LOWER POINT VICENTE RANCHO PALOS VEROIES, raft"y Ofossas r I jr "a 9 lKlm cr NOW tIllr--r U11,1111U111,11ST11WI May. 2105 Exhibit 150 fi NaRp Plant Lone / r 1 1 ��E�-,m w' fie.. _--•n\ #J'.^y"t!�R.1�, =ti 1 s KEY: Z 1 . Pain! Vicente interFNeiive �l Center e ` 2. Parking Lot with Bioswales 3. Grassland 4. 1 ongva VAIage S. Geology / fossil a. Arcnaeologicol Dig ` 3. Soonish Pomho 8. Dry Farming V. WWII hLtory and Restroom v�% r I G. Overlooks T. Wal of Fiono, `t • `� `� r r 12. Picnic Areas Ito be placed throughovl I * • `' 10 ----- Man Trail Network /12 v — — Secondary Iran r 0 0 a • Bloswde o�d Adjocent Habitat Buffer ---- Property line Recommended separation between r ` Ircils and property line: 15C 11 min. It I r e 1• 1 r_s 2m am, YNR July 7t" City Council Concerns • Less is More • Noise • Cost & Funding • Security • Staffing • Docent Support J C Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan (Revised 07.22.2015) KEY: OITLZIS t 11 SO II NuH'vv Pkan1 Zatc: � y IFu i n qf.�r�h � nrl + € rte' �...� •a + � , .�+zi 1 sl >„J� 1 jJ rr 1. Paint Vicenlo Inlorprofivo Gontef 2. Parking Lot with Biosvrales 3. Grassland 4. Reslroom S. Overboks A- Plank Areas (to be plar_ed throucghou lJ Will lrall Network ..idary trail v • Bloswale and-JaCenl Habllat Buffer ---.— Property Line +s---� Recom ty nded separation between Irails and properly Ine: 130 N rri.. 9 Established Docent Support • Formed a committee to review, refine and address issues relating to the Educational Outside Exhibits • Held three membership presentations • Overwhelming membership support for the exhibits 4 Proposed Outdoor Education Exhibits 1. Tongva Village 2. Geology 3. Archeological Dig 4. Annie s Stand , a ' V, l N ��Y• Proposed Signs 1. Whale Watch/Outlook 2. Spanish Rancho (See-through Sign) 3. World War II (No Bunker ) —�`�� 0 0 Lower Point Vicente Concept Plan (Revised 07.22.20151 is • � M hY 7 s k k r Y + \ 11 KEY: e+ z\s✓. \ e 1. Pain) Ncento Inlmprofive + Centers-- + 2. PoMngLot Win Biosrvies r 3, OrassJond 4. Reslreom \" + 5_ Overlooks 6- Ncnlc Areas (to be placed throughout) N uln fruit Network S ordory buff „ Bloswale and Adjacent Habilol Buffer Proparty thio �—� Recomrrr�"nded separulbn belwe"en Imils and properly Ine_ 150 R nin. a 100' 2W 3W' Tongva Village • The Tongva Village will contain two Kis, one permanent which will be used for storage and one that the children will build. • The area will be approximately 40 feet in Diameter Geology and Fossils • This exhibit is approximately 8 foot diameter and 3 feet high • It will allow the children to climb on the exhibit and explore the embedded fossils and geology of the peninsula Archaeological Dig The size is approximately 9 X 6 feet Simulates rock and ground cover on top of dig cover. Locked when not in use Annie's Stand • Last remaining symbol of Japanese presences on the Peninsula • History of Japanese farming on Lower Point Vicente • Ishibashi family 2 Issues Impacting the Exhibits • Security • Docent Staffing • Cost 0 .J+ -ter �.�, .��. �• �.: - Funding14""M �. R MAN5 t Y In Security of Exhibits • All interactive exhibits and storage areas are locked when not in use. • Presently vehicle access is restricted by a gate that is locked at sundown. • Walk in traffic would be no better or worse than in any other City park. • Area is isolated and off the main road with no lighting, graffiti would be a minimum. • Signs could be covered with protective films that would facilitate the removal of any graffiti. Exhibits would be located so as to facilitate U" by patrol I i ng sheriff. line of sight • Docent staffing would be required for two types of field trips —An individual Active Exhibit program for one class — Multiple class program of several Exhibits • It is anticipated that tours would last no longer than 2 hrs. and only during the day. • Tours would be staffed by docents and scheduled by City staff. Cost Estimate Based upon Storyline proposal estimates $375,000 for design and construction Docents would solicit exhibit sponsorships to fund the project Exhibits would only be built when the funds for the exhibit would be available Summary The Los Serenos Docents are seeking City Council approval to reinstate the Outside Exhibits concept to the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan for Lower Point Vicente. To: Carla Morreale Subject: Los Serenos de Point Vicente Docents- Outdoor Education Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:09 PM To: Ken Dyda <i<en.Dda r vca. ov>; BrianCampbell Group <BrianCam bellGrou a r vca. ov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB Jerry Duhovic <Jerry @r vca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <Anthon M r vca. ov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmoreCarpvca.gov>; Carla Morreale <CarlaM r vca. ov>; Cory Linder <Cor�rL r vca. ov> Subject: Los Serenos de Point Vicente Docents- Outdoor Education Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente Hello Honorable Mayor and City Council, In preparation for this Tuesday's City Council meeting, I wanted to send the finalized Docents PowerPoint presentation on the Lower Point Vicente outdoor exhibits. We have sent the Staff Report and PowerPoint presentation to the LPV Focus Group and via ListServe. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Regards, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 qo danielL • • i' i .4 3 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 10:01 AM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Attachments: Lower Point Vicente Outdoor Phase III Exhibits Rev D.pdf Late Correspondence for Item #3 Regular Business. Daniel , Deputy Director 6, City of s Palos Verdes Recreation P 310-544-5264 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:03 PM To: cicoriae@aol.com; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; David A. Sundstrom <dasundstrom@gmail.com>; rose10grows@me.com; cockeandco@verizon.net; Diana Mc Intyre <mothermac@mac.com> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello all, As promised, here is the Docents Presentation for the Lower Point Vicente Outdoor Exhibits. Regards, Daniel Deputy s "' s • • s �l� I Recreation aIII s Parks ,310) 544-5264 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:47 AM To: cicoriae aol.com; Jim Knight <I<nihtim33@milgcs�rn>; David A. Sundstrom <dasundsirorrT@_ mg ail.corrt>; rosel0grows me_.com• cockeandco@,yerizon.nei; Diana Mc Intyre <mathermac mac.com> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL r vca.ov> Subject: RE: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello again, I just realized in my previous email, I had a typo in my title and Diana McIntyre was not included in in the distribution list. Sorry about that. I have added Diana McIntyre in this email chain. She will be presenting this item at the City Council meeting on behalf of the Docents. K� You may also be aware that City Council is revisiting the idea of Bubbles at LPV and added this item to the August 16th City Council Agenda. I will make sure to keep you all updated on all things LPV. Once the August 16th City Council agenda is finalized, I will send you all a link. Once again, at the direction of Council, both of these items were added to the agendas. Again feel free to follow up with me if you have any questions or need clarification. Regards, Daniel Trautner Deputy • RecreationL city of Rancho Palos Verdes r, Parks I: XIMMIMUT1.4 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 7:58 AM To: 'cicoriae@aol.com' <cicoriaenq aol.com>; 'Jim Knight' <kni ht'im33 mail.com>; 'David A. Sundstrom' <dasundstrom mail.com>;'roselOgrows@me.com' <rosel0 rows me.com>;'cockeandco@verizon.net' <cockeandcot@verizon.net> Cc: Cory Linder <Cor L r vca. ov> Subject: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello all, I wanted to reach out to the original members of the LPV focus group regarding the upcoming August 2nd City Council meeting. The Los Serenos Docents will be presenting a proposal to City Council to reconsider the Outdoor Education Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente Park. I have attached the link for the August 2nd City Council Agenda for you reference. The item I am referring to is item #3 under Regular Business on the agenda. http://rr)v.granicus.com/GeneratedAgen,daViewer.php?view id=5&event id=722 The Docents have modified their Outdoor Exhibits proposal based on the feedback received from July 7, 2015 City Council meeting and hope to have the Outdoor Exhibits reinserted into the Master Plan for LPV. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, 051,211 owl • Recreation and Parks 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. ri)yca. gov daniolt r vcao_v — Off (310) 544-5264 — Fax (310) 544-5379 Subject: FW: August 2nd, City Council Meeting Item 3 Attachments: 186th Street.pdf; Anton Elementary School.pdf From: Herb Stark [mailto:herbertstark@cox.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 7:00 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: August 2nd, City Council Meeting Item 3 August 2, City Council Meeting Regular Business, Item 3 Outdoor Education Exhibits Lower Point Vicente Vision Plan Dear Mayor Dyda and City Council, I am speaking in favor of the Docent's proposal to reinstate the outsides exhibits in the vision plan for Lower Point Vicente. This is not about the docents but about the education of our children. Children learn and retain knowledge when they are immersed in the subject. We see this in not only the 4t" and 6t" grade PVPUSD programs but also with the docent's outreach program, the Whale of the World (WOW). I know that residents are concerned that the exhibits will attract more people from the outside areas resulting in more traffic, noise, graffiti and trash. I believe that the docents have greatly mitigated all these concerns with their scaled down design and how they plan to use the exhibits. The foot print of the exhibits have been significantly reduced from the originally approved concept and blended into the natural environment of the area. The exhibits are only used as part of planned and scheduled field trips during the week between 9 am and 2 pm. When not in use the exhibits are securely locked. The seven planned educational trail signs are smaller than the City's Abalone Cove signs. The archeology dig when not in use would be covered up with natural vegetation and artificial rocks. The geology mound is a rock showing the marine terraces that make up the peninsula. Can you honestly say that someone from across town would make a special trip to see these exhibits? Even Annie's stand has significance only to the residents of the peninsula. The real value of the exhibits is the impact that the exhibits will have on the educational value of the PVIC. The objective, of the exhibits, is to extend the hands on experience of the Abalone Cove field trip to the PVIC. I am attaching several letters from teaches on the value of immersing the children in the learning process. I urge you to vote in favor of including the outside exhibits in the vision plan for Lower Point Vicente Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes Fin Abigail Vivo 51" Grade Teacher 1861h Street Elementary School The Whale of the World (WOW) program has been such a beneficial supplement to the curriculum for my fifth grade students. I have been a scholarship recipient the past two years, and have taken my students to both the Point Vicente Interpretive Center and the Abalone Cove. During both years, my students were presented with an organized and highly interactive experience that provided them with memories to last a lifetime. As a teacher who is teaching in a school. with high poverty, being able to take my students out of their environment of the city life or the "typical" classroom walls has given them insight into the world where science and nature comes to life, and becomes "real". For some of my students, it is the first time they have seen the ocean, or touched sea animals with their hands. For some, it was the first time that they had gone on a "nature walk" and were able to enjoy the fresh air and sunshine without the hustle and bustle of city noise pollution. At the end of our trip, the students left with smiles and stories about how they have gone hiking, saw "this" or touched "that. I can picture the smiles plastered across the faces of my students, and how excited they were to tell their own families about these resources in our neighboring community. The parent volunteers who have come on the trip have always praised the professionalism and patience shown by the docents, as well as the educational involvement that WOW has shown towards our community. After each trip, I have had many "disinterested" students completely change their attitude and show an interest and engagement in school, science, and the curriculum because they see the benefits of programs such as WOW. This year, I am teaching at a different elementary school that has not experienced the WOW program. 18611, Street Elementary School is full of special and amazing students that would benefit greatly from WOW. Many of the students are also coming from communities with great need for sponsors and experiences that can open their eyes to the world beyond our everyday community. I am honored and grateful to the WOW Program for their continual support and investments made towards education. I applaud and commend the donors, volunteers, and organizers who have executed this program year after year with only the best intentions for the students and communities involved. I wholeheartedly support the work and mission that WOW puts forth, and wish them continual support to provide experiences like these for our children. On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Maricel Cruz <maricelrcruz@icloud.com> wrote: Thank you so much to Los Serenos and Whale of the World, WOW Program for this AMAZING Educational Field Trip. It was a beautiful sunny day and we had the best time ever this morning at Abalone Cove! "Thank you Ms. Cruz, for taking us on this field trip!" My students repeatedly exclaimed as we hiked down the path on our destination to explore the tide pools. We have been studying/reading Science all year! Our first field trip was to the California Science Center where we learned about ecosystems where all of the living things (plants, animals and organisms) in a given area, interact with each other, and also with their non -living environments (weather, earth, sun, soil, climate, atmosphere) in their different habitats. At school, we read about energy from the sun, ocean life, the moon pulling the tide, life in the tide pools, water cycle, and about the adaptations organisms have to survive in their environments and so much more. As a third grade teacher, it was so rewarding to see/hear my students' light bulbs shine, as they made connections of what we learned at the Science center and in the classroom, and applied this knowledge to their many discoveries today at Abalone Cove. Our 6 docents from Los Serenos were so well versed sharing interesting facts about the vegetation and tide pool creatures of Abalone Cove Reserve. My students learned that the Acacia Tree, non native to California was brought from Africa and adapted to life by the coves, by tilting their leaves towards the sun to soak up energy. We discovered the seed pods from the trees. A student said,"Ms. Cruz, those are the seeds that drop to the ground to reproduce!" We ate mustard flowers and tasted lemonade seeds that I remember fondly as a child, when I went on nature walk field trips in elementary school! Our docent, Amy, shared stories of the grass that the natives used in the past to weave and make baskets! We opened ice plant stalks and felt the sticky, slimy water inside. "Ms. Cruz, this is the waxy covering the desert plants have to adapt to extreme heat! Ms. Cruz, look at the dry dead ice plant that couldn't adapt!" We saw a little stream of running water coming down the cliffs. "Ms. Cruz, the water cycle! All water leads to the ocean!" We saw the red pigmentation from the minerals on the cliffs and shiny rocks on the path! "Ms. Cruz, it's sparkles like gold!" When we finally arrived at the tide pools, my students were bursting with excitement! We encountered a pretty good sized octopus swimming sideways through the rocks!!! We touched the prickly sea urchins and had hermit crabs and sea star creatures crawling on our palms! Some of us fell on the slippery moss, including myself! We picked ourselves up and continued exploring! I can't thank the Docents of Los Serenos and The WOW Program enough for this incredible learning experience for our Students at William R Anton Elementary! We are 100% title one school and most of our students don't have the opportunities to take such incredible field trips as this one. As hard as it was for me to hike back to our bus under the welching sun's heat, it is my favorite field trip out of my 25 years of teaching!!! And I'm sure the students will never forget what they saw and learned today as I have banked similar unforgettable field trip memories such as this one. Maricel Cruz 3rd grade teacher William R Anton Elementary From: BW Riedman <rabbit943@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:52 PM To: CC; CityClerk Subject: August 2, 2016 City Council Meeting, Regular Business, Item #3 Dear Mayor Dyda, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell, Councilwoman Brooks, Councilman Duhovic and Councilman Misetich: As you are all well aware, I am a volunteer with Los Serenos de Point Vicente, the City's docent organization. As such, I have been involved in many of the various Los Serenos projects over the years, including the outdoor living history proposal at Lower Point Vicente. A little background information: In 2001, there was a movement to put girls' softball fields at Lower Point Vicente. At the March 30, 2001 City Council Meeting: ... Todd Anderson, representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Girls Softball League, described the need for children's recreational fields, particularly for girls' softball. He asked that the Council consider allowing the use of lower Pt. Vicente Park for this purpose and restrict the agricultural lease to one year, giving the City time to review the potential development of recreational facilities. At the May 8, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting, the " City Council authorized staff to research the feasibility of softball fields on the Lower Point Vicente site. " Now fast forward to 2003 -- at this point, there was now a big movement for those softball fields in Lower Point Vicente with all sorts of promises being made regarding the proposed fields. The docents were not for this as it would totally change the venue surrounding PVIC. Therefore, the docents put together a team and came up with a plan to incorporate the unused and ignored space into a continuation of the museum and the history of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Peninsula. As such, a PowerPoint presentation was made to the City Council by Joan Barry and Vic Quirarte at the November 5, 2003 City Council meeting. This presentation utilized the long neglected, weed infested open space as an outdoor living history museum teaching about geology in the area, the Indian history, incorporating hiking trails and a native plant garden. etc. Such presentation stated: ... [T]hat this unique piece of land surrounding the Interpretive Center will be used as an outdoor natural laboratory, an extension of the Interpretive Center; stated that the outdoor history museum concept would allow a visitor the opportunity to experience life as it was on this peninsula throughout the centuries; noted that one would be able to walk through an Indian gathering area; participate in an archeological (sic) find; study dry farming techniques on this site; wander through the trails of the natural habitat; catch a glimpse of the wildlife in the area; and touch the rocks, fossils and crystals that have been a part of the peninsula for millions of years. Here it is 2016 and in the preceding 13 years, nothing has been done to make this vision be realized. Oh, there were meetings with the City but they seemed to go nowhere and now all that's being presented are plants and trails - nothing to enhance the learning experience of those visiting PVIC. There will be those that object to anything at Lower Point Vicente citing too many visitors, trash, etc. And I think those are just arguments from the NIMBY crowd — many of whom have NEVER been to the 2 i Interpretive Center or the surrounding area. We have a unique and beautiful area and it would be wonderful to share it and teach those who come to visit. Before you say no to this plan, please give it a chance. I'm attaching a copy of the original PowerPoint vision presented to the City Council at the November 2003 meeting. We know we cannot have all of it as envisioned but the new presentation will enhance the PVIC experience and can be enjoyed by all. Thank you. Betty Riedman 3668 Cliffsite Drive, RPV (310) 541-8470 1A,pvic_presentafion2.ppt Proposal for Lower Point Vicente Park The Point Vicente Living History Museum a plan for the completion of the Point Vicente Interpretive Center Presented by The Docents of Los Serenos de Point Vicente Iww A/ " i .46 ' +' ,_ • - - �. ti r . ► 'S •l 4 w oft y r Plan for completion of the grounds at PVIC Living History Museum Concept • The Point Vicente Interpretive Center is the educational core - enhanced by an outdoor natural laboratory: • Native Palos Verdes Plant Gardens • Tongva/Gabrielino Indian Gathering Area • Archeological Dig Area • Japanese Dry Farming Heritage • Connecting Trails • Whale Watching • Palos Verdes Geology • Family Area for Picnics, Poetry, Relaxation - � �-fit •�'� r�-. �, , Oh � +til i ib•Tt a 1 1 K. F i i15 S kL PVIC - the Educational Core of the Living History Museum IVA Amid -V I y _ { ar 10 40— 4M JF wir tab 64w.i— AL - L- 3L • n.. - r _ * j M i r. - t1* . 6 w a 4 Y � ' �' +ti bso Historic Japanese dry farm - operated by Mr. Hitano wir 1. 4 F t r � 45 f or-, .416 tsJF' � NN a'��'� , bac •'�`..:.,- r'.. Dig to find fossils, shells, artifacts (reproductions) 1. 4 45 7 't 0 As -owl Pkilow-W. r � zw- to r, 40 64 r +NA,. 1 JF Tongva/Gabrielino Indian Life Experience s Air } J6 ALL- _ w Explore the unique geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula . :1171141 r Native plant garden courtesy of Palos Verdes Sunset Rotary Club 64 Hiking trails connect to RPV loop trails 71 71 71 71 Tongva Indian Gathering Area Gathering area of the indigenous Tongva Indians Including typical dwellings ("Kish") Designed by Tongva Linda Gonzalez Teach children how to use grinding stones, make crafts, play games as Indian children did for hundreds of years Surrounded by native plants used by the Tongvas Potential Tongva pageant site Plan for Living History Museum Phase 1: Tongva gathering area 2nd qtr 2004 Phase 2: Archeological dig area 3rd qtr 2004 Phase 3: PVIC expansion 4th qtr 2004 Phase 4: Hiking trails 1St qtr 2005 Phase 5: Native plant garden 2"d qtr 2005 Phase 6: Farm &native habitat 3rd qtr 2005 Phase 7: Geology area 4th qtr 2005 APPENDIX Archeological Dig Area • Midden dig area salted with fossils, animal bones, shells and reproductions of Indian artifacts • Designed by Dr. Zuckerman, USC Archeology Dept. • Children learn proper excavation techniques and experience the excitement of discovery • Learning experience enhanced by evaluation of the findings Japanese Dry Farming • Begun in 19 10 by the Ishibashi family • The last dry farm on the Peninsula • Continuously operated by Japanese farmer Mr. Hitano • Supported by the RPV Master Plan • Instruction of children and adults by Mr. Hitano and the Los Serenos Docents • Potential for Harvest Festival and dinner Whale Watching and Family Recreation • Cetacean Society activity returns • Best place to watch whales in Los Angeles area • Whale Wagon information booth • "Whale of a Day" annual event • Shakespeare and Poetry by the Sea • "Walk on the Wild Side" • Family picnics • Hike nature trails connecting to the PV Loop Trail and to the Pacific Coast Trail • Enjoy the ambiance and natural beauty The Point Vicente Interpretive Center • The natural and cultural history museum of the Palos Verdes Peninsula • Local history, plants, animals, geology and the migration of the Pacific Gray Whale • Los Serenos Docent instruction for all visitors • Home of the Cetacean Society whale census for the LA area • Located on the scenic bluffs at Lower Point Vicente Park • The "Jewel of the Peninsula" Native Plant Gardens Learning Center • Indoor display explains indigenous flora and fauna • Identified native plant garden • Courtesy of PV Rotary Club grant • Planted by the California Native Plant Society • Test your knowledge in the unidentified native plant garden • Lemonade berry, toyon, sage, coyote bush, deer weed (PV Blue Butterfly), etc 9 Hands on programs for children and adults Palos Verdes Geology • Indoor display of local geology with docent instruction • Earth geological model • The Rock Cycle explained • The landslide danger caused by bentonite and water • Test your knowledge in the outdoor geology area with samples of all local rocks, minerals, crystals From: joan barry <itsthebarrys@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 9:21 AM To: cc Subject: Item 3 Regular Business August 2, 2016 Mayor Dyda and City Council Members: We have been residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for 43 years. Our children have gone through the school system here, and we as a family have enjoyed the parks and recreation activities, and ambience of this city all these years, and now share them with our grandchildren. We have been docents and members of Los Serenos de Point Vicente for 22 years; eight of those years I (Joan) was on the board, three of which I was president. The idea of expanding the museum to the outdoors has been a vision of Los Serenos since 1995. In 2003, faced with the possibility of this piece of land being used for active softball and other ball fields, accompanied with snack shacks, bleachers, and large parking lots, we, along with several other board members and other members formulated a plan to keep the property for a learning center to complement the museum. We formulated the original "outdoor history museum plan", which consisted of Indian, geology, farming, ocean, and natural habitat components. This concept was approved twice before by City Council: the first time after the docent presentation in 2004, and the second time in 2011 when the RPV Vision Plan was approved by City Council with the Lower Point Vicente plan included. We are diligent stewards of the land. This is an excellent plan for our community. Please, we respectfully ask you to approve this plan. Robert Barry Joan Barry 30770 Ganado Drive, RPV D From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:55 AM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Late Correspondence for Item #3 Regular Business. Daniel Trautner Recreation Services Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks 310-544-5264 From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 12:10 PM To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Thank you, Dan. Many of us have been calling for improvements to Lower Pt. Vicente Park for many years --but improvements to the scenic landscape of the park, not adding a bunch of "stuff." No matter how well-meaning the docents' proposal is for what appears to be a plan to dominate Lower Pt. Vicente Park with structured educational stuff, I cannot support it. The only change noticed from a year ago was substituting Annie's Stand where the WWII bunker was taken out of the plan. I gather that the docents still want more storage space for stuff, so they want to include a building of some sort. I think the work docents do in the Interpretive Center and taking kids out to our natural areas is wonderful and well-meaning. As I understand it, they reach children and adults from local areas and from afar. There is an element of coastal, marine -oriented interpretive education in what they do and that seems appropriate to me here, but this plan seeks to spread that type of thing across this entire park and expand the subject matter to development history. That, I believe is not appropriate. This is a public park. It is not the docents' teaching grounds. It should not be about structuring children's' experience here. It should be about providing a place for children and adults to enjoy the outdoors, the scenery, the wind through the trees, the bird calls, the scents of sage, and, of course, the coastline. There's a lovely song, "Let them be little." I wonder if you know it. Well, we ought to let kids be little, and we ought to have outdoor spaces where they are untethered and free to just enjoy being outdoors. And residents largely want to retain (and restore) the scenic beauty of our coastal parkland. Let's stop with always trying to add busy, distracting "stuff' to our naturally scenic outdoor spaces. 1 3 Eva Cicoria -----Original Message ----- From: Daniel Trautner <DanielT6a rpvca.gov> To: cicoriae <cicoriae aol.com>; Jim Knight <knightiim33@gmail. com> <knightiim33(a)gmail.com>; David A. Sundstrom <dasundstrornQ_gmail. com>; rose10grows <rose10grows(a),me.com>; cockeandco <cockeandco5verizon.net>; Diana Mc Intyre <mothermac(o-)mac.com> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL(o-)rpvca.gov> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2016 3:03 pm Subject: RE: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello all, As promised, here is the Docents Presentation for the Lower Point Vicente Outdoor Exhibits. Regards, Daniel Trautner Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks (310) 544-5264 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:47 AM To: cicoriae@aol.com; Jim Knight <knight0im33@gmail.com>; David A. Sundstrom <dasundstrom@gmail.com>; rose10grows@me.com; cockeandco@verizon.net; Diana Mc Intyre <mothermac@mac.com> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello again, I just realized in my previous email, I had a typo in my title and Diana McIntyre was not included in in the distribution list. Sorry about that. I have added Diana McIntyre in this email chain. She will be presenting this item at the City Council meeting on behalf of the Docents. You may also be aware that City Council is revisiting the idea of Bubbles at LPV and added this item to the August 16th City Council Agenda. I will make sure to keep you all updated on all things LPV. Once the August 16th City Council agenda is finalized, I will send you all a link. Once again, at the direction of Council, both of these items were added to the agendas. Again feel free to follow up with me if you have any questions or need clarification. Regards, Daniel Trautner Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks 310-544-5264 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 7:58 AM To: 'cicoriae@aol.com' <cicoriae@aol.com>; 'Jim Knight' <knightjim33@gmail.com>; 'David A. Sundstrom' <dasundstrom@gmail.com>; 'rose 10grows@me.com' <rose10grows@me.com>; 'cockeandco@verizon.net' <cockeandco@verizon.net> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello all, I wanted to reach out to the original members of the LPV focus group regarding the upcoming August 2nd City Council meeting. The Los Serenos Docents will be presenting a proposal to City Council to reconsider the Outdoor Education Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente Park. I have attached the link for the August 2nd City Council Agenda for you reference. The item I am referring to is item #3 under Regular Business on the agenda. http://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=722 The Docents have modified their Outdoor Exhibits proposal based on the feedback received from July 7, 2015 City Council meeting and hope to have the Outdoor Exhibits reinserted into the Master Plan for LPV. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Daniel Trautner Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov danielt rpvca.gov — Off (310) 544-5264 — Fax (310) 544-5379 From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmai1.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:22 AM To: cc Subject: Agenda item 3 Mayor and Council members, Agenda item 3 before you on Tuesday night is a proposal by the Docents to add outdoor exhibits to the LPV plan. I find several problems with the proposal: 1) The plan from the Docents was not submitted to the City until Friday, July 29t', and is being included in late correspondence. It is not on the city website attached to the agenda item. This raises two issues: -The general public has not been given adequate notice of the entirety of this agenda item. Sending out notice to the focus group and listserve is not the same general public notice as having it on the website. -The residents that sit next to this proposal within 500 feet have not been given the required 15 day notice of this entire agenda item. Large groups of kids can create quite a bit of noise which could impact the nearby residents. There are no restrictions as to hours of operation. 2) Most of the outdoor proposals are a replication of what the PVIC center currently has on display in the indoor museum. Unlike the indoor displays, outdoor displays can be subjected to vandalism creating a maintenance issue. 3) The last time this proposal was put before the Council there was a question as what kind of storage was needed to support educational needs for these exhibits and where that storage was to be located. Cargo containers was one suggestion in the past. I see no discussion of this in this proposal. I personally do not see the need to replicate PVIC exhibits outdoors. It is substantially the same plan you rejected before stating "less is more". I think the city can find other ways to support the Docent educational programs rather than to dominate this LPV site. Thank you, Jim I -,night z Subject: Outdoor Educational Exhibits. From: Yvettawill@cox.net <yvettawill@cox.net> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:05 AM To: CC Subject: Outdoor Educational Exhibits. Phase III -Outdoor Educational Exhibits. I am in favor of the outdoor educational exhibits. Many children and adults come to PVIC to learn about the history of the area. These exhibits will make it easier for the docent to share with the visitors and help them to learn about the area. Please approve the outdoor educational exhibits. Thank you. Yvetta Williams docent at PVIC 3. Subject: Ooutdoor Educational Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente From: Ha isles aol.com To: tgppyiLsies@aol.com Sent: 7/29/2016 8:47:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Ooutdoor Educational Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente Honorable Mayor, Council Woman, and Council Men, As always thank you for your hard work and attention to the care of our wonderful city. We support you and try to understand your positions on the many subjects you must deal with. We may not always agree but we understand. We moved there in 2002. 1 became a Los Serenos Docent in 2003 and continue enjoying giving back to the communities on the Peninsula . Every month I meet another long time resident who is discovering the Point Vicente Interpretive Center for the FIRST TIME. I invite them to return often and make it their favorite place in all seasons. I am writing to ask your support in moving forward with the Lower Point Vicente Out- door Educational Exhibits, Item #3 Regular Business of the Agenda. I think these minor exhibit plans would make sense in the open area and they are an enhancement, a support to the interior exhibits. This has been in my thoughts a long time as a positive addition to Low Point Vicente. Thank you for your attention. And if you have any questions: 310 544 2442 Stephanie Brito (33 yrs teacher) 30915 rue Valois F -i Subject: FW: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits From: Jim Knight [mailto:knightiim33@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:21 PM To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov> Cc: Play Parks <cicoriae@aol.com> Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Dan, I hope you will share the Docents plan with more than the focus group. It is important that the general public know of this proposal and how it might affect the current LPV plan. I know from experience that most people read the staff report and don't get late correspondence until the night of the meeting. Do you think maybe it should be delayed so the public can fully see the plan in advance of the meeting? Jim On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Daniel Trautner <DanielTgrpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Jim, Hope you are doing well. The Docents are meeting tomorrow (Friday, July 29th) to finalize the presentation that will outline their proposal and the changes to the original design. I will make sure to send it to the focus group and add it to late correspondence for the public. More to come. Regards, Daniel Trautner Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5264 -------- Original message -------- From: Jim Knight <knightiim33@gmail.com> Date: 7/28/16 10:20 AM (GMT -08:00) To: Daniel Trautner <DanielTArpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Dan, I read the staff report and there is no description nor map of what modifications to the outdoor exhibits are proposed and in what location. Please let the public know exactly what is being proposed, with a map, so that you can get a better feedback. Thanks, Jim P.S. I noticed a typo on your title after your signature. 3 On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Daniel Trautner <DanielT(a rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello all, I wanted to reach out to the original members of the LPV focus group regarding the upcoming August 2nd City Council meeting. The Los Serenos Docents will be presenting a proposal to City Council to reconsider the Outdoor Education Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente Park. I have attached the link for the August 2nd City Council Agenda for you reference. The item I am referring to is item #3 under Regular Business on the agenda. http://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=722 The Docents have modified their Outdoor Exhibits proposal based on the feedback received from July 7, 2015 City Council meeting and hope to have the Outdoor Exhibits reinserted into the Master Plan for LPV. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, r Deputy Direct 11 Recreation and Parks 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov danieltprpvca,gov — Off (310) 544-5264 — Fax (310) 544-5379 From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 9:56 AM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Late Correspondence for Item #3 Regular Business. Daniel Recreation Services Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes RecreationParks O "SE WM From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 11:50 AM To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> <knightjim33@gmail.com> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Thank you, Dan. Late correspondence gives very little notice of what is being proposed. And what is the status of Phase1? Eva -----Original Message ----- From: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov> To: cicoriae <cicoriae(@.aol.com>; Jim Knight <knightjim33(a)gmail.com> <knightlim33(@)gmail.com> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL(c)_rpvca.gov> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2016 10:23 am Subject: RE: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Hello Eva, Thank you for your feedback and concerns. We agreed, the public need proper notice of the Docents plan and a Listserve notification will go out today once I receive the final presentation from the Docents. In addition, we will make sure to include the Docents Presentation in the late correspondence. Just to clarify, both of these projects were added to the City Council Agenda by City Council and staff was directed to work with the Docents on the outdoor exhibits item. Daniel Deputy �Director Recreation �aa ,r �Parks . 544-5264 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 DANIELT@RPV.COM TO DANIELT@RPVCA.GOV From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:51 AM To: Jim Knight <knight0im33@gmail.com> <knightiim33@gmail.com>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Dan, thanks for sharing this info with the focus group, but I'm with Jim --we need more info about the outdoor exhibits proposal; the public needs more info about both the outdoor exhibits and Bubbles. And the public deserves greater notice. Both the outdoor exhibits and revisiting Bubbles are a big surprise, so soon after CC nixed both. Is this really how our government is going to work? Staff keeps revisiting the same projects over and over? Why has there been no progress on the directive of City Council to implement Phase 1 instead? Eva -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Knight <knightiim33Qgmail.com> To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT(o)rpvca.gov> Cc: Play Parks <cicoriae aol.com> Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 2:21 pm Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Dan, I hope you will share the Docents plan with more than the focus group. It is important that the general public know of this proposal and how it might affect the current LPV plan. I know from experience that most people read the staff report and don't get late correspondence until the night of the meeting. Do you think maybe it should be delayed so the public can fully see the plan in advance of the meeting? Jim On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Daniel Trautner <DanielT rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Jim, Hope you are doing well. The Docents are meeting tomorrow (Friday, July 29th) to finalize the presentation that will outline their proposal and the changes to the original design. I will make sure to send it to the focus group and add it to late correspondence for the public. More to come. Regards, Daniel Trautner Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5264 -------- Original message -------- From: Jim Knight <knightjim33(a)gmai1.com> Date: 7/28/16 10:20 AM (GMT -08:00) To: Daniel Trautner <DanielT(o-)_rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Lower Point Vicente- Docent Outdoor Education Exhibits Dan, I read the staff report and there is no description nor map of what modifications to the outdoor exhibits are proposed and in what location. Please let the public know exactly what is being proposed, with a map, so that you can get a better feedback. Thanks, Jim P.S. I noticed a typo on your title after your signature. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Daniel Trautner <DanielT(a)_rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello all, I wanted to reach out to the original members of the LPV focus group regarding the upcoming August 2nd City Council meeting. The Los Serenos Docents will be presenting a proposal to City Council to reconsider the Outdoor Education Exhibits at Lower Point Vicente Park. I have attached the link for the August 2nd City Council Agenda for you reference. The item I am referring to is item #3 under Regular Business on the agenda. http://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=722 The Docents have modified their Outdoor Exhibits proposal based on the feedback received from July 7, 2015 City Council meeting and hope to have the Outdoor Exhibits reinserted into the Master Plan for LPV. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Daniel Deputy Director City of • Palos Verdes a Rancho30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Palos Verdes,A 90275 www. rpvca.gov danielt(a-).rpvca.gov — Off (310) 544-5264 — Fax (310) 544-5379