The URL can be used to link to this page

20161018 Late CorrespondenceT� WALL STREET JOURNAL. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation -ready copies for distnouuun to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djreprints.com. http://www.wsj.com/a rticles/settle men ts-re a ch e d -in-lawsu it-over-2014-mudslide -in -oso-wash -1476147214 U.S. Settlements Reached in Lawsuit Oxer 2014Mudslide in Oso, Wash. The mountainside collapse was the deadliest landslide in U.S. history RECEIVED FROM AND -MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF gill., OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TERESA TAKAOKA, ACTING CITY CLERK Corrie Yackulic, right, an attorney representing several family members of victims of the 2014 Oso, Wash., landslide, hugs Lisa Bevjl, left, who lost her brother Alan in the slide, in King County Superior Court in Seattle on Monday. PHOTO: TED S. WARREN/ASSOCIATED PRESS By JIM CARLTON Oct. 10, 2016 8:53 p.m. ET The state ofWashington and a local timber company have agreed to pay $60 million to survivors and families of those who died in a devastating 2014 mudslide that buried the mountain community of Oso, 60 miles north of Seattle. Under separate settlements reached on the eve of a trial that was set to begin in state Superior Court in Seattle on Monday, the state agreed to pay $50 million. The timber company, Grandy Lake Forest Associates LLC, agreed to pay $10 million. The March 2014 collapse of the mountainside was the deadliest landslide in U.S. history, unleashing a wall of mud and debris that killed 43 people and destroyed more than 40 homes. A class-action suit brought by about 40 plaintiffs accused the two parties, along with Z!) Snohomish County, of taking actions that endangered the 200 residents of Oso, an unincorporated town situated at the base of one of the most active slide zones in the state. Claims against Snohomish County were dismissed by the state Superior Court judge in n the case. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would appeal to reinstate their case against the county where the slide took place. A county spokesman declined to comment pending the prospect of ongoing litigation. The settlements headed off a trial that was expected to last months. "I guess the state decided to put this behind them sooner rather than later," said Scott Linneman, professor of geology at Western -Washington University in Bellingham, Wash. 6y 11:1 b The state Department of Natural Resources erred, among other things, by building a 30- Z::I In foot retaining wall at the base of a geologically unstable hill that allowed a dangerous buildup of sediment and debris, then failed to warn residents below it of the risk, plaintiffs' lawyers said. The timber company erred, in part, by chopping down more trees than it was permitted in 2004, allowing more rain and snow runoff than usual to saturate the ground, said b Emily Brubaker Harris, a plaintiffs' attorney in Seattle. Heavy rains preceded the slide. Both the timber company and the state have denied any wrongdoing. Ms. Harris said her clients welcome the settlement. "I think they are relieved to have some sense of closure, and also a sense of accountability for the tragic events that frankly were preventable," Ms. Harris said. Officials with Grandy, incorporated in Washington but owned by German investors, didn't immediately return a call for comment. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Monday called the settlement "a fair resolution" for all parties. "The Oso landslide represents one of the most tragic events in state history, and the sympathies of Washingtonians remain with those who lost so much," Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. RECEIVED FROM r-iWS?rtlw.n AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORP AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF o I l OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TERESA TAKAOKA, ACTING CITY CLERK THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation -ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit http://www.djrepdnts.com. http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbn b -offers -land lords -an -in centive-1476178200 MARKETS I PROPERTY REPORT 9_09'* Airbnb Offers Landlords an Incentive Home -rental giant gives landlords revenue if they permit tenants to rent out units on the site Airbnb co-founder and CEO Brian Chesky speaks in San Francisco earlier this year. PHOTO: JEFF CHIU/ASSOCIATED PRESS By LAURA KUSISTO Updated Oct. 11, 2016 12:58 p.m. ET Home -rental giant Airbnb Inc. is trying to charm apartment landlords with a program that gives them some extra revenue if they allow tenants to rent their units out on the site. Airbnb last month announced an offering that allows apartment owners to take a cut of the revenue from Airbnb guests in their buildings. The program has the potential to add millions of apartment units to Airbnb's inventory of short-term rental properties. So far, though, the program has few takers, as landlords remain wary of lawsuits, regulatory hassles and ticked -off neighbors. "I don't see it gaining much traction," said Margette Hepfner, senior vice president for client services for Lincoln Property Co., which manages or owns 175,000 units across the country. Ms. Hepfner said Airbnb has tried to respond to many of her biggest concerns, but added that "There's just inherent risk in allowing unknown guests to come onto your property."_...�.----- Airbnb, formed in 2008, has found success helping THE PROPERTY REPORT travelers find short-term quarters in private homes. • Bangkok Takes On a Major Makeover Its number of annual guests has soared to 100 million ® Health -Gare REITs Back Off Nursing this year from 21,000 in 2009, according to the company. After its last fundraising round, the closely held company was worth $30 billion. But appealing directly to apartment landlords is essential for Airbnb's future growth. That is because big chunks of the housing stock in the most popular destination cities are in the form of apartments, and standard apartment leases forbid tenants from subletting without the landlord's permission. That limits the pool of participants in the places travelers most want to go. The company has made an effort to ease landlords' initial anxieties about the program, offering insurance and providing them with information about which tenants are renting units out on the site to aid with enforcement. It said landlords would only be allowed to participate in markets where Airbnb is allowed under local laws. Airbnb Offers Sublet Incentive to Landlords 0:00 / 0:00 So far Airbnb has had little success winning over big landlords. Buildings containing only about 1,000 units have enrolled in the program, a sliver of the 26.5 million mid -rise or high-rise apartment units nationwide. Airbnb declined to provide the names of any landlords participating in the program. Three of the country's largest landlords, AvalonBay Communities Inc., Essex Property Trust and Camden Property Trust, said they decided not to participate. They declined to give a reason. "In private conversations there is a huge interest in how to do this better than it was done before. Those same executives aren't interested in bearing the scrutiny," said Jaj a Jackson, Airbnb's head of landlord partnerships. Apartment giant Equity Residential, which owns 80,000 units mainly in coastal cities such as New York and San Francisco, confirmed it is piloting the program in one of its 117) buildings, Vista 99, in San Jose, Calif., which the website describes as a "resort -style community." But many building owners are concerned that cooperating with Airbnb would open them up to lawsuits, tangles with municipal regulators and hassles with other residents who don't want transients in their buildings. Reports of wild parties and property damage at some Airbnb properties have stoked concern. New York state lawmakers in JunLe_p�as§�ed legislation now awaiting the governor's signature that would slap a $7,500 fine on users who advertise illegal short-term rentals on _Airbnb. The state outlaws the rental o any home for fewer than 30 days. Under Airbnb's new plan, called the Friendly Buildings Program, if landlords allow n tenants to lease units on Airbnb, they have an opportunity to take a cut of the nightly revenue at a suggested rate of 5% to 15%. But for a one-night, $200 stay that means the landlord would make $30 or less, an amount that many landlords say doesn't justify the hassle. A September survey by the National Multifamily Housing Council found that 42% of apartment owners weren't interested in a partnership program with a short-term rental company such as Airbnb. One-third said they were open to a partnership program and the remainder said they didn't know. The respondents cited safety issues as their top concern, followed by liability and insurance and quality -of-life concerns. About 40% of landlords said they had taken action against a tenant who used Airbnb, including a warning letter or lease termination. Mr. Jackson said he has talked to roughly 1,000 apartment landlords since he started his campaign in February 2015. Cortland Partners, which owns 36,000 apartment units primarily in the Southeast, in a recent survey found that nearly 40% of residents would be significantly less likely to renew their leases if the company allowed tenants to rent out units on Airbnb. "You could have folks who would normally not pass the background check who could present a danger to children or other residents and you wouldn't know who they were," said Melanie French, executive vice president at Cortland Partners. Analysts said landlords run a risk by not participating in Airbnb's new program given the threat the company poses to the status quo. "It's a behavior that their tenants are going to engage in regardless of what stance the landlord takes," said Dave Bragg, an analyst at Green Street Advisors. "It could take a while but I think it will prove to be very good for both Airbnb and apartment operators." Write to Laura Kusisto at laura.kusisto@wsj.com Copyright 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non -personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com. Q�-= W wWT- pif 6-V-1__7' A 7G___ L City of West Hollywood: Short Term Rentals Short Term Rentals Page 1 of 2 AirBnB, F1ipKey, VRBO, HomeAway, etc. On September 21, 2015, the West Hollywood City Council adopted ordinance 15-958 which further clarifies the City's long-standing prohibition of short term vacation rentals in the City. This ordinance went into effect on October 21, 2015. Sh.,14 rm pMt", In Hw city f Wnt Hey— RECEIVED FROM. `MaLV (3 fn5t AND MADE A PART O� F TH'E RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 6 1SjLI6 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TERESA TAKAOKA, ACTING CITY CLERK What the new law means: 1. No person shall rent a dwelling unit, or part of a dwelling unit, to anybody, for a period of 3o days or less. All rentals must be for 31 or more days. 2. The advertising of this activity is also prohibited. Flyers, posters, emails, online ads, and the like, are all prohibited. Does the law apply to single family homes, apartments, condos, and guest houses? Yes. This prohibition applies to all dwelling units in the City. Is there an enforcement "grace period"? No. Any short term vacation rental operating in the City is not permitted to do so. Why did the City Council adopt this ordinance? The City of West Hollywood convened a Shared Economy Task Force in 2014 to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding Shared Economy business models. This included a comprehensive review of short-term rentals. While short-term rentals may provide benefits to individual residents, strong concerns were raised by community members during the Task Force review process about quality -of -life and public safety impacts of short-term rentals, as well as the effect of short-term rentals on affordable housing in West Hollywood. The Task Force ultimately recommended to City Council that it affirm and further clarify the existing prohibition of short-term rentals within West Hollywood. How the Ci , responds to complaints: When Code Compliance receives a complaint about this issue, a case will be generated and the enforcement process will begin. The following is a general guideline on how enforcement will proceed. Step 1- A warning notice will be issued to the tenant or property owner informing them that they are in violation of the prohibition on short-term rentals. They will be given 3o days to take the appropriate steps to correct the violation. This means the immediate stoppage of short term rentals and the taking down of any advertisement for such an activity. Step 2 - A letter will be issued to the complainant informing them of the case * and what can be expected to take place in the coming days and weeks. http://www.weho.org/city-hall/city-departments-divisions/public-works/code-compliance/short-term-rentals 10/18/2016 City of West Hollywood: Short Term Rentals Page 2 of 2 Step 3 - If the violation continues, citations will be issued to the violating party. These fines will begin at 200% of the listed advertisement rate and go up to 400%. For ads that do not have a listed rental price, fines range from $500.00 to $1500.00. Step 4 - Although we do not anticipate the need to do so, continued non-compliance may result in this matter being referred to the City Prosecutor's Office for criminal prosecution. How to Report a Short Term Rental: If you believe that a violation of this law is taking place, please contact Code Compliance so that we can begin the enforcement process. • Call us at 323-848-6516 • Email us • Use the City's Service Request • Use the City's Mobile App • IOS • Android *When filing a concern, please provide a link to a website or advertisement for this rental if possible. The text of the law reads as follows: WHMC 10.36.331 - Short -Term Vacation Rentals A. Rental Prohibited. No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less to any transient. B. Advertisement. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this section. WHMC 19.90.02O - Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases Advertisement. Any printed or lettered announcement, whether in a magazine, newspaper, handbill, notice, display, billboard, poster, Internet website or application, or any other form. Rent. Consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a dwelling unit valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise. Transient. Any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. http://www.weho.org/city-hall/city-departments-divisions/public-works/code-compliance/short-term-rentals 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control CHAPTER 8.24 NOISE CONTROL Sections: 8.24.010 Purpose and Findings. 8.24.02o Definitions. 8.24.030 Prohibited Noises - General Standard. 8.24.040 Specific Prohibited Noises. 8.24.045 Amplified music on Pier Plaza. 8.24.050 Construction. RECEIVED FROM M220,1 (iurYlc AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL_ MEETING OF 40 1 11, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TERESA TAKAOKA, ACTING CITY CLERK 8.24.o6o Use of Sound Amplification Equipment on Public Property. 8.24.07o Loud Parties or Gatherings. 8.24.o8o Barking Dogs and Other Animal Noises. 8.24.ogo Exemptions. 8.24.100 Violations of noise regulations. 8.24.i10 Enforcement. 8.24.12o Additional Remedies. Page 1 of 8 8.24. olo Purpose and Findings. The City is a densely developed community. Residential dwelling units are located in close proximity to one another and commercial activities often adjoin residential housing. This pattern of land use development makes it almost inevitable that everyday noise will be audible to one degree or another. The purpose of this Chapter is to strike a balance between normal, everyday noises that are unavoidable in an urban environment and those noises that are so excessive and annoying that they must be curtailed in order to protect the comfort and tranquility of all persons who live and work in the City. (Ord. 07-1285, §1, Aug, 2007) 8.24-02o Definitions. The following words, phrases and terms as used in this chapter shall have the meanings indicated as follows: 1. City Manager shall mean the City Manager of the City of Hermosa Beach or the City Manager's designee. 2. Commercial purpose means and includes the operation of a business for profit involving the sale or advertising of goods or services. 3. Construction shall mean any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration or similar action on public or private property. 4. Emergency machinery, vehicle or alarm shall mean any machinery, vehicle or alarm used, employed, performed or operated in response to an emergency, including but not limited to work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. 5. Emergency work shall mean any work performed for the purpose of preventing or alleviating the physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency, including but not limited to work by private or public utilities when restoring utility services. 6. Motor vehicles shall include any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the California Motor Vehicle Code, including all on -highway type motor vehicles subject to registration under this code, all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to identification under said Code and mini -bikes, motorized scooters and go-carts. http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control Page 2 of 8 7. Noncommercial purpose means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than a commercial purpose. Noncommercial purpose shall mean and include personal, philanthropic, political and charitable purposes. 8. Person means a person, firm, association, co -partnership, joint venture, corporation or any entity, public or private in nature. 9. Police Chief means the police chief of the City of Hermosa Beach or his or her designee. 10. Sound amplifying equipment means any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound. Sound amplifying equipment shall not include standard automobile radios when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the automobile radio is installed. Sound amplifying equipment as used in this chapter shall not include warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles, or horns or other warning devices on any vehicles used only for traffic safety purposes. 11. Sound truck means any motor vehicle, or any other vehicle regardless of motive power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon, or attached thereto, any sound amplifying equipment. 12. Weekday shall mean any day, Monday through Friday, which is not a legal holiday. (Ord. 00-1209, §3,12-12-00) 8.24. 030 Prohibited Noises - General Standard. Unless otherwise permitted in this Chapter, no person shall make, permit to be made or cause to suffer any noises, sounds or vibrations that in view of the totality of the circumstances are so loud, prolonged and harsh as to be physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity and to cause or contribute to the unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the vicinity. When considering whether a noise, sound or vibration is unreasonable within the meaning of this section, the following factors shall be taken into consideration: A. The volume and intensity of the noise, particularly as it is experienced within a residence or place of business; B. Whether the noise is prolonged and continuous; C. How the noise contrasts with the ambient noise level; D. The proximity of the noise source to residential and commercial uses; E. The time of day; and F. The anticipated duration of the noise. (Ord. 07-1285 §2, Aug. 2007) 8.24. 040 Specific Prohibited Noises. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following acts and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared and deemed to be in violation of this chapter: A. Placement of stereo speakers. The amplification of music or any other sound on private property, through speakers located either (1) outdoors, or (2) in one or more windows or doorways, when such speakers are directed towards and such music is plainly audible on an immediately adjacent public right-of-way. B. Band or orchestral rehearsals. The conducting of or carrying on, or allowing the conducting or carrying on of band or orchestral concerts or rehearsals or practices between the hours of 10:0o p.m. and 8:0o a.m. sufficiently loud as to be plainly audible at the property line of the property from which the sound is emanating. C. Engines, motors and mechanical devices near residential district. The sustained, continuous or repeated operation or use between the hours of 10:0o p.m. and 8:0o a.m. of any motor or engine or the repair, modification, http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control Page 3 of 8 reconstruction, testing or operation of any automobile, motorcycle, machine, contrivance, or mechanical device or other contrivance orfacility unless such motor, engine, automobile, motorcycle, machine or mechanical device is enclosed within a sound insulated structure so as to prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at the property line of the property from which the sound is emanating. D. Motor vehicles. Racing the engine of any motor vehicle or needlessly bringing a motor vehicle to a sudden start or stop. E. Loading and unloading. Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects between the hours of lo:oo p.m. and 8:oo a.m. in such a manner as to cause noise disturbance, except for solid waste collection by a franchised collector. F. Non -emergency signaling devices. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any electronically amplified signal from any bell, chime, siren, whistle or similar device, intended primarily for non -emergency purposes, from any place between the hours of lo:oo p.m. and 8:oo a.m., and in no event for more than ten (lo) consecutive seconds in any hourly period outside those hours. G. Emergency signaling devices. 1. The intentional sounding, or permitting the sounding, outdoors, of any emergency signaling device including fire, burglar, civil defense alarm, siren, whistle or similar emergency signaling device, provided, however that testing of an emergency signaling device is permitted between the hours of lo:oo a.m. and 8:oo p.m. Any such testing shall use only the minimum cycle test time. In no case shall such test time exceed sixty (6o) seconds. Testing of the emergency signaling system shall not occur more than once in each calendar month. 2. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any exterior burglar or fire alarm unless such alarm is terminated within fifteen (15) minutes of activation. 3. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any motor vehicle alarm unless such alarm is terminated within five (5) minutes of activation. 4. Sounding or permitting the sounding of any motor vehicle alarm more than three times of any duration in any twenty-four (24) hour period. H. Leaf blowers. The use or operation or allowing the use or operation of any portable machine powered with a combustion, gasoline or electric powered engine used to blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns and other surfaces. (Ord.ol-1213 §1, Feb. 2001) I. Commercial establishments adjacent to residential property. Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, continuous, repeated or sustained noise from the premises of any commercial establishment which is adjacent to one or more residential dwelling units, including any outdoor area part of or under the control of the establishment, between the hours of lo:oo p.m. and 8:oo a.m. that is plainly audible from the residential dwelling unit's property line. (Ord. 00-1209, §3, 12-12-00) J. Commercial establishments on Pier Plaza. property. Sustained amplified music from the premises of any commercial establishment on Pier Plaza that is plainly audible eighty (8o) feet from the property line of the establishment. (Ord. 05-1251,§1,6/2005. 8.24-045 Amplified music on Pier Plaza. All exterior doors and windows of a business establishment located on Pier Plaza shall be closed while amplified music is being played in the establishment. (Ord.05-1251 §2, 6/2005. http://www.hermosabeh.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control 8.24. 050 Construction. A. Permissible hours of construction. Page 4 of 8 All construction shall be conducted between the hours of 8:0o a.m. and 6:0o p.m., Monday through Friday (except national holidays), and 9:0o a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Construction activity is prohibited at all other hours and on Sundays and national holidays. For purposes of this section, "construction" or "construction activity" shall include site preparation, demolition, grading, excavation, and the erection, improvement, remodeling or repair of structures, including operation of equipment or machinery and the delivery of materials associated with those activities. B. Special circumstances. The building official may grant an exception to the provisions of this section in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Upon receipt of an application in writing therefore stating the reasons for the request and the facts upon which such reasons are based, the building official may grant such permission if he or she finds that: 1. The work proposed to be done is in the public interest; or 2. Unusual hardship, injustice or unreasonable delay would result from adherence to the hours and days specified above. Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the building official may forthwith appeal to the city council. Construction, repair or excavation which qualifies as emergency work and which must be accomplished during prohibited hours during such hours as the offices of the city are closed or where such necessity requires immediate action prior to the time at which it would be possible to obtain the building official approval, may be performed provided that the persons doing such construction, repair or excavation obtain a permit therefor within one day after the office of the building official is first opened subsequent to the making of such construction, repair or excavation. C. Utilities exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to construction, repair or excavation by a public utility which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission and where such work is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare and where such necessity makes it necessary to construct, repair or excavate during the prohibited hours. D. City exemption. The provisions of this section do not apply to public works which are authorized by the City. E. Owner exemption. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this section, a property owner may engage in construction activity on his or her own property on Sundays and national holidays between the hours of 10:0o a.m. and 2:00 P.M. (Ord 02-1223 §2, Oct. 2002) 8.24. o6o Use of Sound Amplification Equipment on Public Property. A. Application required. It is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement and government agencies, to install, use or operate within the city a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any sound truck for the purpose of giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, lectures or transmitting music to any persons or assemblages of persons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park, place or public property without first filing an application and obtaining a permit therefore as set forth in the following paragraphs. B. Filing application. Every user of sound amplifying equipment shall file an application with the Chief of Police at least ten (10) days prior to each date or each consecutive number of days on which the sound amplifying equipment is intended to be used. The application shall contain the following information: 1. The name, address and telephone number of both the owner and responsible party for the property where the http://www.hennosabeh.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach : Chapter 8.24 Noise Control sound amplifying equipment shall be used; 2. The address where the sound amplifying equipment will be used; 3. The date(s) and day(s) on which the sound amplifying equipment will be used; 4. The times when the sound amplifying equipment will be used; 5. The type of activity and the estimated number of persons who will attend; 6. A general description of the sound amplifying equipment which is to be used; 7. Whether the sound amplifying equipment will be used for commercial or noncommercial purposes; Page 5 of 8 8. Other information deemed necessary by the Chief of Police or his designee to determine the levels, location and duration of the use of sound amplifying equipment. C. Approval of permit. The Chief of Police shall approve the application unless he or she finds that: 1. The conditions of motor vehicle or pedestrian movement are such that use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or 2. The issuance of the permit would be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; or 3. The issuance of the permit will substantially interfere with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or the community; or 4. The applicant would violate the provisions of this code or of any other law. D. Conditions of approval. The Chief of Police may impose such conditions on the operation to be conducted under the permit as he or she may deem necessary or proper to ensure that the city's noise regulations are followed and that the operation of the sound equipment will not invade the privacy of others. There shall be no conditions placed on any permittee as to the type of message or the content of the communication proposed to be amplified. E. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by disapproval of an application may appeal to the city council within ten (1o) calendar days from the date of notification of decision. F. Permit fee. Prior to the issuance of the permit, a permit fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council per day, or any portion thereof, shall be paid to the City. No fee shall be paid by any nonprofit organization. (Ord. oo- 1209, §3,12-12-00) 8.24. azo Loud Parties or Gatherings. The following provisions apply to any party or other gathering of people on private property that is determined by a law enforcement officer at the scene to constitute a threat to public peace, health and safety or a violation of this Code or State law due to the magnitude of the crowd, the volume of noise, the level of disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood, unruly behavior, excessive traffic or destruction of property generated by the party or gathering. The provisions of this section are inapplicable to a party or gathering authorized by a permit issued pursuant to Section 9.28.020. (Ord. 07-1285, §3, Aug. 2007) A. The law enforcement officer at the scene shall take such actions and give such direction as is necessary to abate the violation or condition, and shall advise the responsible person orally and in writing that if additional law enforcement personnel or emergency service providers are called upon to respond on behalf of the city to abate the condition, the responsible person and the owner or occupant of the property shall be held liable for the cost to the city of providing such services. Such direction and advice shall be given to the person responsible for the party or gathering or to the owner or occupant of the property involved. If the condition is not voluntarily abated and if additional law enforcement personnel or emergency service providers are called upon to respond on behalf of the city in order to disperse the party or http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control Page 6 of 8 gathering, quell any disturbance, direct traffic, cite illegally parked vehicles or otherwise respond, then the cost to the city of such additional services shall be reimbursed to the city as provided in subsection 2. of this section. B.The person or persons responsible for a party or gathering described in subsection (1) of this section, or the owner or occupant of the property on which the party or gathering is held, or, if any such person is a minor, the parents or legal guardian of the minor shall be jointly and severally liable for the following costs incurred by the city: (1) The actual cost to the city of law enforcement services and emergency services, excluding the initial response provided by a law enforcement officer, in order to abate any of the conditions described in subsection 1. of this section; (2) Damage to public property resulting from such law enforcement or emergency response; and (3) Injuries to any law enforcement or emergency service personnel involved in such law enforcement or emergency response. C. The City Manager or his or her designee shall calculate all such costs. The person or persons specified above in subsection 2. of this section shall be billed by the City Manager or his or her designee for the total cost, and payment shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days of the billing date. If the amount due is not paid, the city may collect the debt, as well as any fees and costs incurred in its collection, pursuant to all applicable provisions of law. (Ord. 00-1209, §3, 12- 12-00) 8.24. o8o Barking Dogs and Other Animal Noises. A. Barking dogs and other noisy animals. It is unlawful to keep, maintain, or cause or permit to be kept or maintained upon any premises in the city, or to permit or allow to be running at large, any dog or other animal which repeatedly barks, howls, whines, crows, or makes loud or unusual noises in such a manner as to either disturb the peace and quiet or interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property of any person or persons. The owner or other person in control or custody of the dog or other animal in violation of this Section may be cited by a law enforcement officer at the scene upon a determination of a violation of this subsection A. B. Evidence of a barking dog or other noisy animal. In making a determination whether a violation of subsection A has occurred, evidence of the following shall be considered: 1. The nature, volume and frequency of the barking or other noise; 2. The time or times of day when the noise is heard by the complaining parties; 3. The apparent reasons or provocations for the dog or other animal to emit the noise, if any; 4. The location or locations on the property where the dog or other animal is kept; 5. The manner in which the dog or other animal is kept; 6. The number of persons complaining about the barking or other noise; 7. Any other relevant evidence concerning the alleged barking dog or other noisy animal problem. C. Disposition of barking dog or other noisy animal. Enforcement of this Section may be initiated by issuance of a citation by a law enforcement officer or by way of complaint from any person alleging a violation of this Section. Prior to commencing a prosecution for violation of this Section, the City Prosecutor may refer the affected parties to dispute resolution and/or afford the owner of the dog or other animal a reasonable opportunity to take one or more of the following actions to abate the noise: 1. Train or retrain the dog or other animal to cease creating a violation; 2. Keep the dog or other animal indoors during specified hours, or other similar measures be taken, to eliminate the violation; or http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control Page 7 of 8 3. Remove the dog or other animal from the city permanently, or for a specified period of time after which time the animal may be returned as long as steps have been taken such that the violation will not recur. D. Recovery of law enforcement costs. The animal owner or custodian who has received one citation pursuant to this Section 8.24.08o after having been given a reasonable opportunity to abate the noise pursuant to subsection C above shall be liable for the following costs incurred by the city: 1. The actual cost to the city of law enforcement services responding to any subsequent calls complaining of a violation of this Section 8.24.080; 2. Injuries to any city personnel or law enforcement officers responding to any such calls. The Police Department shall accurately compute the cost of providing such services in accordance with the schedule of rates and charges for personnel and equipment contained in the law enforcement services agreement and advise the City Manager of such costs as well as any other costs of injuries to personnel resulting from the law enforcement response. The City Manager shall bill said costs to the animal owner or custodian. Payment shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the billing date. If the amount due is not paid, the city may collect the debt, as well as any fees and costs incurred in its collection, pursuant to all applicable provisions of law. E. The remedies set forth in this section are not exclusive and may be used in addition to those set forth elsewhere in this Code or bylaw. (Ord. 00-1209, §3, 12-12-00) 8.24• o90 Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: A. Emergency exemption. The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency or the emission of sound in the performance of emergency work. For the purposes of this section, "emergency" means a condition that constitutes an immediate threat to public safety, health or welfare or to property. B. Warning devices. Warning devices necessary for the protection of public safety, such as police, fire and ambulance sirens and train horns. C. Outdoor activities. Activities conducted on public playgrounds, fully licensed and approved child day care facilities within residential areas as permitted by law, and public or private school grounds, including but not limited to school athletic and school entertainment events. D. Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting events. Provided the events are conducted pursuant to a permit issued by the City Manager. (Ord. 00-1209, §3, 12-12-00) 8.24. ioo Violations -Penalty. Violations of the provisions of this chapter are subject to the administrative penalty provisions of chapter 1.1o. (Ord. 07-1281, Sept. 2007) 8.24. iio Enforcement. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City Manager from seeking to obtain voluntary compliance by way of warning, notice or informational materials. (Ord. 00-1209, §3,12-12-00) 8.24-12o Additional Remedies. A. Motor vehicle alarms - deactivation. In addition to the remedies set forth in this chapter, the Police http://www.hermosabeh.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 City, of Hermosa Beach: Chapter 8.24 Noise Control Page 8 of 8 Department may undertake such procedures as are reasonably necessary to deactivate a motor vehicle alarm generating noise in violation of this chapter. If the Police Department is unable to deactivate the alarm, the law enforcement officer may cause the motor vehicle to be removed according to the procedure set forth in Section 22651.5 of the California Vehicle Code. B. Motor vehicle - removal. Any costs associated with the removal or storage of a motor vehicle pursuant to subsection (A) of this section and any costs incurred by the city in connection therewith shall be paid by the registered owner of the motor vehicle. C. Operation or maintenance of other machinery. The operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, equipment, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provisions of this chapter, and persistent animal noise in violation of this chapter shall be deemed, and is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 00-1209, §3, 12-12-00) http://www.hennosabch.org/index.aspx?page=404 10/18/2016 17/2016 M Gmail "Surprise Funeral" noise on Oct. 9, 2016 Gmail - "Surprise Funeral" noise on Oct. 9, 2016 Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmail.com: 5o Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:13 AN ro: David Turner <davewturn@aol.com> :,c: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, "vreher@cox.net" <vreher@cox.net>, "miminotchew@gmail.com" <miminotchew@gmail.com>, Irene Turner ,imtathome@aol.com> Hi Mr. Turner, Thank you for the detailed information. The Council -approved condition of approval no. 9 reads... Any live and/or amplified music shall occur only during funeral services, community events, or visits. Funeral services music and community event music shall be limited to the duration of the service or event. In no case shall the live and/or amplified music exceed 65 dba at the common property lines abutting a Residential Zoning District. The noise level shall be enforced by the neighbors through civil means. What this means is that there can be live and/or amplified music during services or events. There is no time limit for such services or events. Also, in situations as this where the music exceeds 65 dba, you will need to address this through civil means. This condition may have been originally written this way because of enforcement problems should the City be involved in addressing the matter. On a related note, Mr. Reher recently submitted a letter on behalf of your HOA suggesting statutory remedies or changing condition 9 above to improve the situation. This will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at a future annual compliance hearing for discussion. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 is://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=59b4ce902f&view=pt&q=dave&qs=true&search=query&msg=157afccbb7520da1 &siml=157afccbb7520da1 RECEIVED FROM AN'b MADE A ?ART OF THE RECORD AT THE V R.'iJ . C41 j r = E T N, G ,'-) 21 D1 16 f I6 -,rr:rc OF TFIE CIT`' CLERK TERESA TAKAOKA, ACTING CITY CLERK .-.— CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Registration Operations Division MS H875 P.O. BOX 932370 Sacramento, CA. 94232-3700 (916) 657-8153 10/10/2016 ANTONIO RIVERA PERAZA 2145 W 16TH ST LONG BEACH, CA 90813 pl F S � Pi �•.9 d e RECEIVED t IsUM L�,.,.rrl..�.• AND MADE A PART OF THE gEC0 DAT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF,„ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 0 TERESA TAKAOKA, ACTING CITY CLERK UUMPORTANT REMINDERSM 1. Your permit will expire at midnight on the 'Valid Through' date. If you do not receive a renewal notice 30 days prior to the expiration date, please submit an original application and check the "Renewal" box. 2. Your insurance must remain valid through the term of your permit or a suspension action could occur. 3. Changes to your fleet are not required to be reported until your renewal. 4. Changes to your business entity may require a new CA# and application for another Motor Carrier Permit. 5. If you decide to no longer operate as a motor carrier of property, you must submit a 'Voluntary Withdrawal' form. 6. For changes to the address, business name, officers, or authorized,,representative's name, please complete the 'Notice of Change' form. Changes during your renewal period may be submitted on your renewal application. 7. You may download forms from the Internet at www.dmv.ca.gov or receive further information by calling: (916) 657-8153. California Relay Telephone Service for the deaf or hearing impaired from TDD Phones: 1-800-735-2929; from Voice Phones: 1-800-735-2922 VIC 2100 M (REV. 01/2011) A Public Service Agency MOTOR CARRIER PERMIT A Public Service Agency DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Valid From: 11/01/2016 Valid I Through: 10/31/2017 Registration Operations Division P.O' BOX 932370 Sacramento, CA. 94232-3700 CA#• 0135977 The carrier named on this permit, having made written application to the Department of Motor Vehicles for. a, permit to operate as a motor carrier of property as defined in vehicle code section 34601, and having ANTONIO RIVERA PERAZA met the requirements and paid the appropriate fees, is granted a permit 2145 W 16TH ST of the following classification: LONG BEACH, CA 90813 For Hire Full Year Individual Pmt Date: 10/07/2016 Office #: 154 Account #: 14724 Tech 1D: AC Sequence #: 0022 Amt Paid: $352.00 UUMPORTANT REMINDERSM 1. Your permit will expire at midnight on the 'Valid Through' date. If you do not receive a renewal notice 30 days prior to the expiration date, please submit an original application and check the "Renewal" box. 2. Your insurance must remain valid through the term of your permit or a suspension action could occur. 3. Changes to your fleet are not required to be reported until your renewal. 4. Changes to your business entity may require a new CA# and application for another Motor Carrier Permit. 5. If you decide to no longer operate as a motor carrier of property, you must submit a 'Voluntary Withdrawal' form. 6. For changes to the address, business name, officers, or authorized,,representative's name, please complete the 'Notice of Change' form. Changes during your renewal period may be submitted on your renewal application. 7. You may download forms from the Internet at www.dmv.ca.gov or receive further information by calling: (916) 657-8153. California Relay Telephone Service for the deaf or hearing impaired from TDD Phones: 1-800-735-2929; from Voice Phones: 1-800-735-2922 VIC 2100 M (REV. 01/2011) A Public Service Agency From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:03 PM To: Exchange-CityClerk Cc: Cory Linder Subject: FW: PVIC Theater Should Remain a Theater Late Correspondence for Consent Item: K. ifaniel Trautner Deputy Director L City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks From: Sue Walsh [mailto:suewal@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:49 PM To: Fran Simon <fransimonrpv@gmail.com>; Diana McIntyre <mothermac@mac.com>; Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net>; Ann Zellers <AnnZ@rpvca.gov> Cc: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov> Subject: PVIC Theater Should Remain a Theater Hello Fellow Docents, As an active docent at PVIC, I thought you should know that I am opposed to replacing the PVIC Theater with a whaling shack. I feel the theater is better now that the visitors can select the movies that interest them. Since I visit other museums and interpretive centers with groups, I know that one of the favorite features is sitting down for a short interpretive movie. Our movies are very informative and special for the PVIC site. I certainly hope that the theater will not be replaced with another exhibit. I recently heard about this plan, and just today heard of tonight's presentation before the RPV City Council. No, I do not want to lose the theater! I regret that I cannot attend tonight's meeting. Respectfully, Sue Walsh ,K. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VFRDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 18, 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 H Emails from: Senior Administrative Analyst Fox; Barry Hildebrand K Email from: Happyisles(a-)_aol.com 1 Emails from: Ying Sai; Anita Gash; Michael L. Friedman; Maura Mizuguchi; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and Eric Mark; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and Tracy Burns; Email from Alan Siegel 3 Emails from: Gary Huddleston; Pat Akins; Sanni Wehbe; Margaret Spinelli; Yasuko Martin; Debbie Glenwright; Carl Bolm; Alicia Bolm; Tracy Burns; Glenn Cornell; Paula Pilmanis; Elizabeth Hoffman; Mark Knoernschild; Vivian Holmes; David Turner 5 Emails from: Senior Administrative Analyst Waters; Diane Smith; Ginette Aelony; R. Gene Dewey; Donald Bell; Ed Stevens Respectfully submitted, Ter a Takaoka ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, October 17, 2016**. WALATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161018 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Kit Fox Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:04 AM To: CC Subject: Effective Date for Ladera Linda Fields Consent Agreement - Item H Importance: High Dear Mayor Dyda and Members of the City Council: Staff has been advised by AYSO that the effective date of the Consent Agreement between DTSC, PVPUSD and AYSO is October 14, 2016. At the time that tonight's Staff report completed, Staff did not have this information. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Managers Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 5445226 R. (310) 5445291 E: kitf@rpvca.gov From: bjhilde@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:54 AM To: CC; austind@pvpusd.net Subject: Item "H" on RPV City Council Meeting of 18 October 2016 Lady and Gentlemen of the RPV CC and mr Don Austin, Superintendent of PVPUSD, As a former elected official of the PVPUSD for 4 years , an appointed member of the RPV Traffic Committee for 8 years, and a resident of the Ladera Linda community for 50+ years, I am happy to see this unlawful saga approaching its end time. However, I remain concerned that the future health and safety of my fellow citizens and especially their and others' children have not been impaired by the delivery, the grading, and the eventual disposal of the soil that was so abruptly dropped off in near proximity to our neighborhood in April of 2015. That brings up a discussion of terminology related to the situs of the soil. It seems that almost everyone concerned has (and still does) refer to that chunk of land as "Ladera Linda," which is definitely incorrect. The PVPUSD named it Portuguese Bend in anticipation of the need for another intermediate school; that was in the early 1960s, but the need never materialized. However, I am afraid, whether sickness comes or not, that the whole episode will create a negative effect on real estate values in the future. Realtors must as a matter of law tell anyone who inquires, of the "soil story." But this much is certain; PVAYSO, PVPUSD, the EPA (DTSC), and the legal firms involved should refrain from calling the property on which the soil is now located, "Ladera Linda," but rather use "Portuguese Bend." For PVPUSD there is NO excuse. The other irregularity that has come out of this "Soiled Affair" is that no one (thus far) has been charged with breaking the laws of LA county and RPV concerning the transport of dirt on roads and streets without proper testing for toxicity BEFORE moving the stuff, and failing to obtain "Haul -Route" permission from RPV Pub. Wks. There may be other infractions, too, because soil is/can be a hazardous material until tested and proven otherwise and handled properly without fail. It sure takes a bunch of huevos to blame the citizens of the Ladera Linda community for preventing AYSO to carry on their program of youth soccer (a good thing) for the foibles and law -breaking of others. Hope that you got IT!!! That's my message. Barry Hildebrand 3560 Vigilance Drive RPV, CA 90275 310-377-0051 11 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:10 AM To: Lorna Cloke Subject: FW: on agenda tonight can't be there and wan't invited From: Daniel Trautner Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:50 AM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: on agenda tonight can't be there and wan't invited Late Correspondence for Consent Item K. Daniel Trautner Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdtnt Recreation �,' From: HappVisles@aol.com [mailto:Ha isles aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:31 AM To: Fran Simon <fransimonrpv@gmail.com>; stearman(@palosverdes,com; cockeandco@verizon.net; Pat Erickson < aatericson@verizan.net> <patericson@verizon,net>; mathermac@mac.com; Daniel Trautner <Danieff rpvca. ov>; happyisles_@aol.com; hasppyisles@asol.com Subject: on agenda tonight can't be there and wan't invited to the design committee and DAn T. I had only time to speak with 4 other Docents who give tours to visitors and classes in the museum about plans to do away with the theater. They did not know about your committee and its plans , I asked for the names of the people on the committee. Fran is away but I think she is one, Joe .0 Herb S. Pat E and Diana Mc ---maybe Sil and Yvetta. Of those only Pat E and Fran do Docent duty in the Museum I think.. Here is view of another Docent who does do duty in museum. Hi Fellow Docents, Answers: I heard about part of this plan as of 2 weeks ago. No, I do not want to lose the theater! I feel the theater is better now that the visitors can select the movies that interest them. Since I visit other museums and interpretive centers with groups, I know that one of the favorite features is sitting down for a short interpretive movie. Our movies are very informative and special for the PVIC site. I certainly hope that the theater will not be replaced with another exhibit. K This I received this today after telling about the city council agenda on tonight .... I have not had time to survey the working Docents and I will not appear tonight. I did publish my manifesto along with the steps I wanted to pursue to find out what was going on and how I missed all of it ....... got that idea on the 11 of Oct. if I had known anything this survey or input from those who actually to the tours soul have been completed and handed in to the committee.... but shouldn't the committee have done this? Actually I last I heard of the design committee was putting a wig holder in the display case for the mantilla....... I am still waiting for the 4 pictures of the 4 men to go permantally on the wall ... they changed the Peninsula forever.... From: saiying@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:57 PM To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: STR Dear City Council Members, The advent of the Internet has furnished various online marketplaces for persons to enter into transactions with persons from all over the Country and the world in previously inaccessible or impractical fields and industries. One such online marketplace is residential vacation rentals. Websites, such as Airbnb and HomeAway, have provided an interstate platform for property owners to supplement their income while out of town by offering travelers from other parts of the Country generally less expensive transient lodging alternatives to local hotels. A prospective traveler can search for residential vacation rentals in the area of the Country to which he wishes to travel and enter into an interstate transaction with the owner. With these benefits, it is not surprising that the vacation rental marketplace: Has facilitated millions of interstate transactions between property owners and travelers; • Has made travel and transient lodging more affordable; • Has increased travel and travel -spending across the Country; • Has injected $100 billion into the national economy and boosted the national travel industry; and is still growing at unprecedented rates. In an effort to steer travelers back to local hotels and increase their own revenues from hotel taxes, an increasing number of municipalities across the Country have enacted ordinances that purport to regulate the use of the online vacation rental marketplace. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and it city council has enacted the most draconian regulation on vacation rentals. The proposed ordinance among other things will: • Prohibit interstate transactions for vacation rentals between property owners and travelers seeking Rancho Palos Verdes transient lodging; and Prohibit advertising a Rancho Palos Verdes vacation rental in any forum, including on the Internet. This is the precise type of local ordinance that the Constitution protects against. The Commerce Clause confers Congress with the power to regulate the commerce of the United States and embodies a bedrock principal on which our Country was founded: That in order for the Country to succeed, it must succeed as one. To protect that national interest, the Commerce Clause employs a negative mandate known as the dormant Commerce Clause which prevents states and municipalities from interfering with interstate commerce. Local laws that regulate trade of goods and services between residents of different states or otherwise discriminate against or burden interstate commerce are invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause. The proposed Ordinance does both. The Ordinance directly regulates interstate commerce, in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, because it: • Purports to regulate interstate transactions between property owners and international and interstate travelers; • Projects its effect onto the Internet and into other jurisdictions; • Inhibits travel into Rancho Palos Verdes; and • Stifles a thriving industry and national marketplace whose existence benefits the national economy. The Ordinance also discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, because it: • Exempts local hotels from the entirety of its otherwise applicable statutory scheme; • Contains other provisions that are designed to favor Rancho Palos Verdes Hotel businesses over residents; and If city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its city council start a rigorous enforcement of the unconstitutional ordinance, property owners and prospective travelers will be deprived of their constitutional rights, subjected to criminal prosecution and punishment, including imprisonment, and suffered other irreparable injury. To prevent any further irreparable harm, I urge city council NOT to enforce the proposed Ordinance. Sincerely yours, Ying From: saiying@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:37 AM To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: An out right ban on short-term rental violates California Coastal Act The purpose of my letter is to request you not to take away my rights to operate a short-term rental on my properties located in Rancho Palos Verdes. An out right ban on short-term rental violates California Coastal Act. In a new report dated September 13, 2016, "HOA told to back off on short-term rental restrictions" has stated that: "The California Coastal Commission has ordered a homeowners association in Oxnard to rescind its recently passed regulation on short term rentals and warned that the association could face hefty fines. In an Aug. 26 letter to the Mandalay Shores Community Association, the commission said the rule requiring that homeowners who rent out their property do so for no fewer than 30 days constitutes a violation of the California Coastal Act. The commission believes such restrictions limit the amount of overnight lodging options on the coast and limit public access to the beach." Many properties in the city are within the coastal zone that regulated by California Coastal Act. Any attempt made by city official to regulate its use is a clear violation CA Coastal Act. I strongly urge City Council to consider the option of "NO short-term rental regulation should be enforced". 2. An out right ban on short-term rental violate my constitutional Property right. A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals, i.e., as a owner of my two properties in RPV, I have the exclusive authority to determine how my property should be used, to live it myself, to rent, or to sell. 3. Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. a. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. Thus, for example, as the owner of three properties with complete property rights to the houses has the right to detenuine whether to rent it out and, if so, how many days or month to rent out, which tenant to rent to; to live in it himself; or to use it in any other peaeeftil way. That is my right to determine the use. b. The second attribute is if the owner rents out the apartment, he or she also has the right to all the rental income from the property. That is the right to the services of the resources (the rental income). I have the right for all the rental income that properties generated. In conclusion, City's out right ban on short-term rental violated the California Coastal Act and it violated my private property right. I strongly urge City Council NOT to enforce any its proposed regulations. Sincerely yours, Ying HOA told to back off on short-term rental restrictions Wendy Leting , wendyleungOv"tar.00m, 805-437.0339 8:59 p.m. PDT September 13, 2016 The California Coastal Commission has ordered a homeowners association in Oxnard to rescind its recently passed regulation on short-term rentals and warned that the association could face hefty fines. In an Aug. 26 letter to the Mandalay Shores Community Association, the commission said the rule requiring homeowners who rent out their property do so for no fewer than 30 days constitutes a violation of the Califoi Coastal Act. The commission believes such restrictions limit the amount of overnight lodgings options on the coast and limit public access to the beach. Andrew Willis, enforcement supervisor for the commission, wrote that the association could face fines up to $11,250 per day. Willis asked that the association rescind and stop enforcement of such regulations. . According to the letter, the HOA was given 15 days to respond. (photo: Star file photo) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Irate correspondence Octavio Silva Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:35 AM CityClerk Ara Mihranian FW: Airbnb short-term rental 20161014_063819_resized jpg From: Anita Gash [mailto:anitagl@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:58 PM To: Michael Huang <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Airbnb short-term rental This is an additional photo to my earlier email below. Another view taken from my home, 6534 Eddinghill Dr. at 6:35 AM. Guest room light is on. Status Airbnb rental 6527 Eddinghill Dr. RPV . Mr. Eric Mark continues his short-term rental business. I saw the attached car with Colorado license plates park in front of Mr. Mark's home on Thursday evening Oct. 13 , 2016 at 8:53 PM and check in. The car left early the next morning and hasn't been back. Best, Anita Gash 1 .4� 4m From: Octavio Silva Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:36 AM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Rental Attachments: 20161014_063801_1476730814880_resized jpg Late correspondence From: Anita Gash [mailto:anitagl@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:48 PM To: Michael Huang <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Rental Hello, Status Airbnb rental 6527 Eddinghill Dr. RPV . Mr. Eric Mark continues his short-term rental business. I saw the attached car with Colorado license plates park in front of Mr. Mark's home on Thursday evening Oct. 13 , 2016 at 8:53 PM and check in. The car left early the next morning and hasn't been back. Thanks, Anita Gash Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone /0 From: Octavio Silva Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9AS AM To: CityClerk Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: short term rentals in rpv Late correspondence -----Original Message ----- From: Michael Friedman [mailto:mlfriedman@me.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:57 PM To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: short term rentals in rpv Dear Members of RPV planning commission: As a 40 year resident and homeowner in RPV I encourage you to help the city develop language to prevent short term rental owners from advertising their services and also to develop language to allow the city to charge fines for violators commensurate with their thousands of dollars charges. Thank you. Michael L. Friedman, MD. From: Maura Mizuguchi <mrmizuguchi@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:04 PM To: CC; Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian Subject: Listing at 7242 Avenida Altisima Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes, The tenant Tracy Burns of 7241 Avenida Altisima continues to monitor my home to the point of feeling as though my privacy has been compromised. As I stated at the Planning Commission meeting, our family have enjoyed greater social benefits to home sharing than the economic benefits that opponents purport. I feel strongly that the social interactions provided to my family of seven children, three of whom are autistic, have developed them emotionally so that they now can approach and interact appropriately with strangers. My neuro -typical children have also flourished gaining confidence and appropriate social skills that will allow them to be better students and ultimately adults with higher emotional IQs. Therapists and experts had advised that families who foster socially and emotionally sound learning environments allow the children to develop greater social competence. This helps ensure positive academic and personal outcomes for children. Effective social -emotional skills improves academic achievement, conduct both in the home and in the community, and attitudes about self and others. Further, I feel my home is safer when I have guests in my house, as I believe people in your home are the best deterrent of intruders. While I do not agree with the outright ban and believe that a more measured approach should be taken to regulate short term rentals, I have complied with the ordinance by revising my Airbnb listing to indicate that I am only taking 30 day rentals. However, please be aware that I have actively offered my home to friends and family and am now offering my home free through various exchanges. Regards, Maura Mizuguchi From: Maura Mizuguchi <mrmizuguchi@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:08 PM To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: Crime Statistics and Short Term Rentals Attachments: 2016 -03 -MAR PART I CRIMES.pdf; 2016 -04 -APR PART I CRIMES.pdf, 2016 -05 -MAY PART I CRIMES.pdf Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I take objection to the various emails insinuating that short term rentals are responsible for the increase in crime, most recently written by Eugene and Patricia Carver. I want to know what evidence anyone has to support that short term rentals increases crime. Attached are crime statistics indicating crime has actually decreased since the prior year. Are we now to assume that short term rentals have actually DECREASED crime? As noted in the Ackerman Security study noted on the attached link, one of the ten factors that deter burglars from breaking into your home is having people in your home. The last thing burglar's want is to encounter anyone in your home. They'd rather get your stuff and get out without an incident. That's why they're more likely to break in during the day when no one is home. If you go on vacation, make sure to get a house sitter to keep your home safe! What better way to make sure your home is safe than having guests at your home if you are on vacation? Sincerely, Maura Mizuguchi (STUDYI Top 10 Factors That Deter Burglars From Breaking Into Your Home - Ackerman Security [STUDY] Top 10 Factors That Deter Burglars From Breaking Into Your Home - A... r.., i >I r. €" .) zr��; r nv-k kir ,zt,wc LOMITMA CH STATS TION L �� ILTA"i 041. 2016 CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 0 0 0 0 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 7 2 0 1 1 ROBBERY 1 1 0 0 1 BURGLARY 12 4 0 2 1 LARCENY THEFT 19 24 1 2 1 GRAND THEFT AUTO 2 1 0 0 1 ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 41 32 1 5 5 2016 f sgrv«< Trad.711 � IMF Z"' Since 1850 YEAR-TO-DATE CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 00000 0 0 0 00000 0 2 0 ©©000 0 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 7 00000 0 2 1 00©QO 7 3 1 0 1 1 2 BURGLARY 25 ©©00© 2 9 3 000©0 50 56 3 mm©ma 10 GRAND THEFT AUTO 6 YEAR-TO-DATE CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 2 0 0 0 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 7 2 0 2 1 ROBBERY 7 3 1 0 1 1 2 BURGLARY 25 26 2 9 3 LARCENY THEFT 50 56 3 13 10 GRAND THEFT AUTO 6 11 0 2 2 ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 95 1 100 1 5 27 18 Per the FBI JCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Information is time sensitive and subject to change. 2015 LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 5 0 1 1 2 4 1 0 1 0 11 36 3 10 1 65 81 4 20 8 8 12 0 0 7 2 1 0 1 0 108 140 7 33 17 Per the FBI JCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Information is time sensitive and subject to change. LOMITA SHERIFF STATION' APRIL STATS ` '�Trgditintf °f IS,o Since 1850 APRIL 2016 CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 0 0 0 0 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 ROBBERY 0 0 0 0 0 BURGLARY 4 7 1 1 1 LARCENY THEFT 11 13 1 10 5 GRAND THEFT AUTO 4 3 0 1 13 5 ARSON 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 20 1 23 1 2 13 1 12 2016 YEAR-TO-DATE (YTD) CRIME IIIIIIIIIIN RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 00000 0 0 0 0©Q0� 0 2 0 00000 0 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 8 2 0 3 4 00000 7 3 1 0 ®m00© 2 BURGLARY 29 ©000© 3 10 4 00000 61 69 4 - mama GRAND THEFT AUTO 10 YEAR-TO-DATE (YTD) CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 2 0 0 0 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 8 2 0 3 4 ROBBERY 7 3 1 0 1 1 2 BURGLARY 29 33 3 10 4 LARCENY THEFT 61 69 4 23 15 GRAND THEFT AUTO 10 14 0 3 5 ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 115 123 7 40 30 Per the FBI JCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Information is time sensitive and subject to change. 2015 LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 21 6 0 1 1 3 5 1 0 3 1 15 43 4 18 1 97 101 4 27 10 10 15 0 0 9 2 1 0 1 0 148 173 8 50 22 Per the FBI JCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Information is time sensitive and subject to change. LOMITA SHERIFF STATION MAY STATS s Sery ee- 4 %raditia "o G7 i Since 1850 MAY 2016 CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 0 0 0 1 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 4 3 1 0 0 0 ROBBERY 6 1 0 1 1 BURGLARY 6 7 0 3 0 LARCENY THEFT 24 21 0 18 1 GRAND THEFT AUTO 5 2 0 1 1 ARSON 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 45 1 34 1 0 23 1 4 2016 YEAR-TO-DATE (YTD) CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 00000 0 0 0 0000© 0 2 0 0©000 1 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 12 ©©00© 0 3 4 ROBBERY 13 4 1 0 2 1 3 BURGLARY 35 ©©00© 3 13 4 00000 85 90 4 �meea 16 GRAND THEFT AUTO 15 YEAR-TO-DATE (YTD) CRIME LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 2 0 0 1 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 12 5 0 3 4 ROBBERY 13 4 1 0 2 1 3 BURGLARY 35 40 3 13 4 LARCENY THEFT 85 90 4 41 16 GRAND THEFT AUTO 15 16 0 4 6 ARSON 0 0 0 0 1 0 TOTAL 160 157 7 63 1 34 Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Information is time sensitive and subject to change. 2015 LMT RPV RH RHE UNINCORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 21 11 0 1 1 6 7 1 0 3 1 20 62 4 21 4 123 124 4 30 16 15 18 0 0 10 2 1 0 1 0 187 225 8 1 56 33 Per the FBI UCR Guidelines Homicide, Rape, and Aggravated Assault are counted by victim. All other crimes are counted by incident. Information is time sensitive and subject to change. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Late correspondence From: Ara Mihranian Octavio Silva Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:42 AM CityClerk Ara Mihranian FW: Doug Marimon Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 3:23 PM To: tigermark9 <tigermark9@aol.com> Cc: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Doug Marimon Got it Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 4 3 CIT\r F JOVU 110A-1,0 ' VERDE ` 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? P€is e= rnail rnessage contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos vends, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected fronr d=rsciosi,;re, Ihe infoi m8tion is intended only for use of the individual or entity nrarnecl, Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited, T you received, this evail in error, or- are not an intr.nded recipient, pieasr:, notify the sender, inamedi;ately. Thank you for your assistan e, and, coenpenation. From: tigermark9 [mailto:tigermark9@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 3:09 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Doug Marimon Absolutely Mr. Mihranian. I will bring affidavits of my 2 tenants and I suggest that an investigation be conducted, including the inspection of my house. And this response should also be part of the public record. Thank you for your notification Eric Mark Sent from my l` -Mobile 4G I:.,"t"1:: Device -------- Original message -------- From: Ara Mihranian <AraMgKpvca.gov> Date: 10/14/2016 2:44 PM (GMT -08:00) To: ti ermark9 ,aol.com, Octavio Silva <OctavioSgrpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Doug Marimon Mr. Mark, As a point of clarification, did you intend this email to be provided to the City Council and part of the public record for Tuesday's council meeting? Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director CITY OF LAIZANCI 10 RALDSVEIRDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? W5 mail [ness,,ge contains, information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be, privileged, confidential and/or protected frorn cilsclosvae. I he ifformaaUor; is intende=d only for USe Of the individual or (wrathy named, Unauthorized dkseniination, disV'bubon, or copying is strictly prohibited, IT you rice€vrac this eniail in erg or, or are, not an inter;c ocl rt:x:.ipierri;, please notify the <;r�;norjr sraatl7edi7ate;iy, TlrEiah you for your assistr:arx.e and eoopcyation. From: tigermark9@aol.com [mailto:tigermark9@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:35 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Doug Marimon Octavio, good afternoon to you. I have read the email that my neighbor Doug Marimon has sent to you on October 5 2016 Mr. Marimon is a pathological liar and perjurer. He still claims that I run a "Robust motel business" He has been lying about my character ever since I moved back into my house around 2005 On 8/14/2012 1 was forced to file a restraining order in Torrance Superior Court for defamation, lying that I was running a Motel. Copies of such document I have already submitted to you. After the city council ruling in September I have not taken any short term guests and My listing with Airbnb was changed immediately in September, stating that I will not admit any short term stays. Only 31 days or longer. My listing only shows the price per room. The daily price will determine the cost of the long term stay. I will not change it. The only guests staying at my house are: Miss Jeannie Goon from Boston Massachusetts, who arrived on September 21 2016 and Mr. Kevin Marrs from Colorado, who arrived on September 28 until Nov. 24 2016 And Mr. Marimon's claim that there were 7 cars belonging supposedly to my guests parked on my street on October 5 is a lie. I only had 2 guests. Mr. Marimon should be prosecuted for his continuous harassment and perjury. You may verify what I state by calling my guests at (310) 544-0863 Or order an inspection of my home at any time. I will try to get an affidavit from my guests Yours truly Eric Mark From: Octavio Silva Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:31 AM To: CityClerk Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Late Correspondence Attachments: Eric Mark Information.pdf Late Correspondence. Please see attached. Thanks octavio Eric Mark 6527 Eddinghill Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 (562) 644-9418 October 15, 2016 Octavio Silva Ara Mihranian City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Doug Marimon accusations Dear sirs I am hereby enclosing affidavits from 2 of my remaining guests, Jeannie Goon who arrived on 9/21/16 and Mr. Kevin Marrs who arrived on 9/28/16 and will be moving out after November 24 2016 They attest that on October 05 2016 there were only 2 renters living in my house. Doug Marimon's accusations are untrue, spurious and malicious. This scrupulous individual should be prosecuted for his continuous lying and terrorizing us for 10 years. Fortunately now we have a proof of his continuous lying and harassment since he, himself has signed the email sent you on October 5 2016. 1 have been insisting that the city should conduct an investigation to verify these spurious claims. I demand that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes inspect my house on 6527 Eddinghill Dr. at any time to prove these false accusations. The city's inaction, emboldens these individuals to pry, falsely accuse and deprive us of our right to quiet enjoyment of our property. To verify the validity of these 2 affidavits, Miss Jennie Goon will provide her phone number and address upon request. Mr. Kevin Marrs can be reached at my house at (310) 544-0863 Yours truly Eric Mark UC 1 1 7 2016 M DEPARTMENT To whom it may concern My name is Jeannie Goon, From Boston, Massachusetts. 1 have been renting a room at 6527 Eddinghill Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, since September 21 2016 The only other guest living at the premises is Mr. Kevin Marrs We each own a vehicle. Since September 21 to date there have been only 2 cars parked on the street. Mr. Mark has shown me a copy of the email sent by a gentleman named Doug to Mr. Octavio Silva On October 5 there were no other cars parked, contrary to what the home owner at 6533 Eddinghill claims There have been no new guests living at this house at any time after September 30 Yours truly w 5 Jeannie Goon t CZ€t,C 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I, Kevin Marrs, have been a resident of the house on 6527 Eddinghill Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes since September 28 2016 1 will be moving out after November 24 2016 Since I arrived in this home there has been only one other guest, Jeannie Goon. Each of us have one car. Consequently, I attest that there have been only 2 cars parked in front of 6527 Eddinghill Dr. at all times since September 28 2016 „ `L"l 'I t% 4 t � t w.fi� E. , w t . 1 e,r `�,A. CIO— �j i . c � y {t � t � � y V t...�I- Gt V`r i V i c, -T +`Yt^ i S C: w w -c t 0)/ Date OCT 17 2016 DEPARTMENT From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:35 AM To: Tracy Burns; CC; Octavio Silva; Julie Peterson Subject: RE: RPV - Penalties for Short Term rentals / West Hollywood example Thanks Tracy! We will reach out to West Hollywood. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director GFFYOF RW ICO : / . VF SIDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram ,rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? •� . :1335 ei'¥t<iil Yzi@?F.; s;?C)§i', f:C}rtl:a!r3S 3r?tisrl'rta9;fot1 tlE?1031girtCJ to the City OP Ra3icI1fD Pal{15 Verdes, iNi33ci1 may be pTivllfr'g(',C:I, f.C3r3 i;:, E?n%ial Kt3a'.hrE)€' j5rotf'Ca"E;d t3"rin1 ds£aostlre. The infoi ri36adon is ir3ter1£ted only for use of the individual or entity n arned, Unauthorized disssc?rdnation, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited� if you recerve; this en -1 a€l in en,or, or are riot arr intended recipient, Please notify the senuler irr3rnetliately. Fhank you for your assistzin£e and cooperation, From: Tracy Burns [mailto:akamomma@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:26 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Julie Peterson <JulieP@rpvca.gov> Subject: RPV - Penalties for Short Term rentals / West Hollywood example The penalties should be a deterrent because as seen with the 6857 Crest Rd AirBNB ad, the operator has already built-in a rate increase to $3500 to cover enforcement issues (standard rate is $1500, so even if doubled he is still making $500 after paying penalty). Also, many of these homes being operated as hotels in residential neighborhoods have multiple rooms for rent individually or rent out the entire house (ex. 6527 Eddinghill / 7 rooms, 7131 Avenida Altisima / 4 rooms and 7241 Avenida Altisima / 4 rooms). My suggestion is that the penalty be the ENTIRE HOUSE rate multiplied by 200% to start, because they could all easily claim the lowest priced room was the charged rate. The best example I have seen regarding enforcement has been West Hollywood and my suggestion is to contact them for further details. Please refer to "Step 3" for their penalty rates. http://www.weho.org/ciiy-hall/city-departments-divisions/public-works/code-compliance/short-term-rentals AirBnB, FlipKey, VRB4, HomeAway, etc. On September 21, 2015, the West Hollywood City Council adopted ordinance 15-958 which further clarifies the City's long-standing prohibition of short term vacation rentals in the City. This ordinance went into effect on October 21, 2015. What the new law means: 1. No person shall rent a dwelling unit, or part of a dwelling unit, to anybody, for a period of 30 days or less. All rentals must be for 31 or more days. 2. The advertising of this activity is also prohibited. Flyers, posters, emails, online ads, and the like, are all prohibited. Does the law apply to single family homes, apartments, condos, and guest houses? Yes. This prohibition applies to all dwelling units in the City. Is there an enforcement "grace period"? No. Any short term vacation rental operating in the City is not permitted to do so. Why did the City Council adopt this ordinance? The City of West Hollywood convened a S ha red f conotn "l'ask Force in 2014 to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding Shared Economy business models. This included a comprehensive review of short-term rentals. While short-term rentals may provide benefits to individual residents, strong concerns were raised by community members during the Task Force review process about quality -of -life and public safety impacts of short-term rentals, as well as the effect of short-term rentals on affordable housing in West Hollywood. The Task Force ultimately recommended to City Council that it affirm and further clarify the existing prohibition of short-term rentals within West Hollywood. How the City responds to complaints: When Code Compliance receives a complaint about this issue, a case will be generated and the enforcement process will begin. The following is a general guideline on how enforcement will proceed. Step 1 - A warning notice will be issued to the tenant or property owner informing them that they are in violation of the prohibition on short-term rentals. They will be given 30 days to take the appropriate steps to correct the violation. This means the immediate stoppage of short term rentals and the taking down of any advertisement for such an activity. Step 2 - A letter will be issued to the complainant informing them of the case # and what can be expected to take place in the coming days and weeks. Step 3 - If the violation continues, citations will be issued to the violating party. These fines will begin at 200% of the listed advertisement rate and go up to 400°/x. For ads that do not have a listed rental price, fines range from $500.00 to $1500.00. Step 4 - Although we do not anticipate the need to do so, continued non-compliance may result in this matter being referred to the City Prosecutor's Office for criminal prosecution. How to Report a Short Term Rental: If you believe that a violation of this law is taking place, please contact Code Compliance so that we can begin the enforcement process. • Call us at 323-848-6516 • Email us • Use the City's Service I.e_quest • Use the City's Mobile App o IOS o Android "When filing a concern, please provide a link to a website or advertisement for this rental if possible. The text of the law reads as follows: WHMC 19.36.331- Short -Term Vacation Rentals A. Rental Prohibited. No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less to any transient. B. Advertisement. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this section. WHMC 19.90.020 - Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases Advertisement. Any printed or lettered announcement, whether in a magazine, newspaper, handbill, notice, display, billboard, poster, Internet website or application, or any other form. Rent. Consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a dwelling unit valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise. Transient. Any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. 6857 Crest Rd AirBNB Ad *Iependinq on type of event. 0 Owl& Maximum Uuests allowed per stand(o Disclaimer - Any parties (house parti 5 Thank you, Tracy Burns From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Late correspondence. Ara Mihranian Tuesday, October 18, 2016 3:15 PM CityClerk Octavio Silva FW: Short Term Rental Ban - Zoning Districts Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(�rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e -nail? €tris e flul mossage col W4)s information belonging is the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, v hich may be privileged, confidential and/or potected from dis,dos ,re, ..Ne lnforrrRition is intended only for use of the individual or enfily narn,,,,�d, i.inatborized di:ssenwnz bon, distribUUon, orr_opying is sirictly prohibi[:(A If you re,".6ved 1hiss o -nail in k:grrr, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender imimediMely,,.(hank you for your 4assist<arce and cooperatim, From: Alan Siegel [mailto:siegelal@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:43 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Short Term Rental Ban - Zoning Districts Mr. Silva - I have a quick question for you, in advance of tonight's Council meeting. The Planning Commission recommended a ban on STRs "in the City" - implying all residential zoning districts. However, the motion that was passed by the City council and referenced in tonight's agenda only addresses "Prohibiting the advertisement of a short-term rentals in the City's Single -Family Residential Zoning Districts". (My emphasis added.) One could argue that given the permissive nature of the City codes if STR's are illegal in Single - Family Residential Districts, then they certainly are also illegal in Multi -Family Residential Districts. In my opinion this is an oversight, and the Council would likely agree that STRs should also be banned in Multi -Family Residential Districts. Can this be brought up by staff at tonight's meeting, or should I plan on speaking to this during the public comment period? Thank you for your consideration. Alan Siegel From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary Huddleston <ghud@cox.net> Monday, October 17, 2016 5:36 PM CC RPV Proposed Noise Ordinance "I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance". Gary & Lynda Huddleston 2022 Avenida Feliciano RPV, CA ■ From: Pat Akins <pfakins@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:10 AM To: cc Subject: Noise ordinance Dear City Council Members, I am not able to attend the City Council meeting tonight but as a resident of the Peninsula Verde tract and member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association, I would like to ask you to vote in favor of initiating a Code Amendment to prepare a more comprehensive noise control ordinance for the City. Thank you for your service. Patricia Akins 26911 Lunada Circle Rancho Palos Verdes i From: sanni wehbe <sanniwehbe@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 7:00 PM To: cc Subject: Noise ordinance "I am a member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance". Sanni wehbe 1819 peninsula verde dr Thank you Sent from my Wad From: Margaret Spinelli <mgt.spinelli@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 9:32 PM To: CC Subject: Noise Ordinance Dear Council Members, I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Sincerely, Margaret Spinelli 1916 Galerita Drive RPV 90275 Sent from Margaret's Wad From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, yasukomartin@gmail.com Monday, October 17, 2016 9:47 PM CC Pending Noise Ordinance I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Thank you, Yasuko Martin Sent from my Whone From: Debbie Glenwright <debbieglenwright@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:01 PM To: CC Subject: Citywide Noise Ordinance I am a member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance". Thank you, D. Glenwright 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Leza Mikhail, carl.bolm@gmail.com Monday, October 17, 2016 10:38 PM CC Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance I am a member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Sincerely, Carl Bohm 1848 Peninsula Verde Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Alicia Bolm <aynbolm@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:30 AM To: CC Subject: In favor of Code Amendment to Noise Ordinance Hello, I am a member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Alicia Bolm 3 From: Tracy Burns <akamomma@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:52 AM To: CC; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva; Julie Peterson Subject: RPV - Noise Ordinance / Nuisance Properties My understanding is that the only Noise Ordinance RPV uses is part of the LA Co Code, which is very difficult to enforce and requires special equipment for measuring decibels. This is not practical for enforcement, especially for deputies responding to calls for service. My suggestion is to refer to the Hermosa Beach code for guidance. "Additionally, in several other ordinances I reviewed from other cities, the standard of measurement was what was able to be heard by the responding LEO from the property line. This seems to be the most logical and easiest to enforce. Specifically: 8.24. 040 Specific Prohibited Noises. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following acts and the causing or permitting thereof, are declared and deemed to be in violation of this chapter: A. Placement of stereo speakers. The amplification of music or any other sound on private property, through speakers located either (1) outdoors, or (2) in one or more windows or doorways, when such speakers are directed towards and such music is plainly audible on an immediately adjacent public right-of-way. B. Band or orchestral rehearsals. The conducting of or carrying on, or allowing the conducting or carrying on of band or orchestral concerts or rehearsals or practices between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. sufficiently loud as to be plainly audible at the property line of the property from which the sound is emanating. 8.24. 070 Loud Parties or Gatherings. The following provisions apply to any party or other gathering of people on private property that is determined by a law enforcement officer at the scene to constitute a threat to public peace, health and safety or a violation of this Code or State law due to the magnitude of the crowd, the volume of noise, the level of disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood, unruly behavior, excessive traffic or destruction of property generated by the party or gathering. The provisions of this section are inapplicable to a party or gathering authorized by a permit issued pursuant to Section 9.28.020. (Ord. 07-1285, §3, Aug. 2007) A. The law enforcement officer at the scene shall take such actions and give such direction as is necessary to abate the violation or condition, and shall advise the responsible person orally and in writing that if additional law enforcement personnel or emergency service providers are called upon to respond on behalf of the city to abate the condition, the responsible person and the owner or occupant of the property shall be held liable for the cost to the city of providing such services. Such direction and advice shall be given to the person responsible for the party or gathering or to the owner or occupant of the property involved. If the condition is not voluntarily abated and if additional law enforcement personnel or emergency service providers are called upon to respond on behalf of the city in order to disperse the party or gathering, quell any disturbance, direct traffic, cite illegally parked vehicles or otherwise respond, then the cost to the city of such additional services shall be reimbursed to the city as provided in subsection 2. of this section. B.The person or persons responsible for a party or gathering described in subsection (1) of this section, or the owner or occupant of the property on which the party or gathering is held, or, if any such person is a minor, the parents or legal guardian of the minor shall be jointly and severally liable for the following costs incurred by the city: (1) The actual cost to the city of law enforcement services and emergency services, excluding the initial response provided by a law enforcement officer, in order to abate any of the conditions described in subsection of this section; (2) Damage to public property resulting from such law enforcement or emergency response; and i (3) Injuries to any law enforcement or emergency service personnel involved in such law enforcement or emergency response. C. The City Manager or his or her designee shall calculate all such costs. The person or persons specified above in subsection 2. of this section shall be billed by the City Manager or his or her designee for the total cost, and payment shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days of the billing date. If the amount due is not paid, the city may collect the debt, as well as any fees and costs incurred in its collection, pursuant to all applicable provisions of law. (Ord. 00-1209, §3, 12-12-00) http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=404 "Also, LASD is able to input information into their system that automatically shows when an address is entered for a call. For example, the house at 6857 Crest Rd (Shwick) is already known to be operating as a party venue. This info would already be available to the responding deputies and no leniency would be shown. It could also be noted that the Watch Commander should be notified to follow-up on the call and to forward all information to RPV Code Enforcement immediately. Thank you, Tracy Burns From: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:50 AM To: CC Subject: Noise Ordinance Councilmembers: I live in Rolling Hills Riviera in our city and want to encourage you to support efforts to clarify and strengthen our city's noise ordinance. Rolling Hills Riviera is a tract of 720 -plus single family homes bordered on one side by Western Avenue. It lies close to many of the more industrial -- and noisier -- activities which take place in the area. I acknowledge that, as a consequence of our location, my neighbors and I may be more sensitive to the issue of noise and noise pollution than residents of other areas of The Hill. In contrast to the City of Los Angeles which seems to favor construction, development and growth over all other considerations, our city has distinguished itself by placing heavy emphasis on quality of life issues for its residents. Noise is one such issue. I support efforts to recognize noise's harmful effects and to bolster our city's regulation of it. Please do not hesitate to contact me at gcorne1.16ggmail.com or (310) 831-3033 if you have questions about these remarks or would like to discuss them further. Thank you, Glenn Cornell 2004 Velez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3 From: Paula Pilmanis <paulapilmanis@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:12 AM To: cc Subject: noise ordinance I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Paula Pilmanis 27838 Pontevedra Drive RPV, CA 90275 From: Elizabeth Hoffman <Elizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:59 AM To: CC Subject: Noise Ordinance Dear City Council Members: I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance Elizabeth Hoffman 2117 Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 ■ From: Mark Knoernschild <mk7291@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:08 PM To: CC Subject: Noise Ordinanece I have heard that the council will be voting on a noise ordinance at their meeting tonight, October 18, and as a RPV homeowner and member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, I urge the council to approve the ordinance. Mark Knoernschild 2117 Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Sent from my iPad From: Vholmesll@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 9:53 PM To: CC Subject: CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A CITYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE NOISE ORD. To: City Council: I am a member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Vivian Holmes 26902 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 3 From: David Turner <davewturn@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 3:46 PM To: cc Subject: noise ordinance review I am a member of the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. I also recommend keeping the Green Hills noise level requirement and requiring them to enforce it. Thank you. David Turner 0 From: Matt Waters Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:14 AM To: Lorna Cloke Cc: Teresa Takaoka; Nathan Zweizig Subject: late correspondence Attachments: Ladera Linda Park Community Input_09 22 2016 workshop final.pdf Hi Lorna, LL Master Plan (item 5) late correspondence attached. Thanks, Matt City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 Time: 6:00pm — 8:00pm Location: Ladera Linda Park — 32201 Forrestal Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA City Staff: Recreation: Cory Linder, Daniel Trautner, Matt Waters, Mona Dill & Mary Hirsch Public Works: Ron Dragoo, James Flannigan Consultant: Richard Fisher Associates: Dick Fisher, Jim Collison, Taylor Smith Topic: Requesting the input of the community members utilizing Ladera Linda Park for their ideas and suggestions regarding the renovation of the park. Summary: City staff began with an overview of the City's 2014-2015 public outreach efforts that focused on city-wide Park Master Plan and identified the park and community center elements and the need to upgrade the infrastructure. Dick Fisher then discussed the current Master Plan process that includes specific site planning for the park and its potential improvements. An open discussion of questions, comments and concerns for the renovation followed. Community Comments I Questions I Concerns: (Questions with a "Response" indicate replies that were given by City/ RFA staff at the meeting) General Comments 1. Is this revenue driven? Response: No. Want to make it functional and safe. 2. Are federal funds going to be used for the construction of this project? Response: The City will be looking at grant funding but that has not been determined at this stage. 3. Who participated in the online survey? Response: It was an informal online survey (Survey Monkey) that drew over 500 response. The great majority of respondents self -identified as RPV residents. 4. Would like passive use amenities only. 5. Less is BETTER! Want to maintain its current low-key community feeling, not a magnet for large parties. Response: Staff and RFA are well aware of Council's direction. This direction is why the Parks Master Plan section for Ladera Linda does not include a gym, pool, or dog park. Intent from beginning of process was to maintain neighborhood feel. 6. City is not currently doing basic maintenance at the park. Need to fix the water fountain. Asphalt being used for wheelies and throws gravel onto courts and they are not being swept up. Response: Staff said that these reports would be looked into and noted that the park should still be maintained while it goes through the Master Plan process. 7. Preserve old growth trees (especially 2 outside school room). 8. Need shade to be considered in new design. 9. This should be a NEIGHBORHOOD park, not a Community park. Response: This will continue to be a neighborhood park; not adding a gym, pool, dog park or any other amenity that would turn it into a large Community park. The Council -approved Parks Master Plan spells out that impact on park -adjacent residents and maintaining a low-key community feel is vital to any future park projects. Prichard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting 10. Why is there not a committee that includes the HOA's or a charrette? Residents should have more say in the design process. Response: Staff responded that significant outreach has been done including several workshops in 2014 and 2015. One of the challenges of a plan like this is taking input from meetings and summarizing the information into just two plans. There has been significant outreach efforts done already through the Parks Master Plan. The removal of several active elements is a reflection of the outreach effort. 11. Just want a little private community park not more people, traffic and burglaries from outside. Don't make any changes to the park — we like it as it is 12. If you build it they will come. What is the community this building is intended to serve? Is there a large group in the City that is looking for a space and will come in and take care of their needs at City Hall. 13. If you don't spend the budgeted money for the new community center will that money be lost? Response: No, there is no money currently budgeted for this project. A budget will be developed as part of the process. The only budgeted funds are for RFA. 14. Can we save old growth trees? Response: Process is not at that stage but if they can be saved, they will be. RFA works with a professional arborist. 15. Question about RFA's experience in park planning. Response: Dick Fisher reviewed his extensive experience in park planning and design. Majority are in Southern California/Orange County Park Users 16. Can the City publish current use of the facility so that the residents can understand what is in use and what is needed? Response: Yes, the City will post that info on its Ladera Linda Master Plan webpage in a timely fashion. RFA noted that architect will write up a program of existing usage on site as part of the design process. 17. Consider existing use of upper fields by AYSO so as not to add users to the existing park. Area is already impacted and we don't want more programs scheduled here on the weekends. Response: Staff is very aware of this issue and will work to avoid conflicts with large uses such as AYSO. 18. Who are the "Stakeholders"? The Stakeholders are the residents not the users (YMCA, etc). Can the City publish a list of stakeholders? Response: The City uses the term "Stakeholders" to identify the various groups that use the park and facility. We absolutely agree that the voice and opinions of residents and Ladera Linda neighbors are of primary importance in this process. Staff identified the "stakeholders" as PVPLC, LL HOA, Seaview HOA, PVPUSD, Docents, Instructors, Lomita Sheriff, Las Candalistas, YMCA, and Ladera Linda instructors. Reaching out to interested parties helps determine current use and identify issues and concerns. 19. Are any weights placed on changing demographics over next 10 years? Response: That's why the City and RFA are meeting with all the users so that it doesn't serve just one user group. 20. Is this a neighborhood park for Ladera Linda or a community park for RPV that Mediterranea neighborhood can use? Response: Using public funding so park is open to public and is used by many residents of RPV that do not live in the surrounding neighborhood. It is a hybrid of a neighborhood and a community park. Richard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting 21. "If you build it, they will come." Strongest feature of existing facility is that it doesn't accommodate large groups in one area. 22. No movie nights. 23. Social media (Santa Monica hiking club). Don't advertise free parking on City site! 24. Unauthorized use of facility (i.e. same group using open field for soccer and bringing their own goals; bicycle run; hiking groups, etc.) Response: Staff is aware of these situations and is working to address them at all City parks. Staff discussed anew City special event policy and encouraged residents to report large-scale uses to City Staff. 25. Address indirect users/unapproved use. Response: Driven by social media. Staff is working on this, Residents encouraged to reach out to staff if they see inappropriate use. 26. Need to consider implications of being next to preserve. Del Cerro Park wasn't envisioned to handle crowds currently using it thru social media. Need restriction in times for residents/non-residents? Community Center / Nature Center 27. Who has use of community center? Who allows scheduling of bands and live music? What time can they use it until? Don't want users playing music late. Need set regulations for users to follow. Response: The community center is open to the public. There are restrictions on hours and music. Staff will work with community on allowable uses and policies. 28. Do not want to attract graduation parties, weddings, etc. Want a subdued center. Response: Intent is for future usage to mirror current usage. 29. Will there be a separate facility just for the Nature Center? Just want a room not a huge building. Response: Nature Center may give the impression of a very large building. Nature Room, similar in scope to the Discovery Room that has been at this site for decades, is more accurate, 30. The artifacts in the Discovery Room and the Docent storage room are temperature sensitive. Need to preserve them throughout this renovation process. Will it be temperature controlled to preserve the artifacts? Response: Staff is aware that the artifacts are fragile. Great care will be taken to ensure their safety and condition through this process. Staff will be meeting with the Docents to discuss this issue next week. 31. Nature Center needs work area and storage. 32. Need lots of storage. Can we define who the storage is for and how much they will need? Response: Storage is often not properly planned in park design. Want to plan for it in early stage. Current storage usage and potential future storage will be addressed and defined during the process. 33. Can the City post online how much square footage is actually used/needed for the new facility? 34. Can City provide breakdown of disaster preparedness requirements? Response: This can be discussed with the City's Emergency Prep staff person and the Red Cross. Rooms aren't used on a permanent basis but would be utilized by Red Cross in case of an emergency. LL is only emergencAvac center east of the landslide. 35. Emergency Helicopter Pad Training needs to be considered as well. Response: Not part of Master Plan Note: The Fire Department has used the upper fields (school district property) for fire -fighting exercises in the past. 36. Concern about what the Red Cross' needs are Response: Red Cross will bring supplies in and will not store onsite. Richard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting 37. We don't need ADA pathways from street. They can drive in! Response: It is federally mandated to make the facility ADA accessible but not being funded by the federal government. Traffic I Parking 38. Traffic impact on Forrestal & emissions from soccer users needs to be considered. Will a new traffic study be done? An emissions study? Response: Studies have been done, but Staff does not believe they included an emissions study -staff will look into.. A new traffic study will be done if necessary. 39. Traffic is extremely dangerous on weekends with AYSO & docent trail hikes. Lots of parking issues. 40. Impact of social media on traffic and parking. 41. Need a traffic light. 42. Need 4 -way stop at Pirate and make entrance at Pirate. 43. Discussion of Del Cerro parking issues. Don't add too much parking. Need to put in parking restrictions here in park and on streets for CITY residents. Response: These issues and ideas can be explored. The square footage of a building dictates the number of parking spaces. There will likely be more parking at the new facility. RFA noted that they are going to be conservative with parking. 44. Expand parking and make it environmental. 45. Can you design entrances to the park that help slow down traffic? Security I Safety 46. Want staff here on weekends for security and deterring users. Response: Staff are on duty whenever the building is open, including during any events and rentals. 47. Night time loitering — drugs, alcohol, noise, etc. 48. Trash from outside users (empty water bottles from hikers & soccer users) left in front yards 49. Inappropriate to put in a sheriff sub -station. Response: A small drop-in office for sheriff personnel is being considered, not a sub -station. There is currently a sheriff drop-in office on site at this time. 50. Need more security - (4) burglaries in past year. 51. Add cameras and security. 52. Concerns about recent crime and burglaries in area. Response: Building would be constructed with security in mind. Having Sheriffs around and additional staff hours would also be a safety enhancement. 53. Add lights on timer so safer at night. 54. ADA Access: Response: RFA noted that Federal Govt. mandates that public facility must accommodate access from public right of way to front door. Handicap -accessible spaces will be provided adjacent to entrance. 55. Remove upper gate. Do not like how the gate operates. Next Steps Dick Fisher discussed next steps. Review of current usage and proposed usage during information -gathering phase, followed by design process, creation of two design alternatives based on input, presented to Council for feedback. Based on feedback, plan will be refined, cost estimates created, and brought back to Council for approval. Six month process for Master Plan -completed in April 2016. Total pre -construction, demolition and construction timeline would be approximately 18 months to two years. 56. Request for additional public meeting. 57. Question about architect for project: Richard Fisher Associates RPV.- Ladera Linda Park MasterPlan, Page 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting Response: Architect is Meyer and Associates who specialize in Recreation and Civic projects. Additional Input provided by Comment Cards General Comments 58. Have RVP staff develop park policy strategy simultaneously so that the park re- opens with set rules. 59. Develop a committee to keep in touch with the process. 60. Do not mention Ladera Linda on Facebook or other social media. 61. Potential improvements are great. This keeps the theme of existing park a community. It has needed a remodel for a long time. It is used by local and other communities on a regular basis. I do not see any problems with the increased traffic or crimes. It appears that your proposal for the PUBLIC PARK meets the needs and desires of ALL neighboring residences. Unfortunately, some of these people are narrow minded. 62. Keep it simple — keep it small. 63. Maintain the existing facilities while the process is going on. 64. We very much agree with "less is more". This should be for the surrounding neighborhoods — not drawing people and traffic from everywhere. 65. Do NOT overbuild this site to attract crowds please. 66. The community should be able to review the program BEFORE you move further into master plan design! Park Amenities / Design 67. The concept of three -tiered cohesive park with ADA trails is a great concept. This will not only assist with ADA needs, but also with families with young children and strollers. I would encourage the plan, however, to keep in mind the privacy needs of the Seaview community below to ensure the proposal does not have easy sight lines into backyards (i.e, use hedges along the fence). This is particularly true of the proposed Community Center — it should be positioned to maintain privacy. 68. Upgrade the park/buildings but keep current amenities (basketball, volleyball/paddle tennis, etc) without adding any new amenities that may attract traffic and crime from outside (a 3-4 mile radius) areas. AYSO can't be controlled by City but there ARE adult games/leagues from outside area that are using open grass area. Do not want additional soccer fields added to park. No additional organized sports groups need to use the park. 69. 1 would encourage expansion/renovation of the two children playgrounds (including updated groundcover and shade sails). Shade is very important given skin cancer/sun allergy concerns. Have shaded seating area for parents/family members near the play equipment is similarly important. 70. Clear division between open space and community center. 71. Placement of the activities (basketball, volleyball, etc) kept to one area. 72. "1 support the renovations that support neighborhood connectivity — classrooms, a small track, stairways for exercise" 73. Check out the playground at Tongva Park in Santa Monica. It is very in tune with the natural elements with equipment that encourages open play among children. 74. The staircase to Dauntless needs some updating (including some possible downlighting for safety). 75. More tables and benches for picnics and connection. 76. Currently, there are perhaps only 2 or 3 picnic tables. Please do NOT add more. The surrounding community can go home for lunch. My observation at other .parks is the picnicking increases trash and vermin. Adding more workers to deal with these things is NOT responsive to the taxpayer. NO BBQs! Richard Fisher Associates RPV. Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting 77. Please trim current dead / dry foliage. Our concerns regarding fire is valid. 78. Because of geographical features in the area, please consider the impact noise would have on the neighborhood. In the past, there have been picnic groups using bullhorns and flag football teams whose coaches used shrill whistles which echo throughout the neighborhood because the cliffs act as an echo chamber. Such uses have been discontinued and, hopefully, will remain so. 79. Please do not move the entrance to where the Forrestal Dr. gate (west side) currently is. 80. Reduce building structures and improve hiking, walking and outdoor recreation, within reason. Community Center / Nature Center 81. Please consider the nearest neighbors when placing buildings, outhouses, lighting in areas that would impact those of us directly across from the park on the eastside of Forrestal Dr. Thank you for considering the wishes of the neighborhood residents and for your hard work on our behalf! 82. We need more information about the current usage of this facility well in advance of specific floor plan being presented. 83. Before any plans are presented to City Council, there needs to be an additional opportunity for input from the community. 84. Build storage at PVIC (not containers) 85. As part of the Nature Center, please expand the butterfly garden that Leslie Williams started. It is wonderful! 86. We need a basic native plant garden for: 1) cording, 2) food, and 3) Native American uses for mulefat, elderberry -lemonade berry, toyon, etc. Use native plants for landscaping (white sage, other sages, buckwheat, lupine, poppies?). 87. Take pictures of what is in the Discovery Room to be able to reassemble the room, tables and displays. Teach about nature! The Discovery Room has displays of what you see on the trails — birds, native plants, reptiles, minerals, inspects, bird nests — who built them, movie on raptors, hummingbirds, peacock photos, fossils, Indian artifacts on how the Tongva lived. 88. We would like to see the Nature Center as part of the Community Center — not a separate building. 89. We are really unclear as to the program of the Community Center. What activities are we trying to support — that should be part of the discussion. Do we really need 18,000 sf — that is a lot of square footage! 90. For the Community Center, I would encourage designing some special use rooms: 1) dance studio with proper flooring and mirrors; 2) activity rooms by age group (toddler, elementary, teenagers); and 3) quiet room for reading, homework and personal thought (if this room had a view that could be dramatic) — large comfortable seating would also add appeal to this room. Traffic / Parking 91. Parking spaces need to be increased in park. Should be along the periphery, not inside the park area. 92. The high light car glare in the evening is very dangerous with Trumps exit, directly opposite the Forrestal exit in the evening. It calls for a light to help make a left or right turn. As more visitors come, we will have many more serious accidents in the evening. Cars arriving at Trumps exit drive up a long drive without any light along the drive. Most have their bright lights on when they arrive at the exit. 93. Please do a realistic traffic study on the weekends when soccer is in season and also weekdays after 4pm when there are soccer practices, kids and adults returning from school/work, and 8 am weekdays when lids/adults are leaving for school/work. Richard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting 94. Parking plans need to be carefully considered, especially due to proximity to preserve areas (we do not want another "Del Cerro parking fiasco" here). Security / Safety 95. Provide additional security for areas around the development to avoid burglaries and robberies that has happened since the soccer field has come into existence. My single street has had 4 home robberies in the last 2 years. 96. Better security & lighting. 97. Safety lighting, in general, needs updating. Additional Input provided by Emails 98. 1 attended the meeting at the Ladera Linda Center, and respect the view of various Ladera Linda neighbors, but the views expressed in the meeting are not the only ones. I wanted to express my support for the redevelopment of the property to include a modernized community center/nature center, with easier access and more useable open space. 1 have spoken to several other residents in the general area who agree with these thoughts and wanted me to speak on their behalf. I believe there are many more families like us, with small kids, who may not have been able to attend the community meetings but share our views. Family Space. This area of RPV is in a state of transition. There are numerous residents who have lived in the area since it was originally developed (40 years plus). We respect these folks and their desire for peace and quiet, but there also are a growing number of people like us who have more recently moved into the area with children. We love the semi -rural feel of Rancho Palos Verdes, but do not believe that lower impact development means no development. The LL park should include areas for families to use and for kids to play. The current basketball courts are in disrepair and the park also could use a nice jungle gym. Despite the level of disrepair, we regularly use the Park to play ball and to ride around on scooters and the like. We hope the re -designed space includes these elements. Neighborhood and Community Space. LL park is the only park in this part of RPV and it should be available as an area where members of the community gather. Not to be simplistic, but if you live across from a park, there is going to be some traffic and noise. I am not saying we should hold rock concerts every weekend, but there should be both outdoor and indoor spaces where people can gather together. These types of community spaces are important to foster and develop a sense of community, especially for those of us who are relatively recent arrivals. When I heard people shout down the idea of holding a movie night, it really bothered me. Again, I am not suggesting that we build a movie theatre or have nightly or even weekly movie nights, but we have a couple of movie nights per year at Mira Catalina School and they are a wonderful way for people to meet each other and socialize. This creates community. Why can't we have a couple of movie nights, or something like a meteor shower or astronomy night? Reasonable restrictions on noise easily could be enforced. Ample Parking. We live up in Mediterranea, which used to be directly connected to Ladera Linda but now is accessible only by driving down the switch -backs and around to the park. There is a need for significant parking which is better organized and easier to access. This doesn't mean we are asking for a Richard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting Disneyland size parking lot, but we are asking for reasonable access for people who live outside of the Ladera Linda neighborhood. I actually think some of the apparent overflow into the Ladera Linda neighborhood could be alleviated if there was more and improved parking at the Park, which would be visible as you drive in. More Usable Space. The current multi-level and disconnected property simply is not usable. While I am not in favor of cutting down all the trees and grading the entire site, it would be wonderful to better connect the spaces in a more logical and usable manner. Improving views (and security) would be an added benefit. Community Center and Nature Center/ Museum. We strongly support having indoor spaces which could be used for a variety of purposes, including at least one room with a significant capacity (perhaps one large room which could be divided using a movable partition most of time). We also support a high-quality museum or nature center, housed in up to date structures which reflect the surrounding area. Striking a reasonable balance between a huge attraction catering to outsiders, and a high-quality lower impact set of structures, should not be that difficult. As discussed at the meeting, the current structures are in disrepair and were designed as a school. A single structure with different areas, or a small number of separate structures, might actually cover a total area smaller than the current structures with the ill-suited space between them. I personally was very interested in making sure the historical society has storage space and hope they also could have some display space to share their wonderful collections with our kids. Use By Other Groups Like YMCA. We feel that the YMCA and similar groups (including the folks who host the yoga and other community classes) are "stakeholders." As parents with 3 boys, we have been members of the YMCA, AYSO, and also are becoming involved with scouting. These organizations represent those of us with kids who use and would use the LL park. They are not "outsiders." Several of us either have taken yoga classes or plan to. Having space for low-cost or free classes is important. There simply is no other such space on this side of the hill. Balance Already Struck. In my review of other options, I personally would support the development of a community pool and recreation center. We don't have a private pool, and there is no community pool or community recreation center in the area. We do appreciate, however, that a number of LL neighborhood residents are concerned about these higher density uses and the City has struck a balance by deciding against them. Now that a balance has been struck, it seems certain LL residents want to renegotiate that balance and push back even further. They ae entitled to their opinion, but we are entitled to ours. Please work with all of us to continue to strike the right balance. I personally expect to live here for another 30-40 years and hope the re -designed LL Park serves all of us for many, many years. Maintenance in the Meantime. I think everyone agrees that RPV needs to step up its investment in maintenance and security during the transitional period. Sinking money into repairing the structures seems a waste, but proper sanitation and refuse collection, as well as maintenance and security, all are important concerns. We can't let things get worse while we wait for the planning and construction to be completed. Richard Fisher Associates RPV. Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting Thank you for your consideration of our opinion. If necessary, I could obtain signatures from a significant number of other folks who support the same basic approach. 99. 1 was just given a brief summary on tonight's meeting by my husband. I was extremely surprised to hear that you are giving "stakeholders" input on Ladera Linda Park's Master Plan. The YMCA, the PVPUSD, nor any LL Community Center Instructors (to name a few), should not have any say on what goes on here. They have no stake in our community they come work then leave. We, the LL residents should be the only ones you should be seeking input from, we live here and will have to put up with the increased traffic, parking issues, and noise impacts on a daily basis (something we already deal with, but will increase). That being said I hope that you give the residents that live in LL the highest weight in making decisions. 100. Primary input should come from the 4 local HOAs. Any input from groups who rent the facilities (YMCA, classroom instructors, etc.) should carry very low weight. The goal of this facility should not be to generate income from renting it out. Clearly defined rules about rental of the property should be spelled out in writing and agreed upon by the city council, with resident input in the form of a public hearing, BEFORE any finalization of plans for a community center. I am hoping in any proposal, clear definition, consideration, and solid solutions to parking will be considered, taking into account: a. Proximity to the reserves and hiking trails b. Spillover parking into residential areas Any staff report to the city council should devote a section to this topic. It is a big concern for residents. I have suggested in the past that Pirate, Phantom, and Sea Raven should be considered for "parking by permit only" restrictions, and that perhaps parking along Forrestal be limited to one side only (and perhaps have time limits on it, say 2 hours maximum). I think this discussion should be occurring now, regardless of any longer term project earmarked for the community center and park. My views and ideas for a solution may not be exactly the same as other Ladera Linda residents, but I think the majority of residents feel something needs to be done to improve the current situation. I am not against the general public utilizing our beautiful parks and hiking trails — after all, these are public areas. I do not think, however, that the city has any obligation to provide unlimited, or even large amounts, of parking, nor encourage use of these areas thru social media. It's time to get this situation under control, and also develop some very good plans for the future community center. Any areas designated for storage need to be clearly identified (for whom, for what purpose), and, should be maintained as storage areas. Any change in usage in the future should be decided by the City Council in a duly noticed public hearing. As discussed, I am looking forward to some specific detail about current usage of the facilities, including days, times, what groups, and amount of square feet, whether these groups pay rent or not, etc. It is very important that the 4 local HOAs and residents know exactly what the current usage is. This critical information will help the HOAs render informed feedback. I believe ultimately this Richard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 9 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting will also be very important information to include in a staff report going to the City Council, when it gets to that stage. There seemed to be some eagerness on the part of the Parks Department to move relatively quickly on this project.... conceptual work completed by next spring and "ribbon cutting" in about 2 years. I say there is no need to rush .... if it takes a few months longer, with some additional community meetings showing interim or preliminary concepts and thinking, then it is worth it. Going to the City Council with no additional community meetings is, in my mind, a recipe for a disastrous and contentious City Council meeting. Speaking of ribbon cutting, when we get to that point, please, please, please don't have some big deal event with food trucks, beer and wine garden, social media publications, etc. etc. The residents do NOT want that! Keep everything low key, including the opening of the park. If, after a couple of years of construction the park gate simply starts getting unlocked for usage with no announcement at all, I would be completely happy with that. Believe me, local residents will know about it without the city saying a word.... 101. Attached [below] is a good example of a large, organized group that came and completely filled the LL Community Center Parking lot this morning [Friday, September, 23, 2016] at 7:15 a.m. (and parked a fair way down Forrestal). I estimated 50-60 hikers when they finally all assembled and headed out, and it's not even Saturday morning! I think it will be extremely important for you, working with the consultant, to come up with good, creative solutions to ensure parking at any new facility is reserved for actual users of the facility, not for large groups going on hikes in the preserve. I also trust that, in this process, you will be thinking about solutions to overflow parking onto Forrestal and onto Pirate, Phantom, and Sea Raven Drives. 102. Hi Matt. I was at the mtg. on Thurs. also. Thank you (and Cory) for being so gracious acting as human punching bags for the various gripes. The new community center is shaping up to be a VERY contentious project with some in the neighborhood pushing for a refurbishment of the current center instead of a replacement (I'm not in that group). As you saw from the turnout, there's a LOT of concern about the project. [Comment #92 above] is absolutely right about the parking. The immediate and intuitive thought is to provide enough parking for the largest gatherings/events, but this is exactly what we don't want. I'm currently involved in a large project for the County (replacement of Men's Central Jail) and parking (4000-5000 spaces) is a costly and problematic issue. There is a philosophy that says limiting or reducing parking capacity forces car pooling, public tranportation etc. Basically, if you build it, ....you know the rest. Richard Fisher Associates RPV: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 10 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting I would suggest REDUCING the square footage of the new center (achieved, in part, through multi-purpose spaces) if that is the driving force behind the required number of parking spots. If the number is 18,000 sq. ft. (as I think I heard), it's WAY to big. We should be looking at 10,000 or smaller, instead. The current center is seldom used and then, only a small portion at a time. There should not be an INCREASE in the current number of parking spots. If you increase the number, you will increase the number of people visiting.... period. Using [Comment #92 above]'s suggestions to deal with the overflow into Ladera Linda and on Forrestal, we could restrict parking there also. Parking here IS the limiting factor and should remain so. Like our National Parks, which are currently experiencing an increasing crush of visitors, the Ladera Linda area is being "loved" to death. Trails are overrun, there's increasing trash and crime and our neighborhood is bearing the brunt of it. 103. 1 moved to RPV with my family about 4 years ago. We have a daughter who just turned 5 and the LL park has been her favorite park for the past 4 years. We go there at least once a week. More during the summer holiday. We live on Coolheights Dr, above LL, about 20mn walk from the park. We try to walk there as much as possible, through one of the trails that arrives just across the entrance of the center. The playgrounds (and the grounds in general) are usually mostly empty. On Saturday afternoon, there is usually one or two other families in the area. Most of the families we know in RPV have children and moved to RPV to raise them. I understand and truly appreciate the community the first homeowners built here. We love our peaceful, safe and beautiful neighborhoods. But I also think the city needs to look ahead and start building for the future and for all the kids (and their parents) who will be using these facilities for the next 20 years. LL is a great asset, and could be a much better park. It should be used by a lot more people than 2-3 kids on a Saturday afternoon. I'm 100% in favor of enhancing the views at the park and removing the 3 layers to make it a larger single space. I would love for this space to be a place where both kids and elders feel at home, and where all neighbors meet regularly (the Easter party there is nice but could be so much better). I am, with a lot of parents we talked to, a silent minority in the community. We all moved their very recently. We all plan to stay here for probably the rest of our lives, yet we do not want to impose our views to people who were here long before us and have done an unbelievable job at building this amazing city. But I do hope that we could all look ahead and try to bridge the gap between those who don't want anything to change (or are afraid of what could happen), and those who want to improve our city to make it even better without compromising any of the values we all love. Prepared By: Richard Fisher Associates Richard Fisher Associates RPV. Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Community Outreach Meeting Date Prepared: 10/06/2016 Richard Fisher Associates RPV.- Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Page 12 From: Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:46 AM To: CC Cc: herbertstark@cox.net; rgdewey@cox.net; Parks; CityClerk; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; latterpeg@gmail.com; latterdon@cox.net; lafreel3@sbcglobal.net; grapecon@cox.net; thomash.smith@gmail.com; kte.nash@me.com; hotputtin@yahoo.com; cagirlsdadanddog@gmail.com; cjeungmills@cox.net; gzitpa@gmail.com; irenei@cox.net; edwinjenkins@cox.net; billmelandlindsey@cox.net; bjhilde@aol.com; erstevens@cox.net; JimLehman@mac.com; r.klatt@cox.net; Matt Waters Subject: October 18, 2016 City Council Meeting - Ladera Linda Community Center In response to agenda item 5. Consideration and Possible Action to Receive and File an Update on the Status of Master Plan process for Ladera Linda Park: Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support Herb Stark and Gene Dewey's memo included as late correspondence in the Agenda for tonight's meeting. I am a 38 -year resident of San Ramon Drive and the closest community center to me is Ladera Linda. I second Herb Stark's observations of Del Cerro Park, Abalone Cove and I add the neglect and abuse at the Preserve beyond Trump National as well as this weekend's experience of campers at the base of our San Ramon Canyon. What was true many years ago is not true now. Social media had dramatically affected our community and threatened/diminished that which we hold so dear — our semi -rural environment. Parks and Recreation should concentrate on maintaining what we already have. Our city is not growing —just a few new houses here and there — so please just take care of what we have. RPV is not a resort and RPV's Parks and Recreation are not a concierge for the resort — neither is the Preserve. Terranea is a resort — and a darn good one. Trump National is a first class golf course with a public park and parking lot right at its heart — a public park that is growing with more people day by day. Many of these people disobey signs, let their kids run on the practice green, jog along the fairways, dogs run off leash at the beach, add trash, graffiti, rip -away signs — even have weddings on the trails! (I have submitted detailed photographic evidence of this over the past year and a half.) The entrance to Trump is right across from the entrance to Ladera Linda. To build more facilities to add more parks and recreation employees to bring more people into our semi -rural community is an aggressive attempt to destroy what we have and against our City's vision. It is my opinion that you should give staff direction that the priority for the design at Ladera Linda be in accordance with what RESIDENTS WANT. Let Parks and Recreation stick to managing, maintaining and protecting what we have. And for goodness sakes — send a message loud and clear — NO DUMPING IN RPV —follow the rules — no unauthorized and unpermitted dumping of toxic soil/material at Ladera Linda/Portugese Bend ever again! Thank you for your service to our residents and businesses. Sincerely, Diane Smith 1 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 (Sent as an individual and not on behalf of any organization I may be affiliated with) From: G_ZITPA <gzitpa@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:24 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: CC; herbertstark@cox.net; rgdewey@cox.net; Parks; CityClerk; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; latterpeg@gmail.com; latterdon@cox.net; lafreel3@sbcglobal.net; grapecon@cox.net; thomash.smith@gmail.com; kte.nash@me.com; hotputtin@yahoo.com; cagirlsdadanddog@gmail.com; cjeungmills@cox.net; irenei@cox.net; edwinjenkins@cox.net; billmelandlindsey@cox.net; bjhilde@aol.com; erstevens@cox.net; JimLehman@mac.com; r.klatt@cox.net; Matt Waters Subject: Re: October 18, 2016 City Council Meeting - Ladera Linda Community Center Kindly ADD my name as a resounding NO. Do not change anything to our Ladera Linda. For all the reasons cited . ginette aelony. On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net> wrote: In response to agenda item 5. Consideration and Possible Action to Receive and File an Update on the Status of Master Plan process for Ladera Linda Park: Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support Herb Stark and Gene Dewey's memo included as late correspondence in the Agenda for tonight's meeting. I am a 38 -year resident of San Ramon Drive and the closest community center to me is Ladera. Linda. I second Herb Stark's observations of Del Cerro Park, Abalone Cove and I add the neglect and abuse at the Preserve beyond Trump National as well as this weekend's experience of campers at the base of our San Ramon Canyon. What was true many years ago is not true now. Social media had dramatically affected our community and threatened/diminished that which we hold so dear — our semi -rural environment. Parks and Recreation should concentrate on maintaining what we already have. Our city is not growing —just a few new houses here and there — so please just take care of what we have. RPV is not a resort and RPV's Parks and Recreation are not a concierge for the resort — neither is the Preserve. Terranea is a resort — and a darn good one. Trump National is a first class golf course with a public park and parking lot right at its heart — a public park that is growing with more people day by day. Many of these people disobey signs, let their kids run on the practice green, jog along the fairways, dogs run off leash at the beach, add trash, graffiti, rip -away signs — even have weddings on the trails! (I have submitted detailed photographic evidence of this over the past year and a half.) The entrance to Trump is right across from the entrance to Ladera Linda. To build more facilities to add more parks and recreation employees to bring more people into our semi -rural community is an aggressive attempt to destroy what we have and against our City's vision. It is my opinion that you should give staff direction that the priority for the design at Ladera Linda be in accordance with what RESIDENTS WANT. Let Parks and Recreation stick to managing, maintaining and protecting what we have. And for goodness sakes — send a message loud and clear — NO DUMPING IN RPV — follow the rules — no unauthorized and unpermitted dumping of toxic soil/material at Ladera Linda/Portugese Bend ever again! Thank you for your service to our residents and businesses. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 (Sent as an individual and not on behalf of any organization I may be affiliated with) From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 3:00 PM To: Matt Waters Cc: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Subject: Meeting with P & R Oct 17, 2016 Attachments: LL Meeting with P & R Oct 17, 2016.docx Hi Matt, I have attached a copy of the notes I took at our meeting yesterday, Thanks, Gene Meeting with P & R Department October 1, 2016 1:05 PM to 1:45 PM For P & R Cory Linder, Matt Watters, Dan Trautner For LLHOA Gene Dewey, Mickey Rodich Matt opened the discussion stating that he had recieved numerous e-mails this morning over 40. 1 said he had requested such input from residents and since I had that information I decide to send it on to him. Cory and Matt ask for our concerns and we pointed out that since the September 22, 2016 LL Park Plan workshop a number of our prominent residents have become very vocal as to not wanting any new facility at Ladera Linda. The survey Gene sent out supported that position ., There was an overwhelming response in favor of renovating the existing structures as required, however in the end a small building near the present site with minimum disturbance of landscape, etc is probably going to be acceptable to most of the residents, but we certainly did not speak for everyone . Mickey brought our several points, the use of social media to advertize events and meetings only attracts more people, the fact that we don't have the information at this time to agree to anything such as square footage, requirements for ATV s charging stations, docent's facilities and whatever else is being contemplated. Cory Linder assured us that we would have as a community the opportunity to see the proposal from the architect before it is presented to the city council. From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:06 PM To: CityClerk; Doug Willmore; CC; cprotem73@cox.net; jduhovic@hotmail.com; mizie@cox.net; briancampbell@gmail.com; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com Cc: Home Bell; Aldena Alston; Alvin Lowi; Ann Weinland; Bill Foster; Bill Gussman; Bill Schurmer; Bill Youssef; Bob Klatt; Bob Mucha; Carolyn Lowi; Chuck Agnew; Dick Stark; Don Ershig; Ed Hummel; Ed Jenkins; Fritz Marohn; Gary Randall; Gene Dewey; Georgette Jenkins; Hans Kuehl; Herb Stark; Heru & Waty Wiredja; Jack Baldelli; Jack Fleming; Jennifer Daniel; Jim Bullard; Jim Lehman; Joe Tetherow; Judy Youssef; Karen Smith; Kate Nash; Lisa Lehman; Melinda Tetherow; Michael Hansen; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Patrucia Stenehjem; Paul Henrikson; Sheldon Russell; Susan Wilcox; Ted Alston; Terri Shary; Virgina Groves; Yossef Aelony; Tom Smith; erstevens@cox.net; Erika Barber Subject: Re: Ladera Linda Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, To further clarify my Plan Z, you should be aware that Tenant Improvement costs are far less than green field construction. You should be able to set specifications to remove or encapsulate any hazardous material, re -roof, re -floor, upgrade HVAC to all areas, add upgraded electrical and technology surface mounted service, redo to ADA standards the restrooms and any other plumbing, replace the windows and doors, repaint all surfaces, and have Grade C buildings in a short time for less than $150-200/square foot. For 8500 sq ft that could be well under $1.7 million dollars. You are encouraged to verify what can be a cheaper and quicker option to the Staff recommendation. Respectfully suggested. Donald Bell Ladera Linda Resident On Oct 17, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Donald Bell <dwbrpvna,gmail.com> wrote: To City Clerk, Please include this email in the City Council Members October 18, 2016 Meeting Agenda Packet as Late Correspondence. Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, With emails flying around on this subject, I would like to offer what I believe to be a fresh look at a new future for the existing Ladera Linda Park. There is no argument that the city has not budgeted maintenance in my neighborhood park. Prudent fiscal management would encourage you to consider all options. I offer what I term Plan Z to build a lower cost park option in contrast to a AAA grade Staff and Expensive Consultant creation. The city did not decide to tear down our existing City Center because over the years economic upgrades and maintenance were budgeted for wise money use. Plan Z Summary: Reduce the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2 by renovating 3 of the existing buildings and razing 2 others. Renovate condition of the remaining buildings to be the same grade as the Civic Center. Increase storage space. Only remove 1 tree. Expand parking and recreational use and refresh (not remove) the existing landscaping and site. Substantially reduce construction impact on the neighborhood. I request the City Council to instruct Staff to get estimates for a rehabilitated and revised Ladera Linda Facility. This would involve reducing the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2. Specifically per the 2013 Infrastructure Report Card by SA Associates: 1 Perform tenant improvements to Building B8 (Community Building) to move it from Grade F to C (the same grade as City Civic Center at Upper Point Vicente and the approach taken years ago to upgrade buildings that are older than Ladera Linda). 2 Perform tenant improvements to Building B9 (Discovery Room) to move it from Grade F to C. 3 Perform tenant improvements to Building B12 (Restrooms) to move it from Grade F to C. 4 Raze Buildings 1310 (Multipurpose Room) and 1311 (Classroom) - the most western and northern buildings. 5 Create a new continuous space between Buildings B8 and B9 for storage purposes. (Remove one tree) 6 All improvements are to be done in manner to increase user flexibility with folding walls, meet ADA requirements, and have high level technology included. 7 Pave road and parking area for the paddle tennis courts and resurface existing basketball courts area. 8 Extend lower parking lot to the western end of the graded area and investigate removal of the utility (phone and/or electric) enclosure. 9 Construct enhanced recreation options by revising the paddle tennis courts and by increaseing children's play areas where buildings will be removed as well as at the corner near Buildings B8 and B12. Please again give us an exercise par course to replace what has been taken away by AYSO. 10 The design is not to be made friendly for event or rental income. Rancho Palos Verdes should not be competing with local businesses. 11 Existing buildings utilization in my opinion is very light and cannot justify a structure with multiple rooms or user ownership of any space. Any users should be required to return the room after use to its neutral state. 12 There are accessory structures adjacent to B8 and B12. There is a storage shed behind B8. I can not determine their use or necessity for Plan Z. Plan Z: Reduces by 40% the number of buildings needing remediation. I believe the site needs to be measured to verify exactly what the buildings footprint will be. My rough measurement is less than 8500 square feet of buildings for Plan Z. Provides useable space for small scale, class -room type activities. Will offer drop in space for city support personnel. Increases kid friendly areas. Offers limited additional storage but we do not want our park to become a public storage center for all who have too much stuff to care for it themselves. Requires only one tree to be removed. Significantly reduces ongoing maintenance burden. Simplifies with two buildings a security systems to warn of vandalism via CCTV and sensors. And the design will open much of the area for visual inspection. This approach will save millions to be better spent on a New Central Civic Center, will significantly reduce the construction impact on the neighborhood, will not require consultants and will meet needs of the community. Respectfully suggested, Donald Bell Ladera Linda Resident From: erstevens@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:23 PM To: 'G_ZITPA'; 'Diane Smith' Cc: CC; herbertstark@cox.net; rgdewey@cox.net; Parks; CityClerk; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; latterpeg@gmail.com; latterdon@cox.net; lafreel3@sbcglobal.net; grapecon@cox.net; thomash.smith@gmail.com; kte.nash@me.com; hotputtin@yahoo.com; cagirlsdadanddog@gmail.com; cjeungmills@cox.net; irenei@cox.net; edwinjenkins@cox.net; billmelandlindsey@cox.net; bjhilde@aol.com; JimLehman@mac.com; r.klatt@cox.net; Matt Waters; Emily McKean; Emeric Rodich (mickeyrodich Subject: RE: October 18, 2016 City Council Meeting - Ladera Linda Community Center Thank you Diane for writing a wonderful letter to the City Council. I now hope that the City will see the light & put an end to expanding our little Park & put an end to the Staff advertising on Social Media. Ed Stevens Seaview From: G_ZITPA [mailto:gzitpa@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:24 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: CC; herbertstark@cox.net; rgdewey@cox.net; parks@rpvca.gov; cityclerk@rpvca.gov; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; latterpeg@gmail.com; latterdon@cox.net; lafreel3@sbcglobal.net; grapecon@cox.net; thomash.smith@gmail.com; kte.nash@me.com; hotputtin@yahoo.com; cagirlsdadanddog@gmail.com; cjeungmills@cox.net; irenei@cox.net; edwinjenkins@cox.net; billmelandlindsey@cox.net; bjhilde@aol.com; erstevens@cox.net; JimLehman@mac.com; r.klatt@cox.net; Matt Waters Subject: Re: October 18, 2016 City Council Meeting - Ladera Linda Community Center Kindly ADD my name as a resounding NO. Do not change anything to our Ladera Linda. For all the reasons cited . ginette aelony. On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, Diane Smith <radlsmithncox.net> wrote: In response to agenda item 5. Consideration and Possible Action to Receive and File an Update on the Status of Master Plan process for Ladera Linda Park: Honorable Mayor and City Council, I support Herb Stark and Gene Dewey's memo included as late correspondence in the Agenda for tonight's meeting. S I am a 38 -year resident of San Ramon Drive and the closest community center to me is Ladera Linda. I second Herb Stark's observations of Del Cerro Park, Abalone Cove and I add the neglect and abuse at the Preserve beyond Trump National as well as this weekend's experience of campers at the base of our San Ramon Canyon. What was true many years ago is not true now. Social media had dramatically affected our community and threatened/diminished that which we hold so dear — our semi -rural environment. Parks and Recreation should concentrate on maintaining what we already have. Our city is not growing —just a few new houses here and there — so please just take care of what we have. RPV is not a resort and RPV's Parks and Recreation are not a concierge for the resort — neither is the Preserve. Terranea is a resort — and a darn good one. Trump National is a first class golf course with a public park and parking lot right at its heart — a public park that is growing with more people day by day. Many of these people disobey signs, let their kids run on the practice green, jog along the fairways, dogs run off leash at the beach, add trash, graffiti, rip -away signs — even have weddings on the trails! (I have submitted detailed photographic evidence of this over the past year and a half.) The entrance to Trump is right across from the entrance to Ladera Linda. To build more facilities to add more parks and recreation employees to bring more people into our semi -rural community is an aggressive attempt to destroy what we have and against our City's vision. It is my opinion that you should give staff direction that the priority for the design at Ladera Linda be in accordance with what RESIDENTS WANT. Let Parks and Recreation stick to managing, maintaining and protecting what we have. And for goodness sakes — send a message loud and clear — NO DUMPING IN RPV — follow the rules — no unauthorized and unpermitted dumping of toxic soil/material at Ladera Linda/Portugese Bend ever again! Thank you for your service to our residents and businesses. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 (Sent as an individual and not on behalf of any organization I may be affiliated with) From: erstevens(c cox.net Cc: LC, herbertstark(a)cox.net: radewey(aboox.net; Parks: CitvClerk; Doug Willmore: Gabriella Yap; latterpga(aamail.mM latterdon(@cox.net; lafreel3(a)sbcalobal.net; arapgconClaoox.net; thomash.smith(aamail.com; kte.nash(a)me.com; hotputtln(a)yahoo.Ma cagidsdadanddog(a)amail.co deunamills(a)cox.net: irenem(c oox.net; edwinienkins(@cox.net: boll melandlindsey(c�cox.net; bjhilde(@aol.com: JlmLehrnan(a)mac.com: r.klatt(abcox.net: Matt Waters; Emily McKean; Emeric Rodich (mickeyrodich ; "G ZITPA' "Diane Smith" Subject: FYI - This is one of the City Staff advertises on Social Media - Ed -a Kids" Music Fest & Trunk or Treat on October 22nd Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:43:13 PM It will be a mad house on Saturday at little Ladera Linda Park. Too late to stop this. This should have been held at Hess Park or City Hall. Ed Stevens Seaview From: Nextdoor Seaview [mailto:reply@rs.email.nextdoor.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:39 AM To: erstevens@cox.net Subject: Kids' Music Fest & Trunk or Treat on October 22nd Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox, City of Rancho Palo AGENCY ❑® Please see the City's Nextdoor Events feed for details about this Saturday's Kids' Music Fest & Trunk or Treat at Ladera Linda Park from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. You can also reply to this email or use Nextdoor :for iPhone or Androi This message is intended for erstevens Qcox.net. Not interested in hearing from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes" Adjust your email settings Nextdoor_ 760 Market Street_ Suite 300. San Francisco_ CA 94102 R, CITY OFRAf ICHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 17, 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, October 18, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material H Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Fox and Diane Smith; Email from Sunshine Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and Karen Chuang; Emails from: Anita and Ken Gash; Michael Huang; Michael Friedman; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and Carolynn Petru; Email from: Chris Huang; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and Guri Otterlei; Email from: Doug Marimon and Stacey Michaels 3 Emails from: David and Beth Shirley; Kristin Fast; Beatrice Jamshidian; Bill and Margaret Spinelli; Rosalia and Giuseppe Orlando; Michelle M.Gibson; Elisabeth Ward; Sandra and John Lindauer; Email Exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian and Gwen 5 Emails from: Herb Stark; R. Gene Dewey; Donald Bell; Edward Stevens; Charles Agnew; Lynda Sakamaki-Shepard; Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Jessica Vlaco; Email exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Chris Wilson; Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Jim Hevener; Respectfully submitted, eresa Takaoka WALATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161017 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Kit Fox Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:57 AM To: Diane Smith Cc: CC Subject: RE: October 18th Staff report regarding Ladera Linda Fields Attachments: Bills of Lading.xlsx; Exhibit B (Bills of Lading).pdf The City is not aware of any "missing" bill of lading. Based upon our count of the information provided by AYSO on June 20th, there were 85 truckloads transported to the Ladera Linda Fields on April 8-9, 2015. Since AYSO submitted the bill of lading from T&M Construction along with the other bills of lading from other trucking companies as a part of the evidence demonstrating the source of the soil brought to Ladera Linda, it is the City's assumption that Ladera Linda was the destination for this bill as well. Attached are a spreadsheet and copies of the bills of lading. With respect to the soil transported to the PVPUSD maintenance yard and the existence of bills of lading for that, you should inquire with AYSO and/or PVPUSD. Sincerely, Kit Fox, AIOP /C.it,j of Raricho Palos Verdes 1310) 544--52` 6 kitf0Wvca.gov From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:30 AM To: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: October 18th Staff report regarding Ladera Linda Fields Hi Kit, Did AYSO attorneys provide the missing Bill of Lading to account for the missing 7-8 truckloads of dirt they said they delivered? I counted only 77 truckloads on your 9/20/16 supporting documents Bills of Lading pages F -134-F-139, F141 -F -144 - Exhibit F-140 from T&M Construction shows "5433 Sharynne Lane" and appears to indicate 7 "dirt" loads but does not state a point of destination like the other bills of lading. Some of the dirt was purportedly delivered to the School District maintenance yard and then spread around some school properties. Residents would like to know if the maintenance yard dirt came from Sharynne Lane and what school properties received the dirt. Thanks, Diane Smith From: Kit Fox [mailto:KitF@rpvca.ov] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 7:54 AM To: CC <C@rpvca.gov> Subject: October 18th Staff report regarding Ladera Linda Fields Dear Interested Party: 1 H The October 18th Staff report and attachments for this item are now available for review on the City's website at the following link: htt r v. ranicus.com iVietaViewer. h ?view id=5&event id=727&rneta id=3408 Sincerely, Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 544-5226 F: (310) 544--5291 E: kitf @rovca.Aov Bill No. Hauler Date No. of Loads A-64859 Ozzie's Trucking 4/8/2015 8 A-64396 Ozzie's Trucking 4/8/2015 7 M-795610 ARM Trucking 4/8/2015 7 M-756666 Chido Trucking 4/8/2015 8 M-756645 Chido Trucking 4/8/2015 7 N-529771 EA Trucking 4/8/2015 7 7072 T&M Construction 4/8/2015 8 M-795611 ARM Trucking 4/9/2015 8 N-529772 EA Trucking 4/9/2015 9 A-64860 Ozzie's Trucking 4/9/2015 8 A-64490 Robert's Trucking 4/9/2015 8 TOTAL 85 EXHIBIT `B" T & M Projects Inc. 780 West Channel Street San Pedro, CA 90731 63 9 (31 a} 833 — 3366 Office (310) 833 — 7965 Fax TOTAL Customer assumes "Owners Responsibility" for material load and weight if citation regarding such is issued to driver by California Highway Patrol (per CHIP 279). T & M Projects Inc. is not liable for any damage to underground utilities not uncovered prior to excavation. Payment is due upon receipt of invoice, unless otherwise negotiated. 1 112% interest will be charged per month on balance of past due accounts. Customer hereby agrees to pay collection costs, attorney fees and court costs incurred by T & M Projects Inc if payment is not made in accordance with the foregoing terms. Customer SIGNATURE Load Type: Destination: Total Loads: Rate: Extension: TOTAL Customer assumes "Owners Responsibility" for material load and weight if citation regarding such is issued to driver by California Highway Patrol (per CHIP 279). T & M Projects Inc. is not liable for any damage to underground utilities not uncovered prior to excavation. Payment is due upon receipt of invoice, unless otherwise negotiated. 1 112% interest will be charged per month on balance of past due accounts. Customer hereby agrees to pay collection costs, attorney fees and court costs incurred by T & M Projects Inc if payment is not made in accordance with the foregoing terms. Customer SIGNATURE From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:05 PM To: ken.delong@verizon.net; info@pvpwatch.com Cc: EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; CC; gardner4@earthlink.net Subject: Re: "dirt" at Ladera Linda The City of RPV requires a grading permit to pick up 10 cubic yards of dirt on your own property and then put it down someplace else on your own property. Importing "dirt" is a health, safety and welfare issue. All this chatter and scandal is not helping anyone feel very comfortable with our "authorities". Without knowing what the School District and/or the AYSO had in mind to do with the "dirt", I say they should have it removed by a toxic waste contractor, immediately. At least children will be able to use the facility while the adults wrap up their pissing match. ...S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 10/14/2016 10:47:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ken.delong@verizon.net writes: Sunshine, I am not aware that PVPUSD required a city grading permit or if a grading permit was obtained. I From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:07 AM To: info@pvpwatch.com Cc: EZStevens@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com Subject: "dirt" at Ladera Linda Thank you for watching and writing. What I would like to know about the "dirt" is when the City of Rancho Palos Verdes issued a grading permit to the PV Unified School District. Said permit will tell us all how many cubic yards were proposed to be imported, where it was coming from and where it was to be permanently placed as "fill". Some statement about the potential toxicity of the material is a part of the grading application. ...S 10 is From: Karen & Chan <keyshiao@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:36 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: CC; Octavio Silva Subject: Re: Enforcement of Short Term Rental Ban Thank you for your attention to this matter, Ara. Karen Sent from my Whone On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Ara Mihranian <ArraMcu r)vca. ,ov> wrote: Karen, Thank you for your email. It is now part of the public record and will be provided to the Council at the October 18th meeting. I know you and Michael are monitoring the activity at your neighbor's property and keeping the city informed. In light of this information, another letter will go out to the property owner. Ara From: Karen & Chan [mailto:ke shiao cox,net] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:54 PM To: CC <C_C�air�v_ca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM @ rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Enforcement of Short Term Rental Ban Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for voting to uphold the ban on short term rental (STR) in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes during the September 2016 City Council meeting. As you can see from the turn out of that particular hearing, RPV residents are passionate about keeping and maintaining the residential nature of our city. Allowing STR to continue to exist is in direct contradiction to the will of the people. We are fortunate to have a governing body in our city that listens to the voices of its constituents. However, passing of the ban on STR is only the first step. The city must now make certain that the law is in full compliance by the STR operators. As of today, these illegal STR operations are still on going. For instance, my neighbor, Yolanda Quimbayo, continues to advertise and rent out 3 rooms at 7137 Avenida Altisima. The continued flow of strangers loitering less than 20 yards from our house is a severe impingement on the enjoyment of our home. A picture evidencing this infringement by unknown individuals is attached hereto for your consideration. In the meanwhile, the STR operators are profiting at the expense of everyone else and doing so with impunity. They will not cease engaging in a money making, albeit illegal, activity unless compelled to do so by the authority, aka the city enforcement unit. Hence, it is imperative that the city enact ordinances or procedures with sufficiently punitive consequences for those who purposely break laws for their own financial gains. Since STR operators reach their guests mostly via online advertising, fines must be set high enough for each incident of advertisement and each night of actual rental. If the fine is not set high enough, it would not serve as a deterrent for these STR operators because they can easily cover the fine from their rental profit. As for repeat offenders, the city should consider criminal prosecution just like any other perpetrators of illegal enterprises. Thank you for taking the time to read this email and your invaluable service to our city. We anxiously await a resolution to this important issues. <image001.jpg> Karen Chuang Sent from my Whone From: Anita Gash <anitagl@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 1:42 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva; Doug Willmore; daleshire@awattorneys.com; Michael Huang Subject: Status of Short -Term Rentals in RPV - Need to Ban Advertising and Impose Higher Fines Dear Mayor Dyda and Members of the City Council, I writing to express our agreement with the letter you received from Michael Huang on October 10, 2016. 1 know and appreciate the time you invest in reading all the correspondence you receive in dealing with this issue, so I won't repeat what Mr. Huang has already well -stated. The Airbnb four room a night rental across the street from us on Eddinghill Drive has been in operation for three years. After I went before the planning commission and spoke in favor of a total ban on short term rentals I received a letter from the owner, Mr. Mark threatening to sue the City of RPV, me and the other neighbors who support the ban, for lost rental income from his illegal hotel. He continues to advertise on Airbnb and has rentals into November. Owner/Renters of these hotels are in it for the money. They won't stop unless imposed penalties make these illegal business ventures no longer profitable. Current penalties do not and will not deter them from continuing in violation of the ban. I support penalties that will do so. Thank you. My husband and I have lived in our home for 45 years and very much appreciate the commitment of the City Council in making Rancho Palos Verdes a wonderful place to live. Sincerely, Anita and Ken Gash From: Octavio Silva Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:22 AM To: Nathan Zweizig; Lorna Cloke; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Legal Question about Prohibition of Advertising of Short -Term Rental in Rancho Palos Verdes Late correspondence for Short -Term Rental item. Thanks Octavio From: Michael Huang [mailto:mikehgalaxy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:29 PM To: Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Legal Question about Prohibition of Advertising of Short -Term Rental in Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Mr. Aleshire, My name is Michael Huang. I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and a firm supporter of the city's affirmation of the ban on short-term rentals. The staff report concerning the enforcement of the short-term rental ban for the October 18th city council meeting recommends asking the planning commission to amend the city code to prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals. I believe our city code may already prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals. Specifically Section 1.04.230 states: 1.04.230 - Prohibited acts include causing, permitting or suffering. Whenever in this Code any act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, permitting aiding, abetting, suffering or concealing such act or omission. From my reading of Section 1.04.230, the advertising for an illegal activity such as short-term rental is the "causing, aiding, and abetting" of the actual illegal act of short-term rental; therefore, the advertising of short- term rentals should also be prohibited. Without advertising, short-term rentals are not possible. I believe that this section already makes advertising of short-term rentals illegal and that the city attorney just needs to increase the fines in order for the staff to effectively enforce the ban. Can you please review the above section of our code and see if it is legally sufficient for the staff to being enforcing the prohibition of short-term rental advertising. Many residents are anxiously awaiting the effective enforcement of the banning of the short-term rentals in our city. If the code needs to be amended by the planning commission, it will take a significantly more time, and the outcome will be uncertain. Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, Michael Huang From: Michael Huang <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:08 PM To: CC; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: Comments on Staff Report for Enforcement of Short -Term Rentals for October 18 City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Dyda and Members of the City Council, Thank you again for affirming the prohibition of short-term rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes. The prohibition has brought some relief to residents, but I agree with the recommendation of the Staff Report that more needs to be done to establish a robust framework for the effective enforcement of the ban on short-term rentals for now and for the future. I would like to comment on the following points raised in the Staff Report: Prohibiting Advertising of Short -Term Rentals I absolutely agree with the Staff Report that prohibiting the advertising of short-term rentals is crucial for efficient and effective enforcement. The report recommends that the City Council send this matter to the planning commission to amend city code to prohibit short-term rental advertising. I am concerned because some members of the planning commission does not seem to care about the needs of the majority of the residents. We all know about the Planning Commission's recommendation on short-term rentals which fortunately was overturned by the City Council. In fact, many short-term ban supporters have expressed to me that they have lost trust and confidence in the Planning Commission. I believe our city code may already prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals. Specifically Section 1.04.230 states: 1.04.230 - Prohibited acts include causing, permitting or suffering_ Whenever in this Code any act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, permitting aiding, abetting;, suffering or concealing such act or omission. From my reading of Section 1.04.230, the advertising for an illegal activity such as short-term rental is the "causing, aiding, and abetting" of the actual illegal act of short-term rental; therefore, the advertising of short- term rentals should also be prohibited. Without advertising, short-term rentals are not possible; therefore it is part of the whole illegal process. I believe that this section already makes advertising of short-term rentals illegal. I would also argue that the advertising of short-term rentals is part of the whole illegal act of the operators' renting out their homes. For example, if a homeowner wants to sell his house, he would list it with an agent, and the agent would advertise and list the house for sale on the MLS. The listing of the house for sale on the MLS is part of the sales process. Similarly, the listing and advertising of the illegal rentals on sites such as AirBNB is part of the whole illegal short-term rental process. For the above two reasons, I believe the city code already prohibits the advertising and listing of short-term rentals. But if the matter does in fact needs to go back to the Planning Commission, we should suggest to the City Council to limit the Planning Commission only to the task of drafting the language to prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals. The City Council should not give the Planning Commission any leeway to do anything else. It should also be pointed out that Maura Mizuguchi (7242 Avenida Altisima), Yolanda Quimbayo (7137 Avenida Altisima), Eric Mark (6527 Eddinghill Dr.) , and most of the operators of the illegal rentals continue to advertise their properties onAirBNB. Yolanda Quimbayo continues to list her master bedroom for rent and only requires a 3 -night minimum. Maura and Eric only changed their listing description to indicate that reservations need to be at least 31 -nights, but both of them still continue to allow renters to submit reservations with a 1 -night minimum on their calendars. In fact, Eric Mark has a statement that reads "We can rent rooms only for stays 31 days and over. Please feel free to inquire. No cancellation fee if you must shorten your stay due to emergency." Chris Huang sent you an email with actual screenshots of these illegal AirBNB listings. These operators continue to flaunt their violation of the law and should be punished and shut down accordingly. In fact, it appears to me that Eric Mark is actually inviting his guests to collude with him to rent out his rooms illegally. Ask City Attorney to Amend Municipal Code to Increase Fine for Violations of the City's Prohibition of Short - Term Rentals I also agree with the staff recommendation to increase the penalty for violating the city's prohibition of short- term rentals to the maximum amount possible so that violators will be sufficiently punished and cannot profit from breaking the law. This fine should apply equally to both the advertising of short-term rentals as well as the actual short-term rental itself. Some illegal rentals in Rancho Palos Verdes are renting for as much as $1,000 per night. The example of the continued violations by the absentee owner of the 6857 Crest Ave illegal rental points out the absolute need for increased fines. This owner continues to advertise and rent his house illegally, and his calendar shows that he is booked on on almost all weekends from now through December 2016. On the night of Sunday, October 9, the renters hired a tour bus, and it was parked in front of the house on Crest where the road takes a dangerous blind curve. I have enclosed pictures showing how the parked tour bus is causing a dangerous condition in front of the house where other drivers need to use the opposite lane at the blind curve in order to pass the bus. There is no reason for a tour bus to be on a residential street. From my tracking, this owner has reservations for 13 nights in October at the rate of $840 per night. He will make at least $10,920 in October while illegally causing these dangerous and disruptive conditions for residents and neighbors. Please note that Crest Road is a major artery road for most residents of the Country Club area. Also because of this illegal rental, many renters looking for this house drive very slowly and make sudden stops at the dangerous blind curves in front of the house. Prosecution of Short -Term Rental Ban The staff report states that the staff is waiting for the code amendment to prohibit the advertising of short-term rentals before they start to prosecute violators. I agree that the staff needs to focus on enforcing the prohibition of short-term rental advertising because it is extremely difficult and time-consuming for the code enforcement officer to actually catch the renters at the property. But in cases where neighbors have sufficient evidence to prosecute illegal rentals, I think the staff should take action now. Delaying prosecution will only embolden the illegal short-term rental operators to continue their violation of the law. For example, Ying Sai, the operator who threatened to sue the city at the city council meeting, changed her AirBNB listing city to Beach Cities from Rancho Palos Verdes and only had one listing on AirBNB shortly after the September 20 City Council Meeting. But the day after the release of the staff report indicating the postponement of the prosecution, she added another listing on AirBNB. She owns two properties at 26810 Fond Du Lac and 26815 Don Du Lac. Here are the links to her AirBNB listings: https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/4098939 Listing city changed from Rancho Palos Verdes to Beach Cities shortly after September 20, 2016, city council meeting. https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/5345313?guests=2&s=ZUsvOv64 Added this listing the day after release of staff report indicating staff is waiting for code amendment to prohibit short-term rental advertising before beginning prosecution. The city for this listing is listed correctly as Rancho Palos Verdes, but the host picture has been changed. Hiring Part -Time Staff or Subcontractor to Help Staff Enforce Short -Term Rental Ban Many of these illegal short-term rentals intentionally hide their actual location by not including a picture of their house exterior in their listing, and AirBNB colludes with these owners by only providing an approximate location of the house on its map. I believe the $27,000 - $30,000 to hire additional part-time staff to help with the enforcement of the short-term rental prohibition is a small price to pay for the effective enforcement of the ban in order to bring peaceful enjoyment to residents who have suffered long enough. Also, the fines collected many more than offset this cost. I would also suggest that the city council provide some funds for enforcement where the city staff can book and pay for a short-term rental reservation to obtain evidence for prosecution. If these operators know that one of their guests making reservations may be a city code enforcement officer, they will cease their illegal rentals if the fine is sufficiently punitive. Santa Monica has this enforcement policy, and I believe that it was worked well for them. Noise Ordinance As a separate issue, I also strongly support a stronger noise ordinance with higher fines to avoid party houses. If an owner rents out his house for a party, he should be subject to both the short-term rental and noise ordinance violation fines. At the last City Council meeting on September 20, a council member was advocating that a noise ordinance was sufficient to address the short-term rental problem. I respectfully disagree with this opinion in the strongest terms. Just look at the lengths some of the operators are going to in order to skirt the current law. Imagine the difficultly the staff would have to enforcement anything less than a total ban on short-term rentals. The prohibition of short-term rentals has helped, but now I urge the city council to complete the enforcement framework by prohibiting the advertising of short-term rentals and increasing the fines for the advertising and rental of the short-term rentals for now and for the future. AirBNB had approximately 300,000 rental listings in 2014. By 2016, it has more than 2 million listings, and the numbers will continue to grow. We need to set up a robust framework for the prohibition of short-term rentals in our city for the sake of our residents. Thank you very much for all of your services to our City. Sincerely, Mike Huang From: Michael Friedman <mlfriedman@me.com> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:45 PM To: CC Subject: short term rentals in rpv Dear City Council: I attended the last city council meeting when the ban on short term rentals was passed. I spoke on that topic. I now understand that the other major issues are 1. banning of advertising 2. enforcement and fines for violators. I would encourage the council to advise the planning commission to develop the necessary language to ban the advertising on any media and the city hire a second person who could locate and enforce the ban. It is very difficult and time consuming to find these locations and the fines should be in line with the charges of these operators. They will continue on and grow . I have lived off of crest road and seeing a photo of a party bus parked there at night is downright sickening. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Enforcement will also depend upon information provided to the city by concerned and affected residents of rpv Respectfully yours, Michael L. Friedman, MD. 1 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 8:20 PM To: 'Carolynn Petru'; CC Cc: Octavio Silva; Michael Huang Subject: RE: Enforcement of Short -Term Rental Ban Thank you Carolynn. As you know, your email is now part of the public record and will be provided to the Council as late correspondence. Ara From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn.petru@gmail.comj Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:03 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Michael Huang <mikehgalaxy@gmail.com> Subject: Enforcement of Short -Term Rental Ban Dear Honorable Mayor & City Council Members - Thank you for confirming that short-term rentals (STRs) are already prohibited under the City's single-family residential zoning standards at the September 20th meeting. I greatly appreciate that since the meeting staff has sent out cease and desist letters to eleven property owners currently operating illegal STRs in the City. As detailed in my neighbor Mike Huang's excellent letter regarding this agenda item, the responses from several of these operators has been mixed and more work is clearly needed to provide staff with the necessary tools to effectively curb this important land use problem. Due to the changes in operator behavior we have already witnessed, I strongly endorse wasting no time in amending the Municipal Code to make it illegal to advertise short-term rentals. I believe this is the single most effective method of proving whether a property owner is violating the Municipal Code. If it is the City Attorney's determination that this amendment must be included in RPVMC Chapter 17 (Zoning), I'm concerned about the amount of time required before this tool will be available for staff s use. Apparently, the Planning Commission has cancelled both of its scheduled meetings in November and typically only holds one meeting in December on account of the City Hall closure between December 24th and January 1 st. Given this current schedule, it seems unlikely the Code Amendment will return to the City Council before January 2017, thus allowing illegal short-term rentals to continue operating at full -tilt throughout the holiday season and probably well into next year. I hope the City Attorney can find another appropriate section of the Code to include this provision, so that it can be enacted immediately through an urgency ordinance. As also addressed in Mr. Huang's latest letter, the issue of inadequate penalty fees must be addressed as soon as possible. As this particular issue does not require review by the Planning Commission, I urge the Council to take quick and decisive action to increase the fines for STRs to levels that will truly be a disincentive to these highly lucrative but illegal commercial businesses operating in our neighborhoods. And lastly, the staff report noted the outside company previously identified to assist the City with enforcement (Host Compliance) is unfortunately no longer providing these services to municipalities. However, staff also recently reported on attending a meeting sponsored by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) regarding the many shared concerns and impacts of STRs among the South Bay cities. Perhaps the SBCCOG could be enlisted to procure a contractor or part-time employee who could provide these services in an efficient and shared -cost manner for the entire South Bay area. I sincerely appreciate the time and attention the City Council and staff have given to this topic. Diligence and persistence is required at this time to make sure the Council's prior affirmation is carried out effectively. Thank you for your service on all of our behalf! Best regards, Carolynn Petru From: Chris Huang <cgpharmd@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 8:50 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Octavio Silva Subject: Short-term Rental ban implementation Attachments: Short -rental evidence 10.16.16.docx Dear Mayor Dyda and City Council members, Thank you again for banning short-term rental in single residential home neighborhoods in the city. Since the ban, a few operators have ceased operating short-term rentals, some chose to ignore the ban and others are using creative ways to work around the ban. For example, a description of the room for rent is for 30 or 31 days, but continues to accept and rent out rooms for 1 or more days contrary to the description. Another example is telling the potential guests that if cancellation of more than 30 -day rental is due to emergency, no fee will be charged. Attached are short-term rental listings on Airbnb as of 10/16/2016 to illustrate a few of the operators' current short-term businesses. I urge you to increase the fine to no less than $1,000 per day of violation as well as prohibition of advertisement of short-term rental. The stiff fine of no less than $1,000 per day will deter the illegal operation. Some of the homes are available for upwards of $ 800 to $ 900 dollars per day. Any fine that's less than the money to be made by the illegal operators are considered ineffective. I believe the next important step is to immediately begin implementation of prohibition of short-term rentals in single family residential zone in the city including advertisement. The act of advertising short-term rental on services such as Airbnb, VRBO, HomeAway and Overnight, is part of conducting a banned activity. I believe the city municipal code section 1.04.230 addressed this issue. The advertisements are causing, aiding and abetting an unlawful activity. Using a analogy of illicit drug trade, selling illegal and illicit drug is unlawful so is intent to sell illegal and illicit drugs. The fine for advertising short-term rental should also be no less than $1,000 for every day that the operator intents to rent on a short term basis. 1.04.230 - Prohibited acts include causing, permitting or suffering. Whenever in this Code any act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering or concealing such act or omission Thank you for your service and attention. Respectfully submitted. Chris Huang CGPHARMD@cox.net From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 9:SS AM To: guri.otterlei@cox.net; CC Cc: PC; Octavio Silva Subject: RE: Short -Term Rental Ban Guri, The City is in receipt of your email which is now part of the public record and will be provided to the Council at tomorrow night's meeting. Thank you, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Id Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. -----Original Message ----- From: guri.otterlei@cox.net [mailto:guri.otterlei@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 9:10 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Short -Term Rental Ban Dear City Council Members: Thank you again for your decision to ban short-term rental in Rpv. However, it is not over and this activity will continue if left alone. I called city staff on Friday morning regarding a short-term rental property here in Portuguese Bend that continues advertise online and had guests staying last week. No-one from the city returned my call and I suppose no code enforcement was done. We heard that only 11 letters have been sent to operators so far; WHY (since the problem is so much larger)? We can not rely on neighbors to police and report each other about this illegal activity, and believe this needs to done: - every vacation rental operator needs to be contacted (by letter or electronically, eg. through the hosting platforms), - advertising in all forms need to be made illegal - fines need to be increased to make an impact (e.g., ten times current amounts of $100-$500) - city should have power to criminally prosecute repeat offenders We believe the City Council should make these changes to the laws as soon as possible. It is a necessary consequence of the decision to ban short term rental. Thank you, Guri Otterlei From: marimond@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 5:33 PM To: CC; Octavio Silva; Ara Mihranian; PC Subject: Short Term Rental Ban Enforcement Dear Sir or Madam: My wife and I respectfully request the city quickly implement very stiff fines for the advertising of short term rentals and for the actual illegal rentals themselves. Given that our neighbor at 6527 Eddinghill Drive rents four rooms for about $80/night, his income could be nearly $10,000/month. A few hundred dollar fine will be laughed at by these operators. Several cities including Los Angeles and New York have successfully implemented these types of fines: New York fines operators for illegal advertising of short-term rentals - $1,000 for first offense and up to $7,500 for third offense. In Los Angeles operators are fined a minimum of $200 per day or twice the nightly rent charged, whichever is greater, per day for illegal advertising. Please push swiftly for stiff and escalating fines that will deter the operators of these illegal businesses, otherwise they will continue to operate their motels and negatively impact the quality of life for all of us. Respectfully submitted, Doug Marimon and Stacey Michaels 6533 Eddinghill Dr From: Beth Shirley <dbshirley3@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:27 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Noise Ordinance Attachments: Pump Noise Ltr 100916.docx Dear RPV Mayor Ken Dyda, Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell, Council Members Susan M. Brooks, Jerry V. Duhovic, Anthony M. Misetich, I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached letter my wife Beth and I wrote regarding an issue related to noise. This is our story. When faced with a noise issue that we could not resolve on our own by way of multiple attempts to work it out with our neighbors we contacted the city. Our discovery that RPV did not have a noise ordinance surprised and disappointed us, we now feel our options are limited to return our street to its once quiet past. As the letter states we briefly spoke with Councilman Misetich who directed us to Ara. Ara has kept is informed of progress relating to investigation of ordinances in surrounding cities. We understand it is on the agenda for October. I apologize for lack of signature on letter (our scanner would not cooperate). I am planning to attend city council meeting on the 18tH Sincerely David Shirley David & Beth Shirley 3512 Hightide Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 October 9, 2016 To: Mayor Ken Dyda, Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell, Councilmembers Susan M. Brooks, Jerry V. Duhovic, Anthony M. Misetich. Cc: Community Development Director Ara Michael Mihranian Re: Noise Ordinance Dear Mayor, City Council Members, The purpose of this letter is to address an issue related to noise pollution, in this case noise produced from pool equipment. After several attempts to resolve this issue it's clear we are not able to reach resolution with our neighbors at 3504 Hightide. We are seeking resolution via the city in the form of a noise ordinance or similar. Work to be done is define what is an acceptable amount of noise pollution (if any) a resident must be exposed to from their neighbors, what are the options available to control noise as well as enforcement. This issue is home owners' rights versus the rights of others to maintain the quality of life we've come to expect in this great community. For sixteen years we've enjoyed what makes Palos Verdes a special community; proximity to ocean, great views and importantly the peace and quiet of our streets and neighborhoods. These qualities contribute tc our home values. About two years ago new residents to the city moved into the house vacated by our neighbors of sixteen years (picture of 3504 Hightide Attached). Work they've done to the house and/or perhaps the age of the pool equipment has resulted in elevated levels of noise produced when the pool pump is running compared to prior owners. In combination with increased noise levels they insist on running the pump for extended periods of time and at all hours of the day and night. For context I would characterize the noise at a level equal to an automobile parked in front of our home with engine running, not at idle though, rather foot on gas pedal holding elevated engine speed continuously. We've asked our neighbors several times to limit the amount of time the equipment runs and limit running to daytime hours. All requests have been ignored. On one occasion we asked at 11:45 PM to turn the equipment off, response essentially was sorry but equipment must run as the pool is being heated. The pump ran eight hours straight throughout the night. In fact, on several occasions the equipment has run all night, 4 AM noise is radiating from the yard shattering the peace and quiet we normally enjoy. Multiple times at 10 PM we've asked for the equipment to be turned off. We should not have to take action at 10 PM to return our street to its normal peace and quiet. If a resident requests action be taken to reduce noise, it's obvious the noise is an irritant, yet days later the equipment is running late at night. On a recent beautiful PV Sunday, the equipment ran for ten hours. Stepping into either our front yard or our backyard we're confronted with pump noise, enjoying our backyard is difficult due to noise. The following Monday upon my return home from work in the evening I was confronted with noise. We asked for it to be stopped at 10 PM. We cannot sleep with our windows open to enjoy ocean breezes due to the noise when the pump is operating. Our quality of life has been diminished. Our neighbor's suggestion to us was we wear ear muffs or ear plugs or create white noise to drown out their pool equipment noise. This is not an option, not in this community. We are not willing to accept a diminished quality of life resulting from inconsiderate neighbors. At this point we feel two options remain, work with the city to adopt a noise ordinance or seek legal remedy. We are choosing to work with the city. It is our opinion there should be an ordinance that limits the noise a resident produces that is heard by surrounding neighbors. For example, noise producing equipment cannot exceed "X" decibel level, must be limited to "Y" hours per day and must run between the hours of 10 AM and 4 PM. Under no circumstances can equipment that produces continuous noise which can be heard by near proximity residents be operated after 8 PM. The range of the noise extends beyond our home, the following residents we spoke to are also exposed to this noise pollution; Michael L Cutrer, 3526 Coolheights Drive, Jim Hevener 3520 Coolheights Drive, Laura Knapp, 3566 Coolheights Drive. We discussed the need for a noise ordinance and on this topic we find common ground. Signatures of these residents can be provided upon request. We were hopeful we could resolve this issue without involving the city council. Simple solutions exist including covering the pump, replacing with a newer pump and limiting the run time as well as time of operation. Unfortunately, the way in which they operate the pool equipment has proven to us time and again they have little regard for their neighbors. We are taking the next step. We've discussed this matter briefly with Councilman Anthony Misetich who lives on our street and has heard the noise pollution, he recommended we start a dialogue with Ara Michael Mihranian — Community Development Director for RPV which we did. Ara came to our street and witnesses the noise. We have been told this issue will be on city council meeting agenda for October. It is unfortunate it has come to this. It is said in the absence of morals there is a requirement for law, in a similar vein, in the absence of common courtesy or respect for others in a community there is requirement for ordinances. We are hopeful for resolution from the city in the form of an ordinance. Your work and support in this regard is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David and Beth Shirley 1 attachment: Picture 3504 Hightide Drive Attachment 1 3504 Hightide Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Teresa Takaoka From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 7:59 AM To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Noise Ordinances Hello Teri, Please include the email below in late correspondence to the City Council. Thank you, Leza Mikhail Senior Planner City of Rancho Patos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezamarpvca.gov From: Kristin Fast [mailto:knfast@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 10:50 AM To: Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Noise Ordinances Hi Leza, I recently learned that there will be a hearing on October 18th to review the city's noise regulations. Will there be any discussion, that you're aware of, related to excessive dog barking in RPV, and effective steps for enforcing regulations related to this? We have had endless trouble with this issue and the steps currently in place for resolving excessive animal noise do not effectively resolve problems. Noise is an issue with construction and house parties, of course, but as homeowners who have invested heavily in this community, I'd like to suggest that effective regulation of animal noise be considered every bit as vital to the health and well-being of residents in our community, and therefore included in upcoming noise regulations discussions. Thank you! Kristin Fast From: Bea J <bjamshidian@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 2:14 PM To: cc Subject: Noise ordinance I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in FAVOR of the proposed code amendment to establish a citywide comprehensive noise ordinance. Thank you, Beatrice Jamshidian 1905 Galerita Drive RPV, Ca 90275 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Members, Bill Spinelli <wmspinelli48@gmail.com> Monday, October 17, 2016 2:07 PM CC Proposed Code Amendment We are members of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. Thank you in advance to supporting this Code Amendment. Sincerely, Bill and Margaret Spinelli 1916 Galerita Drive From: rosalia orlando <rosaliaorlando@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 2:31 PM To: CC Subject: Noise ordinance "I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance". Rosalia and Giuseppe Orlando Sent from my Whone f� From: Michelle Gibson <micheUegibson.mv2i@statefannzono> Sent: Monday, October 17,2O162/48PK4 To: [[ Subject: Noise Ordinance City Council M8nObers- |amamoember[fUle Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. :W | L , #OGO2793 State Farm Insurance Agency 20O9Avenida Feliciano RPV, C/\8O275 From: Elizabeth <elisabeth.ward726@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 2:58 PM To: cc Subject: Noise abatement Hello members, I live At 2112 Velez Dr. and have been subjected to very loud parties until 2 a.m., street fights, and daily music practice, from my neighbor below me for several years. I have spoken to them, written letters to them, and have had to call the police a number of times. I would like to see a decibel level limit set as well as a regulated time for quiet in the evening. I am a working person who has to be up in the early hours, and my neighbor does not respect that. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Elisabeth Ward 2112 Velez Dr Rancho Palos Verdes Elisabeth.ward726@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone From: Sandra & John Lindauer <sjlindauer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:00 PM To: cc Subject: Noise Ordinance I am a member of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association and I am writing you to vote in favor of the proposed Code Amendment to Establish a Citywide Comprehensive Noise Ordinance 3 From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:10 PM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Please include this email in late correspondence. Leza Mikhail Senior Planner City of Rancho (Tacos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam(a)-rpvca.gov From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:02 PM To: gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com Cc: Jim <jimmaclellan714@aol.com>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWiIImore@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Leza Mikhail <LezaM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Gwen, As I mentioned in my previous email, the intent of the proposed code amendment initiation is to address unwanted noise generated by land use activities or equipment within the City not aircraft noise. The issue of aircraft noise is being addressed through another means with other south bay cities. In regards to the Staff Report, the text you are referring to is located in an attachment to the Staff Report that is an excerpt from the City's General Plan on the Noise Element. Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director :3 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(D_rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? iLM " hi!", �.rrr��r �,:� sac��: �?4:3'.n$ ifffirr'f7�Aitln belonging to the (.iiY of Rxlc:Iss P�, rys Vel -dc's, vvlic4i may bE p�€vileeel, confidential zirir;;orprc3irsctici fsorr'i ,. Eai<;C C}SEIYE.. I iii. 'i'If;l"(19t3taOC1 isiS1f,Fi'.f"iC�f3C onlyfi4R' use of the IiELiIVIC�€.S al !}Y' entityt'si3YC'14';E'a, l.)tli3U�,11ti('iz£.f� C�1!>5;f'CYt111i1�:(CJS'i, C�ISi:i'i�:713��1f:itli ^'- copying is strictly prohibited, 1i you I'eceiv£',-d this E.'nlail ill erlol, epi "'are not 'an intended recipien," j:zi£:F:3te notify the .`.-;E',iider inirnlf",(JOU.-"1y. Thank you fo: ycAlr e3s"Gtal"Ce and t".wj3f'.ration, From: gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com[mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:34 PM To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Jim <iimmaclellan714@aol.com>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Yes it was Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my B1ackBerry® From: Susan Brooks <SusanBgrpvca.gov> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 01:01:36 +0000 To: wen cr,butterfieldcommunications.com<gwengbutterfieldcommunications.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian<AraM@jTvca.gov>; Jim<jimmaclellan714naol.com>; Kit Fox<KitF@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Perhaps it's in Kit's announcement for the Listsery Susan Brooks, Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca (310) 541-2971 Www. susan.brookskrpvca. gov On Oct 14, 2016, at 5:34 PM, "gwene,butterfieldcommunications.com" < wen a,butterfieldcommunications.com> wrote: Hello Ara, It is attached to the staff report I received from an email from RPV. Thanks, Gwen Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® From: Ara Mihranian <AraM r yea.;ov> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:51:50 +0000 To: Gwen<gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com>; Susan Brooks<SusanB@a,rpvca.gov> Cc: 'Jim'<jimmaclellan714 a,aol.com> Subject: RE: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Gwen, Where exactly does the Staff Report refer to "transportation" noise? I ask, because as Susan explained, this Council agenda item is intended to address unwanted noise generated by land use activities or equipment within the City not aircraft noise. The City is currently addressing aircraft noise through another means. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director <image001.jpg> 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram _rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? Ibis e-mail fiv.ss« ge contains inf"3nn at:ion belnng:M6 to the City of Rancho Pa lcrus vr;l d , 'which rway be privileged, confidential and/or protected fr am disclos. m. ..rhes information Js inteneled only for use of the indivdi cal or entity n arrierl. tJrw€, thorize d listribution, or copying S slr€dly proi1ihste'.d, If you re=esai idl this eziiil in error, or are not; an intended reaci meant, 1.)Ieasik noiafy thef seraetr:r rrr=rredirate�€y, T hank you f,,,; -your rice �,,rKi co per�ition. From: Gwen[mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 3:09 PM To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov_> Cc: 'Jim' <iimmaclellan714@aol.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Thanks Susan! FYI, I can understand you may wish to have a noise ordinance that only applies to issues like loud parties, noise from air conditioners, etc. The part that I think is possibly a problem is under the transportation section of the staff report it states you have no regular flights, etc so thus noise from aircraft not studied... Would like to hear Ara's thoughts on this. We sincerely appreciate follow up regarding the letters to FAA and to Congressman Ted Lieu also. Best, Gwen From: Susan Brooks [mailto:SusanB@rpvca.gov] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 2:55 PM To: Gwen Cc: Jim; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance Hi Gwen, Thanks for your email. As I understand it, this ordinance is intended to address matters which occur between homes or in public areas with amplified sound. It is not intended to address aircraft, since we are in ongoing challenges with FAA and their ridiculous regulations. Ara can let us know if this applies to aircraft. Thanks. I'll check with Kit Fox to see if we have received an answer from FAA regarding our letter to them about their poor oversight on the aircraft noise and distance matter. Best, Susan Susan Brooks Councilwom Rancho Palos Verdes (Home) 310/ 541-2971 (City Hall) 310/544-5207 http://rpvcq.gov/ <image003.jpg> Sent from my iPhone <image003.jpg> On Oct 14, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Gwen<gwenkbutterfieldcommunications.com> wrote: Susan, In reading the October 18, 2016 Noise Ordinance Staff Report, I am perplexed that the report states under the noise from transportation impacts section, that there are no flights from LAX, Torrance or Long Beach airports over the City of RPV. I understand RPV has no trains but we certainly have aircraft that regularly fly over the City. Please see the link below. I hope the City will consider re -doing this incomplete report prior to voting on a new ordinance/code amendment. Thanks, Gwen From: City of Rancho Palos Verdes [mailto:listsery@civicplus.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:05 PM To: gwenCa)butterfieldcommunications.com Subject: Consideration to initiate a Code Amendment to establish a Citywide comprehensive Noise Ordinance View this in your browser This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserve category you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email address. You can make changes to your subscription by visiting httpJ/www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. On October 18, 2016, the City Council will review the City's current noise regulations, as well as other local government noise regulations, and determine if a Code Amendment should be initiated to prepare a more comprehensive noise control ordinance. Click Here to view the October 18, 2016 Noise Ordinance Staff Report. This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at: http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Breaking News on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubs the following link: If{' I cl i a,, the link ("Io�asri i.. �it,)rk, , lease copy and pasle the Fir£ into your browar, From: Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 7:37 AM To: CC; CityClerk Subject: Oct 18 City Council Meeting This is in response to agenda item 5. Consideration and Possible Action to Receive and File an Update on the Status of Master Plan process for Ladera Linda Park. Dear City Council, When we first moved first moved to the Ladera Linda area, 41 years ago, many of our residents were able to leave their doors and windows unlocked without fear of being robbed. We moved to this side of the peninsula to get away from the hustle and congestion of the South Bay. Over the years this has all changed and has accelerated with the event of social media. The City has become a destination city for the county. All you have to do is see what has been happening at Del Cerro Park, Secret Cove, Abalone Cove and the now eliminated Trump Dog Park. In 2015 the City conducted a study to update the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan. Residents made it plain and clear that they were in favor of replacing the present facilities at Ladera Linda but keeping it to a minimum within the needs of the community and not become a community nuisance. We were already experiencing problems with trash, speeding, and traffic problems as a result of AYSO. At the City's September 22 working group meeting we were expecting to see some preliminary concept drawings on what was proposed, but what we were presented with is another $90,000 study to determine what the "Stakeholders" wanted. The stakeholders being defined as the YMCA, PVPUSD, Red Cross, Los Serenos, Las Candalistas, and all the users of the present facilities and of course the residents. The study contractor has proposed clear cutting all the old growth trees and bushes to make use of the view and property, and to incorporate the OSHA handy cap requirements for street level access to the park which will require a new entrance to the park further down Forrestal. We later learned that one proposal was to have a two story structure so that the second floor would be at the paddle tennis court level. We also learned that the City was planning to incorporate their operational requirements into the design that included the following; 1 5 1. Office for two part-time staff at a time with one full-time Supervisor 2. Office for Sheriff personnel 3. Office for Open Space Management Staff 4. Office for volunteer docents 5. Storage for Electric ATV vehicles with charging stations 6. Parking for enforcement pickups 7. Discovery/Nature room, work area and storage area for Discovery room artifacts only 8. Considering a gate keeper to monitor traffic in and out of the complex One suggestion by City staff was to remove the hard fought for gate on Forrestal to allow additional parking. For years the community was plagued with trash dumping in the canyon at the end of Forrestal and wild parties until the gate was installed. Their solution was to have a guard at the entrance to the park. What we have here is a clear case of lack of communications and a conflict on what the community wants and what the City staff is planning. The residents want a low key neighborhood center with adequate onsite parking located in the same setting of the original site without changing the whole park environment. It seems that the City staff wants an offsite administration building to house staff and by the way if there is room, a community room for the residents. That is why the residents are now against a new facility. What we would like the Council to do is to give staff direction that the priority for the design is the residents requirements and not the users. If a user can live within those requirements that's fine if not so be it. Second that there be sufficient onsite parking. One other point that should be brought up, Los Serenos in not a stakeholder. The City owns the artifacts stored at Ladera Linda and therefore responsible for their storage and safe keeping some of which are priceless. Herb Stark 310-541-6646 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 10:21 AM To: CC Subject: Ladera Linda Park Attachments: RPV CC Comments by RGD Oct 19 2016.doc a Remarks on the Parks Master Plan for Ladera Linda Park by Gene Dewey at CC meeting on October 18, 2016 Thank you Mayor Dyda and City Council My name is Gene Dewey, 1 have resided on Vigilance drive since 1979 and I am the current president of LLHOA. I am here to speak on behalf of the LLHOA association . During the April 22, 2016 P & R meeting to review the status of the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, several prominent residents spoke out against anything other than repairing the existing buildings. After that meeting I received numerous calls and e-mails on the subject. Since we were scheduled to meet with P &R on the following Monday, I sent an e-mail to our listed home owners asking for their opinion on repairing the existing structures or a creating a new complex. Over 30 responses were for repairing or building something similar to the existing structures and two for new and one didn't have enough information to make a decision. I sent copies of these e-mails to Matt Waters yesterday. Most of our residents would probably be in favor of a new small structure in the current setting, but they strongly oppose anything that is going to a bring more problems to our neighborhood. This may be a change in opinion from the earlier P & R workshops, but once the full scope off the project came to light , it became clear that this project could be headed in the wrong direction. The report by staff to the council tonight is moving toward the right track. Keep is small, similar to what we have now, a Park not a Community center with ample parking, a paved paddle tennis parking lot and a water fountain that works. Thank you. From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:50 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: 9/22 response From: Florence Fenton [mailto:flofentonl@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:53 PM To: R. Gene Dewey Subject: 9/22 response Hi Gene, • My response for 9/22 1 guess, is to upgrade what we have at Ladera Linda to keep the population low and traffic minimal. The increase in burglaries frighten me. Flo From: Florence Fenton [mailto:flofentonl@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 10:05 PM To: R. Gene Dewey Subject: Re: Flying Tigers Hi Gene, Where did you get this? It has been awhile since anyone has contacted me fro the e Flying Tiger group. The last memories of the Flying Tigers was when Hal and I were up at Vandenberg in 2007. The group had disbanded a few years before that. Some of the adult children tried to resurrect the Flying Tigers by themselves for a few years, but I haven't heard anything new. Where did the pictures come from? thanks, Flo From: R. Gene Dewey Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:49 AM To: 'Florence Fenton' Subject: FW: Flying Tigers Hi Florence, Was wondering of you have seen this? Gene This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:50 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Community Center From: Peggy Latterman [mailto:latterpeg@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 7:33 PM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: latterdon@cox.net Subject: Community Center Hi Gene, we need to decide what we want as the community of Ladera Linda. The city has spent lots of money on consultants telling us what they, the city, wants to do. We have a changing Ladera Linda neighborhood, and need to consider what everybody needs or wants. Do we want a pool ( for RPV residents only); a new center offering a meeting/gathering place for neighborhood use for parties, etc, including a kitchen where we can host our various annual get togethers. We may be able to gather more frequently if we had a nice place to do it! We should think about new play equipment for the younger residents, also a new basketball court. Our children used to use the game rooms and pool table along with crafting on various holidays. The current old buildings may not be economically feasible to upgrade to meet our needs. Right now we have a bunch of old buildings that we really do not use. I think that new buildings that meet our needs would be preferable. We would hate to see the old trees taken out. Adding new landscape, pathways, sitting areas to enjoy the space, around the mature trees, is preferable. Thanks, Gene, for taking the time to represent us. Don Latterman a From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:49 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Community Center -----Original Message ----- From: lack Baldelli [mailto:jbaldelli@cox.net] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:15 AM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Community Center Ann and I would prefer rebuilt old. Thank you Sent from my iPhone ■ From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:49 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Community Center/Park From: Margaret Moilov [mailto:lafreel3@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 10:06 AM To: rgdewey@cox.net; EZStevens Subject: Community Center/Park To the Committee: Please just upgrade the current park DO NOT make anew park. There are several reason I state this. First, we will increase the use from outside our community thereby increasing traffic, people, and potential crime, Second, this park is meant to be a local community park and the users have other local alternatives if they want to hike, play tennis, swim, etc. This is just a passive park for small community activities and it size and facilities serve that purpose. It should be updated and the electrical and plumbing fixed. To reiterate since it is a focal point for meetings, classes, and local activities it should remain" as is" with only slight modifications so that it remains our little heaven not a mecca for others on a pilgrimage to view the ocean and invade our peaceful neighborhood. City Should NOT spend all that money on a plan that is not needed or wanted by its citizens!!!!! If you have any questions please reach me via email. Thanks, Margaret Seaview 0 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:48 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: L: Community Center From: R. Gene Dewey [mailto:rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 11:34 AM To: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Gene Dewey; Georgette Jenkins:; Judy Youssef:; Kate Nash; Mickey Rodich ; Terri Shary ; Tom Karen Smith Subject: L:L: Community Center LLHOA Board Below is a draft of a survey I would like to send out to our homeowners after your review, comments and approval. Thanks, Gene Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Oct 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. It may be possible to raze half of the structures, keep a couple of walls up and rebuild about 10,000 sq feet of the current complex that is being used. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, trees removed to improve views, etc. or if you had you say rebuild the existing necessary structures with upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? New or rebuilt Old ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewey@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:47 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: L: Community Center From: Gary Randall [mailto:grapecon@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 2:17 PM To: 'R. Gene Dewey' Subject: RE: L: Community Center If that sort of approach can be made to work, I would likely be very much in favor.... From: R. Gene Dewey [mailto:rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 2:00 PM To: 'Gary Randall' Subject: RE: L: Community Center Gary, Gary, we can get to that point after we see what our residents would prefer. I think razing about half the structures, keeping the same profile on about 10,000 sq feet of rebuilt structures, leaving one wall in place, and paving the paddle tennis court parking lot would suffice. I have been involved in building and remodeling homes for a number of years and I am sure this can be done . Gene From: Gary Randall [mailto:grapecon@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 1:33 PM To: 'R. Gene Dewey'; 'Marty Foster'; 'Carl Edwina Mangiameli'; 'George Fink'; 'Herb Stark'; 'Jm Lehman' Subject: RE: L: Community Center As a follow up comment, the City Staff and consultant are very interested in situating buildings, structures, and removing foliage on the ocean side of the area to "take advantage of incredible views" at the park and community center. I would bet that 90% of the residents (maybe more) in the 4 HOAs (LL, Seaview, Mediterrania, and PBC) already have at least some ocean and coastline views from their homes. Ed Hummel and I were talking this morning and he asked very good question — he asked, "Do the residents of the 4 HOAs really benefit from a park with incredible views?" The answer is, most likely, "no." So building a park and buildings to "take advantage of the incredible view potential from it" serves only one purpose — to attract visitors to come.....just what we don't want to happen! If visitors want to come and enjoy views, there is plenty of room at Trump National and Terranea, and even better, they might spend some money there and bring tax revenue in. Something to seriously think about. By the way ..... just because the city has started spending some money on a consultant, I don't think it is too late to change directions if, in fact, we get a large grass roots movement going. Gateway park had plans drawn up and we were able to get the council to nix the entire idea of considering that park. I am not necessarily saying that is the way we want to go, but now is certainly the time to figure out exactly what folks in the 4 HOAs this park is intended to serve really want. Almost makes me wonder if the 4 HOAs ought to get together and have our own meeting (with or without the city present) to see if we can all get on the same page..... From: Gary Randall [mailtomrapeconO)cox.netI Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 1:11 PM To: 'R. Gene Dewey'; 'Marty Foster'; 'Carl Edwina Mangiameli'; 'George Fink'; 'Herb Stark'; 'Jm Lehman ' Subject: RE: L: Community Center First, I am very much in favor of a very low key facility! We certainly don't want to attract more people. Keeping existing structures is attractive because then the parking lot could be maintained at existing size, perhaps major ADA requirements avoided, etc. That being said, I am a little concerned about simply trying to maintain the existing structures. I believe those were put in over 50 years ago and, even at that time, were considered temporary structures. If you look closely at the walls, they are very thin (no studs). Comparing those structures to our similarly aged homes (which contain proper structural support for longer duration usage) is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, in my mind. Of course, if the existing buildings are actually structurally sound and all that is need is cosmetic improvements and perhaps utilities maintenance or repair, then that would be an interesting alternative. I have no problem with questions going out to the community, such as the ones you mention below, but I wonder if a little more research needs to be done first and appropriate additional information provided so the residents can make a better informed vote. Can someone find an actual report from an engineer hired by the city that describes in detail the conditions of the facility? Not that this report would be sent to everyone, but key conclusions could be cited. Such a report would also be very helpful (depending on what it says, of course) if in fact the majority of the residents vote to keep existing structures and the HOA board decides to propose that to the city. Anyway, that is just my thought. While I appreciate you asking my opinion, I am not a member of the HOA board and feel that the board members should likely decide the best way to conduct such a survey. From: R. Gene Dewey [mailto:rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 12:06 PM To: 'Marty Foster'; 'Carl Edwina Mangiameli'; George Fink; 'Herb Stark'; Gary Randall; Jm Lehman Subject: FW: L: Community Center Hi Marty, George, Gary, Carl, Jim, and Herb, I would also like your comments before I send this out. Thanks, Gene From: R. Gene Dewey [ma ilto:rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 11:34 AM To: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Gene Dewey; Georgette Jenkins:; Judy Youssef:; Kate Nash; Mickey Rodich ; Terri Shary ; Tom Karen Smith Subject: L:L: Community Center LLHOA Board Below is a draft of a survey I would like to send out to our homeowners after your review, comments and approval. Thanks, Gene Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Oct 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. This can also be done with the existing facilities. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, etc. or if you had you say keep the existing structures with necessary upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? New or Old ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewey@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:46 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: L:L: Community Center From: Thomas Smith [mailto:thomash.smith@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:50 AM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Georgette Jenkins:; Judy Youssef:; Kate Nash; Mickey Rodich; Terri Shary Subject: Re: L:L: Community Center I am for minimal expense. Keep the existing structures with upgrades as necessary. I think it's a great idea for the board to survey the neighborhood for input. Thanks, Tom Tom On Sep 24, 2016, at 20:34, R. Gene Dewey <rgdewev@cox.net> wrote: LLHOA Board Below is a draft of a survey I would like to send out to our homeowners after your review, comments and approval. Thanks, Gene Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Oct 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. This can also be done with the existing facilities. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, etc. or if you had you say keep the existing structures with necessary upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? New or ®Id ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewey@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:46 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: L:L: Community Center From: kate nash [mailto:kate.nash@me.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 10:30 AM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Georgette Jenkins:; Judy Youssef:; Mickey Rodich; Terri Shary; Tom Karen Smith Subject: Re: L:L: Community Center I agree with Tom Sent from my iPhone ! Kate Nash On Sep 25, 2016, at 10:20 AM, R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> wrote: Thanks Tom, Everyone I have heard from so far is in favor of" Keep the existing structures with upgrades as necessary". I am waiting for one more positive board member response before sending the e-mail out . I have Gary Randall's input and suggested changes along with agreement from Herb Stark ad Marty Foster. Herb was very vocal at the meeting as was George Fink, Carl Mangiameli and several others a. All wanting to tone the project back to square one. Gene From: Thomas Smith[mailto:thomash.smith@amail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:50 AM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Georgette Jenkins:; Judy Youssef:; Kate Nash; Mickey Rodich; Terri Shary Subject: Re: L:L: Community Center I am for minimal expense. Keep the existing structures with upgrades as necessary. I think it's a great idea for the board to survey the neighborhood for input. Thanks, Tom Tom On Sep 24, 2016, at 20:34, R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> wrote: LLHOA Board 1 Below is a draft of a survey I would like to send out to our homeowners after your review, comments and approval. Thanks, Gene Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Oct 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. This can also be done with the existing facilities. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, etc. or if you had you say keep the existing structures with necessary upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? New or ®Id ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewey@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:45 AM Matt Waters FW: L:L: Community Center From: G J [mailto:origamiq@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 10:43 AM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Judy Youssef:; Kate Nash; Mickey Rodich; Terri Shary; Tom Karen Smith Subject: Re: L:L: Community Center I agree with the all the comments below, and in favor of fixing the current structure, and a higher level of maintenance than currently performed. Georgette On Sep 25, 2016, at 10:20 AM, R. Gene Dewey <rgdewev@cox.net> wrote: Thanks Tom, Everyone I have heard from so far is in favor of" Keep the existing structures with upgrades as necessary". I am waiting for one more positive board member response before sending the e-mail out . I have Gary Randall's input and suggested changes along with agreement from Herb Stark ad Marty Foster. Herb was very vocal at the meeting as was George Fink, Carl Mangiameli and several others a. All wanting to tone the project back to square one. Gene From: Thomas Smith[mailto:thomash.smith@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:50 AM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Georgette Jenkins:; Judy Youssef:; Kate Nash; Mickey Rodich; Terri Shary Subject: Re: L:L: Community Center I am for minimal expense. Keep the existing structures with upgrades as necessary. I think it's a great idea for the board to survey the neighborhood for input. Thanks, Tom Tom On Sep 24, 2016, at 20:34, R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> wrote: LLHOA Board 5 Below is a draft of a survey I would like to send out to our homeowners after your review, comments and approval. Thanks, Gene Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Oct 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. This can also be done with the existing facilities. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, etc. or if you had you say keep the existing structures with necessary upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? New or ®Id ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewey@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:45 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladders Linda project response -----Original Message ----- From: Cathy French [mailto:ccf214@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, October 1, 201612:26 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Ladders Linda project response I am a homeowner in the Seaview area and was unable or to attend the meeting but have kept in close contact with neighbors and HOA concerning the proposal. I definitely favor upgrading existing structures over creating an new complex. Cathy French Sent from my iPad a From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:44 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda From: Barbara Fujita [mailto:hotputtin@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:37 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Ladera Linda Rebuild old. Thanks, Barbara Fujita Sent from my iPhone 5 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:44 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda From: MIchael Gilchrist[mailto:cagirlsdadanddog@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 3:54 PM To: R. Gene Dewey Subject: Ladera Linda Gene, Our thought is for the Rebuilt of the old. We agree that the new plan is too much. Please fix what we already have and improve upon the facilities. Thank you so much. Lane and Wendi Gilchrist 5 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:44 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda -----Original Message ----- From: Carol J -M [mailto:cjeungmills@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:03 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Ladera Linda Rebuild! Carol Jeung-Mills 3603 Vigilance Drive From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:44 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda .. ....... ... - From: G_ZITPA [mailto:gzitpa@gmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 9:06 AM To: Donald Bell; cprotem73@cox.ne; tjduhovic@hotmail.com; mizie@cox.net; briancampbell@gmail.com; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; martycrna@cox.net; Gene Dewey; edmundo hummel; Jim Lehman; Gary Randall; Barry; Bill Foster; Richard Stark; George Fink; Jessica Vlaco; bill schurmer; Sam Rubino; j.tetherow@cox.net; Tom Smith; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Judy Youssef:; Yossef Aelony; Jack Fleming; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; latterpeg@cox.net; Amanda Wong; Erika Barber; Emeric Rodich (mickeyrodich; Len6e Bilski; Joyce; Emily McKean; Cory Linder; James Flannigan; Ron Dragoo; Mary Hirsch; Daniel Trautner; Matt Waters; Charles Agnew; erstevens@cox.net; Mona Dill Subject: Ladera Linda i propose that we rename Ladera Linda Park with the name of the City Council person who achieves a permanent "NO changes" The name change will be merited : it will be quite a task.... what with Staff recommendations Consultants ....and "the MONEY " ! 0 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:43 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey -----Original Message ----- From: irenei@cox.net [mailto:irenei@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 6:20 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey Gene, Don and I feel that rebuilding the old is the better option. We agree that a new complex will be very expensive, spending money the city doesn't have, and will increase all the problems already outlined below. Don & Irene From: Herb Stark <herbertstark@cox.net> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:25:37 -0700 Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey To: undisclosed -recipients:; Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Sept 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. It may be possible to raze half of the structures, keep a couple of walls up and rebuild about 10,000 sq feet of the current complex. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. s *Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, trees removed to improve views, etc. or if you had you say rebuild the existing necessary structures with upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? * *New or rebuilt Old ?* Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. *rgdewey@cox.net <http://webmaila.juno.com/webmaiI/new/5?userinfo=36ddf03342afbaa437bb478f674070cb&count=1474830836&ran did=1267209284#>* Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:43 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey From: Ed Jenkins [mailto:edwinjenkins@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 7:05 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Cc: 'Herb Stark' Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey I would much prefer that the existing buildings be upgraded or repaired as necessary and provide better upkeep on what we now have, e.g., upright trash cans and remove trash that has spilled or been carelessly dumped. Regards Ed and Georgette Jenkins 32326 Sea Raven Drive From: Herb Stark [mailto:herbertstark@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 12:26 PM To: undisclosed -recipients: Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Sept 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. It may be possible to raze half of the structures, keep a couple of walls up and rebuild about 10,000 sq feet of the current complex. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, trees removed to improve views, etc. or if you had you say rebuild the existing necessary structures with upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? 5 New or rebuilt ®Id ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewoy@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:42 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey From: The Costleys [mailto:billmelandlindsey@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:18 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey Hi Gene, We are in favor of upgrading the existing facilities with minimum impact to the park as it is now. Thanks! The Costleys From: Herb Stark [mailto:herbertstark@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 12:26 PM To: undisclosed -recipients: Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center Survey Ladera Linda Residents: A number of our residents were in attendance at the P & R workshop on Thursday Sept 22, 2016. Nearly everyone who spoke wanted to keep whatever was done to a minimum. They were concerned about the negative impacts of a new center, traffic, noise, etc. Several years ago we were told by the city that the buildings were unsafe and the utilities needed to be replaced or upgraded. The city however continues to use these facilities as is with little or no maintenance being done while at the same time spending over $ 90 K to develop a Master Plan and a design concept study for a new facility. This amount of money would have gone a long way to improve some of the conditions needing repair. We were told a new center was the preferred choice as opposed to repairing the existing facilities.. There were several people who spoke out against the new facility and preferred to keep the Ladera Linda complex as it is with necessary repairs, rather than tear up the entire park, build new structures, spending millions of dollars on something most of the residents don't want. Concerns were expressed that creating a new facility will attract a whole new level of use and additional traffic to our neighborhood. Homeowner Marty Foster points out in an e-mail to CC that the 50 year old homes in our neighborhood have been repaired, rebuilt, etc by the home owners. They dealt with the asbestos, up graded the plumbing, electrical, etc. It may be possible to raze half of the structures, keep a couple of walls up and rebuild about 10,000 sq feet of the current complex. I would ask you to respond to two questions and I will publish the results. Would you like to see a new facility, with walking trails, relocated buildings, roads, trees removed to improve views, etc. or if you had you say rebuild the existing necessary structures with upgrades and minimize the disturbance to the park as it now is? New or rebuilt Old ? Even though the train is out of the station, this neighborhood has been instrumental in getting our neighbors elected to the council in the past and we have had some success in helping to get some of the current council members elected. If we prefer to keep things as they are with necessary improvements, perhaps we can convince the council to rethink this project. Please respond to me as soon as possible. rgdewey@cox.net Thanks Gene Dewey From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:41 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: LL Center -----Original Message ----- From: Judy Hildebrand [mailto:judbabe@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:02 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: LL Center I vote for a new community center. Judy Hildebrand Sent from my iPhone From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:41 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: LLCC From: Marty Foster [mailto:martycrna@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:40 PM To: bjhilde@aol.com Cc: rgdewey@cox.net; herbertstark@cox.net Subject: Re: LLCC Well said Sent from my iPad On Sep 25, 2016, at 12:56 PM, lbjhildegaol.com wrote: rebuilt Old GENE, DIDYOU GET MY MESSAGE (ABOVE)? IT'S CRAZY TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE DESIGN/BUILD PROCESS WHEN THE CENTER IS THOROUGHLY SERVICABLE AS IT IS WITH MINIMAL EXPENDITURES FOR UTILITIES AND WALL TREATMENTS (INSIDE AND OUT). AS MARTY NOTED, ALL OF THE HOMES IN LLHOA ARE OLDER THAN THE BLDGS AT THE CENTER (WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS) AND NO ONE HAS GONE BROKE MAINTAINING THEIR HOME. THIS WHOLE SPASM IS DESIGNED TO KEEP CITY EMPLOYEES ON THE JOB WHILE SPENDING TAXPAYER'S MONEY ON AN EDIFICE, NO DOUBT WITH A POLITICIAN'S NAME EMBOSSED ON IT, AND A NEW NEON SIGN AT THE BOTTOM OF FORRESTAL DRIVE INVITING THE HORDES TO OVERRUN US. SUCCINTLY, I SAY .............. Barra H. 356o Vigilance From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:38 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: New Ladera Linda Community Center From: erstevens@cox.net [mailto:erstevens@cox.net] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 12:09 AM To: 'R. Gene Dewey' Subject: New Ladrea Linda Community Center My vote is to try to keep it the way it is with just doing the necessary improvements. My suggestion is to install new electrical & Plumbing without attempting to waste a lot of time & money removing the old utilities & encapsulating the asbestos. Good Luck Ed The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:37 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Plan for Ladera Linda From: erstevens@cox.net [mailto:erstevens@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 9:26 PM To: 'Jim Lehman' Cc: 'Gene / Lynne Dewey'; 'Bill Foster'; 'Gary Randall'; 'barry hildebrand'; 'bill schurmer'; 'Ed Hummel'; dimarstark@cox.net; 'Herb Stark'; 'George Fink'; 'Jessica Vlaco'; 'Sam Rubino'; j.tetherow@cox.net; jjfleming2000@yahoo.com; 'Mickey Rodich'; 'Tom Smith'; 'Paul Henrikson'; 'Angelows Angelow'; 'Nabil Youssef; 'Youseff Aelony'; latterpeg@cox.net; erstevens@cox.net; 'Marty Foster' Subject: RE: Plan for Ladera Linda Jim, let me know what time the meeting is & I will be more than happy to help stop this crazy idea. I think the Architect & staff have already sketched up all sorts of drawings for the 18,000 SQ/FT TAJ MAHAL. I suggest we need to make up a petition & go around Seaview & Ladera Linda & collect real signatures & really show the opposition to this. I think the staff approached the Council about a small Master plan & the CC did not realize what the staff was really contemplating for the future of our area. The staff was able to give the existing Buildings an "F" grade. We all know the Buildings are old so our Homes that we are always upgrading with new roofs, plumbing, Electrical, paint etc- etc. Some of the existing schools are 50 years old. I did some of the original grading in 1966 for the Mira Catalina grade school & it is still an excellent working school. The City has just spent a lot of money upgrading the Nature Center. Maybe they could leave that building & repair the existing or maybe tear down 2 buildings & build say a 4000 — 5000 sq/ft for our small secluded area. The City Council needs to step up to the plate just like they did last year & told the staff we do not want a GYM, Pool or Dog Park. Ed Stevens From: Jim Lehman [mailto:jimlehman@mac.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 8:18 PM To: Marty Foster Cc: Gene / Lynne Dewey; Bill Foster; Gary Randall; barry hildebrand; bill schurmer; Ed Hummel; dimarstark@cox.net; Herb Stark; George Fink; Jessica Vlaco; Sam Rubino; <j.tetherow@cox.net>; <jjfleming20000yahoo.com>; Mickey Rodich; Tom Smith; Paul Henrikson; Angelows Angelow; Nabil Youssef; Youseff Aelony; <latterpeg@cox.net>; erstevens@cox. net Subject: Re: Plan for Ladera Linda Thanks again, Marty for your attempts to communicate with the city staff about our concerns. Unless the city of RPV is completely dysfunctional, the staff is supposed to take their marching orders from the Council. It is obviously time to stop trying to reason with the employees (staff) and take our concerns back to the supervisors (Council) and let them know that the boss (the tax paying citizens) are not happy with what the employees are doing. 5 I think that the next Council meeting is tomorrow evening. If a whole bunch of Ladera Lindans show up and make comments at the beginning of the session, maybe they will get the message and go back and review what the staff is trying create in our back yard. The only way that the staff will throttle back on their plans for Ladera Linda is if the Council gives them that direction. It is now clear that by us residents giving our blessing to an upgrade of what is currently there the staff saw this as an "opening" to put their fingerprints on a magnificent new project with endless opportunities to self actualize. In addition to our concerns about the magnitude of this project and the amount of outside interest it could attract, the Council needs to look beyond the initial costs to construct a two story Taj Mahal but also what will the operational costs be over the long run (i.e. maintenance and repairs, carpeting, painting, air conditioning and heating, other utility expenses, and personnel costs. One would expect that those expenses will be much more than what it currently costs to operate what is there now. If Mickey can use his contacts with the Council and let them know that we are coming with pitchforks and torches maybe a strong showing will accomplish what endless dialog with the staff will never do. What does everybody think? Regards, Jim Lehman On Oct 3, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Marty Foster wrote: Thanks, Matt We will just have to agree to disagree. Matt, I don't think I sent my post to you but rather CC. May I ask how it is that you are replying? Sent from my iPad On Oct 3, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Matt Waters <MattW ,rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Marty, Thank you for your email about the Ladera Linda Community Center Master Plan. I'd like to respond to some of the points and concerns you have raised about this project. *"More rather than less." Staff and the consultant RFA have taken the Council's "less is more" philosophy to heart. Even though no designs have been made yet (it is important to note that the project is at an information -gathering phase), the two designs that will be shown at another public workshop before going to Council will show a community center that is smaller than the existing buildings. Additionally, a number of major recreation elements have been purposefully excluded from consideration, including a gymnasium, pool, dog park and skate park. No elements that were opposed by the community will be included and the scope of the project has not increased. **Survey: You note that a survey has made the rounds showing strong community resistance to this project. Public workshops and a survey conducted in 2014 and 2015 showed strong community support for this project. The project is included in the Parks Master Plan Update that was approved by City Council in October 2015. The September 22 workshop generated many constructive comments, suggestions, and strong opinions but there was no consensus expressed there to end the project. It's difficult to be completely for or against this project until the conceptual designs are complete and made public. No designs have even been created yet for this project, but all comments received, including the one -question survey, will be forwarded to RFA. Ladera Linda -adjacent residents will have the opportunity to see and comment on the designs at a subsequent public workshop and again in front of Council. **Renovating the buildings: The City Council approved the current Master Plan process for Ladera Linda which included a recommendation to demolish the existing buildings and replace them. This was based on the building's poor condition which earned an "F" rating in a 2013 study. Spending funds to renovate temporary buildings that are now fifty years old with significant infrastructure problems would not be a solid investment. * *City Hall instead of Ladera Linda: City Hall is going through its own Master Plan process, but it is at a very early stage. Some of the recreation elements that are excluded from the Ladera Linda site may be considered at City Hall including a gym, pool, and Public Safety components. The site already has a dog park. **$7.2million: This design, demolition, and construction estimate was taken from the 2015-16 Capital Improvement Plan, and was based on a 12,000 sq foot footprint to be funded by Capital Improvement Plan Reserves. The CIP cost calculation is admittedly just an estimate but it does include many of the elements being discussed currently: restrooms, multi-purpose rooms, activity rooms, landscaping, irrigation, discovery rooms, and a ranger/Sheriff drop-in office. A new cost estimate will be developed by RFA as part of the LL Park Master Plan process. * * 15 employees: This total, which was the result of a meeting with Ladera Linda Homeowner representatives and City staff is misleading. Ladera Linda is currently staffed by one part-time staff at a time who is overseen by a full-time Recreation Supervisor. The new building would likely increase staffing to two part-time staff at a time with one full-time Supervisor. This is comparable to staff levels at Hesse Park and PVIC. The fifteen is a mix of Sheriff personnel and Open Space Management Staff who would only use their office for drop-in use since the vast majority of their time will be spent enforcing rules and monitoring the Preserve. Several volunteer docents might stop by occasionally to lead a tour of the Discovery/Nature room or work on artifacts as they do now. This adds up to 15, but actual staffing levels would only increase from 2 to 3. **"LL will be a very busy place" Staff and RFA, following the lead of Council and the community, are not proposing additional uses. The building footprint and square footage will be smaller. Parking will be improved. There will still be "green space and a safe place for children to play." There's already a nature center and a Sheriff and Open Space Management crew drop in office there now. There will still be classes, HOA meetings, summer camps, and paddle tennis. City staff will work closely with residents to create clear policies to set limits on hours, noise, and usage to help maintain the low-key neighborhood feel. I encourage you to continue to be a part of the process as it moves forward because local resident input is crucial to the success of this project. I personally appreciate your obvious pride in this wonderful part of the RPV community. Feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.12alosverdes.com/rt)v mattw Mvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p - (310) 544-5291 f -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:m crna.&cox.net] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:01 PM To: CC <CC@,mvca. ov> 4 Cc: r dg ewey(2cox.net; Mickey Rodich <micke ro�(a,gmail.com> <micke,, roQgmail.com>; Bill Foster <bfosgcox.net>; grapecon e,cox.net; barry hildebrand <bjhilde(2aol com>; bill schurmer <sbschurm@_yahoo.com>; ecarloshum(2gmail.com; jimlehman&mac.com; dimarstark@cox.net; herbertstarkncox.net; gfinkl lgcox.net; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5 ,cox.net>; dwbrpvggmail.com; sam rubino <IAMSAMBINO(2aol.com>; i.tetherowncox.net; tsks@hotmail.com; jjfleming2000@yahoo.com Subject: Plan for Ladera Linda Some facts have come to light this week. Again, homeowners surrounding LL thought the message was received that 'less is more'. Apparently not, since LLHOA members learned' more rather than less' at Monday's meeting with Parks and Recreation personnel.The scope of the plan is far greater than previously realized. A survey has been sent to homeowners in the last few days. Results thus far show 86 % in favor of retaining the buildings present and refurbishing them. At this time, is it possible to get estimates for such repairs and remodeling deemed necessary at LL? Those buildings have served well for many years. To update them will be a fraction of the cost discussed this far. Can the idea be entertained by CC to expand/rebuild city hall and add some park like amenities at that site, diverting the $7.2 million (gasp) meant for LL? The plan at LL includes parking and office space for 15 city employees, parking and space for sheriff park rangers, interpretive center personnel and open space management employees totaling at least 15 more folks that will inhabit the center, some 24/7 and at least Monday through Friday. This does not sound like a park or a community center. It seems more like an extension of City Hall. There are many wonderful groups that would like some permanence at LL. Their work is admirable. However, with all we have mentioned LL will be a very busy place. The surrounding communities' desire for green space and a safe place for children to play is usurped by these plans. In the current climate of 'green' concerns, let us follow the three R's ... reduce, reuse, and recycle. Thank you all as always for the significant work you do for our city. Marty Foster Sent from my Wad From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:35 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Response to questions From: Gary Randall [mailto:grapecon@cox.net] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:54 AM To: Gene Dewey Subject: Response to questions Gene In response to the questions posted, I feel I do not have enough information to make an informed decision. I think this view would be important to share with the consultant and staff when you meet with them this week. It might be worth the city spending some time and money investigating the cost and practicality of refurbishing the existing structures (or a portion of them). If this delays the schedule, I think that would be fine and would be willing to wait longer to see any sort of project proposed, decided upon, and implemented. Staff was asked by one of the residents if federal money was tied to this project and, if so, were strings attached. The answer from Cory Linder was not very direct .... he basically stated that the money is coming from "public funds" and therefore anything built would be available for the "general public" to use. That really didn't answer the question. It would be important to know where the $7.2M of funds is coming from, and, if there are time restrictions on any or all of it, we should be informed of that information as well. Sorry I am not able to provide a direct answer to the question "refurbish old or build new," but I honestly feel I don't have enough factual information to be able to respond intelligently one way or the other. I will be very interested to see how many email responses you get. I hope it is a lot, but I fear it won't be. Gary From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:31 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: RPV community center -----Original Message ----- From: Rose Sherwood[mailto:rosesherwoodl907@gmaii.com] Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 5:52 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: RPV community center I am very much in favor of keeping the old center and make the necessary improvements to update it. We certainly do not want to generate any more traffic than we already have by making such a huge attraction to bring in more people into our area. Respectfully, Rose Sherwood Sent from my iPad= From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:30 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: RPV Community Center Meeting Attachments: P & R Meeting LL Community Center 9-26-16.docx From: Christine Fink [mailto:cfink@cfid.bz] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 1:24 PM To: Gene and Lynne Dewey Subject: Fwd: RPV Community Center Meeting Hi Gene; Thanks for forwarding me the minutes. My vote between the 2 options would be to re -build old. Regarding traffic sitch, this is just a thought- require permits and/or strict limitations on days/hours for parking on streets closest to Forrestal and the park/soccer users- Pirate and Searaven (perhaps Forrestal too). And the city can charge(if they want) for parking beyond the gate on Forrestal. Good source of potential revenue for the city. Just brainstorming a bit. Thanks, Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Froin: Herb Stark <herbertstark&a ox.net> Date: Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:14 PM Subject: RPV Community Center Meeting To: P & R told Mickey and me at the Monday, Sept 26 meeting, that as a result on input at the Sept 22 meeting that they would bring the Final design before the community before going to Council. See attached minutes of that meeting. Gene Christine Fink -Hansen Christine Fink Interior Design www.interiorsbycfid.com 5 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:30 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Survey From: Herb Stark [mailto:herbertstark@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 12:30 PM To: Gene Dewey Subject: Survey Rebuild old Herb Stark From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:30 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Survey -----Original Message ----- From: r.klatt@cox.net [mailto:r.klatt@cox.net] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:40 AM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Survey Hi Gene, Put Terry and me down for rebuild old. Bob Klatt From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:30 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Thank you From: R. Gene Dewey [mailto:rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:58 PM To: 'Watt' Wiredja' Cc: Mickey Rodich Subject: RE: Thank you Thank you Waty and Heru for a wonderful evening and for the plant. I will take good care of it and let you know when we have some fruit. I have seen the plant before, but I had no idea it gave Dragon Fruit. As far as the community Center is concerned, Mickey and I met with the P & R dept this afternoon and they listened to what we said, but they are going forward with what they say the city needs. I don't know how we will be able to stop it at this point. They plan to have as any as 15 employees using various offices in the new building, 2 park rangers., 2-3 Direct Staff for management, 6 to 7 open space management employees, 2 to 3 museum and interpretive center personal. They have identified the " Stake Holders" as the Land Conservancy/Docents/enforcement staff/Mommy and me classes/yoga/ YMCA/ all four surrounding HOA's. They need space to store and charge their electric vehicles. The need space for the rangers pickups , etc. There is a need for considerable storage which Mickey suggested be relocated to other sites. They did say they will bring the final suggested designs back to the community to review before the take it to the city council. Mickey seems think we have some influence with the council. We shall see. Gene From: Waty Wiredja[mailto:watyCabgoogleplus.design] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55 PM To: R. Gene Dewey Subject: Thank you Hi Lynne and Gene, Thank you so much for spending a lovely evening with us. We truly enjoyed your company. Also, thank you for the beautiful flowers . It brightens the entire kitchen. In respond to Ladera Linda Community Center project, we vote not to have new construction or new project. Just remodeling the center if need be. Thank you for being such wonderful friends for almost a decade ! Waty s From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:28 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Today's letter -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:martycrna@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:27 AM To: mickeyrodich@gmail.com; rgdewey@cox.net; Bill Foster Subject: Today's letter Mickey Your letter perfectly stated all the concerns we have seen here. The more I think on this the more I think we are being railroaded. It reminds me of some years ago when the school renting at Malaga Cove was booted and It became PVUSD offices. Nice digs. Of course, these folks need an ocean view. All the memorabilia from Marineland was housed there. A PVE family had devoted considerable resource to making the collection wonderful to see. A mural had just been done that was lovely. So glad we got to see it before the district moved in. Now the collection is intended to reside at LL in a climate controlled space. Unbelievable. We still vote for updating what we have and getting these people off our backs. The project will take longer than planned, it will cost more than planned and there are certain to be many more unpleasant surprises. What are your suggestions for proceeding? Does it take a petition? Should the survey be circulated more widely? Do we. show up at the next CC meeting? Letters to the editor? Happy to help in anyway. We have always been aware of our wonderful neighborhood at LL and want that preserved at all cost. Thanks to you both for staying on this! Sent from my iPad From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:28 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Wow From: Jim Lehman [mailto:jimlehman@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:49 PM To: Marty Foster Cc: Gary Randall; barry hildebrand; Gene / Lynne Dewey; Mickey Rodich; Bill Foster; dimarstark@cox.net; dwbrpv@gmail.com; George Fink; vlaco5@cox.net; bill schurmer; Sam Rubino; <j.tetherow@cox. net>; Tom Smith; Ed Hummel; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Judy Youssef:; Youseff Aelony; <Jfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; <latterpeg@cox.net>; Chuck Agnew Subject: Re: Wow Marty, the residents of Ladera Linda (and surrounding communities) need to make it clear to the City Staff that the introduction of the term "Stakeholders" into the planning process for the renovating of Ladera Linda Park is not much different than waving a red cape in front of an agitated bull! These so called "stakeholders" are the equivalent of property renters and the tax paying voters of Ladera Linda and surrounding communities are the equivalent of property owners. These "stakeholders" will come and go but us owners will always be left with what is constructed there. Renters can always make their desires known to owners but at the end of the day it's the owners that will decide whether or not it is in their best interests to put capital into a project that may benefit current and/or future renters but not necessarily benefit the owners. Having attended many of the Parks Department's presentations concerning the RPV Park Master Plan, it was clear that the City Staff had put a lot of time and effort into this process. For the last several years this new Master Plan has probably become nothing less than their raison d'etre and the more grandiose that they can make it the better it will look for them. As they look to their futures, this whole process will undoubtedly gain for them much valuable experience and contacts that may positively impact their careers. During the presentations, we Ladera Linda residents were constantly reminded that the structures at the park were never intended for permanent usage and are long past due for demolition and would never pass muster under today's building codes. Therefore, most of us were willing to give our blessing to replacement structures that would fulfill our current needs only. If it had been intimated that a new facility might possibly be designed for hosting banquets (such as weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, reunions, etc.) I don't think it would have received much support from Ladera Linda residents and would have gone the way of the swimming pool and gymnasium. Unfortunately, it now appears that the Parks Staff sees this new facility from a different perspective than us residents did and is trying to sell us a much grander vision than we the tax payers were expecting by asking us to consider the needs of third parties that don't live here. At this point, I don't know how difficult it would be to kill the whole idea of a new facility since it is now a part of the Parks Master Plan. To remove it would probably require a vote of the Council to revise the plan and that would most likely involve additional hearings and public discussions. So, I suppose, that means that we Ladera Linda residents must continue to exercise eternal vigilance as the process goes ahead. If we continue to have large turnouts and lots of eyes and ears observing and listening hopefully we will be ready to pounce on anything that looks or sounds like the staff is pursuing a "banquet facility" for Ladera Linda Park. As for the wonderful and noble organizations that currently use/rent our park (i.e. YMCA, Red Cross, PVIC, etc.) for things like meetings and storage they will still be able to utilize the current and future facilities, but they should not be granted huge rooms that hold hundreds of people with a kitchen because (City Staff assurances aside) future City Councils and Staffs will find such facilities and the revenue that they would generate irresistible. And if having no banquet facilities at Ladera Linda Park might upset future "stakeholders", I'm sure that Terranea, Trump, PVGC, RHCC, and other venues would be glad to accommodate them. Best Regards, Jim Lehman On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Marty Foster wrote: She's a member of Las Candalistas. I did reply to her asking about what meeting she went to and what she saw there. I haven't heard back yet. Will let you know. Above from a LL resident I think this is one of the 'stakeholders' So apparently city staff moving ahead to garner support and de legitimatize the HOAs Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:30 AM, Gary Randall <grapecongcox.net> wrote: Questions: 1. Without naming your friend's name, is this person a part of a group? Is he/she a docent, or part of PVPUSD, or PVPLC? 2. Can you find out specifically what he/she meant by the comment? Were they shown plans or even conceptual sketches with buildings included? If so, we can scream "foul" very loudly to the city, since in the community master plan meeting last week we were told no specific designs, or even concepts, had even been started. -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:martycrna@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 PM To: barry hildebrand; rgdewey@cox.net; mickeyrodich(2gmail.com; grapecon@cox.net; Bill Foster; jimlehman@mac.com; dimarstark ,cox.net; dwbrpv@gmail.com; gfinkl l 2cox.net; vlaco5geox.net; bill schurmer; sam rubino; j.tetherowgcox.net; thomash.smith&gmail.com Subject: Wow A friend of mine who lives in Island View (top of Crenshaw) just sent me this note. Is there already a plan for the new community center? "This morning I went to a meeting at the RPV City Hall for a meeting about the new community center at Ladera Linda. It looks like it will be quite lovely." Sent from my iPad From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:28 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Wow From: Charles Agnew [mailto:cvagnew@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 2:36 PM To: 'Jim Lehman'; 'Marty Foster' Cc: 'Gary Randall'; 'barry hildebrand'; 'Gene / Lynne Dewey'; 'Mickey Rodich'; 'Bill Foster'; dimarstark@cox.net; dwbrpv@gmail.com; 'George Fink'; vlaco5@cox.net; 'bill schurmer'; 'Sam Rubino'; j.tetherow@cox.net; 'Tom Smith'; 'Ed Hummel'; 'Angelows Angelow'; 'Mike Hansen'; 'Judy Youssef:'; 'Youseff Aelony'; jjfleming2000@yahoo.com; 'Paul Henrikson'; 'Bob Klatt'; 'Herb Stark'; latterpeg@cox.net Subject: RE: Wow Let's not go too far. Keeping the existing buildings would be keeping Ladera Linda empty and open to vandalism. Or in other words, a slum. A nice clubhouse that could be used for special events by good people will be good for the neighborhood. On the other hand, we don't want a gym or other attractions that would bring in troubled youth. Chuck Agnew From: Jim Lehman [mailto:jimlehman@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:49 PM To: Marty Foster Cc: Gary Randall; barry hildebrand; Gene / Lynne Dewey; Mickey Rodich; Bill Foster; dimarstark@cox.net; dwbrpv@gmail.com; George Fink; vlaco5@cox.net; bill schurmer; Sam Rubino; <j.tetherow@cox. net>; Tom Smith; Ed Hummel; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Judy Youssef:; Youseff Aelony; <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; <latterpeg@cox.net>; Chuck Agnew Subject: Re: Wow Marty, the residents of Ladera Linda (and surrounding communities) need to make it clear to the City Staff that the introduction of the term "Stakeholders" into the planning process for the renovating of Ladera Linda Park is not much different than waving a red cape in front of an agitated bull! These so called "stakeholders" are the equivalent of property renters and the tax paying voters of Ladera Linda and surrounding communities are the equivalent of property owners. These 5 "stakeholders" will come and go but us owners will always be left with what is constructed there. Renters can always make their desires known to owners but at the end of the day it's the owners that will decide whether or not it is in their best interests to put capital into a project that may benefit current and/or future renters but not necessarily benefit the owners. Having attended many of the Parks Department's presentations concerning the RPV Park Master Plan, it was clear that the City Staff had put a lot of time and effort into this process. For the last several years this new Master Plan has probably become nothing less than their raison d'etre and the more grandiose that they can make it the better it will look for them. As they look to their futures, this whole process will undoubtedly gain for them much valuable experience and contacts that may positively impact their careers. During the presentations, we Ladera Linda residents were constantly reminded that the structures at the park were never intended for permanent usage and are long past due for demolition and would never pass muster under today's building codes. Therefore, most of us were willing to give our blessing to replacement structures that would fulfill our current needs only. If it had been intimated that a new facility might possibly be designed for hosting banquets (such as weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, reunions, etc.) I don't think it would have received much support from Ladera Linda residents and would have gone the way of the swimming pool and gymnasium. Unfortunately, it now appears that the Parks Staff sees this new facility from a different perspective than us residents did and is trying to sell us a much grander vision than we the tax payers were expecting by asking us to consider the needs of third parties that don't live here. At this point, I don't know how difficult it would be to kill the whole idea of a new facility since it is now a part of the Parks Master Plan. To remove it would probably require a vote of the Council to revise the plan and that would most likely involve additional hearings and public discussions. So, I suppose, that means that we Ladera Linda residents must continue to exercise eternal vigilance as the process goes ahead. If we continue to have large turnouts and lots of eyes and ears observing and listening hopefully we will be ready to pounce on anything that looks or sounds like the staff is pursuing a "banquet facility" for Ladera Linda Park. As for the wonderful and noble organizations that currently use/rent our park (i.e. YMCA, Red Cross, PVIC, etc.) for things like meetings and storage they will still be able to utilize the current and future facilities, but they should not be granted huge rooms that hold hundreds of people with a kitchen because (City Staff assurances aside) future City Councils and Staffs will find such facilities and the revenue that they would generate irresistible. And if having no banquet facilities at Ladera Linda Park might upset future "stakeholders", I'm sure that Terranea, Trump, PVGC, RHCC, and other venues would be glad to accommodate them. Best Regards, Jim Lehman On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Marty Foster wrote: She's a member of Las Candalistas. I did reply to her asking about what meeting she went to and what she saw there. I haven't heard back yet. Will let you know. Above from a LL resident I think this is one of the 'stakeholders' So apparently city staff moving ahead to garner support and de legitimatize the HOAs Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:30 AM, Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> wrote: Questions: 1. Without naming your friend's name, is this person a part of a group? Is he/she a docent, or part of PVPUSD, or PVPLC? 2. Can you find out specifically what he/she meant by the comment? Were they shown plans or even conceptual sketches with buildings included? If so, we can scream "foul" very loudly to the city, since in the community master plan meeting last week we were told no specific designs, or even concepts, had even been started. -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:martycrnagcox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 PM To: barry hildebrand; rgdewey@cox.net; micke roy dichQjzmail.com; grapeconkcox.net; Bill Foster; jimlehman@mac.com; dimarstark cgcox.net; dwbrpv ,gmail.com; gfinkI l a,cox.net; vlaco5&cox.net; bill schurmer; sam rubino; j.tetherowncox.net; thomash.smithggmail.com Subject: Wow A friend of mine who lives in Island View (top of Crenshaw) just sent me this note. Is there already a plan for the new community center? "This morning I went to a meeting at the RPV City Hall for a meeting about the new community center at Ladera Linda. It looks like it will be quite lovely." Sent from my iPad From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:27 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Wow From: edmundo hummel [mailto:ecarloshum@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:24 PM To: Jim Lehman Cc: Marty Foster; Gary Randall; barry hildebrand; Gene / Lynne Dewey; Mickey Rodich; Bill Foster; Richard Stark; Donald Bell; George Fink; vlaco5; bill schurmer; Sam Rubino; <j.tetherow@cox.net>; Tom Smith; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Judy Youssef:; Youseff Aelony; <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; <latterpeg@cox.net>; Chuck Agnew; Amanda Wong Subject: Re: Wow EXCELLENT points Jim. I doubt the project will be stopped at this point (I believe they've already spent 90 grand on it). But we DO have to stay on the City to keep us updated on plans/designs. One thing you didn't mention, is that the DB (design -builder) who was at the meeting also has an interest in designing a state-of-the- art, large capacity facility. We want LESS and he wants MORE... guaranteed. It'll be interesting to see what the results of the survey are (I also hope someone has reached out to Mediterranea and Seaview to conduct their own surveys). I don't know how you all feel about this, but he (the DB) mentioned one of the first things they would do is remove all the trees/bushes along the southern fence that currently block "that amazing view." I think if that happens, it'll be a HUGE draw for people from all around tousethe park (think Del Cerro Park and the problems their dealing with). On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Jim Lehman <jimlehman(cr�,mac.com> wrote: Marty, the residents of Ladera Linda (and surrounding communities) need to make it clear to the City Staff that the introduction of the term "Stakeholders" into the planning process for the renovating of Ladera Linda Park is not much different than waving a red cape in front of an agitated bull! These so called "stakeholders" are the equivalent of property renters and the tax paying voters of Ladera Linda and surrounding communities are the equivalent of property owners. These "stakeholders" will come and go but us owners will always be left with what is constructed there. Renters can always make their desires known to owners but at the end of the day it's the owners that will decide whether or not it is in their best interests to put capital into a project that may benefit current and/or future renters but not necessarily benefit the owners. Having attended many of the Parks Department's presentations concerning the RPV Park Master Plan, it was clear that the City Staff had put a lot of time and effort into this process. For the last several years this new Master Plan has probably become nothing less than their raison d'etre and the more grandiose that they can make it the better it will look for them. As they look to their futures, this whole process will undoubtedly gain for them much valuable experience and contacts that may positively impact their careers. During the presentations, we Ladera Linda residents were constantly reminded that the structures at the park were never intended for permanent usage and are long past due for demolition and would never pass muster under today's building codes. Therefore, most of us were willing to give our blessing to replacement structures that would fulfill our current needs only. If it had been intimated that a new facility might possibly be designed for hosting banquets (such as weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, reunions, etc.) I don't think it would have received much support from Ladera Linda residents and would have gone the way of the swimming pool and gymnasium. Unfortunately, it now appears that the Parks Staff sees this new facility from a different perspective than us residents did and is trying to sell us a much grander vision than we the tax payers were expecting by asking us to consider the needs of third parties that don't live here. At this point, I don't know how difficult it would be to kill the whole idea of a new facility since it is now a part of the Parks Master Plan. To remove it would probably require a vote of the Council to revise the plan and that would most likely involve additional hearings and public discussions. So, I suppose, that means that we Ladera Linda residents must continue to exercise eternal vigilance as the process goes ahead. If we continue to have large turnouts and lots of eyes and ears observing and listening hopefully we will be ready to pounce on anything that looks or sounds like the staff is pursuing a "banquet facility" for Ladera Linda Park. As for the wonderful and noble organizations that currently use/rent our park (i.e. YMCA, Red Cross, PVIC, etc.) for things like meetings and storage they will still be able to utilize the current and future facilities, but they should not be granted huge rooms that hold hundreds of people with a kitchen because (City Staff assurances aside) future City Councils and Staffs will find such facilities and the revenue that they would generate irresistible. And if having no banquet facilities at Ladera Linda Park might upset future "stakeholders", I'm sure that Terranea, Trump, PVGC, RHCC, and other venues would be glad to accommodate them. Best Regards, Jim Lehman On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Marty Foster wrote: She's a member of Las Candalistas. I did reply to her asking about what meeting she went to and what she saw there. I haven't heard back yet. Will let you know. Above from a LL resident I think this is one of the 'stakeholders' So apparently city staff moving ahead to garner support and de legitimatize the HOAs Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:30 AM, Gary Randall <grapecongcox.net> wrote: Questions: 1. Without naming your friend's name, is this person a part of a group? Is he/she a docent, or part of PVPUSD, or PVPLC? 2. Can you find out specifically what he/she meant by the comment? Were they shown plans or even conceptual sketches with buildings included? If so, we can scream "foul" very loudly to the city, since in the community master plan meeting last week we were told no specific designs, or even concepts, had even been started. -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:mglycma@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 PM To: barry hildebrand; rgdeweygcox.net; micke, rodich@gmail.com; grapecon e cox.net; Bill Foster; jimlehman@mac.com; dimarstarkgcox.net; dwbrpv(a,gmail.com;fg ink11(2cox.net; vlaco5 cox.net; bill schurmer; sam rubino; j.tetherow@cox.net; thomash.smithggmail.com Subject: Wow A friend of mine who lives in Island View (top of Crenshaw) just sent me this note. Is there already a plan for the new community center? "This morning I went to a meeting at the RPV City Hall for a meeting about the new community center at Ladera Linda. It looks like it will be quite lovely." Sent from my iPad From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:27 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Wow From: edmundo hummel [mailto:ecarloshum@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:24 PM To: Jim Lehman Cc: Marty Foster; Gary Randall; barry hildebrand; Gene / Lynne Dewey; Mickey Rodich; Bill Foster; Richard Stark; Donald Bell; George Fink; vlaco5; bill schurmer; Sam Rubino; <j.tetherow@cox.net>; Tom Smith; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Judy Youssef:; Youseff Aelony; <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; <latterpeg@cox.net>; Chuck Agnew; Amanda Wong Subject: Re: Wow EXCELLENT points Jim. I doubt the project will be stopped at this point (I believe they've already spent 90 grand on it). But we DO have to stay on the City to keep us updated on plans/designs. One thing you didn't mention, is that the DB (design -builder) who was at the meeting also has an interest in designing a state-of-the- art, large capacity facility. We want LESS and he wants MORE... guaranteed. It'll be interesting to see what the results of the survey are (I also hope someone has reached out to Mediterranea and Seaview to conduct their own surveys). I don't know how you all feel about this, but he (the DB) mentioned one of the first things they would do is remove all the trees/bushes along the southern fence that currently block "that amazing view." I think if that happens, it'll be a HUGE draw for people from all around to use the park (think Del Cerro Park and the problems their dealing with). On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Jim Lehman <jimlehman@,mac.com> wrote: Marty, the residents of Ladera Linda (and surrounding communities) need to make it clear to the City Staff that the introduction of the term "Stakeholders" into the planning process for the renovating of Ladera Linda Park is not much different than waving a red cape in front of an agitated bull! These so called "stakeholders" are the equivalent of property renters and the tax paying voters of Ladera Linda and surrounding communities are the equivalent of property owners. These "stakeholders" will come and go but us owners will always be left with what is constructed there. Renters can always make their desires known to owners but at the end of the day it's the owners that will decide whether or not it is in their best interests to put capital into a project that may benefit current and/or future renters but not necessarily benefit the owners. 0 Having attended many of the Parks Department's presentations concerning the RPV Park Master Plan, it was clear that the City Staff had put a lot of time and effort into this process. For the last several years this new Master Plan has probably become nothing less than their raison d'etre and the more grandiose that they can make it the better it will look for them. As they look to their futures, this whole process will undoubtedly gain for them much valuable experience and contacts that may positively impact their careers. During the presentations, we Ladera Linda residents were constantly reminded that the structures at the park were never intended for permanent usage and are long past due for demolition and would never pass muster under today's building codes. Therefore, most of us were willing to give our blessing to replacement structures that would fulfill our current needs only. If it had been intimated that a new facility might possibly be designed for hosting banquets (such as weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, reunions, etc.) I don't think it would have received much support from Ladera Linda residents and would have gone the way of the swimming pool and gymnasium. Unfortunately, it now appears that the Parks Staff sees this new facility from a different perspective than us residents did and is trying to sell us a much grander vision than we the tax payers were expecting by asking us to consider the needs of third parties that don't live here. At this point, I don't know how difficult it would be to kill the whole idea of a new facility since it is now a part of the Parks Master Plan. To remove it would probably require a vote of the Council to revise the plan and that would most likely involve additional hearings and public discussions. So, I suppose, that means that we Ladera Linda residents must continue to exercise eternal vigilance as the process goes ahead. If we continue to have large turnouts and lots of eyes and ears observing and listening hopefully we will be ready to pounce on anything that looks or sounds like the staff is pursuing a "banquet facility" for Ladera Linda Park. As for the wonderful and noble organizations that currently use/rent our park (i.e. YMCA, Red Cross, PVIC, etc.) for things like meetings and storage they will still be able to utilize the current and future facilities, but they should not be granted huge rooms that hold hundreds of people with a kitchen because (City Staff assurances aside) future City Councils and Staffs will find such facilities and the revenue that they would generate irresistible. And if having no banquet facilities at Ladera Linda Park might upset future "stakeholders", I'm sure that Terranea, Trump, PVGC, RHCC, and other venues would be glad to accommodate them. Best Regards, Jim Lehman On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Marty Foster wrote: She's a member of Las Candalistas. I did reply to her asking about what meeting she went to and what she saw there. I haven't heard back yet. Will let you know. Above from a LL resident I think this is one of the 'stakeholders' So apparently city staff moving ahead to garner support and de legitimatize the HOAs Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:30 AM, Gary Randall <grapeconAcox.net> wrote: Questions: 1. Without naming your friend's name, is this person a part of a group? Is he/she a docent, or part of PVPUSD, or PVPLC? 2. Can you find out specifically what he/she meant by the comment? Were they shown plans or even conceptual sketches with buildings included? If so, we can scream "foul" very loudly to the city, since in the community master plan meeting last week we were told no specific designs, or even concepts, had even been started. -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:martycrna(2cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 PM To: barry hildebrand; rgdeweygeox.net; mickeyrodich&gmail.com; grapecongcox.net; Bill Foster; jimlehmankmac.com; dimarstark(2cox.net; dwbrpv(2gmail.com;fg mkI Igcox.net; vlaco5na,cox.net; bill schurmer; sam rubino; j.tetherowgcox.net; thomash.smith@gmail.com Subject: Wow A friend of mine who lives in Island View (top of Crenshaw) just sent me this note. Is there already a plan for the new community center? "This morning I went to a meeting at the RPV City Hall for a meeting about the new community center at Ladera Linda. It looks like it will be quite lovely." Sent from my iPad From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:27 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Wow From: bjhilde@aol.com [mailto:bjhilde@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:11 PM To: rgdewey@cox.net Subject: Re: Wow Gene, If they plan a 2 -story bldg., ADA will require installation of an elevator ($80k to 125k) plus annual or maybe semi-annual safety inspections at $xx. What a waste of taxpayer $$$. Barry -----Original Message ----- From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> To: 'edmundo hummel' <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; 'Jim Lehman' <jimlehman @mac.com> Cc: 'Marty Foster' <martycrna@cox.net>; 'Gary Randall' <grapecon@cox.net>; 'barry hildebrand' <bjhilde@aol.com>; 'Mickey Rodich' <mickeyrodich@gmail. com>; 'Bill Foster' <bfos@cox.net>; 'Richard Stark' <dimarstark@cox. net>; 'Donald Bell' <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; 'George Fink' <gfink11 @cox.net>; 'vlaco5' <vlaco5@cox.net>; 'bill schurmer' <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; 'Sam Rubino' <IAMSAMBINO@aol.com>; j.tetherow <j.tetherow@cox.net>; 'Tom Smith' <thomash.smith@gmail.com>; 'Angelows Angelow' <blagangel@gmail. com>; 'Mike Hansen' <cfink@cfid.net>; 'Judy Youssef:' <julysa@aol.com>; 'Youseff Aelony' <y.aelony@cox.net>; jjfleming2000 <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; 'Paul Henrikson' <paul.henrikson@cox.net>; 'Bob Klatt' <r.klatt@cox.net>; 'Herb Stark' <stearman@juno.com>; latterpeg <latterpeg@cox.net>; 'Chuck Agnew' <cvagnew@cox.net>; 'Amanda Wong' <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 28, 2016 3:51 pm Subject: RE: Wow Ed, Our HOA is attempting to reach OUT TO THE OTHER HOA'S. Seaview was at the P & R meeting with us on Monday. Please understand that P & R staff plan to make this the new P & R Center and have been planning it for some time.. They want more people and more staff. They posted the meeting we had on September 22, 2106 on Face Book!. We are all sending e-mails to each other. We need to also be sending them to CC to have our concerns heard. The more noise we make the better chance we have. I agree with you that the project may have gone too far. At a meeting yesterday with one of the "stake holders " someone mentioned a two story structure. Mickey spoke against this study at a council meeting a month or so ago and the council ignored him and voted to proceed. A few people on the LLHOA board can may some noise, but if everyone who is concerned, started sending copies of their e-mail to the private e-mail address of our city council, we would have a better chance of being heard. Gene 5 From: edmundo hummel [mailto:ecarloshum@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:24 PM To: Jim Lehman Cc: Marty Foster; Gary Randall; barry hildebrand; Gene / Lynne Dewey; Mickey Rodich; Bill Foster; Richard Stark; Donald Bell; George Fink; vlaco5; bill schurmer; Sam Rubino; <j.tetherow@cox.net>; Tom Smith; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Judy Youssef:; Youseff Aelony; <jjfleming2000(cbyahoo.com>; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; <latterpeg@cox.net>; Chuck Agnew; Amanda Wong Subject: Re: Wow EXCELLENT points Jim. I doubt the project will be stopped at this point (I believe they've already spent 90 grand on it). But we DO have to stay on the City to keep us updated on plans/designs. One thing you didn't mention, is that the DB (design -builder) who was at the meeting also has an interest in designing a state-of-the- art, large capacity facility. We want LESS and he wants MORE... guaranteed. It'll be interesting to see what the results of the survey are (I also hope someone has reached out to Mediterranea and Seaview to conduct their own surveys). I don't know how you all feel about this, but he (the DB) mentioned one of the first things they would do is remove all the trees/bushes along the southern fence that currently block "that amazing view." I think if that happens, it'll be a HUGE draw for people from all around to use the park (think Del Cerro Park and the problems their dealing with). On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Jim Lehman <jimlehman@,mac.com> wrote: Marty, the residents of Ladera Linda (and surrounding communities) need to make it clear to the City Staff that the introduction of the term "Stakeholders" into the planning process for the renovating of Ladera Linda Park is not much different than waving a red cape in front of an agitated bull! These so called "stakeholders" are the equivalent of property renters and the tax paying voters of Ladera Linda and surrounding communities are the equivalent of property owners. These "stakeholders" will come and go but us owners will always be left with what is constructed there. Renters can always make their desires known to owners but at the end of the day it's the owners that will decide whether or not it is in their best interests to put capital into a project that may benefit current and/or future renters but not necessarily benefit the owners. Having attended many of the Parks Department's presentations concerning the RPV Park Master Plan, it was clear that the City Staff had put a lot of time and effort into this process. For the last several years this new Master Plan has probably become nothing less than their raison d'etre and the more grandiose that they can snake it the better it will look for them. As they look to their futures, this whole process will undoubtedly gain for them much valuable experience and contacts that may positively impact their careers. During the presentations, we Ladera. Linda residents were constantly reminded that the structures at the park were never intended for permanent usage and are long past due for demolition and would never pass muster under today's building codes. Therefore, most of us were willing to give our blessing to replacement structures that would fulfill our current needs only. If it had been intimated that a new facility might possibly be designed for hosting banquets (such as weddings, graduations, bar mitzvahs, reunions, etc.) I don't think it would have received much support from Ladera Linda residents and would have gone the way of the swimming pool and gymnasium. Unfortunately, it now appears that the Parks Staff sees this new facility from a different perspective than us residents did and is trying to sell us a much grander vision than we the tax payers were expecting by asking us to consider the needs of third parties that don't live here. At this point, I don't know how difficult it would be to kill the whole idea of a new facility since it is now a part of the Parks Master Plan. To remove it would probably require a vote of the Council to revise the plan and that would most likely involve additional hearings and public discussions. So, I suppose, that means that we Ladera Linda residents must continue to exercise eternal vigilance as the process goes ahead. If we continue to have large turnouts and lots of eyes and ears observing and listening hopefully we will be ready to pounce on anything that looks or sounds like the staff is pursuing a "banquet facility" for Ladera Linda Park. As for the wonderful and noble organizations that currently use/rent our park (i.e. YMCA, Red Cross, PVIC, etc.) for things like meetings and storage they will still be able to utilize the current and future facilities, but they should not be granted huge rooms that hold hundreds of people with a kitchen because (City Staff assurances aside) future City Councils and Staffs will find such facilities and the revenue that they would generate irresistible. And if having no banquet facilities at Ladera Linda Park might upset future "stakeholders", I'm sure that Terranea, Trump, PVGC, RHCC, and other venues would be glad to accommodate them. Best Regards, Jim Lehman On Sep 28, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Marty Foster wrote: She's a member of Las Candalistas. I did reply to her asking about what meeting she went to and what she saw there. I haven't heard back yet. Will let you know. Above from a LL resident I think this is one of the 'stakeholders' So apparently city staff moving ahead to garner support and de legitimatize the HOAs Sent from my iPad On Sep 28, 2016, at 5:30 AM, Gary Randall <grapeconkcox.net> wrote: Questions: 1. Without naming your friend's name, is this person a part of a group? Is he/she a docent, or part of PVPUSD, or PVPLC? 2. Can you find out specifically what he/she meant by the comment? Were they shown plans or even conceptual sketches with buildings included? If so, we can scream "foul" very loudly to the city, since in the community master plan meeting last week we were told no specific designs, or even concepts, had even been started. -----Original Message ----- From: Marty Foster [mailto:mart ema&cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 PM To: barry hildebrand; r dewey@cox.net; mickeyrodich@gmail.com; grapecon&cox.net; Bill Foster; iimlehman&mac.com; dimarstark ,cox.net; dwbrpyggmail.com; gfinkl lgcox.net; vlaco5ga,cox.net; bill schurmer; sam rubino; j.tetherowgcox.net; thomash.smith@gmail.com Subject: Wow A friend of mine who lives in Island View (top of Crenshaw) just sent me this note. Is there already a plan for the new community center? "This morning I went to a meeting at the RPV City Hall for a meeting about the new community center at Ladera Linda. It looks like it will be quite lovely." Sent from my iPad 4 From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 2:03 PM To: Matt Waters Cc: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Monday Sept 26, 2016 Meeting with P & R Staff Minutes Hi Matt, I have been out of town for the last week. As I mentioned in the meeting we had with you and staff on Monday, September 26, 2016 . During the work shop on September 22, several residents spoke out against anything other than an upgrade to the existing buildings. Several of them have been active in our community since its inception and have served many terms on the LLHOA board and volunteer on several committees, such as Neighborhood Watch, Emergency Preparedness, etc. The residents of the community respect their input. I sent out a survey after getting numerous e-mails shortly after the Sept 22 workshop. Of the many residents that have weighed in on this issue all except three are for rebuilding the existing facilities or replacing them with a building with a small footprint. There are two who responded in favor of a new center and one with not enough information to make a decision. I will send you a copy of these e-mails I suggested at the meeting with you on Monday that a third alternative be considered, use a site close to the existing building site, but taking advantage of the view of the ocean and Catalina. I had a call the next day and was told when you and your staff were meeting with another " Stake Holder" on Tuesday,a two story building was mentioned. In an e-mail you sent out, in response to one of our residents, you stated there would be one to two part time employees. At the meeting on Monday Sept 26, the staff was talking about storage in the building for Electric ATV vehicles that could be recharged. It was also mentioned that they were considering a gate keeper to monitor traffic in and out of the complex. Mickey Rodich said you reached out to him for a meeting. I will be glad to accompany him. Thanks Gene From: Matt Waters [mailto:MattW@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 5:35 PM To: R. Gene Dewey Cc: herbertstark(a)cox.net; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; James Flannigan; Mona Dill; CC; Mary Hirsch Subject: RE: Monday Sept 26, 2016 Meeting with P & R Staff Minutes Hi Gene, Hope you're doing well. I think you were cod on recent responses to emails from Eric Stevens and Marty Foster. I believe my responses touched on many of the points you raised in your email so I won't bother repeating them here. I understand there are significant concerns about the project and I want to assure you that we are committed to working with the adjacent HOAs and local residents to ensure that this process moves forward efficiently and with maximum transparency. From the early workshops in 2014 and 2015, staff has done its best to be up front about the details and timeline of this project. We are as dedicated as you are to bringing Council's directives to reality, namely to see Ladera 5 Linda be a low-key, neighborhood friendly park that the community can be justly proud of. I worked at Ladera Linda for over 10 years as a part-time staff and supervisor, so I know just how cherished and wonderful a park it is. Staff is ready and willing to meet with you to discuss this project in more detail. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv mattw(o-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f From: R. Gene Dewey [mailto:rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:28 PM To: Herb Stark <stearman@luno.com> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Monday Sept 26, 2016 Meeting with P & R Staff Minutes Herb, Would you send the attached document out to all of our residents. Thanks Gene To City Clerk, Please include this email in the City Council Members October 18, 2016 Meeting Agenda Packet as Late Correspondence. Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, With emails flying around on this subject, I would like to offer what I believe to be a fresh look at a new future for the existing Ladera Linda Park. There is no argument that the city has not budgeted maintenance in my neighborhood park. Prudent fiscal management would encourage you to consider all options. I offer what I term Plan Z to build a lower cost park option in contrast to a AAA grade Staff and Expensive Consultant creation. The city did not decide to tear down our existing City Center because over the years economic upgrades and maintenance were budgeted for wise money use. Plan Z Summary: Reduce the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2 by renovating 3 of the existing buildings and razing 2 others. Renovate condition of the remaining buildings to be the same grade as the Civic Center. Increase storage space. Only remove 1 tree. Expand parking and recreational use and refresh (not remove) the existing landscaping and site. Substantially reduce construction impact on the neighborhood. I request the City Council to instruct Staff to get estimates for a rehabilitated and revised Ladera Linda Facility. This would involve reducing the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2. Specifically per the 2013 Infrastructure Report Card by SA Associates: 1 Perform tenant improvements to Building B8 (Community Building) to move it from Grade F to C (the same grade as City Civic Center at Upper Point Vicente and the approach taken years ago to upgrade buildings that are older than Ladera Linda). 2 Perform tenant improvements to Building B9 (Discovery Room) to move it from Grade F to C. 3 Perform tenant improvements to Building B12 (Restrooms) to move it from Grade F to C. 4 Raze Buildings 1310 (Multipurpose Room) and 1311 (Classroom) -the most western and northern buildings. 5 Create a new continuous space between Buildings B8 and B9 for storage purposes. (Remove one tree) 6 All improvements are to be done in manner to increase user flexibility with folding walls, meet ADA requirements, and have high level technology included. From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: CityClerk; Doug Willmore; CC; cprotem73@cox.net; jduhovic@hotmaii.com; mizie@cox.net; briancampbell@gmail.com; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com Cc: Aldena Alston; Alvin Lowi; Ann Weinland; Bill Foster; Bill Gussman; Bill Schurmer; Bill Youssef, Bob Klatt; Bob Mucha; Carolyn Lowi; Chuck Agnew; Dick Stark; Home Bell; Don Ershig; Ed Hummel; Ed Jenkins; Fritz Marohn; Gary Randall; Gene Dewey; Georgette Jenkins; Hans Kuehl; Herb Stark; Heru & Waty Wiredja; Jack Baldelli; Jack Fleming; Jennifer Daniel; Jim Bullard; Jim Lehman; Joe Tetherow; Judy Youssef; Karen Smith; Kate Nash; Lisa Lehman; Melinda Tetherow; Michael Hansen; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Patrucia Stenehjem; Paul Henrikson; Sheldon Russell; Susan Wilcox; Ted Alston; Terri Shary; Virgina Groves; Yossef Aelony; Tom Smith; erstevens@cox.net; Erika Barber Subject: Ladera Linda To City Clerk, Please include this email in the City Council Members October 18, 2016 Meeting Agenda Packet as Late Correspondence. Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, With emails flying around on this subject, I would like to offer what I believe to be a fresh look at a new future for the existing Ladera Linda Park. There is no argument that the city has not budgeted maintenance in my neighborhood park. Prudent fiscal management would encourage you to consider all options. I offer what I term Plan Z to build a lower cost park option in contrast to a AAA grade Staff and Expensive Consultant creation. The city did not decide to tear down our existing City Center because over the years economic upgrades and maintenance were budgeted for wise money use. Plan Z Summary: Reduce the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2 by renovating 3 of the existing buildings and razing 2 others. Renovate condition of the remaining buildings to be the same grade as the Civic Center. Increase storage space. Only remove 1 tree. Expand parking and recreational use and refresh (not remove) the existing landscaping and site. Substantially reduce construction impact on the neighborhood. I request the City Council to instruct Staff to get estimates for a rehabilitated and revised Ladera Linda Facility. This would involve reducing the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2. Specifically per the 2013 Infrastructure Report Card by SA Associates: 1 Perform tenant improvements to Building B8 (Community Building) to move it from Grade F to C (the same grade as City Civic Center at Upper Point Vicente and the approach taken years ago to upgrade buildings that are older than Ladera Linda). 2 Perform tenant improvements to Building B9 (Discovery Room) to move it from Grade F to C. 3 Perform tenant improvements to Building B12 (Restrooms) to move it from Grade F to C. 4 Raze Buildings 1310 (Multipurpose Room) and 1311 (Classroom) -the most western and northern buildings. 5 Create a new continuous space between Buildings B8 and B9 for storage purposes. (Remove one tree) 6 All improvements are to be done in manner to increase user flexibility with folding walls, meet ADA requirements, and have high level technology included. 7 Pave road and parking area for the paddle tennis courts and resurface existing basketball courts area. 8 Extend lower parking lot to the western end of the graded area and investigate removal of the utility (phone and/or electric) enclosure. 9 Construct enhanced recreation options by revising the paddle tennis courts and by increaseing children's play areas where buildings will be removed as well as at the corner near Buildings B8 and B12. Please again give us an exercise par course to replace what has been taken away by AYSO. 10 The design is not to be made friendly for event or rental income. Rancho Palos Verdes should not be competing with local businesses. 11 Existing buildings utilization in my opinion is very light and cannot justify a structure with multiple rooms or user ownership of any space. Any users should be required to return the room after use to its neutral state. 12 There are accessory structures adjacent to B8 and B12. There is a storage shed behind B8. I can not determine their use or necessity for Plan Z. Plan Z: Reduces by 40% the number of buildings needing remediation. I believe the site needs to be measured to verify exactly what the buildings footprint will be. My rough measurement is less than 8500 square feet of buildings for Plan Z. Provides useable space for small scale, class -room type activities. Will offer drop in space for city support personnel. Increases kid friendly areas. Offers limited additional storage but we do not want our park to become a public storage center for all who have too much stuff to care for it themselves. Requires only one tree to be removed. Significantly reduces ongoing maintenance burden. Simplifies with two buildings a security systems to warn of vandalism via CCTV and sensors. And the design will open much of the area for visual inspection. This approach will save millions to be better spent on a New Central Civic Center, will significantly reduce the construction impact on the neighborhood, will not require consultants and will meet needs of the community. Respectfully suggested, Donald Bell Ladera Linda Resident From: erstevens@cox.net Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:39 PM To: CC; Matt Waters; Mona Dill; Cory Linder Cc: cprotem73@cox.net; jtjduhovic@hotmail.com; mizie@cox.net; briancampbell@gmail.com; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; martycrna@cox.net; R. Gene Dewey; Gary Randall; Bill Foster; Richard Stark; George Fink; Sharon and Bill Schurmer; Sam Rubino; j.tetherow@cox.net; Tom Karen Smith; Angelows Angelow; Mike Hansen; Youseff Aelony; Paul Henrikson; Bob Klatt; Herb Stark; latterpeg@cox.net; Amanda Wong; Erika Barber; Emeric Rodich (mickeyrodich ; Lenee Bilski; Joyce; Emily McKean; James Flannigan; Ron Dragoo; Mary Hirsch; Daniel Trautner; Charles Agnew; erstevens@cox.net; Mona Dill; SunshineRPV@aol.com; sharon yarber; Frank G; Margaret Moilov; Lisa daily Breeze; Elizabeth Sax; ifleming2000@yahoo.com; jimlehman@mac.com; Ed Pearson - paddle tennis; n.youssef; Hildebrand, Barry & Judy Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park comments to RPV CC on Tuesday October 18, 2016 Subject: Re: Ladera Linda Park comments to RPV CC on Tuesday October 18, 2016 Dear City Council Members, What is occurring is a travesty right here in our backyard. We the citizens of RPV in the adjacent communities to the Ladera Linda Park are being bulldozed by the Consultant and furthermore the city staff because we have repeatedly stated we are NOT interested in a community center and park that is for the region. Recently without notify the community you have moved the annual Halloween Event to our local community park. There is not ample parking and since the park is in close proximity to the Pirate and Dauntless homes, it provides a noise nuisance at times when there are numerous energetic activities. We have voiced our opinions and feel that we are not being HEARD. We want a small pocket park that meets the needs of our little community area. Thank you. Edward Stevens Seaview a From: Charles Agnew <cvagnew@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:27 PM To: 'Donald Bell'; CityClerk; Doug Willmore; CC; cprotem73@cox.net; jduhovic@hotmail.com; mizie@cox.net; briancampbell@gmail.com; susanbrooksOl @yahoo.com Cc: 'Aldena Alston'; 'Alvin Lowi'; 'Ann Weinland'; 'Bill Foster'; 'Bill Gussman'; 'Bill Schurmer'; 'Bill Youssef'; 'Bob Klatt'; 'Bob Mucha'; 'Carolyn Lowi'; 'Dick Stark'; 'Don Ershig'; 'Ed Hummel'; 'Ed Jenkins'; 'Fritz Marohn'; 'Gary Randall'; 'Gene Dewey'; 'Georgette Jenkins'; 'Hans Kuehl'; 'Herb Stark'; 'Heru & Waty Wiredja'; 'Jack Baldelli'; 'Jack Fleming'; 'Jennifer Daniel'; 'Jim Bullard'; 'Jim Lehman'; 'Joe Tetherow'; 'Judy Youssef'; 'Karen Smith'; 'Kate Nash'; 'Lisa Lehman'; 'Melinda Tetherow'; 'Michael Hansen'; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; 'Patrucia Stenehjem'; 'Paul Henrikson'; 'Sheldon Russell'; 'Susan Wilcox'; 'Ted Alston'; 'Terri Shary'; 'Virgina Groves'; 'Yossef Aelony'; 'Tom Smith'; erstevens@cox.net; 'Erika Barber' Subject: RE: Ladera Linda presentI want a new building, not a repair of the existing buildings. The i, . were temporary The present park is a ghost town, inviting unwanted behavior. A new community center would be a great addition to the neighborhood. Having a continual presents with some personnel is strongly desired. The paddle tennis courts need paved parking, However, !! not want attractions th♦ ! ! bring in unwanted youth from outsidethe neighborhoodsuchas gymnasiumsor pools. Thank You, From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:59 AM To: cityclerk@rpvca.gov; dwillmore@rpvca.gov; CC@rpvca.gov; cprotem73@cox.net; jduhovic@hotmail.com; mizie@cox.net; briancampbell@gmail.com; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com Cc: Aldena Alston; Alvin Lowi; Ann Weinland; Bill Foster; Bill Gussman; Bill Schurmer; Bill Youssef; Bob Klatt; Bob Mucha; Carolyn Lowi; Chuck Agnew; Dick Stark; Home Bell; Don Ershig; Ed Hummel; Ed Jenkins; Fritz Marohn; Gary Randall; Gene Dewey; Georgette Jenkins; Hans Kuehl; Herb Stark; Heru & Waty Wiredja; Jack Baldelli; Jack Fleming; Jennifer Daniel; Jim Bullard; Jim Lehman; Joe Tetherow; Judy Youssef; Karen Smith; Kate Nash; Lisa Lehman; Melinda Tetherow; Michael Hansen; Mickey Rodich; Patrucia Stenehjem; Paul Henrikson; Sheldon Russell; Susan Wilcox; Ted Alston; Terri Shary; Virgina Groves; Yossef Aelony; Tom Smith; erstevens@cox.net; Erika Barber Subject: Ladera Linda To City Clerk, Please include this email in the City Council Members October 18, 2016 Meeting Agenda Packet as Late Correspondence. Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, With emails flying around on this subject, I would like to offer what I believe to be a fresh look at a new future for the existing Ladera Linda Park. There is no argument that the city has not budgeted maintenance in my neighborhood park. Prudent fiscal management would encourage you to consider all options. I offer what I term Plan Z to build a lower cost park option in contrast to a AAA grade Staff and Expensive Consultant creation. The city did not decide to tear down our existing City Center because over the years economic upgrades and maintenance were budgeted for wise money use. Plan Z Summary: Reduce the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2 by renovating 3 of the existing buildings and razing 2 others. Renovate condition of the remaining buildings to be the same grade as the Civic Center. Increase storage space. Only remove 1 tree. Expand parking and recreational use and refresh (not remove) the existing landscaping and site. Substantially reduce construction impact on the neighborhood. I request the City Council to instruct Staff to get estimates for a rehabilitated and revised Ladera Linda Facility. This would involve reducing the existing footprint from 5 buildings to 2. Specifically per the 2013 Infrastructure Report Card by SA Associates: 1 Perform tenant improvements to Building B8 (Community Building) to move it from Grade F to C (the same grade as City Civic Center at Upper Point Vicente and the approach taken years ago to upgrade buildings that are older than Ladera Linda). 2 Perform tenant improvements to Building B9 (Discovery Room) to move it from Grade F to C. 3 Perform tenant improvements to Building B12 (Restrooms) to move it from Grade F to C. 4 Raze Buildings B10 (Multipurpose Room) and B11 (Classroom) - the most western and northern buildings. 5 Create a new continuous space between Buildings B8 and B9 for storage purposes. (Remove one tree) 6 All improvements are to be done in manner to increase user flexibility with folding walls, meet ADA requirements, and have high level technology included. 7 Pave road and parking area for the paddle tennis courts and resurface existing basketball courts area. 8 Extend lower parking lot to the western end of the graded area and investigate removal of the utility (phone and/or electric) enclosure. 9 Construct enhanced recreation options by revising the paddle tennis courts and by increaseing children's play areas where buildings will be removed as well as at the corner near Buildings B8 and B12. Please again give us an exercise par course to replace what has been taken away by AYSO. 10 The design is not to be made friendly for event or rental income. Rancho Palos Verdes should not be competing with local businesses. 11 Existing buildings utilization in my opinion is very light and cannot justify a structure with multiple rooms or user ownership of any space. Any users should be required to return the room after use to its neutral state. 12 There are accessory structures adjacent to B8 and B12. There is a storage shed behind B8. I can not determine their use or necessity for Plan Z. Plan Z: Reduces by 40% the number of buildings needing remediation. I believe the site needs to be measured to verify exactly what the buildings footprint will be. My rough measurement is less than 8500 square feet of buildings for Plan Z. Provides useable space for small scale, class -room type activities. N Will offer drop in space for city support personnel. Increases kid friendly areas. Offers limited additional storage but we do not want our park to become a public storage center for all who have too much stuff to care for it themselves. Requires only one tree to be removed. Significantly reduces ongoing maintenance burden. Simplifies with two buildings a security systems to warn of vandalism via CCTV and sensors. And the design will open much of the area for visual inspection. This approach will save millions to be better spent on a New Central Civic Center, will significantly reduce the construction impact on the neighborhood, will not require consultants and will meet needs of the community. Respectfully suggested, Donald Bell Ladera Linda Resident From: Lynda Shepard <sakamaki.shepard@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 14, 201610:04 AM To: dwillmoe@rpvca.gov Cc: Matt Waters Subject: Ladera Linda Good morning! A neighbor brought to my attention the recent meeting regarding the Ladera Linda Community Center and the plans -- or rather, the dissent towards the plans -- for a revitalized community center. I wanted to provide my opinion since I was unable to attend the meeting as I have children with very active schedules. My husband & I would very much support the revitalization of the Ladera Linda property. We've lived in RPV for 10 years and have seen the make-up of our neighborhood change from elderly retired folks to families like ours with younger children. Gone are the days where a child comes home from school and after doing homework runs out to play with friends they bump into -- not scheduled 'play dates'. There are no children riding their bikes or skateboards up and down the street until the street lights come on and they go home. And it probably won't be like that ever again. When we moved into RPV our neighbors were not too neighborly. Now that some have passed away and others have simplified their lives by moving into assisted living facilities, I speak with neighbors almost daily. It's reverting back to a true neighborhood and it would be nice to socialize with these neighbors as well as neighbors not on my street at community functions like a Movie Night or perhaps attend classes together. A community pool would be a delightful option too. My kids love swimming and while I've inquired with Marymount on using their pool (with a'negative' response) we have no where to go to swim in a pool without driving off the hill. I respect that the residents closest to Ladera Linda have concerns regarding noise and traffic, but there are other residents (my family and other families like mine) who would relish the opportunity to socialize at a nearby community center. Please feel free to contact me should you need additional information or have questions regarding this email. Thank you for your consideration, --Lynda S akamaki- Shepard Coolheights Drive From: Matt Waters Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:05 AM To: 1vlaco5' Cc: Daniel Trautner Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Hi Jessica, Thank you for your email and for attending the September 22 workshop. I enjoyed talking with you after the meeting about some of your concerns. I would be very happy to meet with you or talk on the phone to discuss your concerns in more depth. Hearing from local residents is crucial to a successful outcome to this process. Actually, it would be great to speak with you in advance of next Tuesday's Council meeting. Are you free this afternoon for a phone conference with me and Deputy Parks Director Dan Trautner? A list of room sizes and usages along with a list of groups that staff met with is included in the Oct 18th LL Master Plan Update Staff Report as attachments. I'm going to have both documents placed separately on the LL Master Plan webpage for easy public access. Below is a link to the LL webpage which has embedded links to many documents including the 10-18 staff report. http://ca-ranchopalosverdes.civicplus.com/982/Ladera-Linda-Park-Master-Plan LL's rooms are all made of pre -fab squares. All rooms are 31x31 feet (961 sq feet) with the exception of the Multi - Purpose Room which is 62x31 (1,922sq feet). Ryan Park is 11 acres. Hesse Park is 29 acres (including the 18 acre Lower Hesse Park section) I'm researching the room sizes at Ryan and Hesse and will get back to you with that information. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv mattw(cD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f Par i 01 Be fer! W1 From: vlaco5 [mailto:vlaco5@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:54 PM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Hi Matt, As I indicated at the recent community workshop concerning Ladera Linda, I would really appreciate being included in the next round of "stakeholder" meetings. I believe that given my proximity to the park, I should be more actively involved in the process. In addition, I seem to remember from the same workshop that staff indicated that the list of "stakeholdsers" woud be posted on the website. Could you direct me to the right place because I can't seem to find it. Also, can you provide me with a list of activities that are being held at Ladera Linda Park, including their frequency and which specific rooms are being used for the various activites? Can you also give me the square footage of each of the park's meeting rooms? And finally, can you provide me with the acreage of Ryan and Hesse Parks as well as the number and square footage of the meeting rooms at each of these two parks? Thanks for your help. Jessica Vlaco 32205 Searaven Dr 310.995.0904 2 From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. <cfw.cwanda@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:56 AM To: Matt Waters Cc: PECarroll@aol.com; Mary Hirsch; Jerry Hashimoto; Sue Estes; elhe@cox.net; Craig Whited; John Mathews Subject: Re: LL Master Plan phone meeting Thanks, Matt. Have scanned the emails and the staff report for the City. Sorry to say that the idea that only people who should be called "stakeholders" are those who live by the park, or are in nearby HOAs, looks selfish and wrong. The park is public property, and not owned any more by nearby City residents versus residents living further away. Everyone likes the idea of nice parks with lots of amenities, but gets nervous about traffic, parking, trash, noise, etc. near their particular house. My sense is the City and its staff are proceeding intelligently and with correct weighing or competing interests. City Parks for RPV needs is to keep up with comparable Parks Departments in places like Orange County, Manhattan Beach, and Santa Monica (anyone visited the Tongva Park in Santa Monica?). Please do not let the City become a sort of elephants' grave yard, where oldsters camp out and make vociferous protests about anything that might be appealing to younger, more active residents. That said, 1) not seeing a need for an LL pool or an LL gym, 2) not seeing much need for elaborate structure(s), 3) would be thrilled for something like Tongva Park in Santa Monica. The MHOA has used Ladera Linda for annual meetings of homeowners, but can also use Marymount. My weekly routine includes swimming a good bit, but there is an ocean and private pools (eg Equinox) for swimming (plus my backyard has a pool that almost never gets used). LL would have a hard time competing with existing swimming facilities. My weekly routine also includes gym usage say 6 times a week, but there are private gyms (eg, Equinox) that would be difficult of impossible for RPV to compete with. Our son and daughter used the LL soccer fields, which are great, and jewels. The LL trials are fun for hiking and running. Tongva Park is award-winning, but has no community center versus restrooms, playground, benches, nice landscaping, rocks, no parking. For $7 million, a similar outcome might be possible in RPV. http://tongvqpark.smgov.net/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongva Park Thanks for working patiently and persistently on intelligent progress. These are my initial views, and may not be those of the MHOA Board. Regards, Chris Wilson III On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Matt Waters <MattW e,rpvca.aov> wrote: Hi Chris, Let me reach out to our consultant to see if either of those dates and times work. If he can't make it, we can still go ahead with a conference call either Monday or Tuesday. I'll get back to you early Monday morning. The soil issue is actually on school district owned property adjacent to Ladera Linda, so it is not in the scope of the Master Plan. For additional information about the Master Plan process for Ladera Linda, including an update Staff Report going to the RPV City Council next Tuesday, please go to: http://ca-ranchopalosverdes.civicplus.com/982/Ladera-Linda-Park-Master-Plan Sincerely, Matt Waters From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. [mailto:cfw.cwanda@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:17 PM To: PECarroll@aol.com Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Mary Hirsch <MaryH@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Hashimoto <ihashimoto3@cox.net>; Sue Estes <sueestes@cox.net>; elhe@cox.net; Craig Whited <craigwhited@cox.net>; John Mathews <icm6508@gmail.com> Subject: Re: LL Master Plan phone meeting On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM, <PECarroll�aol.com> wrote: Can you give me a couple of times early next week that work for you? Matt, How about having a MHOA conf call at 3 PM Monday, 10/17 or 3 PM Tuesday 10/18? Other MHOA Board members can pipe up if they would like to be included in the phone call. Sorry to say there has been some controversy re lead or something at the site, which will hopefully be promptly resolved. Any written questionnaire, plans, concept documents that need review prior to the call? Who is the consultant that will be on the call? Thanks for seeing what can be done to improve LL. Regards, Chris Wilson Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. Christopher Wilson & Associates 3848 West Carson Street, Suite 301 Torrance, California 90503 310 316 2500 3 cfw.cwanda&gmail.com Notice: This message and any attachment(s) are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment, disclose the contents to any other person, or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment. Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. Christopher Wilson & Associates 3848 West Carson Street, Suite 301 Torrance, California 90503 310 316 2500 cfw.cwanda9=ail.com Notice: This message and any attachment(s) are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment, disclose the contents to any other person, or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment. From: Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. <cfw.cwanda@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 2:06 PM To: info@pvpwatch.com Cc: Matt Waters; Brian Campbell (Cox) <b.camp@cox.net> Subject: Re: PVP Watch Newsletter PVPW, Matt, Brian: Like the idea of something like Tongva Park (in Santa Monica) at Ladera Linda. No structures other than bathrooms, emphasis on landscaping, art, rocks, benches, playground, and not much else. Good 2 minute video of with explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGIRuykMLRo Thanks for the update on local issues. Regards, Chris Wilson On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:51 PM, PVP Watch <inf6kpvpwatch.com> wrote: PVP Watch Newsletter - October 13, 2016 To Our Friends and Supporters In this Newsletter: * November 8 t" General Election * Alleged Toxic "Dirt" at Ladera Linda Soccer Fields * RPV - City Governance * RPV - Neighborhood Watch * RPV - Ladera Linda Park * RPV - Airbnb * PVE - Update - Panorama Parklands Litigation * PVE - PVHA (Home Owner Association) Elections 5 Novernebr 8th General Election The November 8th election is now just a few weeks away and Election data is now being distributed. Mill 1 11 1,• •, .. a - The Peninsula's current Assembly Member is David Hadley. Assembly Member Hadley, a Republican was elected two years ago and has an outstanding record of accomplishment in the Democratic controlled California State Government. Mr. Hadley is an ardent supporter of Prop 13 and is endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. PVP Watch supports a vote FOR David Hadley for the 66th AD Hadley's competition is Al Muratsuchi a union sponsored Democrat and the person Hadley replaced two years ago. Muratsuchi's record is dismal and he has a problem with telling the truth. Muratsuchi would vote against continuing Prop 13. If Prop 13 is meaningful to you, another reason to vote for David Hadley. Mr. Wright is not as well known on the Peninsula and he will have a tough race with the 33RD Congressional District being overly loaded with Democrats. However he deserves our votes. Vote for David Hadley for 66t" Assembly District on November 8th. Vote for Kenneth Wright for 33rd Congressional District on November 8t". There are 17 different Statewide Propositions on the ballot. A product of our California legislature undoubtedly hoping that taxpayers will be overwhelmed and fail to gather data on all measures. The HJTA website www.h*ta.org / Ballot Propositions provide the best assessment of the many Propositions: At last the deadlock on the alleged Toxic "Dirt" at the Ladera Linda Soccer fields has been fractured as the DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances) / PVPUSD - AYSO on October 4th agreed to a "Consent Agreement to test the much discussed soil. The link to the agreement is below. The first two pages is the PVPUSD attorney's summarization. https://d3ec3and*ad7x7.cloudfront. netImExkmE70bvMMBtDBR90ffepU FdcfcSBzf*ezHQn2srd5oGca. pdf We believe the agreement has a "fast track" process and the following link will provide ongoing status. 2 http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile report. asp?global id=60002419 What is pathetic is the bureaucratic process that requires the PVPUSD / AYSO to pay for the testing process that will be determined by the DTSC although the DTSC has had already obtained soil samples during the April 27th DTSC "raid" of PVPUSD offices and facilities. Editor's clarification: It has taken over five (5) months for the bureaucratic inaptness of the DTSC to arrive at any reasonable point of negotiation....... The DTSC is comprised of at least two divisions; Compliance and Criminal. The Criminal group conducted the April 271h raid and was equipped with firearms at the ready while purportedly gathering evidence including soil samples of the Ladera Linda "Dirt." For over five months the Criminal group has refused to release any findings of its supposed testing of the soil samples and presumably no results of any other testing as well. Included in the refusal to obtain data from the DTSC Criminal group is the DTSC Compliance group. Is this not bizarre? One DTSC agency will not release data to another DTSC agency, thus the DTSC Compliance demand that PVPUSD / AYSO pay for another testing of the disputed soil held by the DTSC Compliance group. That the DTSC Criminal group has made no reports and will NOT provide any information leads to a logical conclusion that DTSC DID NOT FIND ANY TOXIC MATERIALS IN THE LADERA LINDA SOIL SAMPLES. Why else would the DTSC not respond? Five months later... if there was a contaminated soil what is the liability of the DTSC Criminal division for withholding evidence that contained health effecting toxic materials, if there were any such materials? While we wait for the likely DTSC (Compliance) conclusion that there was / has been no significant toxic materials in the imported "Dirt" by the PVPUSD / AYSO it is time to identify what initiated this costly HOAX to our Peninsula Community? One person, a Ladera Linda resident Ed Hummel who is an Lieutenant in the LA County Sheriff's Dept. has acknowledged that he filed a complaint with the DTSC that also included the LA County District Attorney's office, the AQMD and perhaps other agencies as well. Mr. Hummel has long been antagonistic towards the PV AYSO while claiming that his complaint(s) were filed as a community public serving citizen and not as a Los Angeles County Peace Officer. We wonder, it would seem engaging these agencies to make a "drug bust" type raid on a school facility would take some amount of Peace Officer experience. The public is entitled to an "after action" investigation and report on Lieutenant Hummel's actions. Perhaps RPV City Manager Willmore would cooperate with the PVPUSD in such an effort. Another matter is RPV City Manager Willmore and Deputy City Manager Gabriella Yap's close association with Mr. Hummel and another PVPUSD antagonist Joan Davison. July 20 Ms. Davidson wrote to the RPV Council including a copy of the Alta Environmental Report that PVPUSD had ordered stating "there are some instances of high levels of asbestos found in certain instances etc." We understand that Ms. Davidson has also been writing the DTSC presenting questionable data as factual evidence that toxins are in the Ladera Linda "Dirt." Perhaps when this mess is final resolved, the DTSC will make a public investigation and report exactly what occurred. The Alta report is posted at www.pvpwatch.com / PVP Schools page. • The Alta report contains no evidence of soil contamination with 3 minor instances of asbestos; two non-fiable instances in pieces of building material and one fiable one inch piece of vinyl building material. PVP Watch will continue to post on this very important matter. RPV - City Governance There has been a recent breakdown in civility by a few making unsubstantiated / spurious comments in open Council and Planning Commission meetings about Council members and Planning Commissioners. We accept that this is America and there are personal rights to openly express our thoughts. However if one is going to make law breaking accusations, there must be evidence to support those conclusions. One such occurrence was accusations made concerning the RPV Planning Commission by RPV resident Minas Yerlian in a letter to the Council dated August 215'. Subsequently at the September 61h Council meeting during item 5, Mr. Yerelian waved his August 21st letter and publically reiterated his derogatory reports concerning the Planning Commission Chair and the Planning Commissioners. What was further shocking was Council member Susan Brooks commentary that she also had issues with the Planning Commission and agrees with Mr. Yerlian's commentary. The video of this discussion is contained in the September 27th Planning Commission meeting in the Communications section of the meeting agenda. Council member Brooks also joined with the anti PV AYSO gang in the Alleged "Dirty Dirt" escapade. Another City Manager Willmore / Council Member Brooks maneuver was an attempt at the October 41h Council meeting was to take over the volunteer Neighborhood Watch organization. City Manager Willmore had even gone so far as to begin the process of hiring of an additional staff employee to manage the Neighborhood Watch volunteer organization. Apparently Willmore and Brooks perceive that they could reduce costs by eliminating a community volunteer organization and hiring an additional staff employee without Council approval. Hmm, must be some new kind of magic. It was also purported that adding a new staff person would reduce Sheriff costs. Wonder how that was going to work? As PVP Watch recalls, it was only a few months ago that during budget preparation, the Council was aggressive in spending more $$$ for additional Sheriff services. Ladera Linda Park Another looming "Boon Dongle" is staff efforts to build a grandiose Community Center at Ladera Linda Park. Unbelievably, the Council approved $100,000 for a conceptual site Master Plan design. It seems that staff does not know what is needed thus the logic for "stakeholder" input. One idea is a two story building that would include a museum for the Docents. The last time we saw a complete budget the docents were receiving $150,000 from RPV residents. In our view $150,000 is already an excessive amount. What would a museum cost? Why should RPV taxpayers build a museum for the Docents? A survey of adjacent Ladera Linda residents found that they prefer to modify the existing buildings or perhaps have an approximate 9,000 square foot structure built on or near the original footprint and not remove any trees from the site. It seems that Staff has different ideas. They want to demo the whole site including the removal of all trees, bushes and most fences. Why is it that City Manager Willmore / staff continue to ignore resident and Council preferences? It would seem that the Council should become more aggressive in improving oversight of the City Manager and his staff. PVP Watch is aware that the Council is considering this matter but we encourage the Council to make it sooner rather than later. Airbnb An issue on the September 20th Council agenda was short term home / room rentals. Details can be seen by watching the video of that meeting. Needless to report discussion was vigorous and heated. The Council decided short term property rentals were a violation of zoning codes and remanded the matter to staff for development of enforcement codes. PVE - Update - Panorama Parklands Litigation In 2012, the City of Palos Verdes Estates and the Palos Verdes Homes Association were party to the sale of 1.7 acres of parkland to a private resident who had extensively encroached on this parkland around his home over the past 37 years by building several structures and landscaping much of the area. A group of concerned residents called Citizens for Enforcement of Parkland Covenants (CEPC) filed suit in May of 2013 to overturn the sale, and in June 2015 the Superior Court Judge issued a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the defendant's actions as "ultra vires" (illegal). For details, see www.pveopenspace.com. Final Judgment in CEPC's favor was entered over a year ago on September 24, 2015. However, since then the matter has been tied up on appeal. The Superior Court took several months to prepare the appellate record used by the appellate justices to decide the appeal. The appellate record was completed in May of this year. The opening briefs required to be filed by the defendants (the City of PVE, the Palos Verdes Homes Association (PVHA) and the Luglianis) were supposed to be filed in June of this year. However, the defendants have repeatedly asked the court of appeal for extensions of time to file their briefs. The latest deadline was October 6th and the defendants have once again sought another extension, which has been granted. At this pace, the defendants will likely continue to ask for extensions, and the appellate decision won't come until late 2017 - hence delaying removal of the encroachments and wasting considerably more investment of taxpayer dollars in pointless legal fees. If you are concerned about why the City of PVE and PVHA is delaying the briefing on the appeal, we would encourage you to email the City Council (c/o Vkroneberger(a-),pvestates.org) and the PVHA (c/o kim(a-),pvha.org) and let them know your frustration. PVE - PVHA (Home Owner Association) Elections In the 90+ years of its existence, the Palos Verdes Homes Association (PVHA) Board of Directors was selected by the current board, and then "endorsed" by its members through an election. There was no way for alternate candidates to be added to the ballot. That has changed as the result of the initiative of a group of concerned homeowners called "Residents for Open Ballot Elections" (ROBE) which include five former PVE mayors and three former PVHA Directors. After pressing the issue last year, ROBE has caused the incumbent Board to implement procedures to allow for alternative nominations. However, the nominating petition rules were made quite onerous requiring witnessing petition signatures, affidavits and notarization. Further, there will be only one mailing (versus three in some previous years). Fax and computer submittals which had been allowed in the past will not be permitted this year. There will be minimal information about the candidates in the election mailing. The incumbent Board could support asking a judge to reduce the quorum requirement but seems disinclined to do so. Despite these obstacles, ROBE pressed forward and property owners in PVE and Miraleste will have a choice. Over 200 signature petitions were collected for Marlene Breen, Dick Fay and Ried Schott (only 100 were required by law), and their bios can be found at http://www.pvegoodgov.org/bios. However, for the election to be valid, a quorum of half of the members (2711) must vote. It is therefore very important to vote. Without a quorum the Board merely reappoints themselves for another year which has been the general case. In fact, a majority of the current Board was selected never elected, and none have been elected since 2009. 6 There are many reasons to seek a change in leadership, and these are covered in ROBE's website at http://www.pvegoodgov.org along with names of the steering committee, and relevant press articles and documents. PVHA sold parkland in a decision later ruled illegal in the courts - yet despite strong community opposition they are participating in an appeal of that decision. The PVHA Board supported a recent effort to close a portion of the most heavily used trail in PVE and erect a 300 foot fence (which would be a violation of the same deed restrictions that were litigated) and the PVHA offered to partially fund the effort. PVHA has at best subjective rules for deciding trees vs views disputes - pitting neighbor against neighbor in what can be expensive litigation. The parkland, trees and views are important components of our property values and must be maintained. At this time of year we are all getting lots of election mail. Please look for the ballot from the PVHA (the PVHA has indicated that the ballots will be mailed out in late October or early November) and vote by returning it by mail. They are only sending one ballot, so please do not lose it. Save our parkland and preserve your home value - vote for change at the PVHA. PVP Watch Welcomes Subscriber Comments PVP Watch welcomes reader comments. Please send comments to inMo( Pvpwatch.com We recognize that many PVP Watch newsletter subscribers use mobile devices to read newsletters. However, mobile devices do not always provide acknowledgement that a newsletter has been opened and read.. We ask that those who do read newsletters from mobile devices also open the newsletter at their primary computer before deleting. One of the current email issues is overactive "spam" detectors and we urge everyone to enter info(o),pvpwatch.com and PVP Watch into their computer address book PVP Watch welcomes all input and awaits subscriber feedback on the new newsletter format and postings. PVP Watch - Welcomes Contributions PVP Watch is appreciates the contributions of the many subscribers who have sent checks to PVP Watch and is dependent on the financial support of our many subscribers. Those desiring to make a modest contribution, please send checks to PVP Watch / PO Box 2041 / Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 PVP Watch - Newsletter List- A reminder to ALL PVP Watch supporters, should you change your e-mail address don't forget to advise PVP Watch of your new address. We also suggest that info pvpwatch.com be added to your computer Contacts Directory to assure delivery of PVP Watch Newsletters. Subscribers The PVP Watch e-mail list continues to grow. For those who wish their addresses removed, please send notice to info pvpwatch.com. Those who have topics of community interest are encouraged to bring those issues to info@pvpwatch.com as well. D PVP Watch, PO Box 2041, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 SafeUnsubscribeTM cfw.cwanda@gmail.com Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by infogpvpwatch.com in collaboration with Try it free today Christopher F. Wilson, Esq. Christopher Wilson & Associates 3848 West Carson Street, Suite 301 Torrance, California 90503 310 316 2500 cfw. cwandag gmail . com Notice: This message and any attaclunent(s) are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or any attachment, disclose the contents to any other person, or take any action in reliance on this message or any attachment. 8 From: Jim Hevener <jhevener@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 3:56 PM To: Matt Waters; Doug Willmore Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Park Matt and Doug I reviewed the Staff Report and updated Plan and felt they properly reflect the compromise between those like my family who are in favor of substantial redevelopment (including a pool and recreation center) and those opposed to any development. Thank you for your continued good work on this project, especially in the face of the extremely aggressive opposition. Will there be public comment at the meeting tomorrow night? If so, do you have any idea what time? One of my neighbors and I would like to attend and voice our support, but we both have young children and thus have limited and difficult to manage time constraints. Jim Hevener From: Matt Waters [mailto:MattW@rpvca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:08 AM To: Jim Hevener; Doug Willmore Cc: Cory Linder; James Flannigan; Daniel Trautner; Ron Dragoo; Mona Dill Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Park Hi Jim, Thank you for sending in your comments on the Ladera Linda Parks Master Plan. An update on the Plan will be presented to the RPV City Council on October 18, 2018. Your email will be attached as late correspondence to that report. For more information on the Ladera Linda Master Plan process please go to http://www.rpvca.gov/982/Ladera- Linda-Park-Master-Plan You can also sign up for Ladera Linda Park Master Plan email notification at: http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv mattw(d-)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f Par 8e� From: Jim Hevener [mailto:ihevener@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:49 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Community Park Mr. Wilmore wanted to take the time to forward to you directly the text of an e-mail I sent to the architect selected for the design of the re -developed Ladera Linda Park. I only add that it is my understanding the Ladera Linda Park is a "community park" with an emphasis on Seaview and Mediterranea, as well as Ladera Linda. When expressed this view at the meeting not a single person disagreed, including those from Ladera Linda. But then, it appears a group of Ladera Linda residents have gone back on the attack to try and kill the entire project. feel City Staff (and the architectural firm) are trying to strike a balance between various constituents, and I hope we can work together to maintain that balanced approach moving forward. Jim Hevener (Coolheights) Hello, I attended the meeting at the Ladera Linda Center, and respect the view of various Ladera Linda neighbors, but the views expressed in the meeting are not the only ones. I wanted to express my support for the redevelopment of the property to include a modernized community center/nature center, with easier access and more useable open space. I have spoken to several other residents in the general area who agree with these thoughts and wanted me to speak on their behalf. I believe there are many more families like us, with small kids, who may not have been able to attend the community meetings but share our views. Family Space. This area of RPV is in a state of transition. There are numerous residents who have lived in the area since it was originally developed (40 years plus). We respect these folks and their desire for peace and quiet, but there also are a growing number of people like us who have more recently moved into the area with children. We love the semi -rural feel of Rancho Palos Verdes, but do not believe that lower impact development means no development. The LL park should include areas for families to use and for kids to play. The current basketball courts are in disrepair and the park also could use a nice jungle gym. Despite the level of disrepair, we regularly use the Park to play ball and to ride around on scooters and the like. We hope the re -designed space includes these elements. Neighborhood and Community Space. LL park is the only park in this part of RPV and it should be available as an area where members of the community gather. Not to be simplistic, but if you live across from a park, there is going to be some traffic and noise. I am not saying we should hold rock concerts every weekend, but there should be both outdoor and indoor spaces where people can gather together. These types of community spaces are important to foster and develop a sense of community, especially for those of us who are relatively recent arrivals. When I heard people shout down the idea of holding a movie night, it really bothered me. Again, I am not suggesting that we build a movie theatre or have nightly or even weekly movie nights, but we have a couple of movie nights per year at Mira Catalina School and they are a wonderful way for people to meet each other and socialize. This creates community. Why can't we have a couple of movie nights, or something like a meteor shower or astronomy night? Reasonable restrictions on noise easily could be enforced. Ample Parking. We live up in Mediterranea, which used to be directly connected to Ladera Linda but now is accessible only by driving down the switch -backs and around to the park. There is a need for significant parking which is better organized and easier to access. This doesn't mean we are asking for a Disneyland size parking lot, but we are asking for reasonable access for people who live outside of the Ladera Linda neighborhood. 1 actually think some of the apparent overflow into the Ladera Linda neighborhood could be alleviated if there was more and improved parking at the Park, which would be visible as you drive in. More Usable Space. The current multi-level and disconnected property simply is not usable. While I am not in favor of cutting down all the trees and grading the entire site, it would be wonderful to better connect the spaces in a more logical and usable manner. Improving views (and security) would be an added benefit. Community Center and Nature Center / Museum. We strongly support having indoor spaces which could be used for a variety of purposes, including at least one room with a significant capacity (perhaps one large room which could be divided using a movable partition most of time). We also support a high-quality museum or nature center, housed in up to date structures which reflect the surrounding area. Striking a reasonable balance between a huge attraction catering to outsiders, and a high-quality lower impact set of structures, should not be that difficult. As discussed at the meeting, the current structures are in disrepair and were designed as a school. A single structure with different areas, or a small number of separate structures, might actually cover a total area smaller than the current structures with the ill-suited space between them. I personally was very interested in making sure the historical society has storage space and hope they also could have some display space to share their wonderful collections with our kids. Use By Other Groups Like YMCA. We feel that the YMCA and similar groups (including the folks who host the yoga and other community classes) are "stakeholders." As parents with 3 boys, we have been members of the YMCA, AYSO, and also are becoming involved with scouting. These organizations represent those of us with kids who use and would use the LL park. They are not "outsiders." Several of us either have taken yoga classes or plan to. Having space for low-cost or free classes is important. There simply is no other such space on this side of the hill. Balance Already Struck. In my review of other options, I personally would support the development of a community pool and recreation center. We don't have a private pool, and there is no community pool or community recreation center in the area. We do appreciate, however, that a number of LL neighborhood residents are concerned about these higher density uses and the City has struck a balance by deciding against them. Now that a balance has been struck, it seems certain LL residents want to renegotiate that balance and push back even further. They ae entitled to their opinion, but we are entitled to ours. Please work with all of us to continue to strike the right balance. I personally expect to live here for another 30-40 years and hope the re -designed LL Park serves all of us for many, many years. Maintenance in the Meantime. I think everyone agrees that RPV needs to step up its investment in maintenance and security during the transitional period. Sinking money into repairing the structures seems a waste, but proper sanitation and refuse collection, as well as maintenance and security, all are important concerns. We can't let things get worse while we wait for the planning and construction to be completed. Thank you for your consideration of our opinion. If necessary, I could obtain signatures from a significant number of other folks who support the same basic approach. Jim Hevener Coolheights Drive