Loading...
20161115 Late CorrespondenceNovember 15, 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 HaH'thorne Bh,,d. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attn: CityClerk , Te ri Takaoka Acting City Clerk John RJensen and Cindy Jensen 21 Barkentine Rd Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275 Tax ID: 7573 010 039 We protest any increase and the automatic fee structure in the EDCO contract. We are on a fixed. bud.get and. are having d.\tf...c.u.lty with everything go\ng up\ Thi::. contract should be rebid and if anything it should go down! As the average age in PV goes up we generate less trash. I am an avid gardner and use all my· kitchen scraps in my· compost. Our kids are gone! We generate one small kitchen bag a week and a small amount of recycling that doesn 't get recycled at the center. I would like to ~top bac.kyaYd ~e'fv\c.e or c.ompletd)' ~top tYa~h ~erv\c.e all together b.p.c.-r.n~e I can't see $750+ for one small bag of trash, and I don't like people I don't like nO$lP.g around my backyard. RECEIVED FROM -:JO\\N B.. . ..:rfu)SQJ AND MAD E A PART OF TH E RECORD AT THE COUNC IL MEETIN G OFJ.!_Ll_'2),.,,.1_J,..__ __ 1 OFFI CE OF THE c!TYcLERK '-'AEll 4 MOfilfillii Al.lii , CITY CLERK ._, Fwd: Written protest From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net> To: cmuell <cmuell@verizon.net> Subject: Fwd: Written protest Date: Tue, Nov 15, 201612:41 pm To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attn: City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Bl. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page 1 of2 RECEIVED FROM ....M:::.:.:.i111.1.-.a..i..i~~--I AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE I I OFF ICE OF THE CITY CLERK 0AIOll.P MQRR EAL E, CITY CLERK November 15, 2016 -Hand delivered to Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting. My name is Carolean "Carol" J . Mueller, and I am a homeowner/resident in Rancho Palos Verdes. The Assessor's ID No. is 7584 001 029. Secondly, the Notice appears to contain legalese designed to confuse/mislead our residents. For example, Section I, indicates " ... the most common level of refuse collection service for residential customers will increase by 1.95% or $0.49 per month ... " What is the most common level? If approved, the new rates will begin on January 1, 2017. Then in Section Ill, in addition to seeking a fee increase, EDCO is also seeking approval for an annua l fee adjustment formula. This formula would result in automatic fee adjustments on July 1st of each year also starting in 2017 and lasting until June 30, 2021 ... ", etc. If this formula is approved, EDCO will provide notice of increases in fees at least 30 days prior to the increase taking effect. The increases would be automatic, not requiring a public hearing, and would go into effect on July 1st of 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. These changes in the Service Component would be capped @4% annually, and increases due to the Disposal Component would be capped@ 8% annually. EDCO and RPV appear to be attempting to rewrite the existing contract, not merely exercise the option for renewal. I personally have no knowledge of whether or not or how much money EDCO may have contributed to the RPV 40th anniversary, Grand Ga la event at Terranea, however, it might make one wonder if there was a "Play for pay" transaction/agreement. I can't put my fingers on the information right now, however, I believe under the original EDCO/RPV contract , if EDCO desires to increase resident's rates . they are required to submit proof of cost increases to RPV in what March of the year they want an increase, and, I believe they did do so in March of 2016, however, RPV just didn't have the time to meet with them??? Note Section II: " ... EDCO is seeking a fee increase to account for changes in its costs to provide waste hauling services in the City due primarily to inflation ... " Many of us are Seniors receiving Social Security, and we are being told by our government there has been or continues to be no or little inflation. I have no information on salaries or profits at EDCO as I believe it is a private company, however, to date and the life of the EDCO contract, the employees have been (in my case) unable to follow the contract re billing . In https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 11 /15/2016 Fwd: Written protest Page 2 of2 addition, they are unable to figure a percentage discount/s allowed by their contract. Every single year and mostly twice a year, I have had to turn to RPV employees. That has been equally frustrating. The employee with a senior title who earned over $100,000/compensation in 2012 is also unable to figure a simple math discount. And, since the RPV employees voted to join a union, I understand they were recently given a 15% compensation increase (including retro pay). Hummm, the government says there is little or no inflation. Perhaps when EDCO heard of the RPV salary increases, they wanted to get some of that money also. Do we need to do some additional housecleaning at RPV City Hall? And/or perhaps more competent employees would be more proficient. https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 11115/2016 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ACTING CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 15, 2016 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting Item No. 1 2 3 4 Description of Material Correction to Staff Report from Senior Administrative Analyst Ramezani; Protest Letters from: Gene and Faye Steiger; Tammi Wong Email from Jim Knight Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Ken Delong Email from Kathy and Al Edgerton, Tom Olson, Da Beini, Barry and Hilda Rodgveller, Denise and John Girardi, Romas and Angela Jarasunas, and Rick Daniels; Emails from: Harvey and Roanna Brown; Tom Olson; Bridget Stillo; Barry and Hilda Rodgveller; Romas and Angela Jarasunas Respectfully submitted, c1w>r-::/t4U~~j Ter~a Takaoka **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, November 14, 2016**. W:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161115 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Teri, Lauren Ramezani Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:25 PM Teresa Takaoka Michael Throne; Nathan Zweizig Typo in staff report for Item 1-EDCO PH I found a typo in the SR for Item 1, EDCO's Prop 218 hearing. The maximum number of protests for a majority protest is 7,572. The resolution on page A-2 has the right number. But the staff reports on page 4 has the number transposed. It has the wrong number of 5,752. For your announcement, you have to mention 7,572. Thanks! Thanks Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5245 J,2_1:,1renr@rpvca.gov yvww,~ 1 /. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: RECEIVED From: Gene Steiger <gpst.e.~lfil@~'ii;,ui;;m1,r1s:~t> Date: November 15, 2016 at 1 :41 :44 PM PST To: £tpst c..;ig_er@hpepririlcom CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Subject: Waste Hauling Rates City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attn. City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Sirs: NOV 15 2ll16 We, the undersigned, object to the proposed waste collection fees effective January 17, 2017 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed fees seem excessive. As Seniors, our Retirement allotment has not changed since 1998. For the last seven years, our life savings have earned less than one percent: therefore, we have draw from our principal to pay our expenses. 2. An automatic annual fee adjustment is like letting the fox in the hen house. There would be no one able to check whether the fees were justified, or correct. Every few months, we face increased costs at restaurants, grocery stores, movie theaters and etc. We can select the stores that we patronize, but we can not select a different waste disposal vendor. 3. We feel that fee increases should notified to the public so that we can understand the fee increase justification, then reviewed by the RPV City Council. Perhaps other waste providers should bid on the City contract. We have been satisfied with EDCO performance>but we feel that they should not be given a five year blank check. Gene & Faye Steiger 28802 Crestridge Road Assessors ID No. 7574 021 016 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 /. Tammi J. Wong 5932 Finecrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (Parcel# 7578 012 019} RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 14 November 2016 NOV 15 2016 RE: Protest of EDCO fee increase Dear Sir/Madame: As the owner of the property at 5932 Finecrest Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 I am writing to protest the increase in the fees for EDCO for waste collection. While the near-term 1.95 percent increase is reasonable, I feel that the 8% cap per year over a 5 year period is too high. Their increases are not based solely on the CPI, but also includes PPI and negotiated labor costs. As a person on a fixed income, it is difficult to adjust to such large increases in fees when the cost of living increases in my pension remains at 0%. I From: Sent: To: Subject: TO: RPV COUNCIL FROM: JIM KNIGHT DATE: NOV. 15, 2016 RE: BUBBLES AT PVIC Mayor and Council members, Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:54 AM cc Bubbles at PVIC I see that you are considering placing Bubbles the Whale at the PVIC site. I was one of the task force members who participated in a site visit exploring the possibility of placing the Bubbles statute at PVIC. Staff set up poles to indicate the height and placed the poles in various locations. We viewed the poles from several different locations on the site, close and far, and I can tell you that the statute is out of proportion for this site. In addition it would block some of the sight lines to the ocean that define this beauty of this area. A majority of the task force agreed. I have nothing against finding a place for Bubbles somewhere in the city to commemorate Marineland as a part of our city's history if it fits with the site. But I can tell you this is not the site. If you are not sure, go through the exercise the task force implemented and see for yourself. Bottom line, right idea -wrong location. Thank you, Jim Knight 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Doug Willmore Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:59 AM Ken Delong; CC RE: Comments concerning the Council Agenda for November 15, 2016 Thanks for your email. It's always good to hear from you. I thought it useful to respond to one of your assertions below, because it contains a clear misunderstanding. Regarding the Hesse Park turf, the pipe into the fields does not carry enough volume to produce enough water given the watering restrictions of days and times. It had nothing to do with an arbitrary decision I made. I have no idea about the water infrastructure at Highridge Park. But, if they have been able to keep their grass green, then I promise you they have enough water flow to produce enough water on the fields during the limited watering times imposed by the State. The infrastructure that the City installed in 2010 was big enough when watering days and times were not limited. Now that they are limited, there is not enough flow into the pipes to be able to take care of the grass. I hope that corrects your misunderstanding. Thanks, Doug From: Ken Delong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:09 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments concerning the Council Agenda for November 15, 2016 Item 1-EDCO Rates. My property tax ID for 6940 Maycroft Dr is 7584 003 015. I have no issues concerning approving a 1.95% rate increase for the current period. Beyond the current 1.95% increase I object to the proposed 4% & 8% caps on future proposed increases. More clearly defined limits for future EDCO increasing service costs must be developed. Reasons for my objections are that legal doublespeak makes this proposal virtually impossible to follow. There is no logic as to why this is a Prop 218 controlled matter other than our City Attorney declares this is so. It is absurd to consider this matter as a "218" controlled matter when it is merely a contract for services provided to the city for trash hauling. There must be other alternatives. Item 2 -Bubbles Is not lower PVIC sacred land? We cannot place ballfields there nor allow for other public uses but we can place "Bubbles" there. What nonsense. Let's move on to real issues. #3 -Hesse Park Grass. According to City Manager Willmore, the reason for turning off the water on the Hesse Park turf was the drought and Jerry Brown dictates. While the Hesse Park fields became unsafe to use, the RHE soccer fields at Highridge Park had no such issues. It is now going to cost RPV taxpayer some $300 K / $400 K, possibly more to restore the fields at Hesse Park. Is anyone tracking City Manager Wilmore's decisions? #6 -Civic Center Master Plan The Council was remiss in providing City Manager Willmore $250,000 to develop a Master Plan for Upper Point Vicente/ Community Center development. Current proposal is to gather public opinion as to whether or not the taxpayers desire a 1 3 swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis courts, volleyball courts, basketball courts etc. at upper Point Vicente. These ideas are not new and have been discussed previously over the past 12 / 15 years or so. Each time there has been little public interest. What has been of community interest has been participation with PVPUSD in enhancing school properties for public joint participation. For example, rather than building a new swimming pool at the proposed Community Center, RPV should financially support rebuilding the PVPUSD pool at Miraleste Middle School. An enhanced swimming pool at Miraleste would be an asset to RPV residents on the east side. Obviously, RPV needs a Council majority that can develop an ongoing plan as the staff seems to lack any common sense or judgment. Of course not everyone recognizes that the scheme behind this skullduggery is City Manager Willmore's determination that the taxpayers build staff a new City Hall. Before the Council approves any sort of public indoctrination campaign, staff should be directed to limit all analyses to lands comprising the Upper Point Vicente area as to allowed use of each deeded parcel and whether or not there are any toxic materials remaining in the soil from the former Nike base. Ken Delong 6940 Maycroft Dr. 2 From: Sent: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:34 AM To: CC; Nicole Jules Cc: Hilda Rodgveller; Barry Rodgveller; Denise Girardi; jarasunas@cox.net; John (Jack) Girardi; Rick Daniels; Tom Olson; Da Beini Subject: Fw: Nov. 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #4: Digital Sign at Del Cerro Park Attachments: Ltr to City Council re Park Place Parking & Traffic Problems (Revised to Include Tom Olson and Da Beini) 11-15-16.docx Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members and Staff, Please review this updated version of the letter that we sent a few minutes ago. The text of the letter has not changed. However, two of the three Park Place residents, Tom Olson and Da Beini, have asked to be included as signatories of the letter expressing the consensus of the Del Cerro Park working group. Thank you very much. Tom Olson -Park Place resident Da Beini -Park Place resident Barry and Hilda Rodgveller -Burrell Lane residents Denise and John Girardi -Burrell Lane residents Romas and Angela Jarasunas -Burrell Lane residents Rick Daniels -Del Cerro resident Kathy and Al Edgerton -Del Cerro residents From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:52 AM To: RPV City Council; Nicole Jules Cc: Hilda Rodgveller; Barry Rodgveller; Denise Girardi; jarasunas@cox.net; Rick Daniels; John (Jack) Girardi Subject: Nov. 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #4: Digital Sign at Del Cerro Park Good morning, Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and Staff. Attached is a letter regarding tonight's meeting Agenda Item No. 4 regarding installing a digital sign at Del Cerro Park to control traffic on Park Place. The residents shown as signatories at the end of the letter are participants in the working group who have been interacting with staff to develop acceptable solutions to the difficult traffic and parking issues that Park Place residents have been experiencing. With the active support of Nicole Jules, many options have been considered. The signers of the attached letter believe that the comments regarding the options considered in the working group meetings address the options for which consensus was achieved. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 1 Respectfully submitted, Barry and Hilda Rodgveller -Burrell Lane residents Denise and John Girardi -Burrell Lane residents Romas and Angela Jarasunas -Burrell Lane residents Rick Daniels -Del Cerro resident Kathy and Al Edgerton -Del Cerro residents 2 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Staff, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the traffic and parking concerns of the residents on Park Place next to the Del Cerro Park. 11/15/16 We, the undersigned, believe that the comments below represent the consensus of residents from the communities surrounding Del Cerro Park (Burrell Lane, Park Place and Del Cerro) who participated in multiple meetings with city staff to develop possible solutions to the traffic and parking issues that Park Place and Burrell Lane residents are experiencing. There are three issues that need to be addressed: • It is very difficult for the residents at #1 and #3 Park Place to enter and leave their driveways because preserve visitors drive into the street to look for places to park, and then wait in their cars blocking residents' ingress and egress until one of the parking places is open. During the busiest times, several cars will be idling in the area at the same time. • Over the past few years, increasing numbers of visitors are arriving at night, parking adjacent to Del Cerro Park, and holding gatherings until very late hours and/or hiking/biking in the preserve -ignoring the signs indicating "No Parking Anytime Between One Hour after Sunset to One Hour Before Sunrise" that are posted near the parking places as well as the hours posted for preserve use. The residents on Park Place and Burrell Lane whose homes are adjacent to the park are disturbed by the excessive noise and do not feel safe at night. In fact, within the last month, residents on Park Place have reported attempted break-ins, strangers looking into their homes and entering their back yards. • Residents on Park Place have no available on-street parking for guests who visit their homes for social gatherings or other purposes. The HOAs surrounding Del Cerro Park greatly appreciate staff's efforts in working with the residents to try to find solutions to the difficult issues cited above. However, we have been frustrated by the apparent ambiguities and restrictions that exist in the park's Program of Utilization (POU) that governs park usage. The POU that governs the park use also governs the use of the land adjacent to City Hall (Upper Pt. Vicente) that the City acquired from the federal government at the same time that Del Cerro Park was acquired. It is our understanding that two uses of the Upper Pt. Vicente land do not conform to the Program of Utilization (the current agricultural use and the helipad), and that the National Park Service (NPS) has stated that any amendments to the POU to ameliorate the conditions at Del Cerro Park will not be considered until the existing non- 1 11/15/16 conformances at Upper Pt. Vicente are resolved -even though the area conditions have dramatically changed since the POU was executed. (Subsequent to the execution of the POU, the City has acquired 1,500 acres of open space, much of which surrounds the small 4.5 acre neighborhood park, and the parking issues have arisen as a result of that acquisition, not the use of the park.) The residents who participated in several brain-storming workshops with staff are not optimistic that any of the solutions that are currently available without NPS concurrence (and that the staff recommends) will significantly improve the conditions. The actions that the workshop participants believe will be required to solve the traffic and parking issues on Park Place will require amendments to the park's POU -which is not possible until the existing non-conformances at Upper Pt. Vicente are resolved. While we did not achieve 100% agreement on preferred solutions, we believe the solutions listed below would have the support of a majority of the residents most affected by the current problems. • Eliminate all public parking on Park Place; establish a neighborhood permit parking program for the residents of Park Place. The people who currently park there are not using the park. They are visiting the nature preserve. (Park users live in the neighborhood and generally walk to the park.) This would likely be the least expensive solution. One option within this alternative may be to eliminate the 10 recreational parking spaces on Crenshaw (or reduce the total number of spaces) and re-open them to public parking to partially offset the impact of eliminating the Park Place spaces. Rarely is more than one of the reserved spaces on Crenshaw actually filled by RPV residents who have the recreational permits. • Place an electronic gate (arm) across Park Place that would only allow cars to enter the street when there are available parking places, and provide the Park Place residents with an access card or key code to enter and leave at any time; restrict entry during hours the park is closed -except for residents and their guests. • Vacate a portion of the full length of Park Place sufficient to provide a shared driveway for Park Place residents to enter and exit from their homes; use the remaining right-of-way for ingress and egress from the existing parking places; and create a foliage and/or fence barrier between the street and driveway. The following options were also considered by the participating residents and deemed to be much less desirable than the options listed above: 2 11/15/16 • Vacate all of the Park Place right-of-way to allow the residents to place a gate across the entrance at Crenshaw and restrict access to residents and their guests; create a new road inside the park (parallel to Park Place) that would be used for visitors to reach the parking area. Residents consider this option significantly inferior to the previously-mentioned options, as it would significantly reduce the park green space -especially in the area of the park that is most used by the nearby residents. • Place an electronic sign at the entrance to the park that indicates how many parking spaces are available or that the lot is full. Include the hours that the park itself is open. This option will undoubtedly require substantial enforcement to assure that people do not continue to drive into Park Place and wait for a parking place. While the residents greatly appreciate the council's efforts to resolve the parking issues sooner rather than later, they feel that installing such a sign is not likely to be effective in solving the traffic congestion problem, as visitors will continue to drive into Park Place and wait for an available parking space. In addition, an electronic sign would degrade the aesthetics of the area and detract from the rural ambience of the area. Another concern is that vehicles will likely stop or slow down to read the sign and decide how to proceed -creating traffic congestion on Crenshaw Blvd. In addition, the sign design as currently proposed is quite large and obtrusive, and its size and location may create a safety hazard by preventing drivers exiting from Park Place from seeing vehicles exiting the Crenshaw Extension. Residents would prefer to postpone implementation of this option until a strategy to obtain approval of one of the more substantial alternatives can be developed. • One other option that was discussed but discarded was moving the parking area from the current location to an area behind the line of trees that are adjacent to Crenshaw Blvd. and the Crenshaw Extension. Most residents felt that it would not be desirable because it would, in essence, move the problem area from one group of residents to another group of residents. In addition, it would reduce the park green space, result in cutting down at least some of the trees, significantly detract from the overall ambience of the area, and eliminate an area of the park that is currently the most heavily-used portion. It would also likely cause traffic to back up on the Crenshaw Extension (assuming entrance from that street). We respectfully request that the City make the resolution of the POU non-conformances at Upper Pt. Vicente a top priority and work diligently with the National Park Service to 3 11/15/16 correct them so that one of the preferred actions to improve the conditions at Del Cerro Park listed above can be considered and implemented as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. We greatly appreciate your concern for our neighborhood's well being. Respectfully submitted, Tom Olson -Park Place resident Da Beini -Park Place resident Barry and Hilda Rodgveller -Burrell Lane residents Denise and Jack Girardi -Burrell Lane residents Romas and Angela Jarasunas -Burrell Lane residents Rick Daniels -Del Cerro resident Kathy and Al Edgerton -Del Cerro residents 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: Harvey Brown <allen888@yahoo.com> Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:00 PM CC; Nicole Jules Fw: Nov. 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #4: Digital Sign at Del Cerro Park Attachments: Ltr to City Council re Park Place Parking & Traffic Problems (Revised to Include Tom Olson and Da Beini) 11-15-16.docx we agree with the aforementioned letter and suggestions. Harvey and Roanna Brown, 8 Burrell Lane, RPV On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:56 AM, Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> wrote: Hi, Neighbors, As you may be aware, the City Council is scheduled to make a decision this evening on whether an electronic sign should be placed at the entry into Park Place to indicate whether any parking places (on Park Place) are open. However, the residents from Park Place, Burrell Lane and Del Cerro who have been working with the city staff to resolve the parking issues on Park Place do not agree with the direction the Council is moving to solve the problem. Attached is a letter that we sent to the City Council a few minutes ago that explains the possible solutions that the majority of the working group supported. We would appreciate feedback as to whether you would also support the comments in the letter. If you do, it would be very helpful if you would send a brief email to the City Council and staff indicating your concurrence. The members of the working group who have agreed to be signatories of the letter are shown below in the submittal email. If you send your email to cc@rpvca.gov, the entire City Council and key staff will immediately receive it. In addition, please include Nicole Jules (nicolej@rpvca.gov) as a recipient of your email, as she is the Deputy Director of Public Works and is the key staff person who is responsible for this topic. She has been very cooperative in working with the residents to resolve the issues. (She may receive the email automatically along with the Council members, but I'm not sure.) Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Kathy & Al Edgerton Del Cerro 544-7390 From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:33 AM To: RPV City Council; Nicole Jules Cc: Hilda Rodgveller; Barry Rodgveller; Denise Girardi; jarasunas@cox.net; John (Jack) Girardi; Rick Daniels; Tom Olson; Da '-f. Beini Subject: Fw: Nov. 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #4: Digital Sign at Del Cerro Park Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members and Staff, Please review this updated version of the letter that we sent a few minutes ago. The text of the letter has not changed. However, two of the three Park Place residents, Tom Olson and Da Beini, have asked to be included as signatories of the letter expressing the consensus of the Del Cerro Park working group. Thank you very much. Tom Olson -Park Place resident Da Beini -Park Place resident Barry and Hilda Rodgveller -Burrell Lane residents Denise and John Girardi -Burrell Lane residents Romas and Angela Jarasunas -Burrell Lane residents Rick Daniels -Del Cerro resident Kathy and Al Edgerton -Del Cerro residents From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:52 AM To: RPV City Council; Nicole Jules Cc: Hilda Rodgveller; Barry Rodgveller; Denise Girardi; jarasunas@cox.net; Rick Daniels; John (Jack) Girardi Subject: Nov. 15, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #4: Digital Sign at Del Cerro Park Good morning, Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and Staff. Attached is a letter regarding tonight's meeting Agenda Item No. 4 regarding installing a digital sign at Del Cerro Park to control traffic on Park Place. The residents shown as signatories at the end of the letter are participants in the working group who have been interacting with staff to develop acceptable solutions to the difficult traffic and parking issues that Park Place residents have been experiencing. With the active support of Nicole Jules, many options have been considered. The signers of the attached letter believe that the comments regarding the options considered in the working group meetings address the options for which consensus was achieved. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, Barry and Hilda Rodgveller -Burrell Lane residents Denise and John Girardi -Burrell Lane residents Romas and Angela Jarasunas -Burrell Lane residents Rick Daniels -Del Cerro resident Kathy and Al Edgerton -Del Cerro residents 2 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Staff, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the traffic and parking concerns of the residents on Park Place next to the Del Cerro Park. 11/15/16 We, the undersigned, believe that the comments below represent the consensus of residents from the communities surrounding Del Cerro Park (Burrell Lane, Park Place and Del Cerro) who participated in multiple meetings with city staff to develop possible solutions to the traffic and parking issues that Park Place and Burrell Lane residents are experiencing. There are three issues that need to be addressed: • It is very difficult for the residents at #1 and #3 Park Place to enter and leave their driveways because preserve visitors drive into the street to look for places to park, and then wait in their cars blocking residents' ingress and egress until one of the parking places is open. During the busiest times, several cars will be idling in the area at the same time. • Over the past few years, increasing numbers of visitors are arriving at night, parking adjacent to Del Cerro Park, and holding gatherings until very late hours and/or hiking/biking in the preserve -ignoring the signs indicating "No Parking Anytime Between One Hour after Sunset to One Hour Before Sunrise" that are posted near the parking places as well as the hours posted for preserve use. The residents on Park Place and Burrell Lane whose homes are adjacent to the park are disturbed by the excessive noise and do not feel safe at night. In fact, within the last month, residents on Park Place have reported attempted break-ins, strangers looking into their homes and entering their back yards. • Residents on Park Place have no available on-street parking for guests who visit their homes for social gatherings or other purposes. The HOAs surrounding Del Cerro Park greatly appreciate staff's efforts in working with the residents to try to find solutions to the difficult issues cited above. However, we have been frustrated by the apparent ambiguities and restrictions that exist in the park's Program of Utilization (POU) that governs park usage. The POU that governs the park use also governs the use of the land adjacent to City Hall (Upper Pt. Vicente) that the City acquired from the federal government at the same time that Del Cerro Park was acquired. It is our understanding that two uses of the Upper Pt. Vicente land do not conform to the Program of Utilization (the current agricultural use and the helipad), and that the National Park Service (NPS) has stated that any amendments to the POU to ameliorate the conditions at Del Cerro Park will not be considered until the existing non- 1 11/15/16 conformances at Upper Pt. Vicente are resolved -even though the area conditions have dramatically changed since the POU was executed. (Subsequent to the execution of the POU, the City has acquired 1,500 acres of open space, much of which surrounds the small 4.5 acre neighborhood park, and the parking issues have arisen as a result of that acquisition, not the use of the park.) The residents who participated in several brain-storming workshops with staff are not optimistic that any of the solutions that are currently available without NPS concurrence (and that the staff recommends) will significantly improve the conditions. The actions that the workshop participants believe will be required to solve the traffic and parking issues on Park Place will require amendments to the park's POU -which is not possible until the existing non-conformances at Upper Pt. Vicente are resolved. While we did not achieve 100% agreement on preferred solutions, we believe the solutions listed below would have the support of a majority of the residents most affected by the current problems. • Eliminate all public parking on Park Place; establish a neighborhood permit parking program for the residents of Park Place. The people who currently park there are not using the park. They are visiting the nature preserve. (Park users live in the neighborhood and generally walk to the park.) This would likely be the least expensive solution. One option within this alternative may be to eliminate the 10 recreational parking spaces on Crenshaw (or reduce the total number of spaces) and re-open them to public parking to partially offset the impact of eliminating the Park Place spaces. Rarely is more than one of the reserved spaces on Crenshaw actually filled by RPV residents who have the recreational permits. • Place an electronic gate (arm) across Park Place that would only allow cars to enter the street when there are available parking places, and provide the Park Place residents with an access card or key code to enter and leave at any time; restrict entry during hours the park is closed -except for residents and their guests. • Vacate a portion of the full length of Park Place sufficient to provide a shared driveway for Park Place residents to enter and exit from their homes; use the remaining right-of-way for ingress and egress from the existing parking places; and create a foliage and/or fence barrier between the street and driveway. The following options were also considered by the participating residents and deemed to be much less desirable than the options listed above: 2 11/15/16 • Vacate all of the Park Place right-of-way to allow the residents to place a gate across the entrance at Crenshaw and restrict access to residents and their guests; create a new road inside the park (parallel to Park Place) that would be used for visitors to reach the parking area. Residents consider this option significantly inferior to the previously-mentioned options, as it would significantly reduce the park green space -especially in the area of the park that is most used by the nearby residents. • Place an electronic sign at the entrance to the park that indicates how many parking spaces are available or that the lot is full. Include the hours that the park itself is open. This option will undoubtedly require substantial enforcement to assure that people do not continue to drive into Park Place and wait for a parking place. While the residents greatly appreciate the council's efforts to resolve the parking issues sooner rather than later, they feel that installing such a sign is not likely to be effective in solving the traffic congestion problem, as visitors will continue to drive into Park Place and wait for an available parking space. In addition, an electronic sign would degrade the aesthetics of the area and detract from the rural ambience of the area. Another concern is that vehicles will likely stop or slow down to read the sign and decide how to proceed -creating traffic congestion on Crenshaw Blvd. In addition, the sign design as currently proposed is quite large and obtrusive, and its size and location may create a safety hazard by preventing drivers exiting from Park Place from seeing vehicles exiting the Crenshaw Extension. Residents would prefer to postpone implementation of this option until a strategy to obtain approval of one of the more substantial alternatives can be developed. • One other option that was discussed but discarded was moving the parking area from the current location to an area behind the line of trees that are adjacent to Crenshaw Blvd. and the Crenshaw Extension. Most residents felt that it would not be desirable because it would, in essence, move the problem area from one group of residents to another group of residents. In addition, it would reduce the park green space, result in cutting down at least some of the trees, significantly detract from the overall ambience of the area, and eliminate an area of the park that is currently the most heavily-used portion. It would also likely cause traffic to back up on the Crenshaw Extension (assuming entrance from that street). We respectfully request that the City make the resolution of the POU non-conformances at Upper Pt. Vicente a top priority and work diligently with the National Park Service to 3 11/15/16 correct them so that one of the preferred actions to improve the conditions at Del Cerro Park listed above can be considered and implemented as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. We greatly appreciate your concern for our neighborhood's well being. Respectfully submitted, Tom Olson -Park Place resident Da Beini -Park Place resident Barry and Hilda Rodgveller -Burrell Lane residents Denise and Jack Girardi -Burrell Lane residents Romas and Angela Jarasunas -Burrell Lane residents Rick Daniels -Del Cerro resident Kathy and Al Edgerton -Del Cerro residents 4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello All, pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com> Friday, November 11, 2016 3:54 PM Nicole Jules Al and Kathy Edgerton; Rick Daniels; Bridget Stillo; carolynmoebias@gmail.com; Denise Girardi; Hilda Rodgveller; Barry Rodgveller; Douglas Butler; Da Beini; jarasunas@cox.net; Don Douthwright; Beth Ceverha Re: Park Place Follow-up We on Park Place would appreciate hearing back from anyone that believes that an electronic sign 'saying lot full' will actually stop people from driving and/or parking at the red curbs 'waiting for a parking stall' on Park Place. If you believe so, please let us know on Park Place why you believe so and to what degree you believe the sign will have any effect. If no substantive argument for the sign, that speaks well to its limitations. As concisely described by Councilman Duhovic who was very opposed to the sign, he stated that he fully believed a sign would not affect the adverse traffic flow at all. Councilman Duhovic's comments were supported by Councilman Campbell as well. Please help us, Nicole, and address this question for we Park Place residents. Additionally, Nicole, as the parking stalls are not fully in the park and not fully in the street, what is it that the City will do to make these parking stalls confirm to code? How will the stalls be made fully in the park and/or fully in the street as was strongly suggested by bumper to bumper parking rather than existing side-by-side parking Further, Nicole, the Council asked the City Attorney to look into the # of stalls and whether they are 'required' or not. This was asked as the POU does not state the number of spaces required at all. More, the Council asked the City Attorney to look into then not having stalls and/or limiting w Permit Only. Please provide written statements from the City Attorney as to what the City Attorney is doing now and when we can expect a reply from him. Last, Nicole, we have yet to hear from the City Attorney regarding the existing parking stalls that have been 'constructed' without any permit or knowledge of the Department of Interior. As you know the stalls are not described in the POU Deed and not in the Road Deed for Park Place. Given this situation, what is the City Attorney's written position for stalls that have not been formally and properly 'constructed' per any known Deed and/or any known City Council action and Public Notification. And, too, what is the City Attorney's written position to 'rectify' Park parking per the statements in the POU on p. 18 regarding the road access to the 'parking lot' -both road and lot as shown in the picture that appears at the old (upper I now Del CetTo) Nike Site? Thank you, Thomas (Tom) Olson 1 Lf. From: Sent: To: Subject: Nicole, Bridget Stillo <bnstillo@cox.net> Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:39 PM Nicole Jules Re: Park Place Follow-up/The way I see it I really don't know if the sign will work or not. I do know that most of the day the lot is full, so when it is full the sign should say, "LOT FULL/DO NOT ENTER." I don't understand why we can't put a small gate there. The type of gate that Rolling Hills has doesn't look very expensive( see picture below), it seems like the city knows what is best for this park, not the POU or the Department of Interior. Palos Verdes Estates seems to be ignoring what the Coastal Commission is telling them to do in Lunada Bay(put up welcoming signs and benches; etc). I'm worried that the city will end up removing these spaces. Removing these spaces is not just removing 17 spaces, it is removing 17 spaces times the number of hours per day that the park is open. In the summer probably up to 204 cars(l 7 spaces x 12 daytime hours) park there every day. Where are those 204 cars going to go? They will be pushed down to the Island View area, just like when the city removed all the other parking spaces near Del Cerro Park. When we purchased our home in Island View, the section of Crenshaw past Crest was a pastoral, quiet street with trees, grass and an ocean view at the end of the street. Now on the weekends and every holiday it looks like a grocery store parking lot. If the city removes those 17 spaces the section of Crenshaw near Island View, Valley View and SJF will look like a grocery store parking lot 7 days a week. On Thursday I attended a meeting, a woman new to the group, introduced herself as a local realtor. Somehow the group got on the subject of the number of people coming to the Palos Verdes area to hike. The realtor said, "They(the hikers) have ruined those neighborhoods down Crenshaw." My heart sank when she said that, just the fact that a local realtor thinks that, is not good for our neighborhoods. On another matter, that of non use of the 10 parking spaces that have been designated for RPV park permit holders. Yesterday was Veterans Day, a holiday for many. At 1 O:OOam every parking space available to hikers was taken, except for 9 of the 10 spaces that are reserved for RPV permit holders, they were empty. Some of those spaces need to be given back to the public. Can you ask whoever it is, Lomita police or park district personnel, tasked with coming down to this area to report back to you on a daily basis the number of spaces they see being used as they pass by? They should also notice as they go past if each car parked there has a proper sticker, also I sometimes see people park there, get out of their cars to take an ocean view picture and then quickly get back in their cars. Cars without a sticker or parked there to take a picture shouldn't be counted. I think you will quickly come to the same conclusion that I have come to, that most of those spaces are not being used and should be given back to the public. You have a hard job Nicole! Best, Bridget Stillo 1 < > aJ 0. ill rolltng IMl'ls gates Rolh11 f 1 H iii& East11 e ld G.ate On Nov 11 , 2016, at 3:11 PM , Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov> wrote : Greetings Park Place Focus Group, At the last City Council meeting City Council directed staff to look into the cost and procurement schedule for a digital space inventory sign . Below is a rendering of what such a sign could look like. Your feedback is appreciated . <image003.png> Nicole Department of Public Works 310-544-5275 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Nicole, Barry Rodgveller <rodgfamily@gmail.com> Monday, November 14, 2016 3:03 PM Al and Kathy Edgerton; Denise Girardi; Nicole Jules; pvpprof Park place hilda and I have been out of the country for the last 6 weeks and are somewhat out of the loop. Kathy and al recently sent us an e-mail that stated that the RPV city council has approved an electronic sign for the entrance to park place. We don't feel the city council has heard us. The traffic on park place creates congestion, inconvenience to the homeowners and is a danger to the residents on park place and our entire neighborhood. An electronic sign ,in addition to being unsightly and inappropriate for a surburan neighborhood, doesn't solve our issues. I don't feel an electronic sign is going to significantly impact our daytime and nighttime problems. I would hope that the city council would reconsider its decision and look for a more holistic solution that would make our neighborhood safer and allow access to our lovely Del cerros park and to the conservationcy trails. Kathy and al will be forwarding a more detailed letter addressed to the city council that outlines our concerns and the solutions we discussed at the community meetings that you were so kind to organize. Barry and Hilda Rodgveller 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Barry Rodgveller <rodgfamily@gmail.com> Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:29 AM Denise Girardi; Nicole Jules; pvpprof Re: Park Place Follow-up Nicole, I agree with Tom's position. I think we need to get more input on our legal standing on the parking stalls as to whether the city can redesign them so they are on city property. Then we might have more latitude. I feel that the electronic sign will have a minimal impact on our issues. How is the city going to deal with what happens in the park at night? Barry Rodgveller On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:54 PM pvpprof <pvpprof(W,gmail.com> wrote: Hello All, We on Park Place would appreciate hearing back from anyone that believes that an electronic sign 'saying lot full' will actually stop people from driving and/or parking at the red curbs 'waiting for a parking stall' on Park Place. If you believe so, please let us know on Park Place why you believe so and to what degree you believe the sign will have any effect. If no substantive argument for the sign, that speaks well to its limitations. As concisely described by Councilman Duhovic who was very opposed to the sign, he stated that he fully believed a sign would not affect the adverse traffic flow at all. Councilman Duhovic's comments were supported by Councilman Campbell as well. Please help us, Nicole, and address this question for we Park Place residents. Additionally, Nicole, as the parking stalls are not fully in the park and not fully in the street, what is it that the City will do to make these parking stalls confirm to code? How will the stalls be made fully in the park and/or fully in the street as was strongly suggested by bumper to bumper parking rather than existing side-by-side parking Further, Nicole, the Council asked the City Attorney to look into the# of stalls and whether they are 'required' or not. This was asked as the POU does not state the number of spaces required at all. More, the Council asked the City Attorney to look into then not having stalls and/or limiting w Permit Only. Please provide written statements from the City Attorney as to what the City Attorney is doing now and when we can expect a reply from him. Last, Nicole, we have yet to hear from the City Attorney regarding the existing parking stalls that have been 'constructed' without any permit or knowledge of the Department of Interior. As you know the stalls are not described in the POU Deed and not in the Road Deed for Park Place. Given this situation, what is the City Attorney's written position for stalls that have not been formally and properly 'constructed' per any known Deed and/or any known City Council action and Public Notification. And, too, what is the City Attorney's written position to 'rectify' Park parking per the statements in the POU on p. 18 regarding the road access to the 'parking lot' -both road and lot as shown in the picture that appears at the old (upper I now Del Cerro) Nike Site? Thank you, Thomas (Tom) Olson 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Nicole, Thanks again for your support. Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net> Monday, November 14, 2016 6:57 PM Nicole Jules Del Cerro Park Issues We heard that this will be on Tuesday night's agenda. So Angela and I just wanted to re-iterate our main concern: we oppose ANY modifications to the existing green space in the park, including creating an additional right of way to access the existing parking area or creating a new parking area in the park. Otherwise, we will remain flexible and supportive of other reasonable options that are proposed by the community. Good luck, Romas and Angela Jarasunas 3 Burrell Lane Sent from my iPhone 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ACTING CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, November 15, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. 1 2 3 5 6 Description of Material Protest Letters from: Darlene Bird; Janet Yamamoto; Catherine Mclaren; Warren Hwang; Don Johnson; David Miller; Emails from: Sunshine; Ken Delong (Also provided comments for Items 2, 3, 6); William Patton (Also provided comments for Items 2, 3, 6); John Jensen (Also provided comments for Items 2, 5) Emails from: Eva Cicoria; Ken Delong (See Item 1 ); William Patton (See Item 1 ); John Jensen (See Item 1 ); Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Sunshine (Also provided comments for Item 6) Emails from: Ken Delong (See Item 1 ); William Patton (See Item 1) Email from John Jensen (See Item 1) Emails from: Ken Delong (See Item 1); William Patton (See Item 1); Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Sunshine (See Item 2) Respectfully submitted, Ter ·S'a Takaoka W:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2016 Cover Sheets\20161115 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attention: City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos verdes, CA 90275 To Whom it may concern: As a homeowner I say NO to the proposed rate increase for EDCO recycling/trash services. My address 2031 Delasonde Dr. RECEIVED RPV, CA 90275 ClTY OF RANCHO P!\LOS VE.ROES NOV 0 9 '.2016 2031 Delasonde Dr. RPV, CA 90275 /. Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Attn: City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 November 7, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED crrv OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOV 1. o 2016 I am a resident of West Portuguese Bend Community Association and am writing in protest of the fee increase by EDCO. I have lived here for 25 years. The community started out with a small family owned waste management company. There was twice a week pick up and the area was considered rural at the time. Trash pick-up was more than the usual RPV resident, but we had great service and it was 2 times a week. Then IVY sold to Universal Waste Management. Trash pick then became once a week, but the price was not reduced. A larger company, service is half of what it was and still the same price with the usual yearly price increases. Meanwhile, the area has grown significantly in population that you could not call it rural any more. PV Drive South is a major highway now versus the few cars that used to travel this route. Now,, we have EDCO and still the same price. Why are we paying more than any of the other communities of RPV. Because we have backyard pick up? Most of us use the backyard pick up because it is buiJt into our negotiated service. We want to see a lower price in our trash bill. We are not rural. We can put our trash barrels on the street for pick up to receive the lower rate. We should be treated equally to similar neighborhoods in RPV. I see many EDCO trucks driving through our streets on trash day. These are not the trucks that pick up our trash, but appears to be supervisors driving around giving orders. There has been more than one of these at times. So I do not feel that we need a price increase. EDCO needs to better manage their staff. Last year one of the neighbors was working with Councilman Campbell on this issue. She felt disillusioned as questions were not answered and she was ignored. I have attached a petition from last year that was gathered and this year. I will admit that not a lot of effort was put into gathering signatures. Keep in mind that this is more difficult to do these days, with more double working households, busy schedules and unwillingness of many to answer their doors. l suggest the council. not increase the fees for our area. and look at other waste management companies for bids when the contract with EDCO expires. /. West Portuguese Bend Community Associatio Petition AGAINST EDCO Increase to Collection Fees ! Propose that our City Council reduce our Fees and/or Check for more competitive rates from other sources Address 1 &(;)l(,,, 2 s- 3 '".'.::L. -_ ~/.;;r;;;:z:=.c · .. l :45.. -·0 p / ;..... v :_L..; 4 ! (;! 5 r? VI 6 ;1 L.d 7 fl/l t ~ ~ \,/ 8 rJ? ,(; i ~ !JV,.._ A ~l>· !/ /iJ_':( :· ,. ;t.J..-OJ</1J(/1v'i"'W ~-~. / \.-) !),._'/ ( c/~~ ~\._/; >--' \ ,/ v Pf ! \ t/[ 9 '(!) y 10 t1 "\ J-; J.-· / ,'/ '} i,. -' •-?' f \ G"(t<.. -(..'1 \LO\ Print Name Signature _!(yll/[) l!Jt;--/o s;;r:;.c-f~s ,,- <;:_ h c /{--- ,.. .~ \... r{7 . L-t. tw\ .. , i?(,cL; -\t.,.. l-ec. .i Date f ' IOjrj!c; , ' /: }h / {/ _ _.,.~/:,/(/ I /, /G (T lib l-----'----7---"---.'--'="'-V I ,6 I, r J f<.?";' ! (\ I If /{-( ,r, \"-1/ ---·y. ~ West Portuguese Bend Community Association Petition AGAINST EDCO Increase to Collection Fees Propose that our City Council reduce our Fees and/or Check for more competitive rates from other sources Address 11 12 13 0/l J..:;\ 14 /7 ' C A < !< ;;-1\,/"// /J/ 1., c, 1 I ~ c., t , . '~( 15 _,,..., _,..-, , ,; f \ => < ~<\;.:.Q_, 4;1 16 ./") /X 0 17 ;; /'";· / . f/ I I /J ;J z /:? c/ce. -f-1::::::t1 , .2, _.,, I // ,~-·7"···· . , ..__.;~:.-i /L .. t,.,L<:::,;fv' I 1'-"C 18 : ("\ Cr _, t • v l: v \1 f..i/.Vv\ 19 Print Name 20 4 7J l ( , () },,, r. ' --y i f\.~v,.,_ '-11 V/...P , ~" 21 2-( &11re1&-~/; 22 -, -· .J~ Signature J Date /'O ~,7~_/" I l> c~r-I~ l' //l\_q_-.7,, / , (/ I / )"' ;o-7-;,£ i --' ( -i ' 1°1 (,i / lb j !' West Portuguese Bend Community Association Petition AGAINST EDCO Increase to Collection Fees Propose that our City Council reduce our Fees and/or Check for more competitive rates from other sources Address Print Name ........ 59 f 1_ f!r_cKt C ff fl) J1G<;<AlJ0 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 Date OCT-( (-/6 Petition to Have EDCO Give Abalone Cove (West Portuguese Bend Community Association) a Choice in Trash Service Rettt:I® summary lll)d. ., EDCO currently only offers our neighborhood "Manual Service" while most of RPV has the choice of "Regular Service" with ))~~rcvo~ : .. · .. ·-1.Y add·on options as desired. The city says we have to get a petition signed to change this and give us less expensive options. A~:t@t~~iff9r \ .. · · · We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to give us choices In trash service from EDCO "" --· 'I " . -~ -~ ~ ... ~. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attn: City clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Sir or Ms: 30451 Ganado Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 November 13, 2016 RE: Proposed lncrecisec; in Residential Waste Hauling Rates by EDCO We recently received your notice of a hearing about the proposed five year fee increases for waste collection services in Rancho Palos Verdes. We protest the proposed 5-year future automatic rate adjustment for July 1, 2U17, 2018, 2019, 2020 without knowing the future proposed rate and without any public review of the yet to be determined amounts. This gives EDCO carte blanch. We feel that public review should be required for any increase and the proposed amount needs to be specifie0. RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOV 14 2016 Address: 30451 Ganado Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Name of ratepayer: Warren Hwang, Q,vner / fovv~ ;i.?lc.3 / W7~ ~ f(~~J/~ er;?~;< ;s- RECEIVED cnv OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOV 14 2016 /. David G. Miller 5 902 Flambeau Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RECEIVED November 11, 2016 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES City of Rancho Palos Verdes Atth: City Clerk 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Protest of Proposed EDCO Rate Increases Dear City Clerk: fNOV 1 4 2016 I protest the proposed fee adjustment formula for EDC0.1 The property subject to the fee increase is located at 5902 Flambeau Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. I sign this protest as owner of the Flambeau Road property. The reasons for my protest may be summarized as follows: 1. An automatic.formula does not always accurately reflect actual increases applicable to waste disposal costs or its customers' ability to pay; for example, an increase in the cost of food or housing reflected in the CPI may not warrant a corresponding increase in waste hauling fees. Automatic formulaic adjustments do not always reflect performance, customer satisfaction or take into account increases affecting consumers' budgets and ability to pay. The potential for an automatic 8% increase should start the City looking for alternate trash disposal services. Few, if any of us, receive automatic regular and formulaic increases in our income; see for example, recent experiences with the Social Security so-called cost of living adjustments. Our budgets simply are not geared to absorb annual automatic increases in costs. I note that the City's MOU with RPVEA contains an automatic adjustment in the extremely narrow and 1 I am not protesting the proposed January 2017 increase; nor should this protest be interpreted as a commentary on EDCO's quality of service. I manageable range of 1-2%. A far cry from the 4-8% automatic adjustment you would impose upon the residents you serve. 2. Under the formula the first adjustment is effective July 1, 2017 even though an adjustment is also scheduled for January 1, 2017. At a minimum, if the formula is approved the first automatic adjustment should not go into effect until either January 1, 2018 or, preferably, July 1, 2018. Thank you for your consideration. From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Teri, SunshineRPV@aol.com Sunday, November 13, 2016 4:46 PM Teresa Takaoka EDCO price increase I know this protest won't count but I did want to get on the record that EDCO's quality of service is deteriorating. SUNSHINE 6 Limetree Ln 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Item 1-EDCO Rates. Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net> Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:09 PM cc Comments concerning the Council Agenda for November 15, 2016 My property tax ID for 6940 Maycroft Dr is 7584 003 015. I have no issues concerning approving a 1.95% rate increase for the current period. Beyond the current 1.95% increase I object to the proposed 4% & 8% caps on future proposed increases. More clearly defined limits for future EDCO increasing service costs must be developed. Reasons for my objections are that legal doublespeak makes this proposal virtually impossible to follow. There is no logic as to why this is a Prop 218 controlled matter other than our City Attorney declares this is so. It is absurd to consider this matter as a "218" controlled matter when it is merely a contract for services provided to the city for trash hauling. There must be other alternatives. Item 2 -Bubbles Is not lower PVIC sacred land? We cannot place ballfields there nor allow for other public uses but we can place "Bubbles" there. What nonsense. Let's move on to real issues. #3 -Hesse Park Grass. According to City Manager Willmore, the reason for turning off the water on the Hesse Park turf was the drought and Jerry Brown dictates. While the Hesse Park fields became unsafe to use, the RHE soccer fields at Highridge Park had no such issues. It is now going to cost RPV taxpayer some $300 KI $400 K, possibly more to restore the fields at Hesse Park. Is anyone tracking City Manager Wilmore's decisions? #6 -Civic Center Master Plan The Council was remiss in providing City Manager Willmore $250,000 to develop a Master Plan for Upper Point Vicente I Community Center development. Current proposal is to gather public opinion as to whether or not the taxpayers desire a swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis courts, volleyball courts, basketball courts etc. at upper Point Vicente. These ideas are not new and have been discussed previously over the past 12 I 15 years or so. Each time there has been little public interest. What has been of community interest has been participation with PVPUSD in enhancing school properties for public joint participation. For example, rather than building a new swimming pool at the proposed Community Center, RPV should financially support rebuilding the PVPUSD pool at Miraleste Middle School. An enhanced swimming pool at Miraleste would be an asset to RPV residents on the east side. Obviously, RPV needs a Council majority that can develop an ongoing plan as the staff seems to lack any common sense or judgment. Of course not everyone recognizes that the scheme behind this skullduggery is City Manager Willmore's determination that the taxpayers build staff a new City Hall. Before the Council approves any sort of public indoctrination campaign, staff should be directed to limit all analyses to lands comprising the Upper Point Vicente area as to allowed use of each deeded parcel and whether or not there are any toxic materials remaining in the soil from the former Nike base. Ken Delong 6940 Maycroft Dr. 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: William Patton <billpatton21@icloud.com> Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:57 PM Ken Delong cc Re: Comments concerning the Council Agenda for November 15, 2016 Well said and we support in every.instance! Patton's Sent from my iPhone On Nov 12, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net> wrote: Item 1 -EDCO Rates. My property tax ID for 6940 Maycroft Dr is 7584 003 015. I have no issues concerning approving a 1.95% rate increase for the current period. Beyond the current 1.95% increase I object to the proposed 4% & 8% caps on future proposed increases. More clearly defined limits for future EDCO increasing service costs must be developed. Reasons for my objections are that legal doublespeak makes this proposal virtually impossible to follow. There is no logic as to why this is a Prop 218 controlled matter other than our City Attorney declares this is so. It is absurd to consider this matter as a "218" controlled matter when it is merely a contract for services provided to the city for trash hauling. There must be other alternatives. Item 2 -Bubbles Is not lower PVIC sacred land? We cannot place ballfields there nor allow for other public uses but we can place "Bubbles" there. What nonsense. Let's move on to real issues. #3 -Hesse Park Grass. According to City Manager Willmore, the reason for turning off the water on the Hesse Park turf was the drought and Jerry Brown dictates. While the Hesse Park fields became unsafe to use, the RHE soccer fields at Highridge Park had no such issues. It is now going to cost RPV taxpayer some $300 K / $400 K, possibly more to restore the fields at Hesse Park. Is anyone tracking City Manager Wilmore's decisions? #6 -Civic Center Master Plan The Council was remiss in providing City Manager Willmore $250,000 to develop a Master Plan for Upper Point Vicente I Community Center development. Current proposal is to gather public opinion as to whether or not the taxpayers desire a swimming pool, gymnasium, tennis courts, volleyball courts, basketball courts etc. at upper Point Vicente. These ideas are not new and have been discussed previously over the past 12 / 15 years or so. Each time there has been little public interest. What has been of community interest has been participation with PVPUSD in enhancing school properties for public joint participation. For example, rather than building a new swimming pool at the proposed Community Center, RPV should financially support rebuilding the PVPUSD pool at Miraleste Middle School. An enhanced swimming pool at Miraleste would be an asset to RPV residents on the east side. Obviously, RPV needs a Council majority that can develop an ongoing plan as the staff seems to lack any common sense or judgment. Of course not everyone recognizes that the scheme behind this skullduggery is City Manager Willmore's determination that the taxpayers build staff a new City Hall. Before the Council approves any sort of public indoctrination campaign, staff should be directed to limit all analyses to lands comprising the Upper Point Vicente area as to allowed use of each deeded parcel and whether or not there are any toxic materials remaining in the soil from the former Nike base. Ken Delong 1 6940 Maycroft Dr. 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: John R. (Rod) Jensen <jrodjensen@me.com> Monday, November 14, 2016 12:24 PM CityClerk Speaking at city meeting I would like to speak on item #2, why not, #5, it's not the left turn it's people going 65 coming around that turn from Golden Cove! and the trash increases. John R Jensen 21 Barkentine Rd RPV 90275 Sent from my iPad 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: cicoriae@aol.com Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:22 PM cc Agenda Item 2 for Nov 15 City Council Mtg. Mayor Dyda, Mayor Pro Tern Campbell, and Councilmembers Brooks, Duhovic, and Misetich, I'm writing to affirm the Staff Report description of the field assessment conducted by the Lower Pt Vicente Park Focus Group regarding the possible installation of the Bubbles statue at the Park. The Focus Group considered multiple locations for the statue, using story poles to get a sense of the impact of the statue at various locations. The Focus Group determined that the Park was not the right place for the Bubbles statue. The statue--35' tall with the requisite base--is out of scale with existing park structures and improvements. Moreover, it would impact views across the Park to the ocean. A letter attached to the Staff Report mentions that it is a good idea to install this statue at the Park because it will help people find the Interpretive Center. I wasn't aware that is an issue in our town. I believe the statue would attract visitors, if that is the desire of the community, but perhaps it should be installed somewhere else where an increase in crowds is more desirable, such as at a retail location, where the statue is a better fit aesthetically, and where the view would not be adversely impacted. Thank you for your consideration, Eva Cicoria 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks for your email. Sunshine. Doug Willmore Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:31 PM SunshineRPV@aol.com; CC Cory Linder; Matt Waters RE: 11/15/2016 City Council Agenda Items 2 and 6. Upper Point Vicente Park survey, I have responded to your questions or statements in your email below: From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 4:12 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: 11/15/2016 City Council Agenda Items 2 and 6. Upper Point Vicente Park survey, MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council , RPV City Manager and interested parties RE: 11/15/2016 City Council Agenda Items 2 and 6. Upper Point Vicente Park survey , Bubbles What a load of crap . The City ofRPV paid $125 ,000.00 for consultants to do a telephone survey, several outreach workshops and draft an update of the City 's Parks Master Plan. The proposed survey does not include many of the staff and stakeholders' requests. The Parks Master Plan was approved by the City Council after this survey , so we included items from the Parks Master Plan. The draft Strategic Plan included a detailed Site Plan for Upper Point Vicente Park which accommodated all of the requests including a relocated maintenance yard and a home for "Bubbles". It even provided for covered parking since the uphill neighbors requested a minimum oflighted parking lots. It didn 't include possible Public Safety needs (Fire , Police, and EOC). Before going to the public with a fuzzy list of facilities , Staff really should figure out how big they have in mind. This isn't about staff -it 's about the Council and the public. That is the point of the survey. How many parking spaces for each activity is spelled out in the Development Code. The 20 05 Consultant came up with needing a total of 750. Given the items on the survey, it appears that Staff has fallen out of touch with reality. Parking requirements are an important part of defining the proposed facility. We cannot figure out parking requirements until we know the uses. Nevertheless , having overseen the planning, development, and construction of millions of square feet of buildings -public and private -not having enough space for parking will not likely be an issue in my opinion. We have known for decades that the City Hall building is a study in deferred maintenance. Soi ls testing has been done. A study of the utiliti es supply infrastructure has been done. If the building is sti ll in such sorry shape, whose fault is that? Is it a crafted plan to let City Hall go the same way as Ladera Linda and PV Drive South? I have not seen or heard of any plan to let the building fall into bad shape . It's not about deferred maintenance. The basic shell and structure of the building needs millions of dollars of work. Staff needs to submit the 2005 Strategic Plan to the National Parks Service in order to start the discussion about modifying the current Agreement. RPV has an overabundance of open space and very limited active recreation facilities. We don't need another survey to make that perfectly clear. We have been talking to the NPS about the current agreement. The survey does not impact those discussions. 1