Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20170919 Late Correspondence
From: Emily Colborn To: Nathan Zweizia Subject: FW: Sept. 19, Agenda Item 2, Cal Water Date: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 9:47:20 AM Nathan, I don't think this made the late correspondence packet for the Sept 19 CC meeting. Can you please add the email below and the picture attached? Thank you! Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Lowell R. Wedemeyer [mailto:lowell@transtalk.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 5:40 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Sept. 19, Agenda Item 2, Cal Water Honorable Mayor and Council: I am submitting this comment as an individual citizen and Cal Water customer. I am appending a photo taken last week depicting an issue of soil failure beneath the Cal Water supply main along Burma Road Trail, at Paintbrush Canyon, Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve. This is a reliability issue and suggests a vulnerability of the water supply to earthquake as well as landslide. I request that Cal Water be asked to address how they are maintaining this supply line through the landslide vicinity, and what plans they have to reduce the vulnerability of this supply line to soil failure and earthquake. Lowell R. Wedemeyer From: Emily Colborn To: Nathan Zweizia Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item No. 3 - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 9:02:27 PM Late correspondence. I don't think it made the packet Emily Colborn Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru&gmail.com> Date: September 19, 2017 at 4:42:58 PM PDT To: cc Mvca.gov Subject: Agenda Item No. 3 - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Honorable Mayor and City Council - Unfortunately, I am not able to attend tonight's City Council meeting to speak on Agenda Item No. 3. In the absence of oral comments, I hope that you will consider my written ones on this subject. As I stated at the meeting held on August 1, 2017, I don't live in one of the neighborhoods surrounding Ladera Linda Park. However, as a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am quite concerned that there is movement afoot to relentlessly choke the life out of the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. When I was studying to become an urban planner, one of the books on the required reading list was The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. Even though this book was first published in 1961 and was written primarily about Ms. Jacobs' experiences living in New York City, one concept that endures and applies to every city is the importance of "Eyes On The Street." In a nutshell, it's the idea that people who can see AND can make meaningful use public areas (streets, parks, etc.) develop a sense of pride and ownership of these spaces and treat them as an extension of their own homes. They make these spaces safe, vital and vibrant by u3ing them, connecting with their neighbors and, in turn, watching out for the other people who use them as well. Ladera Linda Park is not currently one of these spaces. It used to be, but its infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate to the point that it's of little use to anyone now. And a neglected space with no people in it only attracts mischief, blight and decay. Such a space is no credit to the community and certainly doesn't serve its residents. This park needs good design, solid infrastructure and appropriate amenities to make it an inviting and attractive place to go. It needs to be full of opportunities for recreation and social interactions for all age groups living in the surrounding neighborhoods. It shouldn't be whittled down to nothing so that no one will want to use it. How is that an improvement over what it there now? It would be a better use of the public funds to tear down the buildings, plow under the landscaping and clap a lock on a fence around the entire property. In closing, I urge the City Council to approve staff s recommendation and proceed with refining the Master Plan, but with the express purpose of creating a functional neighborhood park that can be fully enjoyed by the people who are lucky enough to live near it. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Carolynn Petru Rancho Palos Verdes AM RANCHO PALOS TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 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 3 Letter from Herb Stark; Emails from: Mickey Rodich; Jim Hevener 4 Email from Cindy Martin ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, September 18, 2017**. WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170919 additions revisions to agenda.doc Ladera Linda Park Update and New Facility As a result of the August 1 City Council meeting staff was directed to work with the local residents to address several issues identified at the meeting, by the homeowners, before seeking City Council approval to proceed with the Construction Drawings RFP. The following are the issues and some suggested solutions. Security and Crime 1. Park fencing and gates so that it cannot be used when the park is closed 2. Facility security shutters 3. ALPR security cameras at Forrestal and Pirate or at Forrestal and PV Drive South Parking 1. Limit parking on Forrestal below the Forrestal gate 2. Reduce overall parking to limit access to the trails. 3. Eliminate the ADA access from off of Forrestal by providing an ADA ramp, on the right side, from the present entrance to the access point at the bottom of the upper parking lot. Park Noise 1. Move the basketball courts and the children's play area to the area next to the tennis courts on the inside and away from the cliff edge. 2. Limit operating hours 3. Limit rental activities Building 1. Reduce the size of the building by eliminating the low usage Discovery Room but retain the storage and work area so that the docents can store portable carts containing the area artifacts and other items. When they hold a field trip they can then use one of the meeting rooms for their introductions. A display case can also be provided to display items at the entrance to the building. 2. Square the building outline Traffic 1. Require any event operator including AYSO to provide traffic control at the intersection of PV Drive South and Forrestal during the event. Landscaping 1. Objection to the removal of the two old growth trees 2. Objection to the view foliage removal mail Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodichc@gmail.com> Fwd: Parks & Rec. meeting on Ladera Linda: 8/24/17 1 message Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM To: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>, Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>, Tom Smith <thomas.smith2@gmail.com> I could not attend the CC meeting on 08/01/17 nor the subsequent meeting you had with Gene Dewey and Herb Stark because I was out of town. I remember you telling us at our last public meeting that you would have another public meeting before you brought it to the CC. What happened?? Talking Points: 1)1 attended the interview meetings you had with the 2 architectural firms. The original proposal from Richard Fisher & Assoc. was for $105,000 and was to include 3 Design Options, Exterior Elevated Drawings and Master Plan -level Estimate 2) They were to "prepare a refined Floor Plan exhibit and develop Conceptual Exterior Elevation Drawings to communicate the preliminary design concept for the Community Building". Did they present these Drawings?? 3) They were to also "Prepare a Master Plan -level Estimate of Probable Construction Costs for the overall park improvements, etc". There are rumored numbers of more than $7,000,000 for Ladera Linda Park, that is way too much money to spend on this Project. 4)1 have not seen a copy of the contract that was given to Richard Fisher & Assoc. to compare it with the Proposal. 5) Security and Safety was a huge concern based on the public response at the CC meeting of Aug. 1st.. We now have had a significant number of robberies in our area and this has changed many of our feelings. Since just recently a stolen car was recovered in Ladera Linda Park, we feel that an ALPR camera is justified for Forrestal Drive. We cannot wait 3 years for the Park building to be built, we need it now. Forrestal is a perfect location because it controls our neighborhood, the Park, the Preserve and the "SO fields and has only one entrance and exit. 6) After looking at your Weekly Reports I find that the present usage of Ladera Linda is minimal. There are on the average 5 room uses per week. Based on these statistics we have too many rooms in our Plan, hence too big of a square footage, hence too many parking places required and hence too expensive of a building cost. 7) Parking is now becoming a big issue with our neighborhood. The greater number of parking spaces, the greater potential for more outside people in our neighborhood. The greater number of outside people in our neighborhood the greater potential for crime in our area. A compromise on parking would be to add maybe 12 parking places beyond the gate with another gate above those parking places and use them as part of the Project required parking places. Then red line the curbs next to the most affected homes up and down Forrestal just beyond a fire hydrant. By the same token, by doing the above, we don't want to create another Del Cerro Park here at Ladera Linda. 8) Since the size of the building pre determines the amount of parking provided, we feel strongly that the building size should change and be greatly reduced. As suggested by Herb Stark, at least a 1,000 sq ft reduction can be achieved by eliminating the Discovery Room and adding a Discovery display case in the lobby. By using wheeled carts stored in a small cart storage room, items can be brought to a meeting room for the Docents to make their presentations just as it is now done at PVIC. Another approx.1,000 sq ft can be saved by removing an unnecessary classroom #2 along with other savings. 9) Remove new ADA entry gate to the Park at Forrestal/Pirate intersection and place it alongside the entrance road to the park. 10) Remove the half basketball court to help reduce costs and parking requirements. These courts are primarily used on week ends. Rarely do I see more than 6 people playing at any one time and I can't remember when 1 last saw 10 people using a full court to play a basketball game. 11) WE WANT A TRUE NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITY. We do not want a hangout as does exist at Founders Park where there is now a lot of noise and partying after dark. Adding more outdoor tables and amenities will only transfer that activity to Ladera Linda. 12) We also feel that there should be limitations to the rental of the Park's meeting rooms such as types of use based on noise generation as well as nighttime hours. 13) We feel that part of this Project should include measures to consider traffic at PVDS exiting Forrestal and turning East on PVDS toward San Pedro. Something has to be done to correct the congestion especially after soccer games. 14) Costs are way too high for this project. Many residents would rather leave what we have to avoid the negatives that a new building brings. 15)1 am not in favor of P3 funding. Look it up on Wikipedia, it tells of some of the pitfalls. A 20% savings is far fetched. We will also be paying 16% interest. It's like having a credit card. You keep using it and before you know it you cannot keep up with the payments. Think about Civic Center Plan coming up with the same P3 funding. This will show that the City has a lot of cash so you can keep spending.What would happen if Terranea were to disappear while we have this debt for 20 or 30 years?? .Based on the above talking points, we have come to the conclusion that your present 9,000 sq ft building is way too large for the usage we have or intend to have. We presently have on average 5 room usages per week and there is no need for all of the rooms you propose. Our analysis shows that the total square footage can be reduced to 5,400 sq ft, by eliminating the Discovery Museum and Classroom #2 and tightening up the corridors and the Multi -Purpose room. The Docents can have a storage space and have their items in rolling carts and move them to a classroom for their educational programs as needed. We have not had a chance to poll our residents here in Ladera Linda because of you not holding a public meeting before you went to the City Council. However, the discussions we had with many of our residents were used to list the above talking points. Ladera Linda Park Facility Requirements i-11 7 BBslc Reculmments 1 1,440 � Required Total Meeting rooms 30 people 720 sq, ft. 2 1,440 Activity Room 100 people 2400 sq. ft. 1 2,400 Kitchenette 100 sq. ft. 1 Of 100 Office for two people 240 sq. ft. 2 480 Rest Rooms for 100 people 225 sq. ft. 2 450 .5— Support area add 20% of requirements 970 Total 5, 840 Additional Reauiremenjs Natural history room 720 sq. ft. Artifact storage 1440 sq. ft. Support area add 20% Grand Total (sq. ft) 1 720 1 1,440 430 Total 2,590 8,430 Parking for a 100 person conference room 50 spaces minimum COMMUNITY CENTER LADERA LINDA PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES CALIFORNIA 777 F FLOOR PLAN STUMP( APPROWATE WRTi SCALE: 1)8' = 9'-0' FEBRUARY 9d, 2037 FLOOR PLAN vl.,�- MDERA !ANDA rc%WNITY CENTER" FLOOR PLAN STUDY Matt Waters From: Jim Hevener <jhevener@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:09 PM To: Matt Waters Cc: Cory Linder; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; 'Ken Dyda'; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich Subject: Ladera Linda Master Plan - comments for 09-19-17 meeting Mr. Waters Please include this e-mail in the late correspondence for tonight's meeting. Sincerely, Jim Hevener (Resident Coolheights Drive and Member of the Board of the MHOA) City Staff and Members of the City Council This e-mail is on behalf of the Board of the Mediterranea Home Owners Association. I also write on behalf of many other residents who have young children in the area. These include parents with kids at Portuguese Bend Nursery School and Mira Catalina School, and parents in our local Cub Scouts Pack 955. All of these families clearly are stakeholders with an interest in the Ladera Linda Park. 1. THE CITY SHOULD PROCEED WITH HAVING RFA FURTHER REFINE PROPOSAL Al WITHOUT 2 MAJOR CHANGES Proposal Al represents a reasonable compromise between those in the community, especially those with young children, who want a Community Center and amenities, and those who want the City to do nothing. Please remember that many residents in the area supported redevelopment including a community pool and a gymnasium. The Compromise Plan eliminates those amenities and is not for a regional attraction. Those of us who live in the South East side of RPV deserve a park for kids to play and a Community Center where groups can get together. These types of community spaces are important to foster and develop a sense of community. We appreciate the concerns of Ladera Linda and Seaview residents over noise and traffic and are willing to compromise, and hope our neighbors will do the same. 1 &, These are the same compromises we make with respect to traffic on Ganado and Crest Roads, and noise and parking issues around the Mira Catalina School. We ask nothing more from the Ladera Linda residents and expect nothing less from the City. 3. THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS, INCLUDING THOSE FROM LADERA LINDA, SUPPORTED THE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL AT THE SPRING MEETING AND EXPECTED THE CITY TO PROCEED WITHOUT DELAY. In October 2016 Staff indicated the desire to have a plan go to Council in early spring of 2017, followed by final planning in the spring -summer, construction starting in the summer - fall of 2017 and completion in early 2018. This was a completely reasonable timetable. At the Spring meeting, there was a clear consensus to proceed. The recent letter from Mr. Charles Agnew of Ladera Linda is typical of comments at the April meeting. "The present activities at Ladera Linda bark should not be used as an indication of future activity. The park is extremely run down and has long lost its appeal. It is a ghost town. It is only a reminder of a past time when there were sports activities, square dancing, children's birthday parties, Christmas dances, Halloween fun houses, neighborhood block parties, neighborhood dinner dances, etcetera. It can be that again. The clubhouse square foot is about right. There should be a kitchen with appropriate facilities." Continued refinements can be handled as the City moves toward final construction documents. 4. FURTHER STUDIES ARE NOT NEEDED AND FURTHER DELAYS INVITE DISCORD. There is no way to please everyone. The Board of the MHOA was shocked to hear that the City was not already moving forward. After the April meeting, several Ladera Linda residents approached members of the MHOA Board to shake hands and express their appreciation that as a community we were able to reach a compromise in a respectful fashion. By pushing the matter back out into the community, the Council has invited discord. Now we are back to criticism and self-interested proposals. The bottom line is that Seaview will always want the noise on the Ladera Linda side and Ladera Linda will always want the noise on the Seaview side. Doing nothing or creating a Park that only serves Ladera Linda is not the answer. The buildings received an "F" grade, and currently are an attractive nuisance. We are extremely sorry to hear about recent break-ins but believe that the redevelopment plan will enhance safety through clear sight -lines, proper lighting and better security. Redlining Forrestal below the Park and other modest changes can be handled as the process proceeds. The City Already Has Spent Large Sums to Obtain Community Input Over the Past Four Years. The City has invested in: the Park Master Plan; an internet survey and outreach; further study and a formal survey; October 2016 community meeting; RFA consulting and plans; Spring 2017 community meetings; and now further meetings. Also substantial time has been spent at City Council meetings, each with Staff presentations and Staff time. I think it would not be an overstatement to say that the City already expended hundreds of thousands if not a million dollars on consultants, studies and City Staff time and resources for this project. We understand that the Council wants to do this the right way, but hope further monies can be spent on the Park itself. Formal Scientific Noise, Traffic and Light Studies are not necessary. The site has been used as an Elementary School, a Montessori School, and for the basic types of activities proposed. Staff, Council and the Public already know these impacts (see for example the e- mail of Mr. Agnew above). The Park Redevelopment Should Meet the Needs for the Next 40 Years. We are concerned that further reducing the size of the community center (already less than 10,000 sq. feet) will not be sufficient for the next 40 years. The same is true with respect to the limited storage capacity. If the City is going to spend substantial dollars on the project, a true long-term vision should prevail. The Cost of the Park Can Be Spread Out Over the Next Forty -Plus Years. Every effort should be made to keep costs down, but even at $7 million the price is reasonable. 40 year life span = $175,000 per year. There are over 42,000 residents or approximately $4.00 per year per resident. We appreciate the further input of Staff on the issue of a Public Private Partnership and believe it is a responsible way to keep costs down and amortize those costs over a long period of time. Nathan Zweizig From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:55 PM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Coyotes -----Original Message ----- From: Cindy Martin[mailto:cindy@astonmarketinggroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:17 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Coyotes We want the Coyotes gone out of Rancho Palos Verdes by any means possible. They are dangerous to all of us and our pets. We have 2 indoor cats, but have recently noticed that the outdoor cat population in our neighborhood is non existent now. Our neighbors dog was almost fatally attacked by a coyote. It was reported that another one of our neighbors chased a Coyote out of their yard. It was 50 feet away from their backdoor. Since then, they have seen Coyote prints next to their home. We need an action plan and the Coyotes removed from our city. Thank you, Cindy Martin Portuguese Bend Beach Club 310 567 7585 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 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, September 19, 2017 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 3 Emails from: Mickey Rodich; Charles Agnew; Gary Randall; Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Amanda Wong and Craig German 4 Daily Breeze article provided by Councilwoman Brooks Respectfully submitted, Emily Co orn WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170919 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc Matt Waters From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 7:18 PM To: Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Matt Waters Cc: Gabriella Yap Subject: Fw: Ladera Linda Park New Building FYI Kit From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 6:43 PM To: CC Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Park New Building After a public meeting cconducted by Parks & Rec. concerning Ladera Linda Park on April 26, 2017 we were told by Staff that there would be another Public meeting to discuss all of the recent input prior to their presentation to the City Council, but this never happened. Instead the Staff chose to submit their revised version of the Plan to you at your August 1, 2017 meeting and you all know how that worked out. As per your direction, the Parks and Rec. Dept has since had 3 recent meetings, that we are aware of, with residents of Ladera Linda regarding the planned new Park Building. The people that I am aware of, that attended those meetings were Gene Dewey, Herb Stark, Jessica Vlaco, Amanda Wong, Craig German, Tom Smith, Gary Randall, Bill Schurmer and myself. I have had discussions with the above mentioned neighbors about their meetings with the Rec. & Parks Staff. As a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, which became a prominent topic of concern and discussion at the August 1, 2017 City Council meeting, our residents are taking a completely different approach to the whole Ladera Linda Park Project and this email will summarize all of these conversations as well as those with other neighbors, along with their thoughts and ideas on the new Park design. The bottom line is that as a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, security and parking have become our hot button issues. Keeping with your philosophy of "Less Is More", access to our neighborhood, Ladera Linda Park, AYSO soccer fields and the preserve are now of great concern to us. As a result, our thought's have dramatically changed. We are now focusing on what can be done to make Ladera Linda Park less attractive to people and groups that do not live in RPV. It is our feeling that the new building should be designed to satisfy the needs of our RPV residents use and not the YMCA and other outside interests. Some of the things that we feel that will make the building resident friendly are: Based on the present use as shown in every Weekly Report from RPV there is an average of 5 uses of the classrooms per week at Ladera Linda. Why is there a need to have 5 classroom/meeting rooms in this new building? By removing the hardly used Discovery Room (there are less than 20 tours per year) and one classroom, will immediately reduce the footprint to below 7,000 sq ft. Adjusting the sizes of the remaining 3 classrooms, bathrooms and corridors will reduce it even further. The building can be designed such that, if in the future the need is justified, more classrooms can be easily added without 1 dismantling the existing building. Our Parks are not profit centers so why should we build additional classrooms for groups and interests outside of RPV? • Instead of having a separate Discovery Room, we would have a 100 sq ft storage area for carts filled with artifacts that can be wheeled to any classroom for a group presentation.That is what is presently done at PVIC. We also recommend providing glass display cabinets along the lobby corridors for various other Discovery Room artifacts. • Parking is a big issue. We don't want users to park on Forrestal, Pirate and Searaven Drives. Our plan calls for providing the 28 perpendicular parking spaces above the existing gate on Forrestal and adding another identical gate above the 28 parking spaces. In addition curbs, on both sides of Forrestal, will be redlined from the existing gate all the way down Forrestal to the end of the Park property line. And lastly, the lower gate must be opened by RPV's guard service at dawn each day to accommodate the early morning dog walkers and other users of the preserve until the Park is officially opened each day. This will allow early access to the preserve without disturbing our neighbors that face the park. • We suggest the removal of the half Basketball Court. This will further reduce the cost of this Project. The existing courts are primarily used on week -ends and I can't remember when I last saw 10 people playing a full basketball game on the existing court. • Relocate the ADA access to be alongside the entry roadway. it can be easily graded next to the hillside. I question the need for this ADA access, because Ryan Park just had a large parking project completed and I don't think they had to provide ADA access. • The existing plans call for 8 or 9 picnic tables, with ocean views, spread around the Park. We feel there should only be 1 or 2 and located in a non view area. Our concerns are that we don't wish to draw the crowd, from the Marilyn RyanPark on PVDS and Trump National Way, to this new venue where they will face less scrutiny and make more noise. • Present landscaping plans call for a complete removal of all present vegetation to be replaced by new drought tolerant plantings. We feel this is way too expensive. If all of the trees and bushes along Forrestal are removed and replaced with low vegetation, there will be no buffer zone to reduce the noise level at the homes fronting the Park. Most of the landscaping survived the drought and we feel that a drip system be installed to cover the eisting vegetation. • Limit the activities allowed in the park. No weddings (use PVIC it's a better location), amplified sound not allowed after 8:00 PM, end all activities by 10:00 PM etc. • Consider traffic issues with AYSO games, Social Media hikes in the Preserves, normal Preserve use and Park traffic all directed to PVDS. Either provide a traffic control person on game days or consider the addition of an accelerating lane used when making a left turn toward San Pedro just like there is at Conqueror. • For security reasons it is desirable to have camera's to monitor the activity in Ladera Linda Park. Just recently a stolen car was found in the Ladera Linda parking lot. • A very important factor to consider is the cost We have heard numbers ranging from $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for the complete Project and $3,000,000 for the landscaping. We do not want a Taj Mihal, we want a simple Park building. Anyone of these prices are way too high and we would not be in favor of constructing a new building. It would be a waste of RPV's money We are attempting to reduce the building size and the amount of landscaping in order to reduce the costs. These are the suggestions that we feel will be helpful in designing this new building and Park. Our HOA is in the process of conducting a Survey to be sent to all of our residents. as soon as possible. We will share the results with when it is completed, Thank you for listening to us. Matt Waters From. Charles Agnew <cvagnew@cox.net> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:25 PM To: Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; CityClerk; CityManager; Planning; CC; Melissa Countryman; Mona Dill; Jerry Duhovic; Finance; Nicole Jules; Sean Larvenz; Cory Linder, Ara Mihranian; Parks; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich; Mona Dill; Matt Waters; Doug Willmore; CityManager CC: Phil Bernard; Bill Gussman; Kelly Jones; Sara Platte; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Tom Smith; Mariana Stewart; Tim Stewart; Ann Weinland; Gene Dewey; Herb Stark; 'Amanda Wong'; Jessica Vlaco; Gary Randall; Bill & Sharon Schurmer Subject: re Ladera Linda Park New Building Charles Agnew. I'm a resident of Ladera Linda since 1971. A past Homeowner's president multiple times, and an active homeowner. The clubhouse square foot is about right. There should be a kitchen with appropriate facilities. Granted the shape is overdone. • is �. . '�' � a =� •, I agree that in a cost saving manner that the half basketball court should go. Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 6:21 AM Subject: Ladera Linda Park New Building This is what Mickey sent to the City Council and Staff. After a public meeting conducted by Parks & Rec. concerning Ladera Linda Park on April 26, 2017 we were told by Staff that there would be another Public meeting to discuss all of the recent input prior to their presentation to the City Council, but this never happened. Instead the Staff chose to submit their revised version of the Plan to you at your August 1, 2017 meeting and you all know how that worked out. As per your direction, the Parks and Rec. Dept has since had 3 recent meetings, that we are aware of, with residents of Ladera Linda regarding the planned new Park Building. The people that I am aware of, that attended those meetings were Gene Dewey, Herb Stark, Jessica Vlaco, Amanda Wong, Craig German, Tom Smith, Gary Randall, Bill Schurmer and myself have had discussions with the above mentioned neighbors about their meetings with the Rec. & Parks Staff. As a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, which became a prominent topic of concern and discussion at the August 1, 2017 City Council meeting, our residents are taking a completely different approach to the whole Ladera Linda Park Project and this email will summarize all of these conversations as well as those with other neighbors, along with their thoughts and ideas on the new Park design. The bottom line is that as a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, security and parking have become our hot button issues. Keeping with your philosophy of "Less Is More", access to our neighborhood, Ladera Linda Park, AYSO soccer fields and the preserve are now of great concern to us. As a result, our thought's have dramatically changed. We are now focusing on what can be done to make Ladera Linda Park less attractive to people and groups that do not live in RPV. It is our feeling that the new building should be designed to satisfy the needs of our RPV residents use and not the YMCA and other outside interests. Some of the things that we feel that will make the building resident friendly are: Based on the present use as shown in every Weekly Report from RPV there is an average of 5 uses of the classrooms per week at Ladera Linda. Why is there a need to have 5 classroom/meeting rooms in this new building? By removing the hardly used Discovery Room (there are less than 20 tours per year) and one classroom, will immediately reduce the footprint to below 7,000 sq ft. Adjusting the sizes of the remaining 3 classrooms, bathrooms and corridors will reduce it even further. The building can be designed such that, if in the future the need is justified, more classrooms can be easily added without dismantling the existing building. Our Parks are not profit centers so why should we build additional classrooms for groups and interests outside of RPV? 3 Instead of having a separate Discovery Room, we would have a 100 sq ft storage area for carts filled with artifacts that can be wheeled to any classroom for a group presentation. That is what is presently done at .PVIC. We also recommend providing glass display cabinets along the lobby corridors for various other Discovery Room artifacts. Parking is a big issue. We don't want users to park on Forrestal, Pirate and Searaven Drives. Our plan calls for providing the 28 perpendicular parking spaces above the existing gate on Forrestal and adding another identical gate above the 28 parking spaces. In addition curbs, on both sides of Forrestal, will be redlined from the existing gate all the way down Forrestal to the end of the Park property line. And lastly, the lower gate must be opened by RPV's guard service at dawn each day to accommodate the early morning dog walkers and other users of the preserve until the Park is officially opened each day. This will allow early access to the preserve without disturbing our neighbors that face the park. We suggest the removal of the half Basketball Court. This will further reduce the cost of this Project. The existing courts are primarily used on week -ends and I can't remember when I last saw 10 people playing a full basketball game on the existing court. Relocate the ADA access to be alongside the entry roadway. it can be easily graded next to the hillside. I question the need for this ADA access, because Ryan Park just had a large parking project completed and I don't think they had to provide ADA access. The existing plans call for 8 or 9 picnic tables, with ocean views, spread around the Park. We feel there should only be 1 or 2 and located in a non view area. Our concerns are that we don't wish to draw the crowd, from the Marilyn Ryan Park on PVDS and Trump National Way, to this new venue where they will face less scrutiny and make more noise. 4 Present landscaping plans call for a complete removal of all present vegetation to be replaced by new drought tolerant plantings. We feel this is way too expensive. If all of the trees and bushes along Forrestal are removed and replaced with low vegetation, there will be no buffer zone to reduce the noise level at the homes fronting the Park. Most of the landscaping survived the drought and we feel that a drip system be installed to cover the existing vegetation. Limit the activities allowed in the park. No weddings (use PVIC it's a better location), amplified sound not allowed after 8:00 PM, end all activities by 10:00 PM etc. Consider traffic issues with AYSO games, Social Media hikes in the Preserves, normal Preserve use and Park traffic all directed to PVDS. Either provide a traffic control person on game days or consider the addition of an accelerating lane used when making a left turn toward San Pedro just like there is at Conqueror. • For security reasons it is desirable to have camera's to monitor the activity in Ladera Linda Park. Just recently a stolen car was found in the Ladera Linda parking lot. • A very important factor to consider is the cost We have heard numbers ranging from $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for the complete Project and $3,000,000 for the landscaping. We do not want a Taj Mihal, we want a simple Park building. Anyone of these prices are way too high and we would not be in favor of constructing a new building. It would be a waste of RPV's money We are attempting to reduce the building size and the amount of landscaping in order to reduce the costs. 5 These are the suggestions that we feel will be helpful in designing this new building and Park. Our HOA is in the process of conducting a Survey to be sent to all of our residents. as soon as possible. We will share the results with when it is completed, Thank you for listening to us. 6 Matt Waters From: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:41 PM To: Matt Waters Cc: Cory Linder Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Master Plan Meetings Thanks, MattJor all the effort you and Cory are putting in to try to get this project "right." It's a tough task, with lots of varying opinions. I do have to say that, in my opinion, Mickey's letter is more in line with a larger number of Ladera Linda residents. I do not agree with some of the "amendments" Chuck Agnew proposes. While Chuck has been LLHOA president in the past, he is not currently the president nor, to my knowledge, a member of the current board, and therefore his opinions (which he is entitled to) should only be counted as his own, not necessarily a reflection of others. From: Matt Waters [mailto:MattW@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:06 PM To: Matt Waters; Susan Wilcox; Gene Dewey; martycrna@cox.net; Jim Hevener; Mickey Rodich; herbertstark@cox.net; jessica.vlaco@cbre.com; Amanda Wong; Gary Randall; Thomas.Smith@gmail.com; sbschurm@yahoo.com Cc: Cory Linder Subject: Ladera Linda Master Plan Meetings I'd like to thank everyone who took time out of their busy lives to sit down with me and Cory to share your ideas for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and dedication of each person who participated. All of the insights and ideas into noise, traffic, security, usage, parking, access and other concerns will be shared with the City's consultant, RFA. Some of you may have already received correspondence from Ladera Linda residents, Mickey Rodich and Charles Agnew regarding this plan, but in case you didn't, I've included it below. These emails will be included as part of late correspondence to the 9/19 City Council meeting. Thanks, Matt Hi, I'm Charles Agnew. The ,�clubhouse 2.q.uaref t,i.sabout : ut.right. i.g\y %\ere should be 4 kitchen . appropriate « «�. »: facilities. with 1722:� Granted he shape (?overdone. ` that ::.>�,pp<1 . « « « increased <, v=. ` 2 » �»> « !« � e ©lRPV . ;\ 7 problem that:«: ¥ 2 : ¥ft±f }!:*: security » 2:»> a a neighborhoods. hatd sn'tcan w hould stay in, lock ourdo#25 y?d never attend our local fQ22, « re , d 22 �Iagree that in * cost saving ng a�22f2that the >*`\ +75Kf?#¥?#2l ?\+2}y go. Sincerely yours, Charles Agnew 32261 Phantom \72\+2 # r . Rancho fVl+2 Verdes, f3. « % \ i/\ ??7*2±Ca:-c \2)f< (310) 77-02$ \ From Mickey: 2 New Ladera Linda Park Plan: After a public meeting conducted by Parks & Rec. concerning Ladera Linda Park on April 26, 2017 we were told by Staff that there would be another Public meeting to discuss all of the recent input prior to their presentation to the City Council, but this never happened. Instead the Staff chose to submit their revised version of the Plan to you at your August 1, 2017 meeting and you all know how that worked out. As per your direction, the Parks and Rec. Dept has since had 3 recent meetings, that we are aware of, with residents of Ladera Linda regarding the planned new Park Building. The people that I am aware of, that attended those meetings were Gene Dewey, Herb Stark, Jessica Vlaco, Amanda Wong, Craig German, Tom Smith, Gary Randall, Bill Schurmer and myself. I have had discussions with the above mentioned neighbors about their meetings with the Rec. & Parks Staff. As a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, which became a prominent topic of concern and discussion at the August 1, 2017 City Council meeting, our residents are taking a completely different approach to the whole Ladera Linda Park Project and this email will summarize all of these conversations as well as those with other neighbors, along with their thoughts and ideas on the new Park design. The bottom line is that as a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, security and parking have become our hot button issues. Keeping with your philosophy of "Less Is More", access to our neighborhood, Ladera Linda Park, AYSO soccer fields and the preserve are now of great concern to us. As a result, our thought's have dramatically changed. We are now focusing on what can be done to make Ladera Linda Park less attractive to people and groups that do not live in RPV. It is our feeling that the new building should be designed to satisfy the needs of our RPV residents use and not the YMCA and other outside interests. Some of the things that we feel that will make the building resident friendly are: 3 Based on the present use as shown in every Weekly Report from RPV there is an average of 5 uses of the classrooms per week at Ladera Linda. Why is there a need to have 5 classroom/meeting rooms in this new building? By removing the hardly used Discovery Room (there are less than 20 tours per year) and one classroom, will immediately reduce the footprint to below 7,000 sq ft. Adjusting the sizes of the remaining 3 classrooms, bathrooms and corridors will reduce it even further. The building can be designed such that, if in the future the need is justified, more classrooms can be easily added without dismantling the existing building. Our Parks are not profit centers so why should we build additional classrooms for groups and interests outside of RPV? Instead of having a separate Discovery Room, we would have a 100 sq ft storage area for carts filled with artifacts that can be wheeled to any classroom for a group presentation. That is what is presently done at PVIC. We also recommend providing glass display cabinets along the lobby corridors for various other Discovery Room artifacts. Parking is a big issue. We don't want users to park on Forrestal, Pirate and Searaven Drives. Our plan calls for providing the 28 perpendicular parking spaces above the existing gate on Forrestal and adding another identical gate above the 28 parking spaces. In addition curbs, on both sides of Forrestal, will be redlined from the existing gate all the way down Forrestal to the end of the Park property line. And lastly, the lower gate must be opened by RPV's guard service at dawn each day to accommodate the early morning dog walkers and other users of the preserve until the Park is officially opened each day. This will allow early access to the preserve without disturbing our neighbors that face the park. We suggest the removal of the half Basketball Court. This will further reduce the cost of this Project. The existing courts are primarily used on week -ends and I can't remember when I last saw 10 people playing a full basketball game on the existing court. 4 Relocate the ADA access to be alongside the entry roadway. it can be easily graded next to the hillside. I question the need for this ADA access, because Ryan Park just had a large parking project completed and I don't think they had to provide ADA access. The existing plans call for 8 or 9 picnic tables, with ocean views, spread around the Park. We feel there should only be 1 or 2 and located in a non view area. Our concerns are that we don't wish to draw the crowd, from the Marilyn Ryan Park on PVDS and Trump National Way, to this new venue where they will face less scrutiny and make more noise. Present landscaping plans call for a complete removal of all present vegetation to be replaced by new drought tolerant plantings. We feel this is way too expensive. If all of the trees and bushes along Forrestal are removed and replaced with low vegetation, there will be no buffer zone to reduce the noise level at the homes fronting the Park. Most of the landscaping survived the drought and we feel that a drip system be installed to cover the existing vegetation. Limit the activities allowed in the park. No weddings (use PVIC it's a better location), amplified sound not allowed after 8:00 PM, end all activities by 10:00 PM etc. Consider traffic issues with AYSO games, Social Media hikes in the Preserves, normal Preserve use and Park traffic all directed to PVDS. Either provide a traffic control person on game days or consider the addition of an accelerating lane used when making a left turn toward San Pedro just like there is at Conqueror. 5 For security reasons it is desirable to have camera's to monitor the activity in Ladera Linda Park. Just recently a stolen car was found in the Ladera Linda parking lot. A very important factor to consider is the cost We have heard numbers ranging from $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for the complete Project and $3,000,000 for the landscaping. We do not want a Taj Mihal, we want a simple Park building. Anyone of these prices are way too high and we would not be in favor of constructing a new building. It would be a waste of RPV's money We are attempting to reduce the building size and the amount of landscaping in order to reduce the costs. These are the suggestions that we feel will be helpful in designing this new building and Park. Our HOA is in the process of conducting a Survey to be sent to all of our residents. as soon as possible. We will share the results with when it is completed, Thank you for listening to us. Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. pa losverdes.com/rp mattwCo--)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f Pa rb 0 - B e t1ft I Matt Waters From: Matt Waters Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:34 PM To: 'Amanda Wong'; Susan Wilcox; Gene Dewey; martycrna@cox.net; Jim Hevener, Mickey Rodich; herbertstark@cox.net; jessica.viaco@cbre.com; Gary Randall; Thomas.Smith@gmail.com; sbschurm@yahoo.com Cc: Cory Linder; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; Ken Dyda; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich; Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell; Matt Waters Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Master Plan Meetings - Amanda Wong / Craig German Comments Dear Amanda, Thank you for your letter and for your observations. I understand there is a great deal of concern amongst residents in the area about this plan and the process. The plan that was submitted to Council was a result of extensive public outreach, primarily from the local community. This outreach effort has been underway since the 2014 Parks Master Plan Update. Far from ignoring public input, Staff heard it loud and clear. That consistent input from the community formed the essence of the plans that were presented to the community in April and then consolidated into a recommended design that went to Council in August, this year. The great majority of attendees at the April workshop were positive about the recommended plan, with many people noting in private and publicly, that the City had listened to what the community wanted. That was certainly true; we did. We don't believe that every aspect of the plan is going to please everyone in the local community, but the plan does reflect community input in the following ways. • No gym, no pool, no skate park, no added recreation elements. • No added uses. • Maintain existing elements • Significant reduction of square footage • Maintain low-key community feel • Be respectful of immediate neighbors The proposed design is for a modest park. No major components. Nice landscaping. Basketball. Paddle Tennis. A Children's playground. A modest building, reduced in size. A grass area for drop-in use. This is a local community park, not a regional attraction. That said, it is still very much a conceptual plan at this point, far from construction -ready, and we appreciate continued community input. Security I understand that your house was recently burglarized, which is a horrible thing to go through. Our sincere belief is that a new, well-designed park and building will increase the level. of safety and security in the neighborhood. We met recently with a representative from the Lomita Sheriff's Department who agreed that a new park is far preferable to an old, decaying site with multiple buildings and poor sightlines. A better design, combined with increased staffing, restrictions on rentals, and parking changes will have a positive effective on neighborhood safety. Sheriff personnel will be invited to the community workshop to address these vital concerns. Increased Future Usage/Evening Events The City is not proposing this project to generate future revenue. We are proposing this project because the current facility is in proven poor condition. This point has been made at every public workshop and Council .3 meeting. The community has been clear in their desire to have a new, smaller building and that has what been proposed. The current usage is very low because the building is unattractive and in poor condition. Cory and I have been frank throughout this whole process that usage will likely increase at a new building because it will be more attractive. This usage will be primarily daytime -based and typical for a local community park: Kids classes, dance classes, summer camps, HOA meetings, non-profit groups, senior classes. These would be spread throughout the day and would not have a significant impact on existing traffic. Furthermore, we will avoid any large park uses during AYSO game times to help minimize parking impacts. We will certainly bring a detailed list of recent programming at Ladera Linda to the next public workshop, along with our best professional estimation of future use. My comment about "future use" was in reference to proposed square footage reduction from the proposed 9,000 SQ Ft to a much smaller number. It is worth noting again that 9,000 is already a major reduction in the current size of the current five buildings. That alone will act as a constraint on total usage. The elimination of the Discovery Room and other proposed SQ footage reduction plans can be discussed at the public workshop. The community will also have the opportunity to review a facilities rental policy for Ladera Linda in advance of the next workshop. As we discussed at our meeting, this will include clear limits on the hours, frequency and type of events allowed at the park. Clearly, limiting nighttime use of the park and the building will be a main focus. The proposal will significantly reduce the availability of the park building for nighttime rentals and the hours in which amplified music would be allowed. A ban on nighttime rentals, with exception for non -profits and HOAs is also an option can be explored at the workshop. Parking The concept of red -striping the curbs on Forrestal has been well-received, as has the 28 parking spaces located well past the existing gate on Forrestal. We certainly understand the emphasis and concern about traffic and parking, especially in the adjacent neighborhood. The addition of the 28 spaces was intended to move Preserve visitors away from homes. That approach, combined with red -striping and permit parking will be discussed at the workshop. ADA Compliance Entrance Our consultant's proposal for extra services includes researching additional locations to fulfill ADA access requirements. I will share your comments with him and this will also be a part of the future workshop. Basketball Court and Play Structure While the current proposed location was generally well-received at the community workshop, your proposal to shift both elements will be reviewed by Staff and the consultant and will be open for discussion at the upcoming workshop. Eliminating the proposed %2 basketball court, and the use of landscaping to minimize noise and view will also be looked at. Trees/Foliay,e All of your concerns about trees and foliage, including the Pohutukawa (New Zealand Christmas Tree) will be reviewed and considered. Again, thank you for your involvement and feel free to reach out to me with any additional questions. As you requested, your email and letter, along with my response, will be included as late correspondence to the September 19th City Council meeting. Sincerely, Matt 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 mattes rpvca.aov. - (310) 544-5216 p -- (310) 544-5291 f From: Amanda Wong [mailto:kiwi_esq@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:04 AM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; martycrna@cox.net; Jim Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@yahoo.com>; herbertstark@cox.net; jessica.vlaco@cbre.com; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Thomas.Smith@gmail.com; sbschurm@yahoo.com Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <Susan B @ rpvca.gov>; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; Ken Dyda <cprotem73@cox.net>; Ken Dyda <Ken. Dyda @ rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <briancampbell@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Ladera Linda Master Plan Meetings - Amanda Wong / Craig German Comments Hi Matt, We appreciate the opportunity to hear what Parks and Recs plan is for the park, and to have our thoughts and concerns heard. However, we came away from the meeting feeling that what you told us to expect under Plan Al is different from the impression that was given to the community at the input meetings and that what Parks and Rec has planned is not what people tentatively supported. I have summarized some of our thoughts from our August 28 meeting. I apologize for it taking so long, it has been an especially busy time at work. Since our comments are extensive, I have attached them in a letter rather than an email. Please make sure that this letter is added to the late correspondence to the 9/9 City Council meeting and made part of the official record of public comment regarding the Ladera Linda plan. Thank you, Amanda Wong and Craig German From: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:05 PM To: Matt Waters; Susan Wilcox; Gene Dewey; martycrna@cox.net; Jim Hevener; Mickey Rodich; herbertstark@cox.net; iessica.vlaco@cbre.com; Amanda Wong; Gary Randall; Thomas.Smith@gmail.com; sbschurm@Vahoo.com Cc: Cory Linder Subject: Ladera Linda Master Plan Meetings I'd like to thank everyone who took time out of their busy lives to sit down with me and Cory to share your ideas for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and dedication of each person who participated. All of the insights and ideas into noise, traffic, security, usage, parking, access and other concerns will be shared with the City's consultant, RFA. Some of you may have already received correspondence from Ladera Linda residents, Mickey Rodich and Charles Agnew regarding this plan, but in case you didn't, I've included it below. These emails will be included as part of late correspondence to the 9/19 City Council meeting. Thanks, Matt Agnew.Hi, I'm Charles clubhouseI'm a resident of Ladera Linda since 1971. A past Homeowner's president multiple times, and an active homeowner. The squarewith appropriate facilities. Granted the shape is overdone. o 4 I agree that security is a problem that has increased for all RPV neighborhoods. That doesn't mean we should stay in, lock our doors, and never attend our local park. I agree that in a cost saving manner that the half basketball court should go. yours, Sincerely Charles Agnew 32261 PhantomDr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 377-0290 From Mickey: New Ladera Linda Park Plan: After a public meeting conducted by Parks & Rec. concerning Ladera Linda Park on April 26, 2017 we were told by Staff that there would be another Public meeting to discuss all of the recent input prior to their presentation to the City Council, but this never happened. Instead the Staff chose to submit their revised version of the Plan to you at your August 1, 2017 meeting and you all know how that worked out. 5 As per your direction, the Parks and Rec. Dept has since had 3 recent meetings, that we are aware of, with residents of Ladera Linda regarding the planned new Park Building. The people that I am aware of, that attended those meetings were Gene Dewey, Herb Stark, Jessica Vlaco, Amanda Wong, Craig German, Tom Smith, Gary Randall, Bill Schurmer and myself. I have had discussions with the above mentioned neighbors about their meetings with the Rec. & Parks Staff. As a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, which became a prominent topic of concern and discussion at the August 1, 2017 City Council meeting, our residents are taking a completely different approach to the whole Ladera Linda Park Project and this email will summarize all of these conversations as well as those with other neighbors, along with their thoughts and ideas on the new Park design. The bottom line is that as a result of the recent burglaries in our neighborhood, security and parking have become our hot button issues. Keeping with your philosophy of "Less Is More", access to our neighborhood, Ladera Linda Park, AYSO soccer fields and the preserve are now of great concern to us. As a result, our thought's have dramatically changed. We are now focusing on what can be done to make Ladera Linda Park less attractive to people and groups that do not live in RPV. It is our feeling that the new building should be designed to satisfy the needs of our RPV residents use and not the YMCA and other outside interests. Some of the things that we feel that will make the building resident friendly are: Based on the present use as shown in every Weekly Report from RPV there is an average of 5 uses of the classrooms per week at Ladera Linda. Why is there a need to have 5 classroom/meeting rooms in this new building? By removing the hardly used Discovery Room (there are less than 20 tours per year) and one classroom, will immediately reduce the footprint to below 7,000 sq ft. Adjusting the sizes of the remaining 3 classrooms, bathrooms and corridors will reduce it even further. The building can be designed such that, if in the future the need is justified, more classrooms can be easily added without dismantling the existing building. Our Parks are not profit centers so why should we build additional classrooms for groups and interests outside of RPV? 6 Instead of having a separate Discovery Room, we would have a 100 sq ft storage area for carts filled with artifacts that can be wheeled to any classroom for a group presentation. That is what is presently done at PVIC. We also recommend providing glass display cabinets along the lobby corridors for various other Discovery Room artifacts. Parking is a big issue. We don't want users to park on Forrestal, Pirate and Searaven Drives. Our plan calls for providing the 28 perpendicular parking spaces above the existing gate on Forrestal and adding another identical gate above the 28 parking spaces. In addition curbs, on both sides of Forrestal, will be redlined from the existing gate all the way down Forrestal to the end of the Park property line. And lastly, the lower gate must be opened by RPV's guard service at dawn each day to accommodate the early morning dog walkers and other users of the preserve until the Park is officially opened each day. This will allow early access to the preserve without disturbing our neighbors that face the park. We suggest the removal of the half Basketball Court. This will further reduce the cost of this Project. The existing courts are primarily used on week -ends and I can't remember when I last saw 10 people playing a full basketball game on the existing court. Relocate the ADA access to be alongside the entry roadway. it can be easily graded next to the hillside. I question the need for this ADA access, because Ryan Park just had a large parking project completed and I don't think they had to provide ADA access. The existing plans call for 8 or 9 picnic tables, with ocean views, spread around the Park. We feel there should only be 1 or 2 and located in a non view area. Our concerns are that we don't wish to draw the crowd, from the Marilyn Ryan Park on PVDS and Trump National Way, to this new venue where they will face less scrutiny and make more noise. Present landscaping plans call for a complete removal of all present vegetation to be replaced by new drought tolerant plantings. We feel this is way too expensive. If all of the trees and bushes along Forrestal are removed and replaced with low vegetation, there will be no buffer zone to reduce the noise level at the homes fronting the Park. Most of the landscaping survived the drought and we feel that a drip system be installed to cover the existing vegetation. Limit the activities allowed in the park. No weddings (use PVIC it's a better location), amplified sound not allowed after 8:00 PM, end all activities by 10:00 PM etc. Consider traffic issues with AYSO games, Social Media hikes in the Preserves, normal Preserve use and Park traffic all directed to PVIDS. Either provide a traffic control person on game days or consider the addition of an accelerating lane used when making a left turn toward San Pedro just like there is at Conqueror. For security reasons it is desirable to have camera's to monitor the activity in Ladera Linda Park. Just recently a stolen car was found in the Ladera Linda parking lot. A very important factor to consider is the cost We have heard numbers ranging from $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for the complete Project and $3,000,000 for the landscaping. We do not want a Taj Mihal, we want a simple Park building. Anyone of these prices are way too high and we would not be in favor of constructing a new building. It would be a waste of RPV's money We are attempting to reduce the building size and the amount of landscaping in order to reduce the costs. These are the suggestions that we feel will be helpful in designing this new building and Park. Our HOA is in the process of conducting a Survey to be sent to all of our residents. as soon as possible. We will share the results with when it is completed, Thank you for listening to us. 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 mattwp_rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f D�� V Better. September 11, 2017 Dear Matt, Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and Jessica Vlaco on August 28, 2017. We had intended to reply sooner to summarize some our take-aways and concerns from the meeting, but work and family demands intervened. Let me preface my comments by saying that our family is in favor of a new community center. When we purchased our home across the road from the park, we envisioned walking across the road to watch our children play, socializing with our neighbors at block parties, attending community meetings and kids' birthday parties and girl scout meetings at Ladera Linda. Our concern is that the current plan appears to be for a building with a size and accommodations that will require more parking spaces than are necessary, and at a huge cost which would have to be justified by increased programming by outside groups, or rental for evening events which will bring in more people from outside our little community. Here the City's and Parks and Recreations' goals seem at odds with the desires of the local community in that you want to increase public awareness of RPV through the website, and we would prefer not to advertise our community to the outside world. Our concerns from the outset have been safety and security, and those have only increased with the recent burglary —the effects of which we are still dealing with. INCREASED FUTURE USAGE The primary impression that both Craig and I left the meeting with, was that Parks and Recreation anticipates, and indeed is planning the new building to accommodate increased usage and programming in the future. And by increase, we understood your comments to mean more groups leasing space, for more hours of programming per week. Your comments that you have to "build for the future" and you "wouldn't want to under -build for future unforeseen uses" causes concern, because in the two community input meetings I attended at Ladera Linda, you seemed to be reassuring the community that usage and traffic would not increase, or at least remain at status quo if we supported new construction. But in our August 28 meeting you straight out told us to expect increased usage and traffic with this new design. At the next community input meeting, we ask that you diagram and compare current programming usage (number of groups, number of participants, numbers of hours per week) with your future anticipated usage, and let the community have input into whether or not they think the increase is acceptable. We suggest removing the Discovery Center, replacing it with rolling carts and glass display cases in the atrium, and reducing the size of the classrooms (900ft2 is excessive) or eliminating one of the classrooms altogether. The reduction in overall size will have the benefit of reducing the mandatory number of parking spaces required. EVENING EVENTS/AMPLIFIED NOISE Of particular concern was our discussion about groups renting space at Ladera Linda for evening events. You asked us if we would be open to "two evening events per month?" Let us be clear. We are opposed to renting out the new community center for evening events. In addition to the amplified noise from the event itself, we are also subjected to amplified music from "party buses" carrying guests to and from evening events, and have, on occasion had inebriated party -goers wandering up our street. We are both hard-working professionals and parents, who come home to spend a couple of precious hours with our children, before we both have to focus on completing the work we brought home. We should be able to do both in the quiet enjoyment of our home and yard. As Jessica Vlaco noted in our August 28 meeting, under the current Parks & Rec guidelines for Ladera Linda, evening events may take place 7 days per week, "Amplified music (inside only) may begin at 10:00 am and must end by 10:00 pm, since the park is located in a residential area in close proximity to homes." Moreover, you actually encourage renters to "schedule your party to end by 10:30 pm or 11:00 pm, so you will be ready to vacate the premises by midnight!" Why are these guidelines so much more permissive than Ryan Park, which permits amplified music to "begin at 11:00 am and must end by dusk, since the park is (similarly) located in a residential area in close proximity to homes?" A reasonable solution would be to make the rental hours for Ladera Linda the same as Ryan Park—11:OOam to dusk. PARKING We discussed red -curbing Forrestal on both sides, up to the gate. We are in favor of that, especially on the east side, north of Pirate, immediately adjacent to our fence. Hikers on the Pirate trail often cut straight down the hill behind our fence as it is the most direct route to their cars. If hikers' cars could be shifted north of the gate, it would prevent this, and also prevent people from lurking in the (city owned) bushes next to our fence. We are in favor of the 28 parking spaces on the west side of Forrestal. We are also in favor of the proposal to put in a lower gate to prevent parking in these spaces after dusk. Ladera Linda is a popular place to park at night and get up to mischief. A gate would go a long way to deterring this. We would be in favor of some kind of permit parking on Pirate Dr., so long as it would be convenient to make accommodation for guests' vehicles. ADA COMPLIANT ENTRANCE We are opposed to putting an ADA entrance directly across from Jessica Vlaco's house. While I am no ADA expert, after a brief review of the guidelines, it appears that at least two of the 28 new parking spaces you propose on Forrestal are required to be handicapped access spots. Given that requirement, plus the fact that the grade at the upper part of Forrestal is flatter, it seems sensible that wheelchair access from the street should run alongside the current driveway. BASKETBALL COURT AND PLAY -STRUCTURE We are in favor of the basketball court and play -structure being kept together, and both being moved into the north-east corner of the park. This would keep the "active area" of the park, as you referred to it, away from homes. TREES / FOLIAGE At the community input meeting, your designer specifically stated that trees and foliage would be discussed at a later date, and therefore we have not yet offered any input on this subject. We do so now since what we saw on your plan concerned us. First, if you remove the bougainvillea hedge on the east side of the lawn and driveway, near Forrestal, we would prefer it be replanted with something of similar height and density. That hedge is a critical visual and auditory buffer between the park and our homes. Second, if you remove the shrubs on the west side of the park above Seaview, they should be replaced with something of similar height. Making Ladera Linda a "view park" will only draw crowds of people to watch the sunset and linger afterwards. Finally, we noted that the plan you showed us called for the removal of the two mature Pohutukawa trees on Forrestal directly across from Pirate Dr. Your designer does not know what a treasure he has in those trees. The Pohutukawa (aka Metrosideros excelsa or "New Zealand Christmas Tree") is a coastal evergreen tree in the myrtle family, that produces a brilliant display of red flowers made up of a mass of stamens. The flowers are an important food source for honeybees which produce the most amazing honey which I would be happy to share with you. The one directly across from my kitchen window is starting to bloom and it is beautiful. We are always in favor of preserving mature trees where possible and would ask that no action be taken to remove the trees without consultation with an arborist familiar with the species. With proper pruning of the tree, it should look like these pictured below, which are a common all along the coast of New Zealand. I From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:45 PM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Torrance Coyote Management 2016 Late correspondence. Be sure to include the article. Thanks! Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director QTV OF LiRANGI 10 1 "ALOSWRIDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(cD.rpvca.gov www. rpvca. gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? r his e mall nnessage= Contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, whidi may be privileged, confiderRial and/or rAro#ected frOM disclosure, The ifformabon is intended only fcrr use. o" the individual or entity mired. UntArthorixed dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly grohibCed, if you received this email in error, or are not an int(N',d :d recipient, p1r ase notify Uv sender irn€nediately..t..hank you for your assistance and cooiierabon. From: Susan Brooks[mailto:susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:19 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Torrance Coyote Management 2016 Ara, This might be good info for late correspondence. Susan http://www.dailybreeze.com/environment-and-nature/201605251torrance-moves-toward-coyote-trappin -ag fter-spike- in-pet-deaths-si htg ings 1 q - Shared via the Google app Susan Brooks Government Relations/ Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 541-2971 www.susanbrooksconsulting.com https://niy.boissetcollection.com/susanbrooks 19 - Sent from my Whone Torrance moves toward coyote trapping after spike in pet deaths, sightings The Daily Breeze (httI)://www.daiIvbreeze.com) Torrance moves toward coyote trapping after spike in pet deaths, sightings By Nick Green, Daily Breeze Wednesday, May 25, 2016 Torrance is aiming to begin trapping problem coyotes as soon as next week in a bid to control an apparently burgeoning population believed responsible for the deaths of about 25 pet dogs, cats and rabbits in the community so far this year. "Hopefully, we can address and eradicate the emerging problem that we've had," Mayor Pat Furey said at Tuesday's City Council meeting. �11UWII Only Councilman Tim Goodrich objected to the plan. He contended it was "premature" because residents hadn't yet had a chance to weigh in on the issue at a coyote management workshop the city announced plans to hold at its next council meeting at 7 p.m. June 14. But with about 100 coyote sightings so far this year, pet killings continuing unabated this spring and public pressure mounting, Torrance officials appeared ready to act sooner rather than later. Lt. Martin Vukotich said the city is in stage four of a seven -level scale that measures coyote activity. That level indicates an increased risk to people and daylight observance of the animals chasing or taking prey. Coyotes are believed responsible for the killings of least one skunk and 11 foxes this year in addition to the domestic animals. "We will be deploying a coyote trapping service into our high -frequency coyote areas," Vukotich said. "We will be developing a sustainable management plan anticipating coyote population spikes and countering it with best management practices." Four Torrance neighborhoods were identified as high-priority areas where "snare -type" traps will be deployed to capture coyotes: Hickory Park, Nadine Circle, Lago Seco Park and Sleepy Hollow. Police officials said trappers will focus on "repeat offenders" that have become habituated to the presence of people; since coyotes are territorial, those animals often can be readily identified. Residents and homeowners associations also may contract with private trappers if they believe it's warranted, police officials said. San Pedro and communities on the semi -rural Palos Verdes Peninsula also have grappled with a spate of coyote sightings in recent months. Los Ant7eles officials hay too. Residents should do all thev can. to discourage and not attract coyotes, officials said. Torrance moves toward coyote trapping after spike in pet deaths, sightings Councilman Mike Griffiths, who is running for re-election and knocking on a lot of doors these days, said that despite the ongoing education about living with coyotes, some folks clearly have not received the message. "I'm pretty shocked how many houses do have animal food and water on their front porches still to this day, even with all the outreach," he said. Evalyn Avenue resident Kevin Lenton, a lifelong south Torrance resident, told the City Council that a coyote attacked his two Jack Russell terriers left unattended in the yard about 6:30 a.m. one recent morning. "Our 13 -year-old Jack has puncture wounds on both sides of her body so she was probably in the coyote's mouth," Lenton said via email. "The 3 -year-old Jack was all over the coyote and probably saved her life." Lenton said he chased the coyote on his bicycle until it disappeared into vegetation adjacent to the public gardens at Lago Seco Park. "I appreciate everything you're doing," he told the council. Correction: This article was updated to correct Lt. Martin Vukotich's first name. URL: http://www.dailybreeze.com/environment-and-nature/20160525/torrance-moves-toward-coyote-trapping-after-spike-in-pet-deaths-sightings CO 2017 The Daily Breeze (http://www.dailybreeze.com 1W