20180320 Late CorrespondenceCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 20, 2018
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
2 Emails from: Benoit Hochedez and Kaylee Hong; Mickey Rodich;
Carolynn Petru; Ginette Aelony; Pam Andresen; Patricia
Stenehjem; Sandra Valeri; Amanda Wong; Six Comment cards as
submitted by attendees at the February 21, 2018 Ladera Linda
Master Plan Workshop
5 Emails from: Barry Rodgveller; Kirk Hyde; John and Denise Girardi;
Niels Pedersen Sr.; Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi; Brian Oney;
Thomas (Tom) Olson
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 19, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
A�,
Emily Co orn
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180320 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Benoit Hochedez <hochedez@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 19, 2018 5:02 PM
To:
CC
Cc:
Matt Waters
Subject:
LL Master Plan
Dear Members of the City Council,
We already reached out a couple times to speak in favor of the proposed Ladera Linda Park Master Plan in the
past 18 months. The city staff along with the architect have made great progress on the plan, taking into account
the hopes and concerns of the local community. While we would like more amenities at the park, we
understand that neighbors who live close by want less and have safety concerns. The current plan is a good
compromise and it seems like staff and the consultant have listened to everyone.
At this time, we hope the City Council can finally approve the recommendation of the city staff and move
forward with this long overdue project.
We live near the park and have one child in 1 st grade and another child on the way. It's time for the City to look
ahead and build facilities for the future and for all the kids (and their parents) who will be here for the next 20
years. LL is the only city asset on this side of the hill, and deserves to be a great park and facility for the local
community.
If the City decides to do a traffic study it should not stop the project from moving forward. It seems like the
park project will not result in much more traffic, especially since this used to be a school for the entire
neighborhood. Instead the traffic issues have more to do with AYSO and Trump National and traffic on PV
Drive generally. Please don't allow a small number of people to use this issue as an excuse for more delay.
Regards,
Benoit Hochedez and Kaylee Hong
From:
Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To:
CC; Matt Waters
Subject:
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
The Ladera Linda Park Master Plan is on the Agenda for next Tuesday's Council Meeting. This will be an opportunity for
you, our City Council, to practice what you preach. I have sat in numerous meetings on this subject and have heard our
City Council direct Staff to follow their guidelines. Some of which were:
1) "Less is More".
2) This Park is to be designed to fit the needs of our City.
3) Listen to the input from the affected residents adjacent to the Park.
4) Design a Park that will not draw large crowds and create traffic headaches like Del Cerro Park.
5) Do not advertise our parks on Social Media, after the Santa Monica Hiking Club flooded Ladera Linda with 100 cars
one Saturday, when there was no soccer and the gate was locked.
As I sat through these meetings I heard resident after resident make worthwhile suggestions and now with this final Plan
nothing has changed. The Staff's proposal is exactly what they proposed from the beginning. Staff has not listened to the
residents input.
We still have a 9,000 sq. ft. building with costs approaching $9,000,000. A —7,000 sq. ft. would be more than adequate.
Proposed costs are excessive
We do not need a dry river bed and a bridge, but should have ADA access parallel to the entrance driveway.
The Park has been designed to fit Staff's wishes. Present usage (5 events per week), or even a 200% increase in usage
does not justify 5 classrooms. The Discovery Room uses the Park perhaps 12 times per year.
Why a 1,000 sq. ft. storage room? Less expensive storage can be developed
Staff has had many meetings, where residents contributed their input, but none of it is included in this final Draft.
Residents have repeatedly asked for a Traffic Study to be conducted during AYSO games and now with adding a new
Park it is even more important. Staff tells us that this should not be part of this new Park Plan, but they will do one after
the Park is approved. Traffic has always been a problem at Ladera Linda and must be addressed.
Staff's proposal will create a destination Park that will draw crowds from all over the LA basin creating a traffic
nightmare on Forrestal and PVDS.
RPV's rural atmosphere is not conducive to heavy traffic and large crowds. Advertising on Social Media has always been
a big problem for RPV. The City Council instructed Staff to not advertise City events on Social Media. Obviously that
message has been ignored because the Staff uses Facebook, Next Door (which by the way reaches way beyond RPV).
uTube and others.
MI
Staff has not followed the guidelines you had given them for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Although staff held a lot
of meetings, your instructions were ignored. It is now up to you to bring some reasonableness to the Ladera Linda Park
Master Plan project.
U
From: Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:08 AM
To: CC
Cc: Cory Linder; Matt Waters; Elias Sassoon
Subject: Agenda Item No. 2: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Honorable Mayor and City Council -
I've been following the progress of the Ladera Linda Park project with interest for the last several years. Finally,
there's a master plan for the site that has been carefully considered, beautifully designed and developed with the
resident's needs at heart. It transcends the "less is more" philosophy and instead embodies "less, but more
functional, safe and inviting." I strongly urge the City Council to approve it and move forward with
redeveloping the park into something the whole community can be proud of.
However, while the City has sadly neglected this site for many years, it has also failed to address the collateral
issues that have grown up around it. Therefore, while I want to see the City move forward with approving and
implementing the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, there are several issues that need to be addressed before the
first spade of dirt is turned. Please consider taking the following actions now:
• Conduct the traffic study. It will be no surprise if a traffic signal is needed at PVDS/Forrestal;
• Implement an AYSO traffic control plan;
• Limit parking on Forrestal Drive and restrict parking in the adjacent neighborhoods if needed;
• Create a Reserve parking area with a second gate;
• Implement the proposed park rental restrictions; and,
• Increase park staffing levels, as recommended.
Most of these actions have nothing to do with the park and everything to do with the community's level of
dissatisfaction that their other concerns are not being addressed. As a result, some seem to be taking it out on
the nearest target and are trying to whittle the park down to non-existence. Please take a wholistic approach to
the problems this neighborhood is experiencing and help create a space for Ladera Linda Park to thrive.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Carolynn Petru
Rancho Palos Verdes
5
Matt Waters
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:15 AM
To: Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Cc: Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda "project"
Get Outlook for Android
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "G_ZITPA" <gzitpamail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:41 AM -0800
Subject: Ladera Linda "project"
To: "CC" <CCArpvca.gov>
It looks to me that the "project "is not going the way the residents want.
Our opinion is asked for "show" but without any intention of listening to our needs.
As usual ,the unintended consequences will happen and "OH ! my, Surprise "
Please ! all we wanted was a working water fountain !
ginette aelony
05,
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:14 AM
To:
Pam Andresen
Cc:
Matt Waters; Cory Linder
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Plan
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your email and your involvement. Your comments about the project, including your thoughts on keeping
the Discovery Room, the ADA ramp expense, and other issues will be incorporated into the March 20th City Council
report.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattwCaD,rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
Par i
d
Be {�rl
From: Pam Andresen [mailto:andresen.pam@gmail.comj
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 5:24 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Plan
Matt -
I apologize for the late reply, but hope my comments can be entered.
I was unable to attend the last workshop, but did attend the ones prior. I am very surprised to see the park even
smaller in size than previously aligned by most at the last workshop. While the "less is more" concept prevails
over this design, it should not mean less usable. The removal of the discovery room is one such example of
removing usable ammenities and I recommend that this be included to encourage the community to have a
convenient place to gather. The relocation of the ADA ramp seems to have a significant cost compared to the
benefit. A reasonable location was proposed on the prior map which can align with the "less is more" concept.
This is an opportunity to have a safe place for current and future generations and unfortunately the lack of
acceptable community parks in this area continue to deter new families and residents from moving in. It's also
disappointing to see that after moving here a year and a half ago, the nicest park to bring my neices and nephew
is in San Pedro. I don't have kids so was not too concerned before moving here, but those with families are very
aware and is often part of their home location decision.
Thank you
-Pam
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:24 AM
To:
Patricia Stenehjem
Cc:
Matt Waters
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Park
Hi Patricia,
Thank you for your email about the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Your thoughts about basketball court noise and
location, foul language, sightlines, keeping the Discovery Room, and other issues. Our consultant did do sightline
analysis for a number of vantage points throughout the site, but they don't show the exact view from every home site
can see if they can offer a professional opinion about what you would see from your address. Please feel free to send
me your address.
I'll check with the Park Supervisor to see if there was any additional information about the Feb, 20th gate issue.
Thanks,
Matt
-----Original Message -----
From: Patricia Stenehjem [mailto:patsyanntoo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:38 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
Hi Matt,
Just to follow up on the other emails I have sent you, as well as some questions and comments regarding the Park plan:
I am still concerned about noise and lack of privacy; as I mentioned to you at the 2/21 meeting, the basketball courts do
generate noise, not so much from the activity, but because many of the young men playing are loud and foul-mouthed.
Surely the courts could be located elsewhere on the property, away from both our neighborhood and Seaview. Also, I
would prefer that the picnic table(s) be located farther from Forrestal, because of noise & trash issues. I have observed
instances when visitors have moved the old tables, or brought their own, and put them near Forrestal for their
convenience, with resulting noise and trash affecting our neighborhood.
I am in favor of keeping the Discovery Room; 4 generations of our family have enjoyed visiting it overs the years .
Parking is another issue generating noise and trash; I support no parking on either side of Forrestal, from the gate south
to the end of the park boundary. I oppose adding additional parking above the Forrestal gate; it makes more sense to
incorporate those spaces into the park footprint.
Parking and traffic issues will only be exacerbated when a new and improved facility is opened at Ladera Linda, and I
think those issues should be addressed by the city before going ahead with building a new facility.
Also, regarding privacy, if the area on the west side of Forrestal is cleared of vegetation and law enforcement can have a
clear line of sight, it would work both ways- visitors to the park would have a clear line of sight to my home and yard;
not so secure for me! Concerning that issue, I had sent you an email message last week about trying to interpret the
renderings of the facility as it would look from my property's vantage point, and inviting you &/or the architect to my
home to demonstrate or explain what I would be seeing when it's built. I hope you received that message, as I haven't
received a reply yet.
C�l.
On another note, please advise me what transpired with the Forrestal gate lock change; fyi, the following day, 2/20, the
lock was secured again.
Regards,
Pat Stenehjem
Sent from my iPad
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:34 AM
To:
Sandra Valeri
Cc:
Matt Waters; Cory Linder
Subject:
RE: Comments to Ladera Linda Master Plan
Dear Ms. Valeri,
Thank you for your email and for your involvement in the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan process. All of your comments
have been shared with project Staff and the consultant and will be incorporated in the report being considered by City
Council on March 20th.
A few points. The main room, is approximately the same size as the existing room, especially if you include an adjacent
storage area, which could be used for gym mats and other equipment as you suggest. The plan does include a small
kitchen.
Resident feedback about relocating the basketball court will be included in the Staff report as well as the issue of
Preserve -dedicated parking and red -striping sections of Forrestal Drive.
Again, thank you for your ongoing participation and I hope you can attend the March 20th meeting.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
-----Original Message -----
From: Sandra Valeri [mailto:smhvaleri@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 6:13 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments to Ladera Linda Master Plan
To RPV Parks Department and other City officials,
I%
Thank you for the outreach meeting concerning the planned updates for Ladera Linda park. A lot of good information
was presented.
First I want to say that I am all in favor of upgrading the facility. I think the the renderings for the new building look
beautiful. As a community volunteer I have used the park over the years, reserving small rooms for monthly Cub Scout
Den meetings and occasional Girl Scout meetings. For several years I reserved the large room for the full Cub Scout Pack
from Mira Catalina Elementary school to hold their annual Pine Derby races. And with the Girl Scouts, we used the
facility to receive large Council orders for cookies, which had to be regrouped into orders for each Troop in the area. 1
appreciate the park's availability for these community activities, and I hope it will continue to be available to help in
these same capacities.
I am concerned that the main room is getting smaller. In fact I am concerned that it may be too small to host the local
dance and fitness classes that our neighborhood as enjoyed here for years. While I don't want a Taj Mahal, I don't want
to build something that is too small for our needs. I hope that you have communicated with the people who teach the
various dance and fitness classes to ensure that the reduced room size is adequate for the classes that they provide. And
there needs to be storage for gymnastic mats, dance bars, etc. A couple hundred square feet can make a difference.
I was also surprised to learn that there would be no kitchen included in the plans. This seems very short sighted. A
kitchen area is an absolute must for any community center. You need refrigeration and plumbing, you must have a
kitchen sink. While cooking appliances may not be wanted at this time, it is poor planning not to include the space and
electric or gas lines to allow a range or oven to be added later in time if the needs and desires of the community
warrants it. This could be as simple as a cabinet area, that is wired so a cooking appliance could be installed later. Plan
now for a possible minor kitchen upgrade later IF the community wants it.
Unlike some of my neighbors I have no objection to a "Discovery Room" which is designed to help house and maintain
part of the city's historical and cultural artifacts, and can be used for student involvement.
I could not see the play equipment areas on the area renderings. I think having good play equipment for children is a
crucial need that must be met. These play areas should have good access to the restrooms, and also easy stroller access
from the parking lot. From the drawings I have absolutely NO IDEA if these basic accommodations are met or not. A
good play area is essential to a family park.
One area where it was clear, that the Park department was NOT listening to the neighbors, was in regard to the location
of the basketball courts. The neighbors near the park have asked that these be moved up closer to the paddle tennis
courts to prevent excess noise in their homes. The Parks department was completely disrespectful and dismissive of
their concerns.
We heard that the designer feels they were instructed to put the BB courts next to the children's play area, period,
regardless of any other input or concern. Apparently the idea is that some parents would like their older kids to be able
to practice ball on the courts while the younger ones are in the play area. One neighbor stated that the men who use the
court are often loud and use vulgar profanities, and she doesn't want to hear in backyard anymore. So why do the park
planners think it is a great idea to have loud profane and cursing men play BB next to the little children? Who will want
to let there kids play there if loud men are shouting profanities right next to them?
It was suggested to put the full play BB court/s up next to the paddle tennis court to pull the loud Barnes up that way,
but a small practice half court could be left next to the children's play area to meet: the other concern. The residents in
the room seemed to like the idea, But the concept was summarily shot down, and we were emphatically TOLD that ALL
COURTS WILL BE PUT NEXT TO CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND - END OF STORY. Wow. What is the purpose of the meeting if
you absolutely REFUSE to accept any input whatsoever? This was very disappointing. The message was load and clear -
This meeting was a one way street only for the city to show us their concept, and if the residents don't like it they can
pound sand.
Most important the residents have made it abundantly clear that they do Not want this park to become an attraction
that will bring in increasing numbers of out of area visitors. The Park planners insisted that the usage would remain
z
about the same, but how in the world can they back up that assertion? And if you really don't believe that usage is going
to increase, then why are you more than doubling the amount of parking spaces? Clearly you are not creating parking
spaces to meet CURRENT need. You are creating parking to meet an anticipated greater increased usage. Don't say one
thing and do another. Be HONEST Please.
The addition of 28 parking spaces for the Preserve, while not technically part of the Park, will be an instant draw for
additional out of the area visitors to come use this facility as the new trail head of choice to access the Preserve. Current
counts of cars parked along the road to access the preserve is typically 8-12, so why do we need 28 spaces?
Matt asked what was the survey response to the parking issue; the truth is that there was NO QUESTION on the survey
regarding the parking. I asked if one could be added, but I was told by the writer of the survey that "HE" personally
thought 28 spaces was good, so he wasn't going to add that question to the survey, but if people had concerns about
parking, they could write them up in the general comment section. After this, I personally refused to answer the survey.
because I don't like rigged games.
I suggest that the city pave and prepare the strip for 28 parking spaces, BUT initially mark and designate only 12-16
spaces since that appears to be plenty to meet the current usage. Mark the rest of that parking area, reserved maybe for
oversized vehicles or maintenance vehicle parking. If/when the need arises then more parking spaces could be easily and
inexpensively marked and added later. This tactic would prevent the instant creation of a giant open parking lot to
attract lots of new users, while retaining flexibility to grow with increased demand. I also stress that this parking must be
combined with the red striping of Forrestal, so we move the hikers into the new lot area, not just create more parking in
addition to existing street parking. Finally we need to be sure that this lot will be available for hikers especially during
the weekends and will not become an AYSO parking lot, pushing the hikers back into our neighborhood. How can we
ensure that these spaces will be used for the Preserve and not taken over by AYSO?
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. I hope that you take them into consideration.
Sincerely, Sandra Valeri
From: Amanda Wong <kiwi_escl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:32 PM
To: CC; CityClerk
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan - Comment
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council,
First let me thank you for the attention and time you have given to the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. The
plan that has been proposed by Parks and Rees is a significant financial investment which affects every RPV
resident — and more directly, affects not only the quality of life in the Ladera Linda (traffic, crowds and noise)
neighborhood but more significantly, its safety.
I have attended the two prior City Council meetings where Ladera Linda was on the agenda, and was heartened
by the Council's thoughtful responses to community member concerns. I have also attended several of the
community meetings where design concepts were discussed and community input solicited, as well a small
group session, which did not alleviate my concerns.
From those meetings, here are my primary concerns:
INCREASED USAGE ANTICIPATED
Community opinion is largely in support of the new community center. But our wish was for something that
would replace the existing buildings and most importantly - maintain the status quo — NOT expand the
programming and usage. To simply compare square footage and say that the new design has a smaller footprint
and reduced number of rooms avoids the real issue — that Parks and Recreation anticipates increased usage and
programming at the new community center. The February 2018 Parks & Rec presentation states that "poor
condition has been a deterrent to rentals ... usage will likely rise due to improved condition / newness factor."
Including up to two evening programs per month, with up to 125 people and the potential for alcohol!
Increased usage is not maintaining the status quo.
EFFECT ON NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
The security analysis covers design aspects of the community center and park, but fails to address the impact on
our neighborhood. With a new community center, removing plantings to allow beautiful ocean views, increased
patronage due to newness, increased programming, a large discovery room, allowing for evening rentals, and
publicity on the parks and Rees website, it is inevitable that our local community park will become a draw to
crowds from outside the community. One only has to look at the cars parked at Founders Park every evening at
sunset to know that Ladera Linda Park will become the attractive and comfortable new place to congregate in
the evenings. We already play host to AYSO crowds and large groups of hikers headed up into the reserve.
a.
Thankfully the current condition and discreet "tucked -away" nature of the park makes it a place that does not
attract visitors to linger. Building beautiful new facilities and cutting away the 6 -foot hedges is both an
advertisement and an invitation. Simply put, if you build it, they will come. My Number One Concern is for
the safety of my family and my neighbors who have already been exposed to criminals coming into the
neighborhood from other areas. One good friend and neighbor is already moving out of the neighborhood, in
part because of concerns over safety. To date, no one from the city has addressed our concerns over how
increased patronage at the park will affect the safety of our neighborhood, our families and our properties.
INCREASED TRAFFIC
The community concerns over increased traffic and the parking situation have been well documented. I am in
favor of red -curbing Forrestal. However, I foresee that this will push more traffic into the surrounding streets of
Pirate & Sea Raven because it is human nature to park in the closest spot they can find. I would be in favor of
restricted parking for residents / parking permits in the immediately surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued consideration of this matter,
Amanda Wong
The following six (6) comment cards were submitted by
attendees at the February 21s' Ladera Linda Park Master
Plan Workshop at Ladera Linda. While a summary of the
comment cards is included in Attachment C (Public Input
Summary), the originals should have also been included in
Attachment D (Master Plan Correspondence).
Matt Waters
Recreation and Parks Senior Administrative Analyst
March 20, 2018
0
11
LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
February 21, 2018
COMMENT CARD
Please write down and submit your comments regarding the proposed Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan design.
If you wish more time for submitting comments this evening, please indicate your
thoughts and forward them to the City by March 2. You may also share this opportunity
with your neighbors who were not able to attend this evening's meeting.
Comment cards can be turned in at tonight's meeting or dropped off/mailed to:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
attn: Recreation and Parks
Comments can also be emailed to Mattw6i�rpvca.gov
.-o�
e- e=n C". M ��S G J sty '-1 D6rz j (1—AµA.
-�*'> ��d'2
S�
�J't � (� r— / �cc�.0 -�a �:-G�2� 6'�
/'►�'` ' S e... CJ L. i� �,.3-e.� �.S��S
� /
r�
//
1
/I2C
r �oD tee_ Y? �n rr U
v/
p
.-o�
e- e=n C". M ��S G J sty '-1 D6rz j (1—AµA.
LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
February 21, 2018
COMMENT CARD
Please write down and submit your comments regarding the proposed Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan design.
If you wish more time for submitting comments this evening, please indicate your
thoughts and forward them to the City by Mardi 2. You may also share this opportunity
with your neighbors who were not able to attend this evening's meeting.
Comment cards can be turned in at tonight's meeting or dropped off/mailed to:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
attn: Recreation and Parks
Comments can also be emailed to Mattwe-rgvca.gov
LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER. PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
February 21, 2018
COMMENT CARD
Please write down and submit your comments regarding the proposed Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan design.
If you wish more time for submitting comments this evening, please indicate your
thoughts and forward them to the City by March 2. You may also share this opportunity
with your neighbors who were not able to attend this evening's meeting.
Comment cards can be turned in at tonight's meeting or dropped off/mailed to:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
attn: Recreation and Parks
Comments can also be emailed to mattwarpvca.gov
j�v�:E� 9Q1� f�Cet� j P101y aV9 �'0✓lrs�l.�i�
LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
February 21, 2018
COMMENT CARD
Please write down and submit your comments regarding the proposed Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan design.
If you wish more time for submitting comments this evening, please indicate your
thoughts and forward them to the City by March 2. You may also share this opportunity
with your neighbors who were not able to attend this evening's meeting.
Comment cards can be turned in at tonight's meeting or dropped off/mailed to:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
attn: Recreation and Parks
Comments can also be emailed to Mattwt—rpvca.aov
�-- mLptj -4�1�
s
LA L
LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
February 21, 2018
COMMENT CARD
Please write down and submit your comments regarding the proposed Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan design.
If you wish more time for submitting comments this evening, please indicate your
thoughts and forward them to the City by Mauch 2. You may also share this opportunity
with your neighbors who were not able to attend this evening's meeting.
Comment cards can be turned in at tonight's meeting or dropped off/mailed to:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
attn: Recreation and Parks
Comments can also be emailed to Mattw(a)rpvca.gav
r � /9
LADERA LINDA PARK MASTER. PLAN
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
February 21, 2018
COMMENT CARD
Please write down and submit your comments regarding the proposed Ladera Linda
Park Master Plan design.
If you wish more time for submitting comments this evening, please indicate your
thoughts and forward them to the City by March 2. You may also share this opportunity
with your neighbors who were not able to attend this evening's meeting.
Comment cards can be turned in at tonight's meeting or dropped off/mailed to:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
attn: Recreation and Parks
Comments can also be emailed to mattma7rpvca.gov
7
L�1 L Vto,k fi d,
i a`
From: Barry Rodgveller <rodgfamily@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:35 PM
To: cc
Subject: del cerro park/park place
Dear RPV City Council Members:
I am sorry I cannot be at the city council meeting the evening of March 20, 2018. It's my 70th birthday
and my family and I will be celebrating.
We have lived in our home, in this neighborhood, for the last 35 years. In the last number of years,
through social media, the Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve and the trail head at the end of
Crenshaw Boulevard has become a destination for thousands of Angelenos every week. Of course, it
is a beautiful spot and we don't mind sharing it, but the sheer numbers have overwhelmed our
neighborhood and have made us less safe.
In the past, when we have come before the city council with our concerns, you have responded in a
manner that all public officials should show towards their constituents but often do not. You have
responded by red striping the curbs which eliminated some of the parking along Crenshaw Boulevard
and Burma road, which had made it dangerous for cars and pedestrians.
We need to come before you again to ask for additional relief. The residents of Park Place and those
on Burrell Lane that back up to Del Cerro Park are living a nightmare. Our neighbors that live on Park
Place often cannot enter or exit their driveways because of the lineup of cars waiting for parking
spaces within Del Cerro Park. On some occasions, when the residents have gotten out of their cars
and asked them to move, they have been verbally and sometimes physically accosted. Many nights
there are parties in Del Cerro Park, cars playing loud music and involving dozens of persons drinking
and using drugs. We no longer feel safe, day or night, in our own neighborhood. We are asking for
some relief from the city council. Of the options being presented by staff the consensus of our
homeowners feel we can only support option eight. None of the other options come close to
remediating our issues. In addition another trail head, with parking, should be opened on Palos
Verdes Drive South. It's unfair that our neighborhood should shoulder all of pedestrian and
automobile traffic that would like to access to the Nature Reserve. This should, over time, diminish
the numbers using the trail head in our neighborhood. Thank you for your continued understanding
and consideration.
Very truly yours,
Barry Rodgveller, President
Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association
0
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear RPV City Council members,
Kirk Hyde <kirkhyde@me.com>
Monday, March 19, 2018 8:31 PM
CC
Park Place Parking options
The board of the Del Cerro HOA unanimously supports only option 8 as proposed by the City's staff. None of the other
options were considered adequate to
resolve the intolerable situation that exists for the residents of Park Place.
I plan to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 20 to support the efforts of the Park Place HOA.
Respectfully,
Kirk Hyde
Treasurer and Vice President, Del Cerro HOA
From: John Girardi <jgirardi@girardikeese.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:53 AM
To: Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Eric Alegria; John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda; CC; Elias Sassoon;
CoryL@rpvc.gov
Subject: Del Cerro Park/Park Place revisions
Dear Members of the City Council and Directors,
I understand that this item is to be the subject of discussion on Tuesday evening's agenda. Our home is on
Burrell Lane on the south boundary of Del Cerro Park. Neither my wife nor I will be able to attend but we did want to
express our concerns as well as the consensus of the (unanimous) opinion of the other homeowners of the Palos Verdes
Park Place HOA.
It is no secret that the trail into the Preserve is a popular place. As its use has increased exponentially, we have
become more aware of vehicle break-ins on Park Place and Crenshaw and confrontations of those wanting to use on one
of the 17 spaces on Park Place with the homeowners on Park Place. On the weekends and frequently during the week
all 17 spaces are utilized yet there is no one in the park—it is the parking destination for hikers.
In the last two years the City Council has addressed parking issues on Crenshaw and that has had a salutary
effect on the traffic flow on Crenshaw and the Crenshaw extension. As a next step in addressing the issue, we have had
the opportunity to review the eight proposed plans for changes to Park Place. Option one is no change at all and given
the safety issues involved, we would suggest that it is no option either. Neither do options two, four, five, six and seven
address the issues. Park space is a premium and all of us in the HOA feel that there should be no reduction in park
space, and, if anything, even modestly expanded. Turning any park space into parking spaces or a parking lot would not
be favorably received by anyone in the Park Place HOA, nor, I understand, the Del Cerro HOA.
Option three address the 17 parking but still leaves the homeowners on Park Place at a degree of risk. Vehicles
will still go down the street and, discovering that there is no parking, make a three point turn and go back out to
Crenshaw. The only true solution is Option eight. It solves the parking and with the gate across Park Place (at
Crenshaw) provides a degree of protection yet would not impede use of the park with more than adequate pedestrian
access and ADA access.
I would also suggest it is also mentioning that developing another trail head at the south end of the trail may be
an additional approach to sharing the popularity of the Preserve.
On behalf of our family and with the agreement of the members of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners
Association, we strongly urge the Council to adopt Option eight.
Thank you.
John and Denise Girardi
a
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
Niels Pedersen <nhp1127@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:42 AM
CC
RE: PV Land Conservancy Issues
I am a resident of Rolling Hills and would like to tell you how terrible things have gotten with your human traffic of
hikers. We get a constant stream of trespassers tromping thru our posted property. We also see on almost a daily basis,
people on top of Paintbrush canyon throwing rocks of the cliff. We also see mountain bikers on that trail which are not
allowed. We also get a deluge of coyotes coming up from the conservancy. You allow this to be a sanctuary and don't
allow the County to trap aggressive coyotes with bad learned behavior.
We also have a friend that lives in the park cul-de-sac and often times his driveway is blocked by cars. From what I can
see, only option 8 is sufficient.
Sincerely, Niels Pedersen Sr.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
0
From:
Katie Lozano
Sent:
Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:50 AM
To:
CityClerk
Cc:
Cory Linder
Subject:
FW: Violation of trails
Attachments: 20180315_183317_resized_1 jpg; 20180315_183305_resized_ljpg
Would this email to us qualify as late corr?
From: dottiehash [mailto:dottiehash@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:00 PM
To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Dieter Thomas <dtarchl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Violation of trails
I am a resident of Del Cerro for over 43 years.
I must say, I regret the day I supported & donated to having these trails.
I thank the City for making the parking on Crenshaw Blvd. bearable.
For the first time in all these years, I have/am thinking of moving.
Opening the trails has brought nothing but unpleasantness to the area:
trash, not following parking instructions/restrictions, careless & reckless driving, could -care -less
attitude. Many still feel Crenshaw is a parking lot, stopping in the middle of the street (northbound)
because someone parked oceanside (southbound) is loading their car up with bikes, dogs, kids, etc.
And waiting for them to pull out and then take that spot. In the meantime, I and several other cars are
sitting behind them, not able to pass (unless we drive up on the sidewalk).
You have marked the curb for hill residents and are now posting parking signs with restrictions,
plus after rains, big white signs "closed to public", but they still come and ignore, not only the signs &
postings, but even when I have stopped and pointed it out to them. And what did I get but obscene
gestures and foul responses.
I'm happy we've changed to Daylight Savings time because folks don't seem to know what dawn or
dusk means.
No one can change the attitude of today's "entitlement society" but at least I can make you aware of
what is happening.
Attached is a photo taken the other day with the large white banners "closed to public".
What to do ? Hire someone to issue parking tickets or a security person who can patrol the area. Or
start a "no parking" on Crenshaw starting at Crest and allow the hikers, bikers etc. to park at our
almost empty mall parking lot and shuttle them.
Pi
Yes, again, thank you for what has been done, it is better than it was, but there is a lot more that
needs to be done.
Del Cerro resident
Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi
22 Coveview Drive
310 210 4269
Sent from nay Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smailphone
From: Brian Oney <brianoney@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:26 AM
To: CC
Subject: Park Place parking and circulation concerns URL for City Council 3/20/18 meeting
Attachments: 20180218_102506jpg;20180218_102607jpg;20180218_102642jpg;20180218_
102730jpg;20180218_102732jpg;20180218_102748jpg;20180218_102749jpg;
20180218_102802jpg;20180218_102810_BurstOljpg;20180218_102818jpg; 20180218
_102909jpg;20180218_102915jpg;20180218_102926jpg;20180218_102945jpg;
20180218_103011jpg
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
March 20, 2018
Honorable City Council Members:
I'm writing in support of Option 8 regarding access and parking options for Park Place - Eliminate all
parking spaces on Park Place and provide handicapped -accessible parking on Crenshaw Boulevard. (And
no other option)
This option best addresses Park Place residents' concerns - to have safe and easy access to their
driveways, as other residents of Rancho Palos Verdes do. A gate would reduce the nighttime use of the
park, which continues to be a problem for those living near Del Cerro Park.
Rancho Palos Verdes is a beautiful place and having people literally fight and argue over close parking
places is not in line with the community culture we want to live in. Besides the walk along Crenshaw is
beautiful and since most of the people parking in the lot are there for hiking anyway it does not seem to
be an overwhelming burden to create a safer environment for the homeowners along Park Place and near
the park.
I am enclosing some photo's I've taken to illustrate the frustration felt by the drivers who cannot find a
parking place and who sometimes take out that frustration on the residents nearby thinking they are
coming to steal their spot... Add that to the frustration of not being able to leave or enter a residence
without impediment, and if you lived on this street, you know how you would choose: Option 8, and only
Option 8.
I've met a potential buyer of a property in the area and they stated their concern about the safety of the
park parking, and told memories of what happened there when they were in high school. To eliminate
the parking would take away the opportunity for many unwanted behaviors that happen in parked cars.
Thank you -
Brian Oney - Renter and Frequent Guest
0
r y,�.n $r b ',h.�a�Dpf,t.
� 3 kry4t �TP'Y+
�?��
Sj� ,� J F� i-.
-25
� � «\
� � � �
� � /�� \ �
� �
�
\�ƒ����"»
2
\ � �
.
� � 6� \
<�z
� \�
�\
. .
.y�;
� is
� ;
� ��� d
� � ±: � \
\
« °�
� v
<
,
. ��
> .
� �� �\
� � �
� y�:
�� 2 y
� \°��
\\>
/
�
<«.
s:,��}�v
�� ���
\ ` ?
� � } � 2�
��
�
\ °�
.
�
�� �.
� c. .
7 fif ;0.4 K 1 �� b i j 1s�,,�y.,
�� �� ��
��Dw t 4 i
a �r �� � x.�q��
�3 q� � '�6 f � ��rr
� �.> � � , Y
�� v�sy � { 9 �5�s`i
�� ,� � ,
-,��r
r,� ca4Rc fw
a3
4 8
?P
g
3
:s
f
I
in low*,
5 $ P y�/
.F k•, vex. � j,.
As
2 A,
ts
¢
41��V ids
r
gra'
\
F\
of
\ y 4
A
[ A
K
d '
1 �
�S% ,� ar
From: pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:33 PM
To: CC; Elias Sassoon; Cory Linder
Subject: City Council Regular Business item #5, 3/20/18 re: Park Place
Honorable Mayor and Council Members and Directors,
I am writing to confirm my personal, neighbors, Park Place HOA support for OPTION 8 ONLY and NO
OTHER OPTIONS for the Park Place agenda item in tonight's calendar.
As you know, there are monumental problems on Park Place including (not inclusive or intended in priority
order):
- significant adverse safety for our family, children and others (we & our children cannot go near, let alone
cross, the street or exit our property without real sense of danger just outside our residential properties)
- tremendous traffic flow clogging Park Place and blocking driveways. multiple times nearly daily preventing
ingress and egress and associated profanity and aggressive 'visitor' behaviors.
- associated vandalism w very large $ costs to repair to homeowners/residents.
- assaults and aggressive behaviors by 'non -RPV visitors'; several residents confronted and Sheriff called w
reports taken).
- loss of significant property value (supported by local appraisers).
- huge loss of enjoyment of home w substantial more stress for residents.
- heightened fear and anxiety of residents / home owners.
- associated litter, drug and alcohol use.
Please use this Council meeting tonight to address and take the opportunity to rectify present problems,
grounded in: history arising from improper past City decisions. These decisions involved not accurately or
properly performing to the original Plan of Utilization for Del Cerro or Park Place street. Further, City
has not placed any parking in a separate lot per POU. And City has allowed for the present construction of
illegal parking stalls (which per recent Survey completed by Harris are illegal and need be removed in any
regard). These issues are made worse by the access to Conservancy trails by huge volume of visitors that now
use Park Place for the only 'non permit' parking residential street near trails and to clog Park Place to the point
of making a true nightmare for residents.
Please know that our entire very large neighborhood of Del Cerro HOA, Island View HOA, Park Place HOA,
Park Place residents and others support and ask the Council to consider only Option 8 (and do not consider
all other Options) and finally approve Option 8 for implementation. Please take this opportunity to equally
treat Park Place as its neighbors and bring (hopefully) peaceful enjoyment to homeowners at Park Place with
your approval of Option 8.
Thank you very much.
With best regards and respectfully,
Thomas (Tom) Olson
a
CITY OF RAN
CNO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 19, 2018
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, March 20, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
E Email from Sunshine
2 Emails from: Marty Foster; Edward Stevens; Herb Stark; Gary
Randall; Bill Foster; Email exchange between Staff and Gary
Randall
5 Letter from Romas and Angela Jarasunas
Respectfully submitted,
A�—
Emily COMM
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180320 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:00 PM
To: CC
Cc: PC
Subject: Disaster on the March 20, 2018 Consent Calendar
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council and interested parties
RE: RPV March 20, 2018 Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item E
Have you read the drafts of any of this?
E. Consideration and possible action to adopt a Haul Route Ordinance. (Sassoon)
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 599, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADDING CHAPTER 12.06 (REGULATION OF EARTH HAULING
OPERATIONS) TO TITLE 12 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES) OF THE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE EARTH HAULING
OPERATIONS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.
This proposal has nothing to do with Haul Routes. This is essentially a prohibition of importing soil
onto private property.
Before letting this move any farther, the Council needs to make a clear proclamation that it is the
City's intent to make all the homes in the PB Landslide uninhabitable and then have them
demolished. The people in this special community are dependent on imported dirt, gravel, road base,
rocks and DG to keep our roadways and driveways functional and to keep rainwater flowing on them
to an appropriate storm drain.
This is not the first action taken to preclude these homeowners from maintaining their homes and
premises. It has recently come to light that in 2016 the City is not supposed to issue any (not even
the most minor) maintenance permits in Zone 6 of the Landslide Moratorium Area. Apparently,
nobody informed the Building Department and now permits which were issued erroneously are being
revoked. See the following letter as one example. In this case, the house is substantially on the
original property. And, Ara says he won't issue a permit to move the house the little bit to all be on
the original property.
This prohibition is supposedly clarified in title code 15.20 but I could not find anything in there
referencing Zone 6. (Zones 1 and 2 yes. But not Zone 6.)
There has got to be an ulterior motive. It makes no sense to revoke a permit when the work is
substantially done and in one case of new exterior siding one portion of the house has been left with
no siding. Nobody is offering to repair the damage if this rain gets in and damages the interior.
Er
If the City Council does not support the cumulative consequences of these actions done in yo
name... You need to put a stop to it, NOW. I
2
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:10 PM
To: CC
Cc: PC
Subject: Urgent. Here is the letter
Please add this letter to my Memo about the March 20, 2018 Consent Calendar Item E.
TNX. ...SUNSHINE
Mv, Robert Pedersen
42 PepFerlree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Subject: Notice of Revocation of Building Permit No, RES2018-00034 at 42
Pepper1ree Lane
Dear Mr. Pedersen,
On February,5, 20 M, you apphed for and were eironeously granted Building Permit
RES 2018-00034 to allow for an After -the -Fact kitchen re model and a thange-oUt of 18
windows and i sliding doors for your house, As you know, your property is located in
Zone 6 of the City's designated Landslide Moratmium Area, Structures within Zone 6
have rmqrated onto properties that belong to other property awriefs, and therefore de
not correspond to the buitcling permits originally issued for the actual structure's
property. In light of this, the City is unable to issue building permits to structures located
on properties other than the originally permitted property..
Section 17,86,060(,A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and Section 105: 4A)
of the 2016 Caffomia Building Code aflows for the revocation of any building permit
issued in erne -t. Therefore, a full refund of the fees paid for the Building Permit in the
amount of $1,752.66 will be mailed to you within 4 to 6 week&
The. revocation of the referenced Building Permit may be appealed within ten days from
the date of this notice pursuant to Chapter 17.80.
if you should have, any questions, please contact me at 310-544-5227 orvia email at
Director of Community Development,
C, Doug Willmore, City Manager
Uena Gerli, Assistant City Attorney
Tom DeFazio, Bufldirig Official
From: Marty Foster <martycrna@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:10 AM
To: CityClerk; CC
Subject: Ladera Linda Master Plan
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council Members
You all have been listening for some time on this subject. We appreciate the real listening you do in person and in print.
It seems once again we are at an impasse. The city staff and architect have plans not at all in line with resident needs and
wants. In fact the two parties have totally opposing agendas.
The prominent resident concerns have been neighborhood security and traffic problems on Forrestal and PVDS. Yet, what the
staff intends absolutely increases those concerns in terms of the planned increased usage of the site. Thus, more
programming, more groups leasing space including evening events, not only does not address residents concerns but actually
exacerbates them.
We are glad to see the proposed traffic study but would like resident involvement in the design and execution of the study.
We fear the two agendas as outlined above are incompatible. Please follow your dictum ... less is more.
Best wishes
Marty Foster
Sent from my iPad
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:51 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: The City Council's "Less is More" is not being followed for the Ladera Linda Park
Improvement.
Late corr
From: Edward Stevens [mailto:erstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mona Dill <MonaD@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Sean Larvenz <SeanL@rpvca.gov>; RPV CODE
ENFORCEMENT juliep@rpvca.gov.
Subject: RE: The City Council's "Less is More" is not being followed for the Ladera Linda Park Improvement.
Dear City Council,
My friend Mickey wrote an Excellent email that I wish you would take the time to reread.
The City Council's "Less is More" is not being followed for the Ladera Linda Park Improvement.
The City Staff does not listen to you the City Council or the Residents. It seems they just continue to bully everyone & just do
whatever they want done.
I wonder how many of the City staff are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. If they were residents I bet that they would not be
doing what they continue to do.
Another example is forcing the Expanded bike lane in front of Seaview when there is already a nice bike lane. There are other
areas along PV Dr S that need attention before Seaview.
Thank you
Edward Stevens
I was unable to attend the Workshop on Feb. 212018, but I was able to discuss the Workshop with some neighbors
that attended the meeting and I also was able to review your online presentation. Even though I was not able to hear
your verbal presentation, I think I got a good idea of what transpired.
During the City Council meeting on Nov. 18,2016, that you referred to in your presentation, the City Council
instructed your department to adhere to the City Council's "Less is More" guidance approach along with incorporating
the immediate residents idea's and concerns in the design of the new Park. That Agenda Report also stated "The
recommendations on what to include (and what not to include) were strongly influenced by resident feedback
received via survey, emails and Workshops". That statement was true only for the initial Workshops, held prior to this
meeting with the discussions centered on swimming pools, gymnasiums, skate board park and a dog park, which were
rejected by the City Council and they then provided you with new guidance to listen to the desires of the residents.. At
that point, after many resident comments, Staff recommended a 9,000 sq ft building. During the first Workshop
meeting it was the architect that suggested that there was a possibility of adding up to 40 parking places on Forrestal,
but we were told that that was not in the scope of this project. However later, for some reason, 28 parking places and
an upper gate became part of this project.
Prior to the City Council meeting on August 1.2017, you held additional private meetings with residents and
users to further define what amenities to include in the new Park building. I attended one of these meetings
and reaffirmed the concerns expressed by our residents during their meetings such as: total cost, security
cameras, do not make another Del Cerro Park fiasco, 7,000 sq ft building to meet community needs,
relocation of noise generating basketball and children's play area, relocate ADA access, provide traffic
control and left turn accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS, and retain existing landscape as much as
1 �9-
possible. At this City Council meeting you made another presentation on the Ladera Linda Park planned design
concept. Again the City Council told you to work with the residents to determine the amenities for the new Park
building. One of the biggest issues was the size of the building. The nearby residences preferred a 7,000 sq ft
building, based on the average usage of 4 to 5 per week along with a much lower parking place requirement. We at
Ladera Linda HOA recently conducted a survey to reach a consensus as to the preferred features for the new Park and
the over 80 responses were overwhelmingly in agreement on the amenities as detailed in my correspondence to you
prior to this last meeting.
Reviewing what transpired during the meeting made one thing perfectly clear: The plan that you originally
proposed 2 years ago has not changed at all. You have not listened to our residents for our input. Your minds were
already made up from the beginning. Your answer to our suggestion to provide traffic control and a left turn
accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS was that it is not in the scope of this project, however it is a very critical part
of this project and should be considered as part of it. This new park will create traffic problems at PVDS.
After reviewing the artist renderings I see that the "Less is More" mantra imposed by the City Council does not
apply to this project:
1) On your Floor Plan (page 20), you still show 5 meeting/classrooms. The usage does not justify 5
meeting/classrooms. We only need 3
meeting/classrooms. Also we do not need a Discovery Room. The usage does not justify a Discovery
Room. It can operate just like it does at PVIC.
2) The multipurpose room is chopped off at a sharp angle and has a 261 sq ft staging area, in the middle of the
gallery and not connected to outside
access. There is no minimal kitchen area shown in your plans either.
3) One would think that the Storage areas shown (240 and 295 sq ft) would be connected to each large room
instead of being on the opposite side of the
gallery. Maybe you are planning to use them as future offices?
4) On pages 24 and 25 you show a dry river bed with a bridge. We are not duplicating a downtown Music Center. I
see this feature as being a liability
and not an asset. With all of the architectural (high) concrete steps, river rock, depressions and a bridge, I see a
large liability factor for injuries.
Seniors and small children will have difficulty navigating this area. The daily gardening maintenance costs will
be very high. Whats wrong with a grass
lawn and gentle slopes? This area could even someday become our skate park. Eliminating all of these
unnecessary features could more than pay for
relocating the ADA access to be next to the entry driveway.
5) The Lobby desk should be located so that Staff has unobstructed views of the galleries and likewise the outside
perimeter should not be full of nooks
and crannies for security reasons.
6) The entry court is way too large. You are talking about the Sheriff having line of site access, but this leaves
blind spots.
I am against P3 financing for this project. The 18% to 20% interest rates are a detriment. The total cost for
financing will be far more than double the initial
cost of the project. The same question arose when the San Ramon Canyon project was to be financed. What's wrong
with traditional debt financing or If the City has the funds, as there is in this case, then there is no need for any kind of
financing?
I think there is still time to make this project acceptable to us residents. But again, up till now, nothing was changed
as a result of resident input. After all of the meetings and Workshops, your initial proposal still stands; nothing has
changed to include resident input. Again, no one has paid attention to the residents.
2
From:
grapecon@cox.net
Sent:
Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:13 AM
To:
CC; CityClerk
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Park
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I received the email below from a neighbor and it is so well worded and reflects my sentiments that I really could not do
better, so I figured I would just indicate that I agree 100% with the comments made below by Herb Stark.
During the public comment period, i sent a letter suggesting a two phase approach of solving some existing and
longstanding issues in phase 1 (some of which have been "punted" down the road for many years now), and then in a
second phase developing the actual park itself. My actual letter was unintentionally omitted from Appendix D, but I
have spoken to Matt and he has assured me my letter will appear in the "late correspondence" section for the upcoming
meeting with a note indicating I actually submitted it during the open period. I hope you will read that letter as well and
seriously consider a two phase approach to this project.
Thank you
Gary Randall
From: Herb Stark <ptl7stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:00 AM
To: CC <cc@rpvca.gov>; cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
March 20, 2018, City Council Meeting
Regular Business Item 2
Dear City Council,
I suggest that the city council review the August 1 city council meeting discussion on the Ladera
Linda Park conceptual design. http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip id=2852
What the residents wanted was a low profile community park that does not impact the community's
quality life. What they did not want is a Gateway or Del Cerro Park. The City Council directed staff to
refine the elements of the facility and address the concerns of the neighborhood. What they got was
a defense of what they presented at the August 1 City Council meeting.
The City Council directed staff to perform traffic and acoustical studies, neither was done.
A community survey was sent out to the residents of Ladera Linda in which almost 50%
responded. They wanted a smaller building, eliminating the museum and one classroom. The one
thing they did want is a large community room so that they could hold community functions. What
they got was an enlarged museum and a community room that is smaller than the present community
room with a shape that cannot be efficiently used.
They requested that the noise generating activities be moved away from the residential areas. This
was not done.
The residents requested that something needs to be done about the parking and traffic on Forrestal
and at the intersection of Forrestal and PV Drive South. The best Staff could do was to suggest that
the curbs on Forrestal be painted red and that the traffic was the result of AYSO and the
reserve. They contend that the new park will have very little impact. Yet the plan provides for full
view of the ocean from the park which will certainly attract more visitors along with the new and
expanded amenities of the facility.
The City Council should reject Staff's recommendation and direct them to go back to the residents
and resolve these and the other outstanding issues.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda Resident
From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmai1.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 1S, 2018 8:00 AM
To: CC; CityClerk
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
March 20, 2018, City Council Meeting
Regular Business Item 2
Dear City Council,
I suggest that the city council review the August 1 city council meeting discussion on the Ladera
Linda Park conceptual design. http://rpv.granicus.com/MediaPIaver.php?view id=5&clip id=2852
What the residents wanted was a low profile community park that does not impact the community's
quality life. What they did not want is a Gateway or Del Cerro Park. The City Council directed staff to
refine the elements of the facility and address the concerns of the neighborhood. What they got was
a defense of what they presented at the August 1 City Council meeting.
The City Council directed staff to perform traffic and acoustical studies, neither was done.
A community survey was sent out to the residents of Ladera Linda in which almost 50%
responded. They wanted a smaller building, eliminating the museum and one classroom. The one
thing they did want is a large community room so that they could hold community functions. What
they got was an enlarged museum and a community room that is smaller than the present community
room with a shape that cannot be efficiently used.
They requested that the noise generating activities be moved away from the residential areas. This
was not done.
The residents requested that something needs to be done about the parking and traffic on Forrestal
and at the intersection of Forrestal and PV Drive South. The best Staff could do was to suggest that
the curbs on Forrestal be painted red and that the traffic was the result of AYSO and the
reserve. They contend that the new park will have very little impact. Yet the plan provides for full
view of the ocean from the park which will certainly attract more visitors along with the new and
expanded amenities of the facility.
The City Council should reject Staff's recommendation and direct them to go back to the residents
and resolve these and the other outstanding issues.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda Resident
From: Bills Cox Email <bfos@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2;08 PM
To: CC; CityClerk
Subject: City council meeting Ladera Linda park decision
Dear Council members,
1 am writing you to express my concern on what appears to be the final decision on Ladera Linda Park. I have attended
work shops and presentations over the past few years and it seems that although the project has been minimized to an
extent, it final plan is still not addressing many of the local residents of Ladera Linda and Seaview's concerns. I believe a
majority of the residents concern is the increased traffic and use of the proposed expansion of the park. The final plan is
going to convert the park into an attractive nuisance and it seems that staff feel like that their mission is to provide
increased usage of the facility. We need to just look at the dilemma and impossible cure to the problems of Del Serro
park and realize that is in store for Ladera Linda with the present plan.
The staff has not addressed the impact this project will have on increased traffic. I believe no official traffic study has
been performed as yet and before any decision is made on the park this should definitely be done.
It is curious that in so many of the meetings, the topic of financing has come up and at all the meetings we were told
that is was not a problem. I remember a council meeting last year when Councilman Duhovic commented that he wasn't
aware of exactly where staff was going to get the money for this project. 7 million dollars doesn't just magically appear
and I am sure our city budget is like all the other neighboring cities that have financial problems. At every meeting we
were told the money was not an issue. Whether it is financed or raised by bond measures, its still money that the tax
payer will owe.
With all of our other city problems with roads ,city hall, etc. wouldn't this money be better used?
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
Sent from my iPad
N
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:39 PM
To: CityClerk
Cc: Nathan Zweizig; Cory Linder
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Input
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Late correspondence for LL Park Master Plan
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:03 PM
To: grapecon@cox.net
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Input
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the email, for attending the workshop, and for your kind words. It has been a long process and there is a long way
still to go.
All of your comments on potential phasing, views, levels of visitation, parking, traffic, security, trailhead realignment, etc...
have been considered by Staff and RFA, and will be included in the report to City Council on March 20.
Thanks again for your ongoing involvement and I hope to see you at the Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattwCc-)rpvca.gov_ - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
From:grapecon@cox.net [mailto:ragecon@cox.ret]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 2:33 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW air vc>
1 `'
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryLC rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager rpvca. ov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Input
Hello Matt:
I would like to thank you and Cory for the hard work you have been putting into the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. This has
not been an easy process, as there are many concerns and opinions from the community. I also want to thank you for
presenting an update at the February 211t workshop and for fielding some of the questions and concerns from the residents.
After attending the workshop last week, I could not help but feel that some significant concerns raised by residents are not
being fully addressed, discussed, and resolved.
I could be wrong, but I believe everyone is in agreement that if this new facility is constructed as proposed, and sweeping
views cleared for visitors, that usage of the park will increase over current usage. Of course, how much it will increase is the
subject of much debate. Parks staff and some residents feel usage will increase only slightly above current levels. Others fear
that large crowds will come to the facility to enjoy the new basketball courts, walking trails, expansive views, paddle tennis
courts, kids play equipment, and of course the welcoming and inviting community center with its modern coastal style
architecture, copious glass walls, and Discovery Room.
Whether the usage increase is at one of these extremes, or somewhere in between, is anyone's guess right now, but I have not
heard a single person (resident or staff member) deny there will be some increase. Any increase in usage should be cause for
concern and pause.
Currently, there are issues with existing visitor and traffic level. These include, but are not limited to:
a. Parking spillover onto adjacent residential streets, especially on weekends, which is impacting residents who live
closest to the park. Proximity of the area to the reserves exacerbates this issue.
b. Increased traffic over the years on Forrestal, Trump National Drive, and PVDS. Making a left turn from Forrestal onto
PVDS can be very dangerous, especially during rush hours, weekends, during soccer season, etc.
c. Existing organized groups (adult men's soccer) taking over the field area on Sunday mornings, despite City assurances
this would be stopped.
d. Security issues and criminal activity in and around the community center.
I would like to submit that you consider dividing this project into two phases. Phase 1 would involve solving some of the
current issues of traffic, parking, usage, and security. After Phase 1 is complete, some analysis could be done and then a Phase
2 discussed. This second phase would focus more on new facilities and surrounding landscaping.
This would seem to be a much more prudent approach to this site.
For phase 1, here are some suggestions:
1. Go ahead a red stripe the curbs on Forrestal as proposed in the latest "plan" presented by Parks staff.
2. Proceed with adding a second gate above the current gate across Forrestal, and adding parking spaces equal to those
lost by red striping.
3. Work with residents on Pirate, Sea Raven, and Phantom to develop restricted parking in front of their homes. How this
would be implemented should be closely coordinated with the actual residents that would be immediately impacted
(i.e. those living on those streets).
4. Work with all user groups having locks on the gates, and the security company, to develop a rock solid plan on
consistent locking of the gates, then implement the plan and monitor closely (this has been an ongoing and recurring
problem for several years now).
5. Improve security at the existing facility by adding cameras and by having sheriffs do more drive thru patrols
6. When larger groups are using the area (i.e. AYSO, city sponsored events, etc.) and the upper gates are open to
accommodate more vehicles, develop a plan for traffic control during those times and implement it.
7. Enforce current rules regarding large, organized groups taking over facilities (especially those who are doing soon a
regular basis).
8. Consider relocation of the Pirate trailhead to be further away from residences, and closer to parking spaces identified
in item #2 above. Groups of hikers often congregate right at the trailhead and make significant noise that can be heard
by residents. While moving the trailhead further up Forrestal will not completely eliminate this issue, it should be a big
help.
9. Develop a solution for the left turn from Forrestal onto PVDS. This will likely be the most difficult item to solve, as
there are many factors entering into this and many, many varied opinions on how to solve the issue. However, it is my
contention that the city cannot keep "punting" any action on this. Does someone need to be killed while making the
left turn out of Forrestal or Trump National to get the city to take action? I certainly hope not.
Items 1 thru 8 above could be implemented relatively quickly and with relatively small cost, and data collected. If any are not
working and need refinement, that could again be done with minimal relative cost.
Item 9 is admittedly much more involved, but that is not a good reason to ignore it. This issue has been discussed for many
years now with no action taken to date.
Once these items have been implemented (i.e. Phase 1 completed), the City would then be in a much better position of
determine the best plans for the community center itself (Phase 2).
It is worth noting that, in the meeting last week, staff presented some comparisons of the Ladera Linda facility to Hesse Park,
Ryan Park, and the PVIC. However, there is at least one major difference between Ladera Linda and these other three. Hesse
Park, Ryan Park, and PVIC are all located on a major 4 lane street, with easy access and traffic patterns. Ladera Linda, on the
other hand, is located in a residential area. The closest "main road" is PVDS, although keep in mind that PVDS is only a two
lane street from the board of San Pedro all the way to Abalone Cove with no stop signs or traffic signals in that stretch. The
physical location and access to/from Ladera Linda makes it a significantly more challenging location.
While I know some of the items I address in this letter are beyond the scope for the Parks and Recreation Department, they are
not beyond the scope of the City Council. I believe the City Council should be recognizing the serious existing concerns and
having various city departments working together to solve the phase 1 issues I have identified before a second phase buildout
of a new community center.
Thank you for your consideration
Gary Randall
From: Angela Jarasunas <angelaromasj@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:34 PM
To: CC
Subject: Letter for this Tuesday's City Council Meeting
Attachments: jarasunas letter for 3-20 City Council meeting.docx
Please review the attached letter regarding Regular Business #5 - Consideration and possible action
regarding access and parking options for Park Place at Del Cerro Park - for this Tuesday's City
Council Meeting.
Thank you -
Romas and Angela Jarasunas
5
3 Burrell Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
March 18, 2018
Honorable City Council Members:
As members of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association and as
residents of Burrell Lane whose home is next to Del Cerro Park, we support Option
8 regarding access and parking options for Park Place - Eliminate all parking
spaces on Park Place and provide handicapped -accessible parking on
Crenshaw Boulevard. This option best addresses Park Place residents' concerns -
to have safe and easy access to their driveways, just as other residents of Rancho
Palos Verdes do. Additionally, Option 8 includes a gate near the entrance of Park
Place that would be closed to public traffic from sunset to sunrise. A gate would
greatly help to curb nighttime use of the park, which continues to be a problem for
those living near Del Cerro Park. Nighttime use ranges from quiet use of the park by
individuals and couples to small groups of boisterous individuals to large gatherings
with loud music from car sound systems.
Current signage at the park is not an adequate deterrent for nighttime use of the
park. Please adopt Option 8, which best addresses the concerns of Park Place
residents, and includes a gate to decrease nighttime use of Del Cerro Park.
Additionally, please consider opening a new trailhead at the south end of the
preserve and adding parking off of Palos Verdes Drive South. It is not equitable
that our neighborhood should have to bear 100% of the parking for the preserve
when the preserve covers a large area of land in our city and could be easily
accessed from the south end.
Thank you -
Romas and Angela Jarasunas