The URL can be used to link to this page

20180821 Late CorrespondenceAGENDA ITEM: RCEIVED FRQ� IV1`Ile L AND MADE PART OF THE RE ORpATTHE COUNCIL MEETING OF: ��211 `moi OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Hroposecl t INDIAN PEAK FOND DU LAC RD. SEE DETAIL EXH C3 1024 o � 102 , RIOGE ° 1130 EASE ' o o R/w 1120 off, �� 1110 ----,-- -------------------- ----- � � � --- 1000 ------------------------990 980 SECTION A—A SCALE H: 1" = 30' EXHIBIT C2 v: r =ao' EXHIBIT C3 ANTENNA SECTION DETAIL EWER ANTENNA ELEVAT/ON ?OPOSE 3' OFF EAVE EDGE PROPOSED SCREEN STRUCTURE 2' FROM EAVE EDGE SCALE 1„ = 3' Cemeteries look skyward —Orange County Register AGENDA ITEM: 8/21/18, 3:44 PM .X1'1►'► , RECEIVED FROM: AND MADE PART OF THE RERORp THE COUNCIL MEETING OF: ?A 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NEWS Cemeteries look skyward By AMY TAXIN I Orange County Register February 15, 2006 at 3:00 am Orange County is going vertical. And it may not be just for the living. With land growing more and more expensive, many cemeteries in Southern California are seeking space for future generations, just as county residents are turning to high-rise towers and condos, so may they be looking at double -depth graves or above -ground internment in mausoleums. https://www.ocregister.com/2006/02/15/cemeteries-look-skyward/ Page 1 of 5 Cemeteries look skyward — Orange County Register "It's just like with housing: in these new developments; you sneeze, and your neighbor says'God bless you' because they're five feet away," said Michael Wesner, director of cemeteries for the Diocese of Orange. "That's sort of what we're doing in the cemetery business as well." Cemeteries say the exorbitant price of land makes expansion unprofitable since current prices for burials are too low to finance new property purchases. Instead, they want to maximize the use of their existing space. In Santa Ana, Fairhaven Memorial Park won approval from the city's Planning Commission on Monday night for one of its biggest undeveloped parcels of land. While much of the property will mirror the acres of shady, green lawn across the street, the 8 -acre lot will include a six - level mausoleum and cremation garden, where remains will be kept in a natural setting. It will also include double- depth graves - today an industry standard - that will let the cemetery accommodate 50 percent more interments than on older lots. "Vertical as opposed to burying is really driven by a lack of space," said Marla Noel, president of Fairhaven. CREMATION RISE One reason behind the surge of new burial options is the growing popularity of cremation. Two decades ago, only 14 percent of people in the U.S. chose cremation; today, that rate has doubled, according to statistics from the Cremation Association of North America. In California, more than half the people who die every year are cremated. 8/21/18, 3:44 PM https://www.ocregister.com/2006/02/15/cemeteries-look-skyward/ Page 2 of 5 Cemeteries look skyward — Orange County Register Some cemetery directors say people are choosing cremation to save money, either by scattering their loved ones' remains or scaling back memorial services. Others say cremation has become more fashionable as people become less tied to traditional religion and more in sync with the environment. Either way, the rise in cremation has extended the life of several area cemeteries. Today, El Toro Memorial Park in Lake Forest is expected to last until 2025. But it could go longer. "My prediction is the life of EI Toro might be extended out another five years," said Sam Randall, recently retired manager of the county's Cemetery District. "I am just guessing, but as we build more niches and do more cremation, we're obviously getting more burials per acre." Even so, space is a challenge. The county is poised to get a new cemetery as part of the Great Park in Irvine. The Diocese of Orange has plans for three new mausoleum buildings in Lake Forest, Huntington Beach and Orange to maximize space, Wesner said. Since a standard mausoleum is six crypts high and a grave is two caskets deep, cemeteries can triple their space by building up, said Barry Boudreaux, senior manager for cemetery and mausoleum design at Dallas -based firm J. Stuart Todd Inc. SINGLE -STORY BUILDINGS Most of the mausoleums planned in Orange County so far are one story - unlike taller structures in Los Angeles. For example, Calvary Cemetery's Mission -style mausoleum in Los Angeles has three floors above ground and one below grade, said Boudreaux, whose firm designed the building. Boudreaux said the challenge is making sure visitors feel close to their loved ones by including walkways on every floor and keeping each story to six or seven levels. 8/21/18, 3:44 PM https://www.ocregister.com/2006/02/15/cemeteries-look-skyward/ Page 3 of 5 Cemeteries look skyward — Orange County Register "It's like an office building. Some people don't want to get off the ground floors," he said. While Orange County may eventually feel pushed to build its cemeteries higher, one story will likely do for now, he said. "I think trying to sell a high-rise mausoleum now is a little too soon. At some point in time - 20, 25 years, 50 years down the road - someone might have to make that strong financial decision." Historically, mausoleum prices have surpassed those for ground burial because of the added costs of construction. Cremation has been less expensive, especially when families choose to scatter their loved ones' remains. As cemeteries offer a wider range of options, some things may be changing. For example, families who choose to have a memorial service and burial for cremated remains could be looking at a price tag close to that for a burial. "If you're saying I want similar services and then I want to go to a cemetery to bury the urn, it's going to be pretty similar in costs," said Chuck Ricciardi, co-owner of O'Connor Laguna Hills Mortuary. The alternative to vertical growth, cemeteries say, is expansion. But unless they grow locally, at some point in the future people could find themselves traveling farther to get to a cemetery. "People may end up being buried in Victorville," Noel said. "Visiting your loved one is going to be an all -day event." Fairhaven plans to develop an eight -acre lot occupied by a nursery and abandoned orange grove. The cemetery won approval from Santa Ana's Planning Commission. The expansion will be reviewed by City Council next month. Contact the writer: (714) 704-3777 or ataxin@ocregister.com I ............................. ... 8/21/18, 3:44 PM https://www.ocregister.com/2006/02/15/cemeteries-look-skyward/ Page 4 of 5 S NO o w ' �'-V�6KF1WUcrii $� F s asp ze � I d Google P, - Plop .e..�. 3IDr:S 44 y�rA �.� '-"'1�� - _ �•r�. p ,'& g i _— _ r a Feliciano _Redoddpta -AW - r AM IrA�Si r. T u. tip - if}17f): llt y�*P'`��i <'��(?ra - • tib,. .�� '� '' �-. ^'M, ..,Pr .; - r - Overview of CPRA Services Our Services The CPRA Alliance is a cooperative effort of many companies coming together to develop the most creative and innovative solutions for our clients. CPRA specializes in all aspects of cemetery planning and design, as well as the creation of responsive cremation gardens, funeral home landscapes, and pet cemeteries and memorial gardens. CPRA Contact Information CPRA Studio, LLC 9635 North Rampart Range Road Littleton, CO 80125 Telephone: 303.683.5917 Email us at: info@cprastudio.com cemetery planning resource alliance 303.683.5917 The CPRA Alliance is a cooperative effort, employing the strengths and expertise of many companies to develop the most creative and innovative solutions possible for our clients. Opportunities Assessment Feasibility Analysis prel imurear feasibility analysis, New Cemc "-Day0opment Kin Momerial Gw4cris VA City, Ahlbania Land -Use Master Planning 2 Cremation/Scattering Gardens Landscape Architecture Planning & Zoning Assistance .ES 1 7 v R 4 m t.11- 3 B Size: 10 KB Here fr'. -I,. cemetery . r r: design r;• roundtable .•,Ibr: where :r r experts ,a I. Plansthat Cemetery Master every years. I �, 1. https://www.fastmail.com/mail/Inbox/4104c33186737a95-f9l284297u4O524?u=4bl84171 Page 1 of 1 From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 4:38 PM To: 'Lenee Bilski'; CC Cc: So Kim Subject: RE: Aug. 21 re: Trump Public Amenities "Fire Buffer" Lot D Thank you, Lenee. That is a good point and will be clarified before the Council reviews the Development Agreement and Maintenance Agreement on September 4th. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(@_rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Lo you really need to print this e-mail? . d koi e 1grig i. -, ("i f �; n;.. �. Palos Ve ...-es .fie ), Ji .y �....3 f � ' r l d '.3{...., from .� is 'i �'3 he ='d�:, c rn�3 i �rea�s�� c„�;,ttair€5s fry€an�r€aG,_.i bulpr-� r€ } �� tF � U ty t, 2�u� ��a 1 GSI€Js 1 _�c}_a� U�tric7 shay t,_ taxi„I��ed, �tini,,fc riia< ar...Jor prv`�� _t�ci �rur�� (wt,f3s.i€�. ��( it f c;rrrtation .s iM'enck,. i only fcv. €.=sr. is "he: inclMdual or elt: ty naYncd €.3naut cirizod r:is sr € nina ion, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited, f( you recd�,ived this ea'w i : r rJr, or ars, mot an intender a recihie.nt, please nobly ii e sr,.nde.r imrrrrr diatt,1y. f hank you for your assistance Ind Coope.r$ion, From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 4:23 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Aug. 21 re: Trump Public Amenities "Fire Buffer” Lot D Importance: High Dear Mayor and Council members, Kindly correct the title of Lot D as it was originally designated a "fire buffer lot between the trails and the Portuguese Bend Community. It's a small matter that I request, but an important designation. It is not just a 1 "Presevation Area" as the developer has recently chosen to identify it. As a "fire buffer" Lot D has limitations as to what may be planted & maintained there, and certainly should be identified as such in perpetuity so that decades from now it will be clear to all what the purpose of a minimum of 32 feet from the PBC is all about. It needs to be correctly identified as what it is: "Trump National Golf Club Lot'D' Fire Buffer Area " Thank you, Ever Vigilant, Lenee Bilski AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS 1.3 5th page of Maintenance Agreement states iii) Landscaping and Irrigation Plan approved by the City entitled "Trump National Golf Club Lot'D' Preservation Area, v\ CITY OF RANCHO PIP -LOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 21, 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 D Update from Staff G Letter from Jennifer Taggart 4 Emails from: Thomas Olson; Eva Cicoria; Letter from John Girardi ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 20, 2018**. Respectfully submitted, A�— Emily Co orn WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180821 additions revisions to agenda.doc RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST(, - DATE: AUGUST 21, 2018 SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE PROPOSED LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO OFFSHORE DRILLING (AUGUST 21, 2018 — AGENDA ITEM `D') On August 16, 2018, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page article about proposed State legislation to block offshore drilling for oil and gas in Federal waters. Assembly Bill No. 1775 (AB 1775) and Senate Bill No. 834 (SB 834) would prevent the State Lands Commission (SLC) from granting leases for new pipelines and infrastructure in State waters or on other property under its jurisdiction. Copies of AB 1775 (sponsored by 66th District Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi) and SB 834 are attached. Staff will continue to monitor these bills. Attachments: AB 1775 SB 834 WLegislative Issues\Off-Shore Drilling\20180821_CC_LateCorrespondence.docx b AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 18, 2018 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 22, 2018 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2017-i8 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1775 Introduced by Assembly Members Muratsuchi and Lim6n (Principal coauthor: Senator Jackson) January 4, 2018 An act to add Section 6245 to the Public Resources Code, relating to state lands. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1775, as amended, Muratsuchi. State lands: leasing: oil and gas. Existing law vests exclusive jurisdiction over ungranted tidelands and submerged lands owned by the state to the State Lands Commission. Existing law confers the powers of the commission as to leasing or granting of rights or privileges to lands owned by the state upon a local trustee of granted public trust lands to which those lands have been granted. Existing law authorizes the commission to let leases for the extraction of oil and gas from coastal tidelands or submerged lands in state waters and beds of navigable rivers and lakes within the state in accordance with specified provisions of law. Existing law, notwithstanding those provisions or any other provision of law, prohibits a state agency or state officer from entering into any new lease for the extraction of oil or gas from the California Coastal Sanctuary, which includes certain state waters subject to tidal influence, unless either (1) the President of the United States has found a severe energy supply interruption and has ordered distribution of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Governor finds that the energy resources of the 97 AB 1775 —2— sanctuary 2— sanctuary will contribute significantly to the alleviation of that interruption, and the Legislature subsequently acts to amend the law to allow the extraction, or (2) the commission determines that the oil or gas deposits are being drained by means of producing wells upon adjacent federal lands and the lease is in the best interest of the state. This bill would prohibit the commission or a local trustee, as defined, of granted public trust lands from entering into any new lease or other conveyance or f-rom entering into any lease renewal, exte---.'---, — faeilitate additional development >or exploration for-, oil or natural. gas ftom, federal wate authorizing new construction of oil- and gas -related infrastructure upon tidelands and submerged lands within state waters associated with Outer Continental Shelf leases issued after January 1, 2018. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prevent specified activities, including, among others, issuance by the commission of leases pursuant to exceptions applicable to the California Coastal Sanctuary described above. The bill would authorize the commission to establish regulations for the implementation of these provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 6245 is added to the Public Resources 2 Code, to read: 3 6245. (a) Except as provided in subdivision—(e),-, (b), the 4 commission or a local trustee shall not enter into any new lease or 5 other conveyance authorizing new construction of oil- and 6 gas -related infrastructure upon tidelands and submerged lands -in 7 8 , or f�eilitafe additional 9 , 10 waters. within state waters associated with Outer Continental Shelf 11 leases issued after January 1, 2018. 12 , 13 , 14 97 AB 1775 1. tidelands and stibmerged lands in the California Coastal Sanetu2 3 , 4 . 5 (e) 6 (b) Nothing in this section shall -prevent prohibit any of the 7 following: 8 (1) The commission from issuing leases pursuant to Section 9 6243 or 6244. 10 (2) Any activity undertaken to repair, replaee-, repair or maintain 11 any pipeline or other infrastructure used to convey oil or natural 12 gas or any other activity necessary to ensure the safe operation of 13 infrastructure used in the exploration, development, or production 14 of oil or natural gas. 15 (3) Any activity undertaken to convey oil or natural gas 16 produced from state waters. 17 (4) 18 (c) The commission may establish regulations for the 19 implementation of this section. 20 (e) 21 (d) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have 22 the following meanings: 23 " means the Galifomia Goastal 24 . 25 (2� 26 (1) "Commission" means the State Lands Commission. 27 " means those aetivities taking plaee foil 28 the diseovery ofoil and natural gas, itteltiding geophysieal aetivitr, 29 drilling, platform eonstruetion, pipeline eonstmetion, and operatio 30 of all onshore support faeilities that are performed for the purpose 31 of ultimately prodtteing the resottrees diseovered-. 32 " means the proeess of searehing for oil an 33 nattiral gas, ineluding any drilling, whether on or off know 34 geologieal stmetures, ineftiding the drilling of a well in wh 35 diseovery of oil or nattiral gas is made and the drilling of any 36 additional delitteation well after the diseovery that is need 37 38 . 39 " means those waters and sttbmerged 1 40 lying seaward of the three mile natttieal limit, as set forth by -the 97 AB 1775 — 4 1 , that appertai 2 to the United States and are sttbjeet to federal jurisdietion and 3 eontrol. 4 (6) 5 (2) "Local trustee" means a local trustee of granted public trust 6 lands that is a county, city, or district, including water, sanitary, 7 regional park, port, or harbor districts, or any other local political 8 or corporate subdivision that has been granted public trust lands 9 through a legislative grant. 10 " means those aetivities that take plaee after the 11 sueeessful eompletion of any meatis for the removal of oil an 12 natttral gas,' , transfer o 13 resourees to shore, operation monitoring, maintenanee, an 14 . 15 (3) "Outer Continental Shelf" means all submerged lands lying 16 seaward and outside of the area of lands beneath navigable waters, 17 as set forth by the federal Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 18 1331), and all of which appertain to the United States and are 19 subject to its jurisdiction and control. 20 (4) "State waters " has the same meaning as defined in Section 21 36108. 101 97 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 25, 2018 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 18, 2018 SENATE BILL No. 834 Introduced by Senators Jackson and Lara (Principal coauthor: Senator McGuire) (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Muratsuchi) (Coauthors: Senators Allen, Stern, and Wiener) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Bloom) January 4, 2018 An act to add Section 6245 to the Public Resources Code, relating to state lands. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 834, as amended, Jackson. State lands: leasing: oil and gas. Existing law vests exclusive jurisdiction over ungranted tidelands and submerged lands owned by the state to the State Lands Commission. Existing law confers the powers of the commission as to leasing or granting of rights or privileges to lands owned by the state upon a local trustee of granted public trust lands to which those lands have been granted. Existing law authorizes the commission to let leases for the extraction of oil and gas from coastal tidelands or submerged lands in state waters and beds of navigable rivers and lakes within the state in accordance with specified provisions of law. Existing law, notwithstanding those provisions or any other provision of law, prohibits a state agency or state officer from entering into any new lease for the extraction of oil or gas from the California Coastal Sanctuary, which includes certain state waters subject to tidal influence, unless either (1) the President of the United States has found a severe energy supply interruption and has ordered distribution of the Strategic 97 SB 834 —2 Petroleum Reserve, the Governor finds that the energy resources of the sanctuary will contribute significantly to the alleviation of that interruption, and the Legislature subsequently acts to amend the law to allow the extraction, or (2) the commission determines that the oil or gas deposits are being drained by means of producing wells upon adjacent federal lands and the lease is in the best interest of the state. This bill would prohibit the commission -and -the or a local tmtees trustee, as defined, of granted public trust lands from entering into any new lease or other conveyance authorizing new construction of oil- and gas -related infrastructure upon tidelands and submerged lands within state waters associated with Outer Continental Shelf leases issued after January 1, 2018. The bill would prohibit the commission -w4 -the or a local trdstees of granted publie tmst lands trustee from entering into any lease renewal, extension, amendment, or modification authorizing new construction of oil- and gas -related infrastructure that authorizes a lessee to engage in any activity upon tidelands and submerged lands within state waters , development, or prodttetion of oil or natural gas from associated with Outer Continental Shelf leases issued after January 1, 2018. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prevent specified activities, including, among others, issuance by the commission of leases pursuant to exceptions applicable to the California Coastal Sanctuary described above. The bill would authorize the commission to establish regulations for the implementation of these provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 6245 is added to the Public Resources 2 Code, to read: 3 6245. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the 4 commission or a local trustee shall not enter into any new lease or 5 other conveyance authorizing new construction of oil- and 6 gas -related infrastructure upon tidelands and submerged lands 7 within state waters associated with Outer Continental Shelf leases 8 issued after January 1, 2018. 9 (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the commission or a 10 local trustee shall not enter into any lease renewal, extension, 11 amendment, or modification authorizing new construction of oil - 97 -3— SB 834 1 and gas -related infrastructure that authorizes a lessee to engage 2 in any activity upon tidelands and submerged lands within state 3 waters , 4 development, or prodtietion of oil or natural gas from the Gute 5 Continental Shelf hel associated with Outer Continental Shelf leases 6 issued after January 1, 2018. 7 (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any of the following: 8 (1) The commission from issuing leases pursuant to Section 9 6243 or 6244. 10 (2) Any activity undertaken to repair or maintain any pipeline 11 or other infrastructure used to convey oil or natural gas or any 12 other activity necessary to ensure the safe operation of-e�� 13 infrastructure used in the exploration, development, or production 14 of oil or natural gas. 15 (3) Any activity undertaken to convey oil or natural gas 16 produced from state waters. 17 (d) The commission may establish regulations for the 18 implementation of this section. 19 (e) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have 20 the following meanings: 21 (1) "Commission" means the State Lands Commission. 22 (2) "Local trustee" means a local trustee of granted public trust 23 lands that is a county, city, or district, including water, sanitary, 24 regional park, port, or harbor districts, or any other local political 25 or corporate subdivision that has been granted public trust lands 26 through a legislative grant. 27 "New or additional explorafion, development, or pr dtletio.n. 28 of oil or natural gas" 29 eapaeity of any infrastmettire ttsed to eotrver, transport, or proeess 30 oil or natural gas from Outer Gontinental Shelf leases isstted after 31 jartuary 1, 2018. 32 (4� 33 (3) "Outer Continental Shelf" means all submerged lands lying 34 seaward and outside of the area of lands beneath navigable waters, 35 as set forth by the federal Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 36 1331), and all of which appertain to the United States and are 37 subject to its jurisdiction and control. 38 e 97 SB 834 (4) "State waters" has the same meaning as defined in Section 36108. x 97 JEFFREY Z. B. SPRINGER STEPHEN A. DEL GUERCIO MICHAEL A. FRANCIS BRIAN D. LANGA JENNIFER T. TAGGART LESLIE M. DELGUERCIO TAMMY M. J. HONG DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 915 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 2000 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 624-8407 FAX (21 3) 624.0174 WWW.DDSFFIRM.COM August 20, 2018 Via U.S. Mail and Email aaurenfiQrpvca.gov) Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 CHRIS G. DEMETRIOU (1915-1989) RONALD J. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED) RICHARD A. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED) SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS JTAGGA RT@DDSFFI RM .COM SENDER'S DIRECT LINE (213) 624.8407 Ext. 150 Re: City Council Consent Calendar Item -- Addition of Flagging Operations at Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal Drive for PV AYSO Dear Ms. Ramezani, As you know, I represent Palos Verdes American Youth Soccer Organization ("PV AYSO"). Thank you for providing PV AYSO an opportunity to comment on the proposed staff report regarding amending an existing contract with Sunbeam to add flagging operations at Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal Drive on Saturdays and Sundays ostensibly to address traffic impacts resulting from PV AYSO's use of the Ladera Linda fields for soccer activities. For the reasons discussed below, PV AYSO believes that addition of flagging operations is an unnecessary waste of limited resources and an inappropriate use of public funds. The staff report is not supported by any data documenting traffic impacts as a result of PV AYSO activities. PV AYSO has utilized the fields at Ladera Linda for well over 25 years, and PV AYSO is not aware of any documented traffic issues or data and traffic studies evidencing traffic issues at the Ladera Linda fields. Further, the City has not considered the upcoming soccer schedule or how many games will be played at Ladera Linda this fall season before committing itself to the use of public funds. PV AYSO believes that the flagging operations are an unnecessary use of public funds, but PV AYSO recognizes that certain members of the surrounding neighborhood have recently articulated concerns regarding traffic impacts on weekends at the Ladera Linda fields. PV AYSO recommends that instead of committing the City to the flagging expense without data, traffic studies, or the upcoming schedule and use of the Ladera Linda fields, that the City consider evaluating the traffic impacts the first couple of weekends in September and then make a decision on whether flagging operations are necessary and justified. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes August 20, 2018 Page 2 The City should be aware that PV AYSO's use of the Ladera Linda fields has been significantly reduced in the last couple of years. This year will see the lowest use of the fields for the fall season (September to early December) in the recent past. On Saturdays, PV AYSO currently plans on only three divisions using the fields. In the past, PV AYSO had six divisions using the fields on Saturdays. Therefore, this year should see approximately a 50% reduction in field use on Saturdays. On Sundays, PV AYSO currently anticipates only one division using the field, with the exception of Sunday September 9 when there might be two divisions because of a separate field closure that weekend. Thus, Sunday play will be limited this year compared to past use. In the past, PV AYSO had four divisions regularly using the fields. Therefore, this year should see about a 75% reduction in Ladera Linda field use on Sundays. Certainly, PV AYSO expects that the City will concur that PV AYSO's use of the fields on Sunday does not warrant flagging operations. Further, the City should be aware that PV AYSO has staggered some of the game start times this year to minimize any concerns about traffic and parking issues. On Saturdays, under PV AYSO's current schedule, at most, there should be four games occurring at the same time. PV AYSO anticipates that generally there will only be about three games occurring at the same time during the day. For four games, there should be at most 100 players. Assuming all players arrive by passenger vehicle with no carpools, that represents, at most, an additional 100 vehicles traveling to and from the Ladera Linda fields. In PV AYSO's experience, many of the families carpool. Accordingly, PV AYSO's estimate of additional vehicles is extremely conservative. In comparison, Miraleste Intermediate School has an enrollment of over 900 students. MIS is the other site for which flagging operations are being provided by the subject contract. Based upon the foregoing, PV AYSO believes the flagging expense in excess of $20,000 is not justified or warranted. However, PV AYSO recognizes that concerns have been expressed. Therefore, PV AYSO thinks that a traffic count and study during PV AYSO weekend soccer activities on several weekends in September and observance of the traffic flow would be appropriate before expenditures of any monies on flagging operations. JTT/lp Please contact me if the City wishes to discuss this matter further. From: Elias Sassoon Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:40 AM To: 'Dr. OI'; CC; Park Place HOA - Rodgveller, Hilda & Barry Subject: RE: Car parked in the middle of Park Place street. Cannot exit resident driveway. Asked to move car. Reply was they were just taking pictures and would leave soon. They took their time. Very stressful. Attachments: IMG_2412jpg; IMG_2414jpg Dr. Olson: Thanks for your email and the photos. This information which you gave provided will be included in the late correspondence regarding this item. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 -----Original Message ----- From: Dr. 01 [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.comj Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 6:16 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Park Place HOA - Rodgveller, Hilda & Barry <rodgfamily@gmail.com> Subject: Car parked in the middle of Park Place street. Cannot exit resident driveway. Asked to move car. Reply was they were just taking pictures and would leave soon. They took their time. Very stressful. How many RPV residents must 'put up' with loss of exit, verbal confrontation, loss of enjoyment, potential or real assault, etc. like this every day as we do? -1 Ao e From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 7:36 AM To: CC Subject: Del Cerro Park parking proposal I applaud City Council and Staff for attempting to balance competing interests and concerns related to Del Cerro Park parking and I support the Staff recommendation. There's no perfect solution, but the proposal can be implemented and tweaked as we move forward. I note that the Del Cerro permit parking signage and the RPV resident parking signage have been effective in deterring public parking within Del Cerro and along the striped curb, so signage paired with enforcement can be effective. It might be worthwhile to postpone installation of a gate until the truncated parking hours, related signage and curb painting are tested. That would address the Fire Department concerns. H Thank you for your problem solving efforts and thank you for supporting volunteers. GIRARDT I K E E S E 1. A W Y T, R S August 20, 2018 Via Electronic Mail.- c!2�vcy.gov Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Crenshaw and Park Place Parking Situation. Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: Following on the report from Public Works which was originally listed as .number four Agenda Item on the August 21 meeting and following the August 18 letter from Barry Rodgveller, the current President of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association, we wanted to make a proposal as a'back-up' to the discussion of the plan articulated in the letter from Barry Rodgveller. This may prove to be a less costly fix than the City's proposed plan and it would significantly enhance the safety issues with which the City Council is concerned. Our own personal observation and the work of the survey prepared by Ms. Edgerton identify how the current number of cross -hatched. spaces on Crenshaw is significantly underutilized. This proposal Would involve making the parking spaces on Park. Place available by permit only for local residents, Preserve volunteers and donors and two spaces for disabled parking. This would be consistent with the original plan for Del Cerro to be used 'primarily as a neighborhood park' (please see the attached page from the program of utilization document between the City and the National Park Service). Those spaces which are currently cross -hatched or permit parking on Crenshaw would be converted to additional general parking. This would result in a net loss of only five spaces. The gate (as was also suggested by Ms. Edgerton) would be placed closer to the Crenshaw Boulevard intersection and would then be opened during daylight hours and closed in the evening. Unfortunately, the events of last weekend—when sometime late at night or early morning, a car drove the length of the Park across the pathway to the 1 126 WILSHIRE BOULEIVARD e Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 0 90017-1904 TiiLEP1,10NE: 213-977-0211 a FACSIMILE: 213-481-1554 WWW.G1RARD1KEESE,C0M1 August 20, 2018 Page 2 lookout --providing additional evidence of the need to take some reasonable steps to increase the safety for those residents around the Park as well as the users of the Park. Such. a proposal would eliminate the need for the hammerhead. turnaround or the long pathway for the proposed ADA spaces. That is a significant cost item which could be avoided. Lastly, it is our belief thatthe proposed placement for the ADA spaces is not in the best interest of the City. Thoughtfully or not, many vehicles maintain the 40 mile per hour speed of Crenshaw well into the curve onto Seacrest. Even those vehicles going straight on the Burma Road extension must move to the left in. order to clear the curve to proceed towards the Preserve or Burrell Lane. With the anticipation of open doors and mindful that those with disabilities may not be as agile in exiting the vehicle, should some misfortune happen, the placement of those spaces, it could be argued, might represent a dangerous condition of public property. We do not think the City needs this. It may take some period of time, weeks or a few months for those that use the Preserve to accommodate to these changes. I do know that the Preserve is going to be the subject of subsequent meetings and if there is some moderation of access, the City will have gone a long way towards accommodating the public and solving the problems of the local homeowners. Respectfully submitted, John and Denise Girardi Attachments cc: Doug Willmore, City Manager, dwilh'.n; )_rc� py; Elias Sassoon, Director Department of Public Work -s, p o 11L)Liq,Ly.rKs@j:pv , &91 L __�LL t41 3/01 1 3 9- _FAX I Allgi_7 4A A 0 A 3 _ NPS PWR PGSO 0025 21� PROGPAX OF UTILIZATION The City of Rancho Talos Verdes proposes to develop approximately 80 acres of the 115 acre surplus VIKE site for a variety of rec- reational and open space uses. riguros 6 and 7. show the portio ' ns to be acquired for parkland in relation to other proposed uses for the remainder of the site. &t th+�_mRL=_site NOW 101 N '-Aw'�J The 4.49 acre upper site would be used primarily as a neigbborhood park capitalizing on the dramatic views from this location. 1. Potential Active 'Recreational Area at main Site (Figure •6) Eventually, tbis__A=ea_Ajght_cont_ainic c_s� 2 al courts, and an athletic field. This multi -use area OAt 6. tr el use on 1y. A ITL Road access will be provided off of Palos Verdes Drive with a paved parking lot to serve the picnic areas, tennis courts and athletic field. Development of this site would potentially occur over 1. a f3-ve-year Period based on funding priorities. In the in- terim it would be used as open space. No structures exist on this portion of the site. 2. Passive Open space at Main Site (Figure 6) s Initi o 1 vista and picnic areas and t_r--a1T_s._AdditiohaT_1_an_d cni� ping would be plan o 1 v sta. 0 ------- Eh - ,caping would Pbei�planl"�eo o iance 6 —natfv—e growth. A parking area would be added in the fttUre. All existing structures on this portion would be dMolisbA4,_ -a-46 dfid-1—affirch- 1Wg---a-rNM V6Vrd'-B_e7i_s_ed-a-f -g—round lAv(L V -tor --a- sty~ r,_,ea with the 'I "a and benches. It could also b se �y organized groups as yell asi_)adi_v1dua3:s for such activities -as whale watching, coastal study, etc. 3. Upper Site (Figure 7) Development at this site includes minor landscaping and es- tablishraent of picnic areas. The parking lot would be expanded in the future.- A level play�,ng area would be established between the street and the parking lot., Two alternatives exist for the existing. structuremz* (1),, Demolish all, landfJcape,' and rise area• only. for picnics, viiiviij%g, etc., . (2), Renovate (with the cQopera- tibn of commiinJ ty qrbii�'O) one t6' four existing stru6tures' (S-302, S-303, 5-304, 573�07), demolishing the other structures, and use for recreation programs and group meetings as well as for AM CITY OF I RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: AUGUST 20, 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, August 21, 2018 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material Emails from SUNSHINE 2 Email from Margaret L. Avineri 4 Emails from: John Girardi; Thomas Olson; Kathy and Al Edgerton; Email exchange between Public Works Director Sassoon and Romas and Angela Jarasunas Respectfully submitted, A�— Emily-C-lb—lborn W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180821 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Friday, August 17, 2018 12:41 PM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: The quality of the "deals" with Trump, Ongoing Agenda Reports Late corr From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:38 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: The quality of the "deals" with Trump, Ongoing Agenda Reports MEMO FROM: SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council DATE: August 17, 2018 RE: The quality of the "deals" with Trump Continuing the question. TRUMP and Who's on first? The City's Foundational Documents or Agreements with third parties? You have been copied on a lot of "chatter" back and forth about the Trails Network Plan (TNP) update in relation to several projects "in the works". The Trump project is the most critical "moving target". I am not going to give up the future of my City to semantics. In 2004 in whatever capacity she was serving at the time, Carolynn Petru declared that four of the 11 suggestions for improving the TNP were "Policy" decisions which needed to be made by City Council. Eight years later, on November 7, 2012, Staff supported seven of the recommendations as constructive formatting changes. Council moved and approved Staff's positions on the four "policy" issues. Yea! Now, Ara is claiming that these were not policy decisions at all. This agenda item was to seek policy direction from the City Council on the update to the Trails Network Plan (see attached Staff Report).* What is the difference? Whatever. My question is... Why, for nearly 14 years, has Staff avoided using the improvements to the RPV Trails Network Plan? I 1 1, Zukerman's 1997 version of the Project added amenities above and beyond the 1993 update of the CTP portion of the TNP. However, the text in the CTP was never updated to document these improved trails as Category I. The "policy directions" were available to Staff when TRUMP's 2016 amendments to the PUBLIC AMENITIES, TRAILS AND SIGNAGE drawing and text were produced. Once again, the TNP was not updated. At this point, Staff was way late on their "assurance" that the TNP Update would be completed before the end of the year 2013. I have offered to convert the text of the current easement offer into the 2012 TNP format. No reply other than Ara's email. I just want it to be clear, the City Council did not approve any policy changes on November 7, 2012 regarding trails. This is what I call obfuscation. I interpret it to mean "shut up and go away". By now, Ara should know I am not going to do that. Mr. City Manager can apologize until he is blue in the face about errors, omissions and typo's. The Trump related draft Resolutions (like the one which created the Civic Center Advisory Committee), are a cumulative and conscientious effort to undermine the stated goals of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Please make them stop at least until the Council confirms this change of direction which is presented in the draft General Plan Update. * In the interest of "transparency", I have asked, repeatedly, that Staff provide the direct address to documents which are in the City's web site. Large attachments suck up memory on personal computers and "click here" links have short lives. The Archives are in https:Hs3.amazonaws.com/media.legistar/rpv/ From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:40 PM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: GP, TNP, Trump etc. Staff's sneak attack on the direction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes L From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:38 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: GP, TNP, Trump etc. Staffs sneak attack on the direction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes FROM: SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council DATE: August 17, 2018 RE: Staff's sneak attack on the direction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Read this, twice: CITY COUNCIL MEMO - UPDATE TO THE TRAILS NETWORK PLAN NOVEMBER 7,2012 As a part of the preparation of the TNP, the City will conduct outreach to stakeholder groups to refine the scope of the TNP and identify the unique issues of concern to the various constituencies with an interest in trails access and planning in the City outside f the Preserve. Public workshops on the TNP update will be conducted before being presented to the City Council for adoption. The t f the TNP is expectedto be completed 2014. (Emphasis added.) This is simply another revelation of how Staff slips things into Staff Reports and then chooses to do what they really have in mind. Break it down. A city Council Adopted the TNP in 1984. 1 Rather than simply "updating" it as in, adding acquired easements to the TRAIL EASEMENT INVENTORY, integrating the Conceptual Bikeways Plan and the Conceptual Trails Plan (which were previous updates), adding newly improved trails and producing a more professional SIGNAGE PLAN, Staff declared "to refine the scope of the TNP„. Although it was never brought up as a topic of discussion/Council direction, Staff hereby established that the Preserve will be excluded from the City-wide Trails Network Plan and the Peninsula's off-road circulation opportunities. Other than a few workshops at which Staff proposed deleting trails, have you seen any evidence of Staff "preparing” the TNP? Has all of the $7,200.00 been spent? There is no "draft Update" on the City's web site. Staff used the same methodology to join ICLEI. Staff, not the Council, is committed to implementing the United Nation's Agenda for the 21St Century. That represents higher density housing, "pure" rather than accessible habitat, "sustainable" whatever and fewer individual property rights. We are not losing "local control" to the State of California. Our own Staff is taking it from us, one little, sneaky sentence at a time. I truly wish we could hire an "untainted" Consultant simply to proofread these 100+ page Agenda Reports. There is so much "damage" buried in them. The latest pieces of the Trump puzzle are a mess and now the latest on the General Plan mess is available. Too few days on the calendar. If any of you current Councilmembers and members of the public liked the way RPV was in the year 2000, please send me a personal note of encouragement. From: Margaret Avineri <mavineriEcoxnt> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 2:33 PM To: Ara Mihranian <Ararpvcaov> Subject: 26708 Indian Peak Road; RPV Dear Mr. Mihranian, I am writing to you regarding the above property that will be the subject of debate at the public hearing scheduled on August 21ST. 1 had hoped to attend in person but am unable due to a prior commitment. Therefore, I am emailing you my comments here. I have lived at 26707 Indian Peak Road since 1981, directly across the street from the 26708 property. Since the purchase of the property many years ago by James Kay (who does not live there), I have witnessed the incremental growth of the roof - mounted antennae, support pole masts and other massive objects as the residential property came to resemble a communications tower. Every guest at my home raises the question of what the eyesore across the street might be or what is actually going on at that location. I am aware that the City has made efforts to control this situation over the years with limited success. I respectfully ask the City Council to address what has become an unfortunate neighborhood reality that we are forced to accept but that has a negative impact on our neighborhood and the surrounding properties. Sincerely, Margaret L. Avineri From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:44 PM To: Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Crenshaw and Park Place Parking Situation Attachments: 20180815153940419.pdf From: Elias Sassoon Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:36 PM To: jgirardi@girardikeese.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Crenshaw and Park Place Parking Situation Thanks for your email. This email and the attached letter will be included as part of late correspondence regarding this agenda item Thanks: Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works C� Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 AA From: John Girardi[mailto:igirardi@girardikeese.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 3:42 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Crenshaw and Park Place Parking Situation Dear Council Members: I previously forwarded the attached letter on Monday, August 13. The President of our Homeowners Association had not had a chance to sign the letter and though reference was made to the Homeowners Association's approval, it was thought the letter should bear his signature as well. Attached you will find correspondence identical in every respect to the letter transmitted on Monday but with the addition of the signature of Barry Rodgveller, the current President of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association. i John Girardi G.IRARDI ( K LAWYERS August 13, 2018 Via Electronic Mail. cc(ibrpvca.Qov Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Crenshaw and Park Place Parking Situation Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: In light of the lengthy discussion at the City Council meeting on July 31St and the many proposals that were discussed, not only on our behalf, but on behalf of the members of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association, we would urge the Council to take some affirmative steps with regard to the parking situation on Crenshaw and Park Place which has become a significant issue owing to the popularity of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, I know that in the collection of materials prior to the July 31 meeting there were a number of emails from those urging no change in the parking. None of those items of correspondence, however, disclose that the author lives anywhere in the vicinity. It is far easier to urge the status quo from afar. Additionally, there was at least one recent suggestion urging that no action be taken because the park was there before the homes were built. That observation misses the boat. The Burrell family was involved in the initial work to develop what became Burrell Lane and Park Place. Del Cerro Park was part of the development of the hill along with the construction of several houses which now stand on Burrell Lane and Park Place. While the Park's master plan does not designate Del Cerro as a'neighborhood park'; Timothy Burrell, who was involved in extensive negotiations with the City Council, would state that the discussions between Burrell Limited and the City always contemplated this area would be a neighborhood park. 1126 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD * Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA * 90017-1904 TELEPHONE: 213-977-0211 * FACSIMILE: 213-481-1554 W W W,GIRARDIKEESF,.COM August 13, 2018 Page 2 With respect to changes that might be made at a relatively modest cost in the hope of providing some greater degree of control of traffic and access to the Preserve, the following is suggested: Crenshaw Limit Crenshaw parking to daylight hours (same as Del Cerro Park posted hours). If there were to be paid parking on Crenshaw, a time limit (such as 3 hours) and one pay station, centrally located. In the alternative investigate paying by phone, such as PayByPhone app. Modify the use of the cross -hatched designated spots — 2-3 as disabled spaces, and the balance for Preserve volunteers and/or RPV residents with window permit. These spaces are currently underutilized. Gate/Park Place Eliminate parking striping and red -curb the entire south curb of Park Place (a less expensive approach) or install an asphalt curb and fill in the area with grass. Install a gate on Park Place for nighttime security (which could be left open during the day because of the red curb and no parking). Preserve Establishing an automated reservation system (barcode entrance) for a modest fee. This fee could cover the cost of running the website with accommodations in price for Conservancy donors/volunteers and residents of other Peninsula cities. The concept of reservations is currently in use at parks in the South Bay and National Parks. Installation of a turnstile/gate system to control pedestrian traffic in compliance with the automated reservation system. Consideration of this system for the Forrestal entrance. August 13, 2018 Page 3 Website/City Hall Development of an appropriate search criterion (free parking, bathrooms and so forth) to drive hikers to the City Hall trailhead (and away from Del Cerro) What Will Not Work Placement of additional parking spaces beyond the gate entrance to the Preserve or paving a parking area within Del Cerro Park. While the immediate cost for either of these approaches would be considerable (and there would be a question if the Preserve land were stable enough), the long term costs would be substantial as the property values would decrease significantly. That is a problem the City does not need. Respectfully Submitted, 4 John and Denise Girardi Barry Rodgveller cc: . Doug Willmore, City Manager, dwillmor @Kpyca.zov; Elias Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works, publicworks@ovca.goy From: Elias Sassoon Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:01 AM To: Ipvpprof@gmail.com' Cc: CC Subject: RE: Moving traffic; all stalls full; no one in Park; difficult safety exit for church service Good Morning Dr. Olson: Thanks for your email. Your email will be included in the late correspondence regarding this item. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 Fax: 310-544-5292 -----Original Message ----- From: Dr. OI [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:22 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWiIImore@rpvca.gov>; Park Place HOA - Rodgveller, Hilda & Barry <rodgfamily@gmaii.com> Subject: Moving traffic; all stalls full; no one in Park; difficult safety exit for church service Honorable RPV Council and Mayor, City Manager and others. Again, thank you for working to identify & define solutions to address significant adverse safety, et al issues at Park Place. We hope installation of gate for resident properties on Park Place is moving ahead asap to help us exit & enter our homes vs very difficult safety blockage now. Please note in these pictures that all the parking stalls are filled, yet there is no one in the very small Neighborhood park. Parking stalls are used exclusively by people to walk to the Conservancy RPV trails. The 'real' parking stalls for the park, described as the first 10 spaces for RPV resident -permit -parking -only on Crenshaw Blvd, are all empty closest to the park. Please be confirmed that this situation of 'no persons in the park w all stalls filled' and 'all RPV Crenshaw stalls open' occurs daily. Thank you again very much for any and all efforts to provide protections to Park Place. We look forward to a protective gate et al. and more information regarding the date of its install. Kind Regards & Sincerely, s 1 Tom Thomas Olson Park Place HoA From: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 9:36 AM To: CC Subject: RPV City Council August 21, 2018, Meeting, Agenda No. 4 Attachments: Letter to City Council re Park Place Recommendations.pdf; Southern End of Crenshaw.JPG; Hang Gliders August 19, 2018.JPG; Hang Glider August 19, 2018.JPG; Aug 2018 Park Place -Del Cerro Area Parking Study.pdf Madame Mayor and City Council Members, Please see the attached letter regarding the subject agenda item. Thank you, Kathy & Al Edgerton Del Cerro Subject: RPV City Council August 21, 2018 Meeting, Agenda Item No. 4 Madame Mayor and City Council Members, First of all, we would like to commend the City Council for its efforts to mitigate the negative impacts being experienced by Park Place residents while accommodating the parking needs of the Land Conservancy volunteers who often have to carry equipment into the preserve to perform their tasks. We have reviewed the staff recommended actions that can be taken to improve the traffic and parking on Park Place adjacent to Del Cerro Park and have the following comments. The spaces that are reserved for vehicles with RPV Resident permits are very under-utilized. We and Burrell Lane resident Denise Girardi performed a brief study of parking space usage on Park Place and Crenshaw Blvd. during the past week to quantify utilization. The attached document describes the methodology used as well as results. On weekdays, a maximum of 4 of the 10 available spaces were in use during the period, with an average of 9% (less than 1 space used, on average). During the weekend, a maximum of 3 of the spaces were used, with an average of 12% (slightly over 1 space used, on average). One option the Council might consider would be to allow the Land Conservancy volunteers to obtain permits to use some or all of those spaces. We do not support adding 2 ADA parking spaces curbside at the end of Crenshaw, as we do not believe that would be a safe place for people to be entering and leaving their vehicles. Crenshaw is much narrower at that location than farther north toward Crest Rd. and Crenshaw begins to curve toward Seacrest shortly after the Park Place intersection. (A photo of the street is attached.) Many drivers currently use the entire area at the end of Crenshaw to make wide U-turns after looking unsuccessfully for a parking spot close to the preserve trailhead and then return north on Crenshaw to park at a farther location. In addition, there have been many accidents over the years at that intersection when drivers are driving too fast on Crenshaw, not realizing that Crenshaw is ending and that they have to react quickly to turn onto Seacrest. The most recent such accident occurred a week ago (on Monday, August 13th at 4 pm). A traffic sign was knocked down and witnesses indicated that the vehicle sustained substantial damage. 1 Better alternatives for locating ADA spaces might be to use RPV Resident permit spaces or to put the spaces in the Crenshaw Extension just past the end of Crenshaw Blvd. The staff report indicates that the gate at Park Place will be closed from sunset to sunrise and on weekends, but does not mention holidays. We would recommend that the gate also be closed on holidays. Would it be possible to place the gate closer to the entrance onto Park Place rather than 45 ft. from the sidewalk crossing? Doing so might discourage drivers from turning onto Park Place before realizing that the gate is closed and eliminate the need for a turnaround. We have a concern that the turnaround area might be an inviting place for people to park at night when the gate is closed. Two other observations from the parking utilization study are worth noting: Three hang gliders were taking off from the park overlook Sunday afternoon. (Photos attached.) No vehicles were parked on Oceanaire near the Del Cerro neighborhood entrance at any of the observation times during the entire period of the study, indicating that the permit parking program has been very effective in controlling parking within Del Cerro. Many thanks from Del Cerro residents to the Council for working with us to reduce the negative impacts of the large volume of preserve visitors on our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Kathy & Al Edgerton Del Cerro 2 Parking Space Utilization Study of Park Place and Nearby Areas 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 Methodology During the week of August 14, 2018 and August 19, 2018, Del Cerro residents Kathy & Al Edgerton and Burrell Lane resident Denise Girardi performed a brief study of parking space utilization of Park Place (adjacent to Del Cerro Park), the southern end of Crenshaw Blvd., and Oceanaire Drive (in Del Cerro neighborhood). We documented the following items 5 times per day from Wednesday through Sunday plus one time last Tuesday, August 14th, for a total of 26 times: • Number of people in Del Cerro Park • Number of Vehicles parked on Park Place (16 standard spaces available) • Usage of the ADA parking space on Park Place (1 space available) • Number of Vehicles parked in RPV Resident Permit spaces on Crenshaw Blvd. (10 spaces available) • Number of vehicles parked on Crenshaw up to the Island View entrance (30 space available) • Number of vehicles parked on Oceanaire Drive (in Del Cerro) without a neighborhood permit The study results are shown on the following pages. The first sheet summarizes the total weekday and weekend average for each item above during the morning, at midday, and in the afternoon as well as the overall min -max range of overall parking places used, daily average and utilization rates for Park Place standard and ADA parking spaces, RPV Resident Permit spaces, Crenshaw spaces from Park Place to the Island View entrance (based on the available spaces), and Oceanaire. The raw data collected during the study from which the summary sheet was developed is included following the summary sheet. We plan to continue the study for two additional days (Monday August 20th and Tuesday August 21 st) and will report any unexpected results at the council meeting. 1 General Observations • Park Place standard parking spaces were heavily used most days of the week, averaging 73% usage on weekdays and 86% on weekends. • The Park Place ADA space was utilized more on weekends than weekdays (12% on weekdays, 40% on weekends). • The RPV Resident Permit spaces on Crenshaw were very under-utilized on both weekdays and weekends, averaging around 10% utilization throughout the study time period. • Crenshaw Blvd. parking spaces were 45% utilized on weekdays and 88% utilized on weekends. • No vehicles were parked on Oceanaire near the Del Cerro entrance without permits at any of the observation times during the entire time period of the study, indicating that the permit parking program has been very effective in controlling parking within Del Cerro. • In 2 instances out of the 26 observation times, vehicles were found to be idling on Park Place waiting to obtain a parking place (once on Tuesday and once on Sunday). • In 5 instances, vehicles were parked in RPV Resident Permit spaces without the appropriate permit sticker. Those cases were excluded from the utilization calculations. • Much of the Park Place parking utilization appears to be for preserve hikers rather than park users. Park usage is generally low in the mornings, then increases later in the day (on both weekdays and weekends), while the parking spaces are more heavily used in the mornings and decrease later in the day. Parking space usage seems to correlate more closely with preserve usage, as hikers tend to want to hike early before the midday heat arrives. • Del Cerro Park is a popular afternoon spot for families to picnic or just enjoy the sunshine and cool breezes. The preserve overlook at Del Cerro Park is also a very popular destination. • On Sunday afternoon, 3 hang gliders were taking off from the overlook at Del Cerro Park (photos attached). 2 Average Parking Space Utilization from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of Vehicles Legally No. of Vehicles Legally Parked . Noof Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on No. of People on Park Place ADA Space parked in RPV Resident on Crenshaw Oceanaire in Park (16 std spaces (1 space available) Spaces Up to Island View Entrance Without a Permit available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Weekdays (8/14/18 through 8/17/18) Morning 5.7 13.9 0 1.9 18.2 0 Midday 5.3 11.3 0 0.3 12.0 0 Afternoon 8.0 9.2 0.3 0.2 6.5 0 Range 0 to 20 5 to 16 0 to 1 0 to 4 4 to 25 0 (min to max) Overall Daily 6.5 11.6 0.1 0.9 13.4 0 Avg. % Daily Not Applicable 73% 12% 9% 45% Not Applciable Utilization Weekend Days (8/18/18 through 8/19/18) Morning 16.0 16.0 0.3 2.0 30.0 0 Midday 8.0 9.5 0.5 0.5 23.0 0 Afternoon 22.0 13.8 0.5 0.8 24.8 0 Range 1 to 49 7 to 16 0 to 1 0 to 3 16 to 30 0 (min to max) Overall Daily 16.8 13.8 0.4 1.2 26.5 0 Avg. % Daily Not Applicable 86% 40% 12% 88% Not Applicable Utilzation Parking Space Utilization Around Del Cerro Park from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of People on Park Place No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on Crenshaw No. of Vehicles in Park (16 Std Spaces ADA Space RPV Resident Spaces Up to Island View Entrance on Oceanaire Available) (1 Space Available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Without Permit Tues 8/14/18 16 plus 3 cars waiting for 10:30 AM 0 space to open, 1 waiting 0 1 0 car left before photo could be taken Wed 8/15/18 8:20 AM 2 12 0 4 19 0 11:15 AM 0 15 (incl.1 motorcycle) 0 0 15 0 12 noon (at overlook) 13 0 0 0 15 2:30 PM (2 resting in shade, 11 1 0 9 0 family of 4, 9 at overlook) 3:40 PM 3 11 0 0 0 Parking Space Utilization Around Del Cerro Park from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on Crenshaw No. of Vehicles No. of People on Park Place ADA Space RPV Resident Spaces Up to Island View Entrance on Oceanaire in Park (16 Std Spaces (1 Space Available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Without Permit Available) Thur 8/16/18 5 8:30 AM (2 at overlook, 10 0 4 15 0 2 taichi, 1 walking dogs) 9 (2 exercising, 10:30 AM family of 3, 16 0 2 14 0 3 walking dogs, 1 at overlook) 6 (3 workers eating 12 noon lunch, couple having 11 0 1 0 picnic, 1 walking dog) 5 (3 walking dogs, 2:15 PM 1 man sitting at 5 0 0 6 0 picnic table in shade, 1 at overlook) 7 (2 couples in park, 4:30 PM 1 couple at overlook, 9 0 0 0 1 bike rider setting up bike) Parking Space Utilization Around Del Cerro Park from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on Crenshaw No. of Vehicles No. of People on Park Place ADA Space RPV Resident Spaces Up to Island View Entrance on Oceanaire in Park (16 Std Spaces (1 Space Available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Without Permit Available) Friday 8/17/18 4 (1 couple at 8:30 AM overlook, 16 0 1 25 0 1 walking dogs, 1 resting in shade) 20 (13 at overlook, 10:45 AM 1 with model plane, 12 0 1 21 0 2 walking dogs, (11 cars + 1 motorcycle) family of 4 sitting in shade) 8 (1 family of 3 at picnic table by 12:30 PM parking lot, 10 0 0 12 0 4 at picnic table by eastern boundary, 1 at overlook) 10 (1 couple sitting in 2:20 PM shade, 2 women at 6 1 1 7 0 picnic table, 6 at overlook) 8 4:40 PM (2 people walking 13 0 1 4 0 dogs, (without permit sticker) 6 at overlook) Parking Space Utilization Around Del Cerro Park from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on Crenshaw No. of Vehicles No. of People on Park Place ADA Space RPV Resident Spaces Up to Island View Entrance on Oceanaire in Park (16 Std Spaces (1 Space Available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Without Permit Available) Saturday 8/18/18 7 8:20 AM (5 at overlook, 16 0 (3 with permit stickers, 31 0 1 exercising, 1 without sticker) (1 parked illegally) 1 playing with dog) 19 (3 preserve hikers resting, 1 family of 3 with dog, 1 32 10:30 AM 2 walking dogs, 16 1 (with sticker) (1 car & 1 motorcycle parked 0 1 talking with illegally) previous two, 1 resting in shade, 9 at overlook) 15 (6 at lookout, 12:30 PM 1 sleeping in a 12 1 1 16 0 hammock, (with sticker) (15 cars and 1 motorcycle) 1 couple with dog, 2 families of 3) Parking Space Utilization Around Del Cerro Park from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on Crenshaw No. of Vehicles No. of People on Park Place ADA Space RPV Resident Spaces Up to Island View Entrance on Oceanaire in Park (16 Std Spaces (1 Space Available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Without Permit Available) 16 (2 sitting in shade, family of 3 at picnic table, couple 2:30 PM picnicking on 13 1 0 24 0 ground, family of 5 under trees with kite, 1 sleeping in shade, 1 exercising, 2 at overlook) 15 2 5:40 PM (10 at overlook, 10 1 (both without permit 20 0 family of 3 with dog, stickers) 2 individuals) Sunday 8/19/18 8:30 AM 16 0 1 31 0 at overlook ( ) with sticker ( ) (including 1 illegally parked) (� 9 9 Yp ) 37 ( 22 at overlook, 1 group of 3 hikers, family of 3, father & son, 1 couple. At 16 3 33 10:30 AM least 10 at overlook (plus 1 waiting for a 0 (with stickers) (including 3 parked illegally) 0 appeared to be place to park) hikers with backpacks at the beginning or end of a hike.) Parking Space Utilization Around Del Cerro Park from 8/14/18 through 8/19/18 No. of Vehicles Parked No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles in No. of Vehicles on Crenshaw No. of Vehicles No. of People on Park Place ADA Space RPV Resident Spaces Up to Island View Entrance on Oceanaire in Park (16 Std Spaces (1 Space Available) (10 Spaces Available) (30 Spaces Available) Without Permit Available) 1:00 PM (at overlook) 0 (without sticker) 30 0 49 (4 people exercising, 1 at picnic table, 2:30 PM family of 5, father & 16 0 3 29 0 son, family of 3, 34 (1 without sticker) at overlook - including 3 hang gliders) 8 (3 at overlook, 2 4:00 PM kicking ball, 3 sitting 16 0 1 26 0 in portable chairs (with sticker) watching ball kickers) From: Elias Sassoon Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 7:58 AM To: 'angelaromasj@gmail.com' Cc: CC Subject: RE: Letter for this Tuesday's City Council Meeting Good Morning Ms. Jarasunas: Thanks for your email. Your email will be included as part of late correspondence regarding this item. Please note the 2 proposed ADA parking spots shown on the drawing is conceptual in nature. If and when the City Council authorizes Staff to proceed with the actual design, these 2 parking spaces will be designed in such a manner to avoid these issues. Again, thanks for your input and please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Regards, Elias K. Sassoon, Director Department of Public Works Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel: 310-544-5335 From: Angela Jarasunas[mailto:angelaromas�il.com] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 7:48 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Letter for this Tuesday's City Council Meeting August 19, 2018 Honorable City Council Members: As members of the Palos Verdes Park Place Homeowners Association, we appreciate all the time and effort you have dedicated to addressing the concerns of the residents of Park Place and the broader parking situation around Del Cerro Park. Regarding the latest proposal before you at the 8/21/18 City Council meeting, as residents of Burrell Lane, we are concerned about the proposed location of the two ADA compliant parking i spaces along Crenshaw Boulevard. We worry that cars parked in these spots might block of our line of vision as we enter and exit the Crenshaw extension. Additionally, these spots appear to be situated on a curve in a high traffic area, both for cars and pedestrians. It would seem that this location is rather unsafe, both for the occupants of the cars and for those of us navigating around them. Thank you again for your time -- Romas and Angela Jarasunas 3 Burrell Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275