20200317 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 17, 2020
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
Public Comments
E
1
8
Description of Material
Emails from: Andrew Hietala; Carol Mueller
Email from Jim York
Emails from: AI Sattler; Eva Cicoria; Park Place HOA; John Girardi;
Romas Jarasunas; Kathy Edgerton
Emails from: April Sandell; Glenn Cornell; Maria Todora-Denue;
Elizabeth Hoffamn; Jeanne Lacombe; Bill Spinelli; Margaret Spinelli;
Alfred & Barbara Sattler; Jeanne Lacombe
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 16, 2020**.
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200317 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For late carr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 16, 2020 8:21 PM
CityCierk
FW: Lockdown
From: Andrew [mailto:ahietala@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:18 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Lockdown
Why isn't the City of RPV going into a mandatory lockdown for the next 3-4 weeks like counties in SF announced today?
We're already on self-directed lockdowns at this point. Why not make it official? Kindly consider.
Thanks.
Andrew Hietala
Sent from my iPhone
1 ~\)\>\'\C
(b\!'lt\~Q,\1\~
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
April Sandell < hvybags@cox.net>
Monday, March 16, 2020 9:50 PM
CityCierk
Robert Nelson < nelsongang@aol.com >; rpvjeanne@gmail.com;
metzler.roger@gmail.com; wmspinelli48@gmail.com; bsattle@igc.org; Elizabeth
Hoffman; deliva1 @aol.com; Edward Mendoza
Subject: Fwd: City Council agenda item/ Western Ave. Beautification/ Design Improvements etc.
To the City Clerk,
Please include this correspondence and my earlier correspondence to Mr Razepoor regarding City
Council March 17th agenda Item 8 (see below)
Please know I did not receive any response from Mr. Razepoor. Therefore, I resent the same
message and cc' s the city council at that time. Again, I received no response.
Furthermore, it's important to note I was a member of the original Western Ave. Task Force along
w/ then RPV City Council Member M. Lyon, member representatives from LA City , Cal trans
and other interested parties. We met on a regular basis at the Denny's on the East side of Western
at that time as well as Green Hills Memorial Park. I have the meeting notes and related items.
I continue my interest in the subject agenda item for good reason. History matters, to say the very
least.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell (past RHRHOA Board Director and President)
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Subject: City Council agenda item/ Western Ave. Beautification/ Design
Improvements etc.
Date: March 13, 2020 at 10:22:04 AM PDT
To: nrazepoor@rpvca.gov
Good Morning,
1 8.
The earlier Western Ave.Beautification Project noted, the "lack of vitality" the
residential properties abutting the highway so does the new improvement report. As
part of the planning, my question follows:
1). How will the city process engage these particular property
owners cooperation in order to meet the city's desired outcome?
I would appreciate your response asap.
Thank you for your time and attention.
April L. Sandell (a non-member in the Rolling Hills Rivera HOA)
28026 Pontevedra Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 3:40 PM
Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: City Council agenda item/ Western Ave. Beautification/ Design Improvements etc.
From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 3:31PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City Council agenda item/ Western Ave. Beautification/ Design Improvements etc.
Hello Mr. Sassoon,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment. As you probably are aware, I read the
related correspondence generated from RPV homeowners in the area. I also keep in mind the
earlier city code updates regarding fences and walls along the arterial streets in RPV.
Any impact on properties and existing structures on Western A venue are very likely to
occur. Those homeowners in particular running from Toscanni north to the last residential property
on Tarrasa.
In the event, "improvements" involve my portion of the ugly block wall, sidewalk removal or
screening of the old fence with a new fence/wall and plants or shrubbery please provide timely
Notice of any intent to that end.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
On Mar 17, 2020, at 1:43PM, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
The City of RPV has a long history of engaging the communities in the development of plans for any
project which could potentially impact the members of these communities.
1
8.
If the City Council directs staff to proceed with this project, we will include as part of the scope of this
project, to have public outreach meetings with the property owners. In these meetings which will be
coordinated with HOA's, we will make sure that the entire neighborhoods are engaged in development
of the proposed amenities.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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
Begin forwarded message:
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Subject: City Council agenda item/ Western Ave. Beautification/
Design Improvements etc.
Date: March 13, 2020 at 10:22:04 AM PDT
To: nrazepoor@rpvca.gov
Good Morning,
The earlier Western Ave.Beautification Project noted, the "lack of
vitality" the residential properties abutting the highway so does the new
improvement report. As part of the planning, my question follows:
1 ). How will the city process engage these particular
property owners cooperation in order to meet the
city's desired outcome?
I would appreciate your response asap.
Thank you for your time and attention.
April L. Sandell (a non-member in the Rolling Hills Rivera HOA)
28026 Pontevedra Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Ara Mihranian
Monday, March 16, 2020 10:29 PM
CityCierk; Kit Fox; Elias Sassoon
Subject: Fwd: Western Avenue Enhancement--Item 8 on March 17 regular business calendar
HOA-Western Avenue improvement 2020.odt; ATT00001.htm Attachments:
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Date: March 16,2020 at 10:26:50 PM PDT
To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>, Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>,
Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>, John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>, Ken
Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement--Item 8 on March 17 regular business calendar
Council members:
Attached is a short note about item 8 on your regular business calendar. Please do not hesitate to
let me know --at gcornell6@gmail.com or (31 0) 831-3033 --if you have any problem opening it
or have any questions or comments about it.
Thank you,
Glenn Cornell
2004 Velez Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
1
8.
WESTERN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
I want you to know how much I appreciate your interest in Western Avenue and hope this council can
avoid the pitfalls associated with the ill-fated Western Avenue Vision Plan and create real and long
lasting improvements along this important road.
Input and Design. To that end, I request that you consider inviting community input for at least a few
weeks before any plan is formulated. Also, be wary about plans designed for an altogether different
setting and re-titled for Rancho Palos Verdes. They save the designer the trouble of creating a new plan;
but, as review of the Vision Plan showed, they may well not fit our community's needs.
References to benches and banners in the city's announcement about its new effort suggest the latter
concern is not groundless. Western Avenue is a state highway used by lots of cars and many big trucks.
Few-very few-people want to sit on a bench and watch Western's traffic go by any longer than it
takes them to wait for the next bus.
Maintenance. Whatever plan is chosen, please make it a point to allocate sufficient funds for
maintenance. No matter how good the design, heavy use and the passage of time all but guarantee that
the improvements will soon become shabby if such funding is inadequate. Council members need look
no further than the current state of the palm trees along Western's median strip. It's hard to remember
when they were last trimmed. The lack of care is all too evident.
Wall. As a final note, I ask that you not allow this enhancement proposal to distract you from the
Western Avenue wall initiative that has been under consideration for the last several months. Each
should complement the other. Both are worth doing
Thank you.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late correspondence
-----Original Message-----
Katie Lozano
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:30 AM
CityCierk
FW: Correction to your Staff Report for item 1, Preserve Parking
From: AI Sattler <alsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 11:26 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Correction to your Staff Report for item 1, Preserve Parking
Ms. Lozano:
I have one small technical correction to your Staff Report for item 1, Preserve Parking Although it has no impact on the
substance of your report, I think it is an important point.
In the introduction to the report you have written, you state:
"The only other natural open space areas in Los Angeles County that compare to the Preserve in size, beauty and
recreational opportunity are Griffith Park and open space areas in Malibu."
Another very large natural open space area in Los Angeles County is the Angeles National Forest, which is much larger
(over 700,000 acres) than the Preserve, and also has great beauty and many recreational opportunities. The Angeles
National Forest has mountains, valleys, and rivers. It also has numerous trails, some of which also have parking
problems.
see: https:/ I en. wikiped ia .org/wiki/ Angeles_Nationa !_Forest
AI Sattler
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11 :06 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Tonight's City Council meeting
From: Eva Cicoria [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 10:24 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Tonight's City Council meeting
Good morning Ara, Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro Tern Alegria, and Council Members Bradley, Dyda
and Ferraro,
Thank you for taking steps to protect the public from the possible spread of Covid 19, during this
anxious time. I hope that any major decisions before City Council this evening that can be postponed
will be. I will not be attending the meeting and I'm sure others will not either, despite being interested
in agenda items.
As a general matter, but particularly applicable to Regular Business item 1 regarding Portuguese
Bend Reserve parking, access, and neighborhood impact concerns, please consider increasing
enforcement of existing rules before layering on additional restrictions. So often we see additional
restrictions adversely impacting those who are following the rules, while those who break the rules
break the new rules, too.
Best wishes to all of you,
Eva Cicoria
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:09 AM
CityCierk
FW: COVID-19 Update: City Hall Closed to the Public
From: Carol Mueller [mailto:cmuell@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:08 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: COVID-19 Update: City Hall Closed to the Public
This will give the UNION more time to negotiate a bigger salary, pension and Cadillac healthcare plan. BTW, I attended
the Cox affair at Hesse Park. They decided that I wouldn't have to pay more to get my half dozen local channels and C-
SPAN to work while indicating that the problem was with RPV-TV, and they would speak to them. Thank you! The
volume all works fine now (but I won't hold my breath)!
BTW, are you going to speak to our local grocery/drug stores, etc. to see if they can give seniors priority time. Since
there are so many seniors on the hill perhaps we need more than an hour.
Thank you.
Carol Mueller
-----Original Message-----
From: Do_Not_Reply@rpvca.gov <listserv@civicplus.com>
To: cmuell <cmuell@verizon.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 15, 2020 11 :4 7 pm
Subject: COVID-19 Update: City Hall Closed to the Public
Dear Residents,
Following recommendations announced today by Governor Gavin Newsom regarding
social distancing, and in the interest of the health and well-being of the public, City Hall
will be closed to the public starting tomorrow, Monday, March 16 through at least
1 ~\J\,\\~
\)~)\Y\~~\s.
the remainder of March. The City will remain open for business, however, by telephone,
email, and online, and employees will report to work and heavily staff phone lines and
email. Please visit the appropriate department page on the City website for a list of phone
numbers and email addresses to accommodate your needs. For a list of departments, visit
http://www.rpvca.gov/148/Departments .
Community Development Department applications and permit requests may be submitted
to Qlanning@rpvca.gov .
Non-emergency service requests may be submitted at
http://www.rpvca.gov/FormCenter/NonEmergency-Customer-Service-Requests-
3/NonEmergency-Customer-Service-Requests-43 .
Public Works service requests may be submitted at
b1tPs://survey123.arcgls.com/share/6d 13530e 7 ca84edbb5c4e022bdc54da8 .
As a reminder, all City park buildings are closed and all recreational activities, classes and
events at City facilities have been canceled through at least the remainder of March.
Additional information about City Council and other advisory board meetings is
forthcoming.
For updates, resources and information on local closures, visit rpvca.gov/coronavirus .
Dshare on Facebook Dshare on Twitter
Copyright 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes. All Rights Reserved.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dshare via Email
Powered by
Email not displaying correctly? Vi.~Y'!JUIJ.YQ~IL\?.r9W.?.'2L.
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 12:07 PM
CityCierk
Cc: Katie Lozano
Subject: FW: Park Place (street) problems/concerns and suggestions
Attachments: PROGRAM OF UTILIZATION.pdf; National Park Service March 27 2017 email to RPV.PDF;
Park Place Road Deed.PDF; Steve Anderson ltr April 2016 Park Place.PDF; 20 03 March
13 Park Place letter to RPV CC.pdf
Late Correspondence for tonight's meeting.
From: pvpprof [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 12:02 PM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley
<david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Park Place (street) problems/concerns and suggestions
Honorable Mayor and City Council et al,
On this day of uncertainties regarding the corona virus and
1. a new approach to holding a City Council virtual meeting,
2. not knowing how email information is distributed to each Council member, and
3. given the unusual circumstances re: the virtual CC Meeting today, 3/17/2020,
we in RPV have heard that it would be perhaps appropriate to send email directly to each City Council member.
And, hence, this message direct to the Council as well as RPV Staff (City Clerk?) for request for assistance with
receiving material to be read during the Council meeting.
For these purposes, please see the content message and attachments of the email sent yesterday.
We ask the Staff to make specific reference to this email and each of its attachments to the City Council during
the live streaming and recording of meeting.
We ask that the Staff describe what each attachment is and to read the letter to the City Council during the time
that Katie Lozano & Open Space Report presentation is being made.
We ask that a Staff member (City Clerk?) respond to this email to confirm your receipt and requests made
above.
We also ask that a Staff member (City Clerk?) include in her/his response what Staff would require in any
abbreviated form of any attachment, including letter, needed to convey the letter's content.
We ask for Staff response by 2pm such that any other abbreviated materials can be prepared and forwarded.
Respectfully submitted,
----------Forwarded message---------
From: pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 1 :24 PM
Subject: Park Place (street) problems/concerns and suggestions
1
To: RPV City Council <CC@rpvca.gov>, Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>
Honorable Mayor and other Council Members, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please find attached a letter to RPV CC regarding Park Place (street) residents and recurring and difficult
problems/issues related most directly to the Trail head proximate to Del Cerro Park. This letter is prepared on
behalf of the Park Place HOA and our President, Romas Jarasunas.
There is an attachment provided that describes the transfer of the land that we know most commonly as Del
Cerro Park and the Park Place residents whose homes are those on the North side of Del Cerro Park. This
document, the Program of Utilization (POU), describes a parking lot at Del Cerro Park and access to that
parking lot. Unfortunately, this lot was not preserved or created and 'mixed-use' with a residents right-of-way
to their homes has created significant problems over time. These adverse safety, traffic and parking problems,
including associated numerous crimes of assault, trespass, damage to personal property, illegal parking et al,
continue to lower quality of life, home values, peace and enjoyment and raise stress, uncertainty and concerns
for Park Place residents ..
With the 'Open Space report from Katie Lozano, there is a bit of an introduction to Park Place, yet this is
relatively brief. To assist the City Council, this letter is provided by Park Place HOA to provide additional
information regarding when, how and in what contexts Park Place as a street came into being and the array of
many problems that occurred.
We are hopeful that the reader will learn more about these recurring problems and assist Park Place
homeowners to move forward with (proposed) solutions.
Thank you very much in advance for your support.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas (Tom) Olson
Park Place HOA
2
·---·
-I
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPLICATION
TO BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
March 1, 1976
LADA NIKE SITE 55
POINT VICENTE, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
GSA NUMBER 9-D-Calif-1088
~nta Gos angeles \...._5onica
rancho lono, palos beacn
l:.verd~ -----t:lfic;,.
tc Ocean
,j
... ,..,
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY
FOR PUBLIC PARK OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
PART A
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TO: Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Pacific Southwest Regional Office
P.O. Box 36062
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
The undersigned City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereinafter referred
to as the Applicant or Grantee, acting by and through Leonard G .
. ·~pod, City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne
. Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274, (213) 377-0360, hereby
~f~akes application to the United States pursuant to Section 203(k) (2) t\ of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
-.-. (63 Stat. 387), as amended, and in accordance with the rules and
~~ .. regulations of the Department of the Interior, for the transfer of
~\the following property which has been declared surplus by the
···l. General Services Administration and is subject to assignment to
~ the Secretary of the Interior for disposal for public park or rec-./ reation purposes:
LADA NIKE Site 55
Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes
GSA Number 9-D-Calif-1088
80+ acres
'l'he undersigned agrees that this application is made subject to
the following terms and conditions:
l. This application and its acceptance by the Department of the
Interior shall constitute the entire agreement bet-.reen the Appli-
cant and the Department of the Interiorr unJ.es.s modified in
writing signed by both parties.
2. The descriptions of the property set forth above are believed
to be correct, but any error or omission shall not constitute
ground or reason for non-performance of the agreement resulting
from the acceptance of this application.
3. It is understood that the property is to be conveyed "as is"
and "where is" without representation, warranty, or guaranty as
to quantity 1 quality, character 1 condition, size, or kind, or
that the same is in condition or fit to be used for the purpose
intended, and no claim for any adjustments upon such grounds will
be considered after this application has been accepted.
4. The Applicant agrees to assume possession of the property
within 15 days of any written request given by the Department of
the Interior after the property has been assigned to the Depart-
ment of the Interior by the General Services Administration.
Should the Applicant fail to take actual possession within such
') "'•
period, it shall nonetheless be charged with constructive pos-
session commencing at 12:01 a.m., local time, of the 16th day
after such request by the Department of the Interior. The word
"possession" shall mean either actual physical possession or
constructive possession.
5. As of the date of assumption of possession of the property,
or the date of conveyance, whichever occurs first, the Applicant
shall assume responsibility for any general and special real and
personal property taxes which may have been or may be assessed on
the property, and to prorate sums paid, or due to be paid, by the
Federal Government in lieu of taxes.
6~ As of the date of assumption of possession of the property,
.or the date of conveyance, whichever occurs first, the Applicant ~hall assume responsibility for care and handling and all risks
~~pf loss or damage to the property, and have all obligations and
~\ iiabilities of ownership .
• !
:.~· 7. The Applicant shall on a mutually agreeable date not later than '.~\· 30 days after the property has been assigned to the Department of
, 1")_ ·the Interior, or such longer period as may be agreed upon in
: writing, tender to the Department of the Interior, the purchase
~ price, if a purchase price is due.
'• ....
8. Conveyance of the property shall be accomplished by an instru-
ment, or instruments, in form satisfactory to the Department of
the Interior without warranty, express or implied, and shall con-
tain reservations, restrictions, and conditions substantially as
follows:
A. That the Grantee shall forever use the property in ac-
cordance with its application, and the approved Program
of Utilization included in Part B of this application.
B. That the Grantee shall, within 6 months of the date of
the signing of the Deed of Conveyance, erect and maintain
a sign or marker near the point of principal access to
the conveyed area indicating that: the property is a park
or recreation area; has been acquired from the Federal
Government for such use; and is or will be made available
for use by the general public.
c. The property shall not be sold, leased, assigned, or
otherwise disposed of except to another eligible govern-
mental agency that the Secretary of the Interior agrees in
writing can assure the continued use and maintenance of
the property for public park or public recreational pur-
poses subject to the same terms and conditions in the
original instrument of conveyance. However, nothing in
this provision shall preclude the Grantee from providing
related recreational facilities and services compatible
with the approved program mentioned under Item A, above,
through concession agreements entered into with third
parties, provided the prior concurrence of the Secretary
of the Interior in writing is obtained to such agreements.
3.
D. Biennial reports setting forth the use made of the prop-
erty during the preceding two-year period shall be pre-
pared by the Grantee and submitted to the appropriate
Regional Office of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation whose
return address appears on the transmittal letter to you,
for ten consecutive reports and as further determined by
the Secretary of the Interior.
E. If at any time the United States of America shall deter-
mine that the premises herein conveyed, or any part there-
of, are needed for the national defense, all right, title
and interest in and to said premises, or part thereof
determined to be necessary to such national defense, shall
revert to and become the property of the United States of
America.
·,I I, F. The Federal Government shall have the right to reserve
all oil, gas, and mineral rights. ~ ·:~~~\ .
.~\
G. Title to the property transferred shall revert to the
United States at its option in the event of non-compliance
with any of the terms and conditions of disposal. I
9. The Program of Utilization included in Part B of the applica-
tion may be amended, at the request of either the Applican·t or the
Federal Government, with the written concurrence of the other
party. Such amendments will be added to and become a part of the
original application and shall be consistent with purposes for which
the property was transferred. The Applicant further agrees to fur-
nish such data, maps, reports, and information as may be needed by
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
10. Any title evidence which may be desired by the Applicant will
be procured by the Applicant at its sole cost and expense. The
Federal Government will, ho~ever, cooperate with the Applicant or
its authorized agent in this connection, and will permit examina-
tion and inspection of such deeds, abstracts, affidavits of title,
judgements in condemnation proceedings, or other documents re-
lating to the title of the premises and property involved as it
may have available. It is understood that the Federal Government
will not be obligated to pay for any expense incurred in connection
with title matters of survey of the property.
11. The Applicant shall pay all taxes imposed on this transaction
and shall obtain at its own expense and affix to all instruments
of conveyance and security documents such revenue and documentary
stamps as may be required by Federal and local law. All instru-
ments of conveyance and security documents shall be recorded within
30 days of their receipt in the manner prescribed by local re-
cording statutes at the Applicant's expense.
12. "Assurance of Compliance with the Department of the Interior
Regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"
. . ..... ,
·> ;I I;
~\
·i~;.\•\ . i\
.. <
,j
Dated:
The following agreement is made by the applicant
in consideration of and for the purpose of ob-
taining the transfer of any or all property covered
by this application and the applicant recognizes
and agrees that any such transfer will be made by
the United States in reliance on said agreement.
The applicant agrees that (1) the program for or
in connection with which any property covered by
this application as transferred to the applicant
will be conducted in compliance with, and the appli-
cant will·comply with and require any other person
(any legal entity) who through contractual or other
arrangements with the applicant is authorized to
provide services or benefits under said program to
comply with, all requ.irements imposed by or pursuant
to the regulations of the Department of the Interior
(43 CFR Part 17) issued under the provisions of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) this
agreement shall be subject in all respects to the
provisions of said regulations; (3) the applicant
will promptly take and continue to take such action
as may be necessary to effectuate this agreement;
(4) the United States shall have the right to seek
judicial enforcement of this agreement; and (5) this
agreement shall be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the applicant.
4.
It is agreed that the instrument effectin9 the trans-
fer to the applicant of any property covered by this
application will contain provisions satisfactory to
the United States incorporating the substance of the
foregoing agreement, such provisions ·to consist of
(a) a condition, coupled with a right. reserved to the
United States to cause the prope:c-ty to .n~vert to the
United States in the event of any breach of such con-
dition, and (b) a covenant running with the land.
st~~U-)&eJ!
(Sig ature) ·
City Manager
(Title)
February 27, 1976 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
(Address of Applicant)
5.
ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMEN'r
Accepted by and on behalf of the United States of America this
/9 day of ---'----1 19 7/w •
·>I I,
.;
·>I I'
f\
\~~. ' .~I
J
:j
PART B
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
6.
PROPOSED ACQUISITION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to utilize the following
portions of the surplus Federal property LADA NIKE SITE 55 for
park and recreation purposes:
. . .... ,
A. 74.7 acre (or that portion of the main site that is not
used for the civic center, major access road right-of-way,
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District admin-
istration area, the fire station area, and the Los Angeles
County Department of Beaches area) portion surrounding
proposed civic center area to be maintained in passive
open space. 6+ acres of this portion are designated for
potential active recreation purposes, but to be used in
the interim for passive open space.
,j
B. 4.49 acre site 1 formerly the Integrated Fire Control (IFC)
area, a parcel separate from the main site, located proxi-
mate to the intersection of Crest Road and Crenshaw
Boulevard for a neighborhood park.
Figures 1 and 2 indicate the approximate locations of the requested
portions of the site. No legal descriptions are available at this
time. These figures also show existing buildings, roads, ease-
ments, etc.
The other portions of the main site are proposed to be acquired by
the City and other public agencies under a coordinated use plan.
There is no known disagreement among these agencies.
7 •
..
·• P' I;
regional vicinity
8.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The discussion below provides summary descriptions of the various
aspects of the physical setting of the site. The report on pos-
sible reuse possibilities prepared for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and funded by the Economic Development Administration is
included in the Appendix of this application and provides more de-
tail on the physical setting.
1. Soil Conditions
The NIKE site is composed of two soil types, Altamont clay
-~®am and Altamont clay adobe. Both types have a relatively low
• ,,1 bearing strength, and exhibit adverse shrink-swell behavior. Con-
~equently, both are somewhat unsuitable for support or high-rise ~,. structures or dense development, especially when associated with
~\ slopes of 10% or more. ~. ~\2. Slope Conditions
I
1 Most of the main NIKE site falls within two slope classes:
(a) 0-10% slope and (b) 10-25% slope. The first slope category,
0-10%, is suitable for development. The second category presents
problems for construction and environmental protection: water run-
off is difficult to control, grading cuts must be more extreme, and
so forth. As noted above, when Altamont clay loam and Altamont
clay adobe are associated with slopes exceeding 10%, soil instab-
ility becomes a problem.
Three major parts of the main site have slopes of less than
10% and therefore are suitable for development. The NIKE site ad-
ministration buildings are located in one of these areas and the
rifle range in another.
It is also important to note that portions of the main NIKE
site are ''sea cliff" hazard areas, as designated by the General
Plan and the Southern Coastal Zone Commission. The Commission has
designated lands to be in this hazard category if they are located
above a 20% slope line drawn from the coastline. According to
commission standards, these areas should not be used for develop-
ment unless a detailed study of the specific area reveals that it
is suitable and safe for development. This area is not, however,
in the portion being requested by the City in this application.
The upper 4.49 acre portion is generally level; with the ex-
isting structures located on top of a terrace formation.
3. Hydrology
The soil types of the site have low permeability and porosity.
Therefore, control of rain runoff and erosion must be considered.
9.
4. Landslide Potential
Approximately 1.5 miles east of the main site is an area
which is an active landslide, Portuguese Bend. The NIKE site
itself is considered to be an area of 11 modera·te ground response"
characteristics. Although areas in this category are not expected
to experience landslides or liquefaction, City and County stand-
ards recommend that seismic and soil reports be prepared for such
an area prior to high-cost, high-occupancy, or critical use develop-
ment.
5. Wildlife and Plant Habitat Considerations
The Southern Coastal Zone Commission and the City have iden-
t~fied wildlife and plant habitat areas for protection and presenta-
tion. That portion of the main site which is on the ocean side of
·J.?~Fialos Verdes Drive falls within a "Class I Priority" zone. The
'l:t. habitat types deemed worthy of protection are the tidal pool areas,
,-'<t the coastal sagebrush, and the seacliff zones. The area on the ;~~~ inland side of Palos Verdes Drive is generally covered by vegeta-~~ \tion which is not considered endangered but is worthy of protection
1) 'in its natural state.
j 6. Location and Surrounding Land Use Consideration
Generally, the land contiguous to the main NIKE site has not
been densely developed. The site is bordered on the southwest by
-a Coast Guard Station which operates a lighthouse and a radio
facility. It is bordered on the south by a strip of coastline
about 300 feet wide which is owned by the Los Angeles County De-
partment of Beaches; this strip is used as a fishing access route
from the top of the sea cliff, which is 1.50-200 feet above sea
level, down to the beach below Palos Verdes D.r.ive.
The land directly to the east of the main site is occupied
by the Salvation Army training school and headquarters and that
to the southeast by Marineland, a commercial recreational facility,
now owned by Twentieth Century Fox Corpora·t.ion~ A portion of the
northern border of the site adjoins land developed for single-
fa~ily homes and the Golden Cove shopping area.. The remainder of
the northern border is contiguous to undeveloped land.
The upper site is bounded by a single family residential area
to the east and vacant land, zoned for single family residential
use, on all other sides.
7. Transportation Facilities
The main site is bisected by Palos Verdes Drive, one of the
major arterial roads serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This
four-lane road with divider strip is a proposed scenic highway
and also the route of a proposed bikeway. The arterial provides
spectacular open vistas over the Pacific Ocean at numerous points.
· ......
10.
A traffic count made in 1973 measured a total 24-hour traffic
volume of about 9800 vehicles. The peak hour traffic registered
877 vehicles.
The main site is served by a second major arterial, Hawthorne
Boulevard, which intersects Palos Verdes Drive only a few hundred
feet north of the site. Hawthorne Boulevard is a four-lane road
with a 24-hour traffic volume of about 10,000 vehicles at a point
near the site. The peak hour volume is about 1000 vehicles.
Thus, Palos Verdes Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard at present
provide adequate automobile access to the site. As is true of
the Los Angeles area as a whole 1 there is no "mass transit" service
to· the site.
·-:,_I
~~ , The upper site is served by a major arterial, Crenshaw Boule-
. Vard. This arterial stops, however, at the site entrance and ~· canno·t be extended in the foreseeable future due to the active
\ \ landslide area to the south. i~·
·~ \8. Existing Structures
!)
j At present there are six major buildings on the main NIKE site.
The site has additional facilities associated with its former
military use, including underground missile storage silos and at-
tendant fuel, test, and assembly areas. There are also pre-World
War II shore gun emplacements, Coast Guard radio antennas, and
miscellaneous activity areas related to the requirements of a
NIKE installation. Lastly, on that part of the site west of Palos
Verdes Drive there is, as noted above, a rifle range. Almost
the entire site is bounded with chainlink fence.
The upper site contains five major buildings and served as
a radar control station as part of the NIKE base facilities.
The facilities are situated on top of a knoll having a precipitous
slope to the southwest and facing the ocean and are fenced with
chainlink fence.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the main and upper sites with
existing buildings (buildings are further described in the Appendix,
by number).
11.
NEED
A. Existing and Proposed Facilities
Recreational activity areas in Rancho Palos Verdes include
sites which have been set aside or are proposed for either active
or passive use. These sites are structured to various degrees to
allow specific site activities to take place.
The following groups recreational facilities into active rec-
reational areas and passive recreational areas. This grouping
was utilized in order to most accurately reflect the intensity
and type of site use provided by an individual facility. A fur-
-~~er breakdown within active/passive groundings organizes recrea-
. tional facilities under the level of government which controls and ~~~perates the facility.
~\ 1. Active Recreational Areas
~~t, ,
t \ Active recreational facilities include 205 acres of structured 0 recreational areas; however, only 176 acres are developed and 165
1 acres of that is a County golf course. Consequently, there is
presently only one small developed community park. The total ac-
reage figure does not include a significant amount of recreational
areas supplied by Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
facilities. It is difficult to calculate the acres supplied by
existing and proposed school sites. Prior to incorporation of the
City, the County did not require parkland or fees to serve new
development and residents were forced to rely on the use of school
facilities.
a. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Facilities
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District is the largest
supplier of public active recreational facilities within the
City. The School District provides these facilities for many age
levels in the form of open play areas, paved court areas, gymna-
siums, etc. Tennis courts are available on a first-come, first-
served basis. All other activities, such as baseball and foot-
ball, must be arranged in advance. It can be assumed that inter-
mediate and high school sites contain facilities which fulfill
the needs of young adults and adults, while elementary schools
provide recreational activities designed for the young. The City
is operating a summer program at Miraleste Pool and constructed
tennis courts at Miraleste High School under agreement with the
School District.
b. Los Angeles County Facilities
Los Verdes Golf Course is a fully developed 165 acre site
which is operated by the County. This facility contains a 18 hole,
par 72 course with associated facilities (clubhouse, banquet facil-
ities, coffee shop, lounge~ pro shop, two comfort stations, locker
and shower rooms, and parking for 300 cars).
12.
c. Rancho Palos Verdes Facilities
Rancho Palos Verdes Park
This fully developed 11 acre City park contains highly
structured activity areas. These consist of .sports activities,
children's play apparatus, picnic facilities, concession potential,
and a recreational activity building. Recreational programs are
provided at the park activity building. These programs are de-
signed to offer activities for a wide range of age groups (3 years
to senior citizen) and are presently operating at full capacity.
Crestmont Park
·~, Crestmont Park is a 29 acre site which fronts on Hawthorne
, , ~Boulevard between Verde Ridge Road and Locklenna Lane. This site
• i6 one of three sites that has been declared surplus by the Palos
~, Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. The purchasing of this ~\ site by the City will take place over a five year period and is
~~planned to be developed into an active ~eighborhood park. Facil-.\!. 1i ty development may initially be provid:ed by private organizations
1,r in order to eliminate financial burdens that would usually fall on
j the community. No plans have been developed.
2. Passive Recreational Areas
a. Los Angeles County Facilities
Friendship Park
This 123 acre park site, of which 97 acres are within the
City, is on the eastern boundary of Rancho Palos Verdes, just
north of Twenty-fifth Street. Designed use capacity of this park is
approximately 1000 persons, with access being obtained from out-
side the City, off Ninth Street. The purpose of Friendship Park
is to provide a public facility which will 9ive upland recreation-
al usage near shoreline areas. Development plans call for con-
struction of moderate day-use facilities, various.scenic vista
points, a nature trail 1 and minimal landscaping. The southwest
corner of the park is designated as a landslide hazard.
Shoreline Park
Shoreline Park consists of a 53 acre park which lies adja-
cent to the eastern boundary of the City, between the shoreline
and Twenty-Fifth Street. Preliminary development plans propose
light day use facilities.
Abalone Cove
This park includes 82 acres, located along the south side
of Palos Verdes Drive South between Sea Cove and Peppertree Drives.
The partially developed beach area park was only recently ac-
quired by the County and one portion opened to the public the
sunnner of 1975.
13.
This facility will be primarily a nature study area,
rather than a high density bathing beach. The only improvements
have been reinforcing and modification of existing improvements
(paddle tennis courts, parking lots, picnic areas, associated
buildings, and infrastructure systems) where they needed repair
or were below standards, and the installation of four portable
lifeguard stations. The headlands and other tidal reef areas
will be closed at minus tides except to guided or monitored walks
in special environmental corridors.
Point Vicente Fishing Access
Point Vicente Fishing Access lies on the ocean side of
Palos Verdes Drive South, between Point Vicente Lighthouse and
, ~~rineland. The fishing access is a fully developed 11 acre site
, which provides access to the shoreline for fishing and scuba
~~diving purposes.
~~ Lower Nike Site ., I
~~\ ~~ The County is presently leasing a 28 acre portion of the
'('lower Nike Site for a limited recreation facility. The section
J
1 ~eing leased lie~ on the ocean side of Palos Verdes Drive West,
JUSt north of Po1nt Vicente Lighthouse. The County intends to re-
move the present rifle range and develop a light day use facility.
A light passive recreational use of this site would be of a com-
patible nature to the community's desire to maintain open space
uses in the coastal area.
b. City Facilities
Highland Park
Highland Park is being purchased by the City from Palos
Verdes School District in conjunction wH:b .. the Crestmont park
site. It is intended for this 17 acre site to remain primarily
in a natural state for the next few years. At a later date, this
site will be developed into a passive recreational park with
limited facilities. No plans have been deve1oped.
B. Future Demand for Recreational and Open Space
The Palos Verdes Peninsula has been one of the fastest growing
areas in Los Angeles Countyi its population has doubled in each
decade from 1940 to 1970. By 1970, the population of the Penin-
sula had reached nearly 65,000, having increased at an annual
rate of 8.1% during the 1960s. The bulk of this growth occurred
in the unincorporated County area of the Peninsula, including
the adjacent area to the east near Western Avenue which had an
increase during the decade from 14,453 persons in 1960 to over
40,000 in 1970. The three incorporated communities of the Penin-
sula experienced slower growth during this period and accounted
for a combined population of approximately 22,000 persons by 1970.
14.
Since 1970 there has been a marked slowdown of growth on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. Due to declining in-migration to Los
Angeles County overall 1 economic downturns, and more restrictive
growth policies on the Peninsula, population growth for the Penin-
sula declined to 3.0 percent annually during the 1970-1973 period.
Population growth was down significantly in each Peninsula city
and most significantly in the unincorporated County area, which
had a decline in annual growth rates from over 11 percent in the
1960s to 3.8 percent in the early 1970s.
Rancho Palos Verdes had a population of 37,800 persons (esti-
mated by the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission) as of the
date of its incorporation, September 1973. The estimated 1960 pop-
ulation of the area which is now incorporated into Rancho Palos
. ~~rdes was approximately 10 1 000 persons, indicating nearly a four-
' . fold increase in 13 years. As in the rest of the Peninsula, pop-
'•"' 1\llation growth has slowed considerably since 1970, dropping from t\ .. ' 13 percent annually during the 1960s to 3. 2 percent in the early
,;~ 1970s.
-~~\ . 1\ For the future, the expectation of continued growth is re-
~-~ fleeted in population and housing growth projections for the Palos
' Verdes Peninsula. The demand potential for residential housing { in Rancho Palos Verdes is expected to increase 2.5% on an average
annual basis from 1970-1990. These estimates reflect demand po-
tential considered in light of the amount of land which will be
available for development of housing 1 and in light of public poli-
cy considerations.
Households in the Peninsula area are significantly larger
than in most communities in Los Angeles County. In 1970, average
household size for the Peninsula was 3.75 members, compared to
2.83 persons per household in Los Angeles County as a whole.
Larger household sizes are typical of suburban areas with large
families, limited rental housing, and fewer non-family households.
Household size in Peninsula communities has remained fairly stable
in recent years.
Like most growing suburban areas 1 Rancho Palos Verdes is
characterized by a high proportion of children under 20 years of
age and parents age 30 to 54. Correspondingly, there is a rela-
tively low proportion of persons over 65 living in the area.
Forty-five percent of the population of Rancho Palos Verdes is
under 20 years of age; nearly 42 percent is between the ages of
30 and 54; and only 2.5 percent is over 65 years of age. Resi-
dents of Rancho Palos Verdes are on average slightly younger
than Palos Verdes Peninsula residents as a whole. The median age
of Rancho Palos Verdes residents is 28.8 years, compared to 29.9
years for all Palos Verdes Peninsula residents.
Incomes in Palos Verdes Peninsula communities were substan-
tially higher than Los Angeles County averages in both 1960 and
1970. Median family income for the Peninsula rose from $13,770
in 1960 to $24,930 in 1970, a percentage increase of 81 percent.
15.
Family income of Rancho Palos Verdes residents was slightly
lower than that of other Palos Verdes community residents in both
1960 and 1970. Median family income in Rancho Palos Verdes in-
creased 73 percent during the decade to $21,803 in 1970. The
highest income area on the Peninsula was Rolling Hills, with a
median family income of $36,379 in 1970.
There are two aspects to the demand for recreational and open
space. First, there is the regional demand 1 generated by the pop-
ulation of the greater Los Angeles area. Regional demand relates
to major park and recreational areas which offer the visitor an
opportunity for a variety of recreational experiences. With the
rapid disappearance of the supply of public open space in the Los
Angeles area and, at the same time, the demand increasing, an im-
bFlance between demand for and supply of recreational area is evi-
-4ent throughout the area. In contrast, there is a local demand
·>'!' 4or recreational and open space, which is generated by the popu-
~. lation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the City of Rancho Palos ~\ Verdes in particular. The local demand relates to the need for
~~\ areas for passive activity as well as active recreational areas such
~·(as ball fields, tennis courts, etc., and other types of facilities.
It
; As indicated in the previous section, approximately 176 devel-
j oped acres are available for active recreational activity (exclu-
sive of school sites). Since 165 acres of this are a golf course,
only 10 acres can be considered a developed community park. Using
the generally accepted standard of four acres per 1000 population
for local needs, an existing deficit, with an existing population
of nearly 42,000, of over 150 acres is evident. While this does
not include the use of school sites as recreational areas, which
would tend to reduce the deficit, it also presumes that the cur-
rently undeveloped County facilities adjacent ·to and within Rancho
Palos Verdes will be developed to planned levels.
Currently the General Plan of Rancho Palos Verdes provides for
an additional 1,710 acres for residential development, and approxi-
mately 8000-9000 additional people. Utilizing the same standard
for future needs, another 40 acres will be needed in addition to
the existing deficit.
Thus, the utilization of the 4.49 acre upper site and approxi-
mately 6.6 acres of the lower site for somewhat more active rec-
reational activities would begin to overcome the current deficit
and to meet the future needs of the City.
The additional 68.1 acres of proposed passive open space is
based upon both the need for additional open space as well as con-
sideration of environmental factors associated with this portion
of the site. As indicated in the environmental assessment of the
site (see Appendix), the sensitivity of this portion of the site
dictates a low level of development.
16.
The particular sites chosen for open space and recreation
land would provide needed activity areas for the resident popu-
lation. Their location in the western portion of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, in and adjacent to the coastal zone along the Pacific,
would provide recreation areas in proximity to a large portion of
the resident population. The anticipated voltme of use of the
sites would be limited based on the sensitivity of the land itself--
the potential active recreational area at the main site might
eventually have annual volumes at full development of 60,000,
significantly less for the open space areas, and 30,000 for the
upper neighborhood site.
An identified need of the current and future recreation pro-
gram is for building space for recreation classes and organized
group meetings. At present, Rancho Palos Verdes City park has
'ehe building which is used for this purpose, plus staff offic~s.
· •.r;'+his facility is small and is used to capacity. There are many
~ community groups seeking space for.their activities. Some would
~l' be willing to donate time and money to the City ·to provide space
\~~'·,for cooperative use.
~ There are no usable structures on that portion of the main
1
} site for which application is being made. The upper site contains
1 five main structures. One of these can be eliminated from poten-
tial use due to its type of construction. The other four struc-
tures could provide space for recreation programs and group meet-
ings, compatible with the concept of a neighborhood park facility.
The need exists, but the major question is the suitability of the
particular structures and costs of renovation and maintenance.
17.
SUITABILITY
Those portions of the site that have been requested for use as
either active or passive recreational areas by the City are based
upon the demand for additional acreage generated by the added pop-
ulation as well as an assessment of the site suitability. As can
be seen by examination of the Re-use report (in the Appendix), al-
ternative uses of the site have been examined with the full partici-
pation of other interested public agencies in mind. It appears
that the best 11 mix" of uses for the site would be as an adminis-
trative site for a number of public agencies with the open space
and recreational portions being administered by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Los Angeles County .
•• I
· Perhaps the single most important resource relating to the site and
·d 4ts vicinity are the superb views to the site and panoramic vistas
~. from i't. Point Vicente and the site of the proposed Civic Center
~~~r are significant focal points which are highly visible from a number
:~ of vantage points in the surrounding area. In addition, these focal
,,points afford excellent 270° "view sheds" of the coastline and ocean.
~~'The Point will offer exceptional views of surrounding marine habi-
, tats, surface geology, and additionally, vantage points to view
j the annual migration of the California Gray Whale. Views to the
site are of considerable importance because these focal points are
architectural features which tend to focus viewer attention from
a variety of view locations along major public routes and lands.
Because of these considerations as well as the recommended designa-
tion of Palos Verdes Drive as a scenic corridor and highway, visual
qualities of proposed development should be compatible with local
characteristics and should take advantage of, but not obstruct,
views from nearby vantage points.
In the examination of possible uses for the site and portions
thereof, it became evident that only a small portion of the main
site should be utilized for intense urban uses such as an adminis-
trative area for public functions. After the identification of
this portion of the site, the remainder of the site, because of
its environmental sensitivity and the strong demand for recreation
and open space areas, was identified for such recreational uses.
The proposed City recreation area adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive
was chosen because it represented topographically the best por-
tion of the site for potential active recreation activities and
its adjacency to Palos Verdes Drive means that ingress and egress
to the proposed recreational area can be readily provided by con-
struction of an access road off of Palos Verdes Drive.
The major access point to the main site will continue in its pre-
sent location from Hawthorne Boulevard. It is proposed to nego-
tiate with GSA for a road right-of-way designed to provide access
for all agencies using the main site.
'l'he rest of the land requested by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
at the main site will remain essentially in its natural state.
Native ground cover will be maintained in those areas not desig-
18.
nated for recreational purposes. In areas where native and intro-
duced species are necessary for slope control or for visual ef-
fects, they will be _selected from hearty, arid climate, erosion
prevention varieties. No ingress and egress to this portion of the
site will be required. The Coast Guard has an easement containing a
buried cable leading to its antennas. This should present no in-
compatibility with the open space use and trails.
The portions of the main site proposed for recreational and open
space use by the City do not include existing physical improve-
ments of use and would require demolition. This includes several
gatehouses or control stations, theatre building (T-8}, generator
building (S-201), kennels, and chainlink fence. The vast missile
storage and launching area present a still unsolved problem. The
_ ~round level concrete area will lend itself to providing a vista
ar~a with, for example, the installation of telescope and benches.
•:."' ~he underground area might provide space for a recreation use, but
~--nothing is proposed at this time. On the other hand, these under-
'~ ground areas may need to be permanently sealed off.
~~,~\ ' h . f . . d f . 1 . . \T e upper s~te o 4.49 acres conta~ns structures an ac~ 1t~es
1 associated with its former role as an Integrated Fire Control (IFC)
' Center. The recreational uses proposed will leave the existing
·i topography and much of the existing vegetation intact. Further-
more, the low level of outdoor use by these activities will not
be threatened by adverse geological conditions. Finally, these
activities will, if the proper landscape design is instituted, en-
'·"" hance the visual quality of the area. Four of the existing build-
ings might be suitable for use for recreation programs and meeting
rooms. The City would like to keep the flexibility of further
evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of utilizing some or all of the
four buildings and the platform or of demolishing all of them and
making the site totally passive. The guard house, small storage
building, building S-310, and the chainlink fence would be removed.
Th 't ' I. ' t Th' t e upper s~ e conta~ns a J01nt use access easemen • 1s easemen
is not incompatible with the proposed park use. The existing
access drive would be continued.
19.
CAPABILITY
As a newly incorporated City (1973), Rancho Palos Verdes is in
the initial stage of developing a City administrative and support
structure to accommodate the service needs for an estimated cur-
rent population of nearly 42,000 and the ability to meet the
needs of an ultimate population of approximately 50,000. The
City does not yet have a capital improvements program.
Currently, the City contracts with Los Angeles County for a number
of services, including police, roads, animal control, building and
safety, engineering, and recreation services. The operating bud-
get for the current fiscal year (1975-76) for recreation services
·ip $125,000 (see Appendix). This budget includes park adminis-
tration, grounds maintenance, and construction and repair, with
·~ rl 4 staff of two full-time. and 26 part-time personnel. It is antici-
~--· pated that eventually the City might take over all operations re-
1\ lated to the providing of recreation services.
,l.~\rn terms of capital budget.s related to the acquisition and de-
, ~ 1 'velopment of recreation and open space sites, the City is in the
' process of acquiring two surplus school sites from the Palos Verdes
J Unified School District to increase the supply of recreational land.
To initiate the purchase of the Crestmont and Highland School
Sites, $405,500 has been provided in the Capital Improvements and
Acquisition Fund in fiscal year 1975-76 for the first installment
~.. on these sites. For fiscal 1975-76, funds were transferred from
surplus in the general fund, the Environmental Excise Tax Fund,
and the Revenue Sharing Fund to the Capital Improvements Fund. Ad-
ditionally, monies totaling $100,000 for design studies related
to parkland development were appropriated and included in this
fund.
The major sources of funds for acquisition and development of
parkland are the Envir:onmental Excise Tax and Parkland Dedication
from subdivisions. At the present time, there is an unappropri-
ated balance of $862,927 in the Environmental Excise Tax Fund.
There is interest on the part of several community groups for
working with the City to develop these facilities. The City is,
however, committed to a fiscal philosophy of carefully programming
future long-range costs, rather than only short-range expendiency.
This analysis, relative to volunteer resources, has not been ac-
complished, since acquisition of the site was uncertain.
Recently, a Parks and Recreation Committee was appointed by the
City Council to provide policy guidance for the development of
recreational land and programs.
.-, >"' I'
~\ \, t
~i~-...
I I
I
./
20.
PARKS AND RECREATION ORGANIZATION CHART
City Council
~Parks
City Manager
r I
Parks & Recreation Dept.
(contract)
& Recreation Committee
Q
Public Works
'' . 21.
PROGRAM OF UTILIZATION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to develop approximately
80 acres of the 115 acre surplus NIKE site for a variety of rec-
reational and open space uses. Figures 6 and 7 show the portions
to be acquired for parkland in relation to other proposed uses for
the remainder of the site. At the main site, the 6.6 acre poten-
tial active recreational area would complement the proposed Los
Angeles County Department of Beaches development on the coast side
of Palos Verdes Drive as well as meeting an identified need for
additional recreational land in the City. The 68 acres of passive
open space surrounds and complements the proposed administrative
center and provides needed open space for this part of the City.
The 4.49 acre upper site would be used primarily as a neighborhood
·~ark capitalizing on the dramatic views from this location.
' '• -I I i. Potential Active Recreational Area at Main Site (Figure 6) ~\ Eventually, this area might contain picnic \~.courts, and an athletic field. This wulti-use
--~ '. day use only.
areas, tennis
area will be for
< r
;
,i 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 a five-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)
The -68.1 acres of land surrounding the proposed administrative
area is to be left essentially in its natural state with no active
recreational facilities proposed for this area. Because of slope
stability and topography considerations, development would include
initially only vista and picnic areas and trails. Additional land-
scaping would be planted to enhance the native growth. A parking
area would be added in the future. All existing structures on
this por·tion would be demolishe~L The missile storage and launch-
ing-area would be used ·at ground level for a vista area, with the
addition of telescopes and benches. It could also be used by
organized groups as well as individuals for such activities as
whale watching, coastal study, etc.
3. Upper Site (Figure 7)
Development at this site includes minor landscaping and es-
tablishment of picnic areas. The parking lot would be expanded
in the future. A level playing area would be established between
the street and the parking lot. Two alternatives exist for the
existing structures: (1) Demolish all, landscape, and use area
only for picnics, viewing, etc., (2) Renovate (with the coopera-
tion of community groups) one to four existing structures
(S-302, S-303, S-304, S-307), demolishing the other structures,
and use for recreation programs and group meetings as well as for
22.
picnics, viewing, etc. The City wishes to keep these two alterna-
tives as feasible approaches at this time.
The City would be responsible for approximately 75 acres of
recreational and open space land at the main NIKE site and. 4.5
acres at the upper site on Crenshaw Boulevard. It has been as-
sumed for purposes of fiscal impact analysis that there will be
no cost of acquisition; thus, the City would bear only development
and maintenance costs. It is estimated that during a five-year
period, beginning 1978-79, approximately $132,000 will be required
for development of the 6.6 acre area including sports field 1 pic-
nic areas, and tennis courts (Table 1). Maintenance during the
same period for this developed area will start at rougly $5,000;
by 1982, at full development, the annual cost will approximate
$33,000. .
" ·:I
For the larger open space and passive recreational area, it is
.·•>" 1hgain assumed that there will be no site acquisition cost. Total t\ development cost is estimated at $84,000, plus $6,000 demolition
..,,~1, cost. The maintenance cost would increase gradually from about ~~~ .. $2,800 and level off at approximately $14,000 annually . . \ \ . .
1./ For the recreational area at the upper site, composed of 4. 49
.{ acres, it is estimated that for Alternative (1) costs would be
approximately $3,500 for total demolition and $25,000 for develop-
ment, with annual maintenance est.imated at $1,000 per acre. Al-
ternative (2) costs would be approximately $1 1 500 for partial
demolition and $50,000 for development (primarily in partial reno-
vation of structures), with annual maintenance estimated at $1,500
per acre.
23.
TABLE 1
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT
______________ A_n~n~u~a_l __ F_i __ ssal_Requirements
Developed Recreational
Area (6.6 acres)
'site Acquisition Costs a
·:'Development Costsb
l1aintenance Costsc ·i; fl I;
r~·
'. ·, Open Space and Passive !~\\·Recreational Area (70 ac.) '\!, \
{)
./
Site Acquisition Costsa
Development Costsd
Maintenance Costse
Recreational Area at
Upper Site (4.9 acres)
Site Acquisition Costsd
Alternative (1)
Demolition
Development Costsf
!1aintenance Costsg
Alternative (2)
Demolition
Development Costs
Maintenance Costsh
TOTAL w/Alternative (l)
TOTAL w/Alternative (2)
Fiscal
Year
1975-76
Fiscal
Year
1976-77
200
$23,000
2,800
3,500
500
1,500
500
500
$30,000
$28,500
Fiscal
Year
1977-78
200
$17,000
5,600
10,000
3,0()0
15,000
4,000
$35,800
$41,800
Fiscal
Year
1978-79
$26,400
5,000
$17,000
8,400
10,000
4,000
$70,800
$76,800
a. Assumes 100% discount from Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
b. Assumes total development costs of $132,000 ($20,000 per acre)
c. Assumes maintenance cost of $5,000 per developed acre
Fiscal
Year
1979-80
$26,400
10,000
$17,000
11,200
10,000
5,000
$69,100
$79,600
Fiscal
Year
1980-81
$26,400
17,000
$17,000
14,000
4,500
10,000
6,700
$78,900
$91,100
d. Assumes total development cost of $84,000 ($1,200 per acre) + $6,000 demolition
e. Assumes maintenance costs of $200 per acre
f. Assumes total demolition and development costs of $25,000
g. Assumes maintenance costs of $1,000 per acre
h. Assumes maintenance costs of $1,500 per acre
'd /;
t\ \~:·~ '
'\\ I
i'l
' ,j
II SO
,/J n
II I
scale : 1 = 200
ite
:;
UT'f
__ -.--.--~__.,... -----
------~--
From: Siegenthaler, David [tJJ§iJtQ.:go:~_Y.:ir:l_~if:_g~r.:ttb_?_~r_@np?,g.Qy]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:50PM
To: Nicole Jules <f'JJ.fpi~)@JJ~ .. '!.~?,gQX>
Subject: Re: Rancho Palos Verdes-Del Cerro Park {LADA Nike Site 55 Pt. Vicente 4.49 acre upper
site GSA#9-D-Calif_1088)
Nicole,
Parking is part of the Program of Utilization for the park, so as long as you're providing parking
that fits for the park along with the other U?e City intended forit,you're.Y'{[t~ioJhe.F!Jqyved
public P(lrk and recreation area purpose. H' Uptovf([e~Jt,:fs~t;ally~Jdtal·f!iai:iagem~fif';
decision; I don't see anything in the deed that would provide additional particular limitations and
I don't think there have been LWCF grants at the site have there? In fact, it looks like the
original concept plan for that area had the parking more internal to the park. I guess that might
mean taking some of the open play field area (that people are used to using for that purpose) for
parking -but that's a local decision.
Does that answer it well enough for you for now? I'd be glad to look at different scenarios if you
want/ but it's not required that I do so unless you do find that something might contravene the
original intent of an LWCF grant.
Thanks 1
David
David Siegenthaler
Pacific West Region
National Park Service
333 Bush Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104-2828
v: :±l~:(l;,?,,}:b)J4
F: ::JI,2:-.f?1J:~?:i~1
Federal Lands to Parks
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Pmgram
l
City: l!,~r1~ho· l'alor. \ler•df!s, CA.\I!l21i!
I -
ii~tn ~ t:i ty Clnrk (!RE£ /NJ
-··~· . , ···-·" ·--·-·-··--·-"''• ·~···-,.--·--·-·•"··----'Tji;'C'ii ..... ii!)ov"ift'Ji'1T"'ff/J e -:~ (l r re. CD ra!! f 1 $ U$-'i;"
Road ller:tl
Fur a VJluablu eonsidaratlon, rae1lpt or which is hereby ack~uwledged,,
-~-----·---
'l'lf£ CITY 0!' MNCHO PA(,OS VERf)li$
--~------------
de11lShereby grant to the CITY OF R/lllCilO PALOS VEP.Of.S, a munH:hal t:QrporHfon,
ofLos Angi!lus County, Sute of California, an easement for publi<: MAO ArlO
HIGHWAY purpose& and tncldants thereto, in th• following described real
property in the C.llY OF P.MCIIO PA~OS VEIHlES, County of Los Angeles, State of
C~lHornla, !le~cribed as:
J.,EGI'\L Pli:SCRll''l'l«?,;:!
nlifi.ng a pt:>rl:.:ion of tot "H" pi.U'tH:ion of. Rancho Los Valon ve:rtles .al-
lottud to Joth4m nil!hy by dee:r:ee , of. J::ltlrti tion in action entitl-ed
"nil!hy, et al vs. tlent., e"t. nl" as shown on roap U l<i!d in cat;e nc. 2373
ln the District court of the 17th JudJ.ahl llistdat of the State of
Cnl.if~:~.tnill in and for the county of Los Angeles and er1tered in llook ~~ r•ave 57, of ,;udgeman·tR in tho Su.9er:iol." Court of snid County, Records
o:f ·t.os Anqeles County, State of Californi.a and a portion of Amr:mdtni.klll:
to Doela.t~<~tion of' 'l'aldng, r.oe~n:ded Daeombe:r l., 1954, as oocu111ent t~o.
4625 3, Page 405 cf Official. ~eco:rdG u! t.ha county of Los 11n9olt:t~,
State of California, and lUI sholm <m Map of Tract No . .32110 filed in
Book 9.35, Pagtts 47 thtou~h Sl inclusive of M~pa, in thu offic~:~ of the
County Roctrrde:r, county of Los )',n9oles, Stilt~ of Cal'.l.fornia d<.!l>ea:ibcd
liS follows:
ll~ctqi.nninq !:It th~;~ most. oaJ~ta.r:.ly corna1· ot1 Lot ::! , 1'ract. No, 3<!l.l0 11~
~>ho\Vn on map of waid t:raot, $ill.d point boi.ng alno on the vest<!rly
s.i.del.l.n(l-of C:r.cnllhaw floule.vard liP ft~ct wi~e as .slt(ll>'n pel' map of oc..id tractJ
t.henc.u along ndd tl:'aet boundary South 29 13' 04" !$est, S::lO, 67 feet;
tllencQ• dupartit19 fr-cnn.sa:ld tract boundaey, North 74 lJ' OJ", East, 77,08
feet; thenco :-lorth 29 13' 1)4" East, 203,55 feet to n tangent curve
concave westerly having a raclius ot 120. ~0 .foot; thence .northarly alon9
said cu.rvl1! tbxough a central ~:~nqlo of 21 !I 1' OG'' an arc db trnnc~:~ of
45.98 t'eet to n ·tangent curve concave easterly :havin9 a radius of Bo.oa
fo!l't; thence northerly alonq naid curvu throu9h a el:!ntral 0 an9h of
21 57' 06" an arc C:U.stanae of 30.65 foott theM-a I'IQrt.h 2!'1 n' 04" l'i:ut,
1.92.01.1 feet to il poinl: in tltil! WCl!ltedy sid~~tHne of Crenshaw tloulevard,
BO feet wid~, lUI sh<rHn on mnp o£ said h'acl:1 s.aid. westerly 11idelinu
bainq o. cu:rvft eom:uve westerly l!«ving 11 l'lldi.u~ o:f !l!JGO.OO fc:at. A
rarlial linu t:tn:ough Ga.id point .bearli North :17 37' 46" East. 'l'henoo
north&rly .fxom J.aut. lncmtio,n~d point al.onc;r t~ald wn,tedy sideline tlu:ou9h
a. ctuttral anglc. o:t! o• 23' 19" un Are distance of 40. 42 feet to tho Point
of lll!lginn:l.nq,
Oi!.hd tllh~day nf ..,..,.tllll.u<ll"-E-----• B.JW..
~dA-L~~
ao..:. 61 . 219S
'rhis 1 s to certify that the interest. in real propwrty conveyed lly
th~ written deed or grant t.o the City of Rancho l'a los Ve;rd6s, a gove:rnment.u'
agency, is hereby accepted by the City and tho Grant.C>! consents to the
recordation thex-eof CY its duly <~U ox-izad of:Cic;:lr.
Dated t:his /.'2 day of ~··' l9.2.Q_
){ON W, IIIGII'l'OWJ!;;{, ;>.Cl'INI:l CJ;TY Ct.EJU<
Ct'rY 0~' AANCiiO Pltt~13 VEfUlES
By~~~~
t / ~~ l
f ·,' J,
Pi/f!)L!C ACC£$
DRIVE ;.-v,~ r'
T(!Ar" _.,,r; 1'?/!t
April25, 2016
VIA E-MAIL
TRAFFIC@RPVCA.GOV
Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety
Commission
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
stcVl'nandcrsun@ q uinncmanucl.com
Re: Park Place HOA Request for RPV Permit Parking for Park Place
Dear Trame Committee Members:
I am the president of the Park Place Homeowners Association (covering Burrell Lane and Park
Place) since the start of 2016. I want to express on behalf of our HOA how grateful we are for
nll the parking restrictions that have been implemented in the past several months by the City-
the red striping on the Crenshaw extension to Burma Road, the red striping on portions of
Crenshaw and the entrance to Park Place, and the provision of RPV permit parking on streets
covered by the Del Cerro and Island View HOAs. These restrictions have eliminated all of the
traffic and congestion on and around the Crenshaw extension and have significantly enhanced
the safety and security of our HOA members on Burrell Lane, as well as for the members of the
Del Cerro and Island View HOAs.
Unfortunately, however, the residents on one street among all of the streets of these three HOAs
have not received the same benefits of safety and security n·om the new parking restrictions-
those on Park Place. This needs to be rectified by the provision of RPV permit parking for that
street, as these residents have requested.
An unintended consequence of the new parking restrictions has been to shift to Park Place the
traffic and congestion that had been occurring on and around the Crenshaw extension (e.g .. cars
repeatedly driving the length of the extension looking for a parking spot and then making a three-
point U-turn at the end of the extension to drive back out when no spot was available). I
understand that there has been some discussions on this issue between a member of our HOA on
Park Place, Dr. Thomas Olson, and Ms. Jules. I also understand that Ms. Jules has submilted a
iOS.\~';c.;:_!i:·~;!;-..;f!\V\'<)RK ~·/\~--:Fll:\ ::::;,·~_:Z"l 'd!~· > \'·\!lL'1' 'l·iH -,.;(\ u;·,·~HU';,·.r_.·,N,C·· :;((1tJ.·;,·I ·~··1~)\ ··TT;J
CJ99~)~.l~0921Jn90783(,,~}hp;~:>: j'{)b \'1.">! >Ul•:t--:tlEl\11 ~.!():'· '·\V: H:\\-W1 q.•.' i l'./..Ki\ ,,n.::<; t!! csr····L\" i jl.;'t!'.:('; ~~(") "-'", i ~,;_r;-:,•_;~-l s
recommendation to the Committee to deny the Park Place resident's request for RPV permit
parking. 1 can confirm, however, that concerns with the traffic and congestion on Park Place as a
result of the new parking restrictions implemented by the City are very real.
Indeed, yesterday morning I walked over to Park Place from Burrell at about l 0:00am to
observe for myself the current conditions. In the span of about I 0 minutes, 1 saw approximately
15 vehicles turn from Crenshaw onto Park Place, proceed up the street to look for an open
parking stall (which were all filled), make aU-turn in the tight circle at the end of the street that
abuts the driveways for residences 1 and 3 Park Place, and then proceed back out to Crenshaw.
In addition, while most of these cars were making the U-turn, I observed the young children of
our newest HOA member, Benny Da (No.3), who I understand are ages 3 and 6, playing at the
end of their driveway within about three feet of the passing cars.
It would be unreasonable to deny that this amount of traffic tlow funneled down Park Place as a
result of the new parking restrictions implemented by the City, and in such close proximity to the
residences on the street, presents a true threat to the safety and security of Park Place residents
and diminishes their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their properties. The only way to remedy
these issues is to grant the Park Place residents' request for RVP permit parking on the street. In
addition, it is in the best interest of all RPV residents for the Committee to grant this relief to
avoid the potential of any liability the City could face should this enhanced traffic tlow caused
by City policies result in injury to residents or others on Park Place.
It is also in the best interest of all RPV residents to ensure that the parking stalls intended for
visitors to Del Cerro Park are available for all RPV residents who wish to enjoy it. When 1 first
arrived at Park Place yesterday morning, all of the parking stalls were filled. Yet, I observed
only one family playing in the park and one individual enjoying the view from the cliff. So
clearly. all of the remaining parking stalls were filled by visitors to the Preserve. And, in the
one or two instances when hikers came back from the trailhead of the Preserve and backed out of
a parking stall on Park Place, the people who pulled into the stall right behind them also headed
toward the Preserve. Again, the only way to protect the rights of all RPV residents to visit and
enjoy Del Cerro Park is to grant the Park Place residents' request for RPV permit parking on
Park Place.
Finally, I note that the Harris & Associates repmt dated April 18, 2016 (''H&A") that was
commissioned by the Committee identifies the covenants and conditions of the property transfer
from the United States that created Del Cerro Park, the first of which is ''[u]se of the property is
specific for public park and recreational purposes." H&A at 2 (Item 4). The report also indicates
that the Del Cerro Park property will "[r[evert to USA if determined ... [there is a] [b]reach of
any of the conditions and covenants of the property transfer." !d. While I have not researched
this issue, the Committee should consider, for the benefit of all residents of RPV, whether the
primary use of the parking stalls on Park Place for visitors to the Preserve rather than visitors to
Del Cerro Park, as currently pennitted by the City, creates a breach of the covenants and
conditions of the property transfer from the United States. Of course, the Committee could
eliminate this risk entirely simply by granting the Park Place residents' request for RPV permit
parking on Park Place.
9999~.(~JJU/7907836. I 2
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Traffic Safety Committee should grant the Park Place
residents' request.
Very truly yours,
Steven M. Anderson
SMA
cc: Nicole Jules, Park Place HOA (all via e-mail)
99'!99 -ll921.1/7()()78:16.l
'l99'l'l-O'l2J317907836.1 3
Dear Honorable RPV City Council Mayor and Members
The Park Place HOA and residents of Park Place feel it appropriate to provide additional
information and facts to the City Report prepared by Katie Lozano for March 17, 2020.
Thank you for your continued efforts to work to improve parking, as a part of more inter-
connected and complex set of problems, in the Del Cerro Park area. Efforts in the other three (3)
HOAs (other than Park Place street in Park Place HOA) near Del Cerro Park seem to have good
results.
HOWEVER, there is only one Resident Home street that experiences Continuing Adverse and
Large Impact Issues.
This only distressed area of any ofthe four (4) HOAs is Park Place.
Four (4) Ma,jor Problems for Park Place:
First, Non-Pcrfomuu1cc to Land Transfer document (Program of Utilization -POU) for
Del Cerro Park has created substantial 'Mixed-Use' Problems for Park Place (street)
that need be 'fixed' over long-term.
Second, Land Use is NOT FOLLOWED for Del Cerro Park as stated in the POU Legal
Transfer of Land document from Department ofinterior to RPV for Del Cerro Parle
This has led to host of significant safety, traffic nnd parking problems over past years.
]'bird, Non-Performance to RPV Par!< Safety and Secudty Policy and Procedure has
created other substantial Problems for residents of Park Place and aH four (4) HOAs
surrounding Del Cerro Park that need be 'fixed' as well.
.Fourth, Extenuating Circumstances continue fi)r Park Place Residents' fear, emotional
distress, comparative fairness and equitable treatment in addition to maJor loss of
property value and Quality of Life.
First, '1\:lixed-lJsc' Problems for Park Place (street) that need be 'fixed' over hmg-
tcrm
Negatives for Park Place are a result of the other three (3) HOAs having Resident Parking
Permit Only. HOWEVER, for Park Place HOA, we have Recreation Permit Parking
Only.
THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
Recreation Parking Permits allow parking for Conservancy Trails (predominantly used for a
huge population much bigger than the Neighborhood) as well as for Neighborhood Del Cerro
Park (very little used by Recreation Permit holders).
Resident Parking Permits are to be for Residents and their guests and no one else.
Further, Park Place residents are very adversely affected due to the 'MIXED USE' of Park Place.
USE of Park Place is both a:
1. Public-Right-of-Way for Residents (Resident Parking Permit) AND
2. 'Destination' for a much broader number of people than our Neighborhood for Recreation
purposes (Recreation Parking Permit).
LEGALLY, Park Place is a Public-Right-of-Way ROAD DEED in June 17, 1980.
See attached drawing of Park Place established as a Right-of-Way to access Resident properties.
THERE ARE NO PARKING STALLS on original ROAD DEED.
Park Place CURRENT USE as 'Parking Lot' (or Trails and Del Cerro Park IS NOT
per Road Deed or Program of Utilization (POU)
Per the PROGRAM OF UTILIZATION (POU)-the 'Foundation/Creating Document' for Del
Cerro Park -Parking for the Park was to have an Existing Access Road to an Existing Parking
Lot interior to the Park. HOWEVER, the access Road and Parking Lot were removed AND
Parking Stalls were placed on Park Place WITHOUT a CHANGE TO THE POU & NO
APPROVAL OF THE DEPT OF INTERIOR and NO DUE PROCESS by the CITY OF RPV.
This is confirmed by David Siegenthaler. National Parks Service, DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR in his letter to RPVin March 2017.
Non-compliance to having the Public-Right-of-Way be separate and apart from the Access
Road and Parking Lot for Del Cerro Park creates a big 'MIXED-USE' problem. This is
extremely unusual as all known municipalities work very hard to NOT HAVE MIXED-USE for
rather obvious reasons that force Residents trying to get home must 'compete 'for access with
Non-Residents to use the Park or most extensively the Conservancy Trails.
Due to the MIXED-USE, relocating the congested parking from Del Cerro Park has seen
little, if any, improvement. Heavy traffic continues as has abusive behavior and language
including assaults of residents. In addition, due to all the interconnected problems, the
most important and most affected by these problems is the loss of valuation of resident
properties on Park Place and adverse comparative to other neighboring HOAs. It is our
observation that Park Place remains to have a much longer list of inter-connected problems.
Second, Land lise is NOT FOLLOWED for Del Cerro Park as stated in the POll
Legal Tmnsfer of Land document from Department of Interior to RPV for Del
Cerro Pari<
l. Propert.r Tnms('er Program ollJtili;ation (POll) not followed-parking not put
where DESIGNATED in park & NOT ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF \VAY-Reference:
the 'transfer Deed document' of Del Cerro to the City-His important to please see:
• L p. 6-item B of POU: -"4.49 acre site (Del Cerro Park) designated "neighborhood
park'. Del Cerro is not used now (and for the past many recent years) as a
Neighborhood park -largely because parking for the Park does not really exist in
that an parking stalls are essentially used by out-of-area vehicles for access to the
ConservarRcy I Trails. Neighborhood means small radius of .5 up possibly 1 mile
(per RPV Parks & Recreation). This docs not indudc in any way all of RPV-only a
very small population ofRPV most proximate-primarily North & -to Del
Cerro Park.
• AU Del Cerro parking is near exclusive use for 'visitors to the trails' (AND NOT THE
PARK) and use by essentially aH persons who are 'non-neighborhood visitors'.
Parking stalls are often full, but no one is in the Park.
• 2. p. 18 -last paragraph (circled) of POlJ:-"the upper site (Del Cerro Park)
"existing access drive would be continued." This access drive was 'removed' with no
lmown City Council approval or National Park Service formal agreement or
process. Further, this access road provided access from Crenshaw to the existing
Parliing Lot for the Nilw Site at the "upper site" .... this would he the reference
parl{ing lot interior to the Par!< in the POlJ ...
• 3. p. 25 (sequentially accurate albeit not numbered) ofPOU:-"figure 2-upper site"
shows pictorial evidence of existing access road from Crenshaw m. to Nikc Site
Parking Lot. THIS IS TO WHAT THE POU REFERRED as 'Parking for the new
Del Cerro Park'. This 'Parking Lot', or any other 'Parking Lot' referred to as
internal to the Park, DOES NOT EXIST.
2. Original DEED {or the tnmster o(laml to provide {(Jr the 'public-rigllt-o(-war_' Park
Place SHOWS NO P.4RKING STALLS.
• There arc no known City Council Minutes Oil formal re<uuircd communications
from the City of RPV to the Department of Interior that in any way request, let alone
discuss, any changes to the POU.
• Park Place residents have repeated asked for specific City Council minutes and
correspondence to the Department of Interior with specific reference to
providing Del Cerro parking that is not internal to the park as Mr. Siegentlmlt~r and
the POlJ state.
• On request ofRPV, there has been a review of aU City Correspondence to the
Department ofinterior. This review includes aH these materials in-depth by Park
Place residents/BOA and/or City of RPV personnel. And no references have been
found to any changes to the POU that would have been re<juired to 'move parking'
from what was agreed in the POlJ to anywhere else. This would seem a significant
violation of a major change-let alone approval-not disclosed by the City to the
Department of Interior. This is the problem referred to by Steve Anderson, Past
President of Park Place BOA, to City of RPV in his dated April 25, 2016.
3. Parking 5'lalls are 'not legal'. (Please reference applicable Code requirements for legal
parl.:hag space.) 'fhe parking stalls, as exist, are 'not legal' as a portion of each stall is
physkaHy and determined by a recent City survey to be partially in the Park and
partially in the public-right-of-way (Park Place street). City Survey confirms this.
Cerro
any regard in order to conform to the POlJ and to provide a legal park stan that docs
not 'protrude' into the public right ofway. Please see the recent City Survey in
which these facts are wen documented. As not provided in this communication, we
request that City Staff provide any/aU Survey reference documents identified herein
to Council with sufficient time for Council to read and review prior to 3/20/18.
4. Approval to decide Parking-Local1Yanagement Decision: l'lease see the letter from
IVI:r. David Sicgethaler ofthe National Pari< Service, dated March 2017, in which he
states that "parking that fits for the pari< ... is reaHy a local management decision". Mr.
Siegenthaler also notes: "In fact, the original concept plan (POU) for that area had the
parking more within the park": Both of Mr. Siegefhaler's comments are significant
with the City being recognized as the "local management dedsion"-maker and the fact
that the POU cans for "parking more within the par!<" (a separate parldng lot).
® Perfonning to the original POU seems quite relevant here and a substantial basis of
the City not performing as required. In addition, as the POU states, if there is non-
compliance, land (Del Cerro Park) can and should then reverted to the
ownership and control of the Department of Interior.
Summary of Important Del Cerro Land Use Facts:
• 1. There are no known historical Building Plans or Public Hearings regarding construction
of parking stalls or parking lot at Del Cerro Park. This tells us that there are no plans for
existing stalls.
• 2. The controlling 'contract' for RPV 'acquiring' what we know today as Del Cerro Park
is the Property transfer Program of Utilization (POU). This is only known document is
the 1976 "Application ... shall constitute the entire agreement" (p. 1) from the City ofRPV
to accept transfer of two (2) pieces of property from the Department of Interior. This
Application ... agreement" document is what some City ofRPV Staff title "Program of
Utilization". One of these pieces is what we know today as Del Cerro Park (the other is
San Vincente).
• In that application, it is clear that parking is quite a distance removed from what is
currently Park Place (street). See the page 25 of this Application agreement". The
parking as identified in the "Application ... agreement" is the then-existing Nike facility
Parking Lot that is accessed from Crenshaw Boulevard. From the 1976 POU document,
the access road existed then to the former parking lot for the Nike site buildings at Del
Cerro Park from Crenshaw Boulevard.
• Most important, on page 18 it is stated AND reinforced as very important as it has been
'circled' by the City ofRPV:
• The existing access drive would be continued' (emphasis added).
• 3. A review of the 1979 grant deed from the Department of the Interior to the City of
RPV indicates no language regarding parking on what is Park Place (street) now at all.
• 4. Further, the 1980 Road Deed for Park Place (street) has no inclusions of any parking
stalls at all either.
• From these seminal documents, it is apparent, as Nicole Jules stated, that the parking stalls
on Park Place (street) have no known documents approving or specifying any stall parking
on Park Place (street). This tells us that there is no "agreement" (known) and no Formal
Public Hearing OR Approval for and/or before RPV residents or RPV City Council.
• From the documents we know now, parking at Del Cerro would and should be entered and
exited on the roadway from Crenshaw to the existing parking lot for the Nike base. As
parking using the existing access and lot is a very clear basis (pages 18 and 25) for the
transfer of the land, and no other known documents relate to parking on Park Place
(street). As there is no mention regarding parking on what is known as Park Place
(street) today in any of the Application Plan or literal transfer Documents, the 1976
document is the primary and the basis for parking at Del Cerro.
Third, Non-Performance to RPV Parli: Safety and Security Policy and Procedure has
created other substantial Problems for residents of Park Place and all four (4) HOAs
surrounding :Ocl Cerro Park that need be 'fixed' as weB.
Public parking at Park Place continues to be a huge issue and more heavy, still, on weekends and
holidays and including most other days during each year. These issues include many vehicles
'queuing' and waiting, U-turns, pedestrian and auto safety concerns as well. Additional signage
and limited enforcement (if it can respond) has not, and believe will not, change human behavior
in this case.
THIS IS DEMONSTRSTED by the Solar Powered Blinking Mobile sign at Del Cerro Park.
This larger Blinking Mobile sign was placed and then removed. Moreover then, the traffic flow
and illegal parking returned being very poor as it was. The Blinking Mobile sign was then
requested to be returned by Park Place residents at the RPV Traffic Committee. On return of the
Blinking Mobile sign, the traffic flow continued. And in a subsequent dispatched Sheriff call on
Jan 5 2020, vehicles and persons entering Park Place (all without a permit) were told to leave by
Deputies Smith and Lopez on that day. Unfortunately, without Sheriff Deputies physically
present, the traffic flows continue to be heavy and substantive illegal parking continues as well.
Further, Permit Required signage does not exist on Park Place in any like way as it does for Del
Cerro HOA. For Del Cerro HOA, there are 6 signs that measure 4X the size of those for Park
Place. Park Place signs are stated as being "Standard" by RPV Public Works Director. Yet the
6 signs at entrance to Del Cerro HOA were installed at the same time are 4x the size. IF RPV
states 'Standard' size for Park Place and 4x the size for Del Cerro HOA, then there is significant
NOT EQUAL TREATMENT for Park Place and advantages provided to Del Cerro HOA.
Park Place requests EQUAL TREATMENT.
THERE ARE VERY REASONABLE SOLUTIONS to recommend for Park Place HOA:
1. Return to Crenshaw Blvd all 10 spaces for RPV Recreation Permit Parking Only that
had been place there. MOREOVER, remove all Parking stalls from Park Place except 1
Handicap stall. This was voted 5 -0 by City Council to vacate all stalls in March I April
2018. In addition, then install some very low cost mechanism to block parking stalls
(such as metal vertical posts with metal chain that can easily be removed by City). This
would prevent any parking by 'visitors' or Non-Park Place Residents on Park Place and
leave for only access to Residents' homes. Having a chain lock available to open by Park
Place Residents, LA County Fire, etc. would allow for Resident Parking Permit Only to
Park Place Residents and appropriate other access.
2. Add a physical solution barrier gate at Park Place. This physical solution remains an
adjunct viable option -a new Park Place daytime and I or nighttime gate, which now
meets the previously identified criteria (Table 2) for approval. This allows the City
to close Del Cerro at-minimum at night as is done at Ryan and Hesse Parks. Please see
more detail at conclusion of this communication.
3. Change signage to be the same size and number-4x larger than now and 6 signs. This
would be equal to what is placed as those entering Del Cerro HOA. This requires
changing signage and placed for easy and prominent sighting by 'visitors' at Park Place.
Signage needs include very large lettering, as suggested by Katie Lozano, to be painted in
red literally on the street of Park Place (very similar to the red STOP painted on many
streets)
4. Request analysis by RPV City Attorney. Please see more detail at conclusion of this
communication.
We view the above Recommendations as collaborative and supportive of each other. And each
has been advocated in past by RPV -most specifically, City Manager, Doug Wilmore.
We see #I as straightforward and implementable now and taking very short time to see
big measurable positive results. We see #2 as appropriate to Del Cerro Park, particularly at
night, with vacating of parking stalls back to Crenshaw Blvd. Returning the circumstances at
Park Place, the prior used 4 criteria data are different and require a substantive review to move
forward to the Gate that City Manager Doug Wilmore stated to City Council was an acceptable
solution. We see #3 as a must such that 'visitors' will have prominent font size (equal to Del
Cerro HOA) to literally see and read.
We argue that a Gate is strongly supported by:
I. PRIOR RPV Plans in early and middle 2018 for Changes to Park Place including the
installation of a gate. These plans were created by City Public Works and approved by City
Manager Doug Wilmore. These plans were presented to the City Council and City Council
voted 5-0 in favor of removing all parking stalls. . .. and ... further ...
2. Criteria described re: installation of gate (and not fence as presented in the Cal Vehicle Code)
are met. Regarding these criteria, the first is for crime with excess. This is easily demonstrated
by continual resident harassment, assault, trespass, damage to personal property and more in
addition to 1000s of traffic flow, blocking driveways and parking violations at red curbs and
stalls. The continual adverse parking and continuing conditions of Citations required is serious
in that Residents safety (from harassment, trespass, property damage, assault-physical and
verbal) have been experienced continuing and essentially on a daily basis. This is serious to the
peace and enjoyment of immediate Residents on Park Place as well as to the Neighborhood of3
other HOAs to be serviced by Del Cerro Neighborhood Park.
Gate criteria supported as follows:
(1) (A) Serious crime activity include, for example:
-attempted home invasions with aggravating behavior (specific example, recent 5150 arrest of
29-yr old male w knife prior released by Deputies trespassing & attempted invasion on Park Pl.)
-belligerent language and profane gestures provoking physical encounters between Park Place
residents as well as other visitors,
-Physical and Verbal assaults-person(s) to person(s), as well as in large mass by bus loads of
people 'dropped' by bus at Park illegally parked in 7 parking stalls.
-Trespass with $$ physical damages to residents property,
Please know that when Sherif.! were contact for many of the above, there was not always a
response and when a response, there were no citations given, arrests made and no formal police
reports.
(1) (B) Serious and continual dumping:
-Furniture and all variety of other household & garage items, car and truck parts, oil & paint,
wood & metal fencing and building materials, all variety of personal items & other belongings.
Please know, also, that when Sherif.! were contact for the above, there was not always a response
and when a response, there were no citations given or arrests made and no formal police report.
(2) Park Place (street) is not designated as a through highway, etc.
(3) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic contributes to the Crime and Dumping.
(4) Closure of Park Place with not substantially adversely affect Traffic Flow or Safety on
adjacent streets or surrounding neighborhoods, etc.
All criteria are met for GATE. Please observe that these criteria are not being applied for fence.
Additional comment:
1) Illegal activity-Multiple residents recently report numerous altercations, trespassing with
substantive $$$ damages as well as attempted home invasion, police interventions. Nighttime
parking on Park Place is very accessible and continues to attract questionable activities (ex.
partying with alcohol and drug use, loud noise, bright lights, loud music, larger than allowed and
endangering behavior gatherings). These illegal acts can be stopped by use of a nighttime gate
similar to the precedents set by other parks (as at Ryan, Hesse and others). The gate could
also be automated to not have to pay any person to manually close a manual gate ... or the
responsibility could be transferred to the Park Place Neighborhood Watch Captain and Team,
which is overseen by City of RPV.
2) City Services Access as with LA County Fire-Fire Gate Access occurs and works well at
1 OOs of other gated streets through RPV. LA County Fire is mandated to remain neutral on
public sector issues such as a decision regarding a specific Gate. Fire personnel at each RPV
Fire Station (53, 56 and 106) all stated a Gate at Park Place would not be an issue for
them. Moreover, as Fire Gate Access occurs throughout RPV, LA County Fire would not be a
part of decision-making suggestions to limited use of a gate. LA County Fire to not support
stated that would require them to seek approval to provide in writing on LA County Fire
letterhead.
3) Approved use of a Gate (not Fence) for nighttime use is permitted in meeting the essence and
spirit of the more stringent criteria for a Fence that a movable Gate, as is a major element at other
major RPV Parks.
Benefits of a gate include:
-Increased safety
-Reduced liability
-Salvaged residents' property rights
-Preserved real estate market value
-Minimal impact to public access and non with RPV Permit Parking returned to Crenshaw as it
was and where it 'worked' quite well and essentially never fully occupied.
Fourth, Extenuating Circumstances on)arl< Place Resident fear, emotional distress,
comparative fairness and equitable treatment, in addition to
major loss of property value and Quality of Life.
• Thi.<; is not (air ami equal treatment. This also violates the 'cn,joymcnt residence' as
wen as 'rights of ownership' induding, most importantly, protection from Park
circumstances that lower (dramatically) property values. l'lease reference the Steve
Anderson Jetter to the RPV Traffic Committee (see-"Park Place IIOA Letter to
RPV '[raffle Safety Cmumittee").
• We at Park Place are very hopeful that the solutions discussed with City
Administration (as with POU required parking internal to Del Cerro) ·wm allow for
the street nwdifactio11 of Pari< Place to which aH-cu rrent residents request. Thank
you so much in advance for your avaiiabmty, listening to the concerns, and take
strong ~1ffinnative actions to protect the few at Park Place that truly need protection
as provided every other ofthe 100s of homes and 1000s of residents proximate to Del
Cerro Park
:::.:...~~~~~~~:2,!;~~~~~~-please reference the lOOs of pictures that have
bc,~n provided to the City. These give direct evidence of megal double or triple parking
at resident's driveways (that prevent !itend resident ingress to, or egress from, their own
property), mega I parking at red curbs, illegal 'stopping' in the 'public right of way" (the
street) that does not allow for traffic flow ami on and on. These 'repeated iHegal
parking events' make residents verv {Hghtened, anxious and stressed.
• Park Place residents believe strongly in Enjoyable Quality of Life and comparable
property values that do not now exist.
3. PROBLEMS RKII--JAIN NOT Iit,JPROVED
• Residents lives are so adversely affected and compromised !<nowing that when .Park
Place residents need to leave or return home, each resident may well be prevented
fron1 doing so by all vehicles (some very large) tbat drive on Park Place IN A
SINGLE DAY including every Sat and Sun and Holidays and most 'work days'
during the week
o Pictures late at night are particularly important, too, as Park is LEGALLY
CLOSED-yet Park Place stalls have parked vehicles at night (at all hours-scary) of
every day/night when the Park is legally closed ... and there are signs stating so. It is
not on{v daytime huge problems ... there are nighttime big st~{e(v ami assault and illegal
behaviors on Park Place that are potentially quite dangerous as weH (and
uncontrollable at present.)
In condusion, our recommendations an~ restated here:
We advocate specific recommendations and requests for Park Place.
The First (1st) recommendation is:
1. Return to Crenshaw Blvd all 10 spaces for RPV Recreation Permit Parking Only
that had been place there.
2. MOREOVER, remove all Parking stalls from Park Place except 1 Handicap stall.
This was voted 5-0 by City Council to vacate all stalls in March I April2018.
3. In addition, then install some very low cost mechanism to block parking stalls
(such as metal vertical posts with metal chain that can easily be removed by
City). This would prevent any parking by 'visitors' or Non-Park Place Residents
on Park Place and leave for only access to Residents' homes. Having a chain
lock available to open by Park Place Residents, LA County Fire, etc. would allow
for Resident Parking Permit Only to Park Place Residents and appropriate other
access.
The Second (2 11d) recommendation is:
1. Add a physical solution barrier gate at Park Place.
2. This physical solution is for at least nighttime.
3. We also propose that with the stalls removed, we return Park Place to the Right-
of-Way the Park Place was established to be in 1980 to allow access for all
Residents to their homes.
4. Install the a nighttime gate to meet the RPV current policy and practice of a gate
to provide Del Cerro Park protection (as is done at other major traffic Parks in
RPV) and make possible the closing ofDel Cerro Park at night for safety and
security. . This allows the City to close Del Cerro at-minimum at night as is
done at Ryan and Hesse etc. Parks
5. Work toward Park Place daytime as well as nighttime gate.
The Third (3rd) recommendation is:
1. Change signage to be the same size and number-4x larger than now and 6 signs.
This would be equal to what is placed as those entering Del Cerro HOA.
2. This requires changing signage and placed for easy and prominent sighting by
'visitors' at Park Place.
3. Signage needs include very large lettering, as suggested by Katie Lozano, to be
painted in red literally on the street of Park Place (very similar to the red STOP
painted on many streets).
The Fourth (4th) recommendation is:
1. Refer to the RPV City Attorney all materials regarding the Program of Utilization
and the stated, yet non-existing, placement of Parking Lot and Parking entrance
interior to Del Cerro Park as to have been provided. Forward, also, the Park Place
right-of-way Deed and RPV Survey showing stalls partially on the Park Place
right-of-way and partially in Del Cerro Park. Additional data should include Mr.
Steven Anderson's letter, Cory Linder Email describing the limits of a
neighborhood park, full considerations for avoiding all 'mixed-use' of resident
right-of-way' with parking for the Park and Trails. Please include all other
reference materials related thereto as well as included herein.
2. Request the City Attorney to fully review all materials and render analysis as to
why the City is has not followed the POU, created unapproved mixed-use (no
stalls on right-of-way Deed or any other document) et al.
• ]'hanlis much again for your attention to the mess of huge problems that needed
fixing months I years ago. Vic arc hopeful that this meeting on 3/17/2020 wm bring
swift closing of traffic I parking.
The Park Place HOA appreciates all that you have done, but there is still more work to do. We
believe other neighboring HOAs would support this approach. We would gladly meet with City
representatives to implement the above parking changes and gate installation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas (Tom) Olson,
Park Place HOA
Neighborhood Watch Captain/Team Member
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 3:39 PM
Enyssa Momoli; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Regular Business #1-"public parking measures' -Consider Park Place Problems,
Recommendation 2) Consider additional measures -Park Place (street)
From: pvpprof [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 3:36PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Regular Business #1-"public parking measures'-Consider Park Place Problems, Recommendation 2) Consider
additional measures-Park Place (street)
Reference:
Regular Business
1. Consideration and possible action to review the effectiveness of public parking
measures at upper Portuguese Bend Reserve, Filiorum Reserve, and Del Cerro Park
(Lozano) (20 mins.)
Recommendation: 1) Receive and file a status update on the effectiveness of the City's
public parking restriction measures at upper Portuguese Bend Reserve, Filiorum Reserve,
and Del Cerro Park; and, 2) Consider additional measures to minimize public parking
impacts to the Preserve and Del Cerro Park, and direct Staff to explore these measures
for future consideration by the City Council.
Dear Staff,
Please assist with reading comments in BOLD to the City Council for Regular Business #1-"public parking
measures"-Consider Park Place Problems and recommendations.
Following instruction #3, please find comments below to be read into the record during the CC meeting tonight
3/17/2020.
These brief comments are provided now near 3pm before the meeting and before 4pm (as requested).
As instructed, and "if (as) received in real time and prior to the comment of that item", please read the following
summary comments regarding:
1. Statement of 4 Problems and
2. 4 Recommendations.
Please know that the letter sent to City Council is longer. And if limited to 3 minutes speaking, we have tried to
shorten verbal comments to those below in BOLD. Being an HOA I Park Place representative as well as for
Neighborhood Watch, we appreciate your courtesy of allowing 3 minutes or a few more to read into the record
during live streaming our comments. Thank you.
We ask that you please:
-First, Please read in full the 4 Major Problems for Park Place as identified in BOLD ... and
1
\.
-Second, Please read the 4 Recommendations. /{these are too long, Read the 1st sentence(s),
in BOLD italics, for each of the 4 Recommendations.
Thank you.
If any questions, please send reply email.
Content to be READ in BOLD below:
Four ( 4) Major Problems for Park Place:
First, Non-Performance to Land Transfer document (Program of Utilization-POU) for
Del Cerro Park has created substantial 'Mixed-Use' Problems for Park Place (street)
that need be 'fixed' over long-term.
Second, Land Use is NOT FOLLOWED for Del Cerro Park as stated in the POU Legal
Transfer of Land document from Department of Interior to RPV for Del Cerro Park.
This has led to host of significant safety, traffic and parking problems over past years.
Third, Non-Performance to RPV Park Safety and Security Policy and Procedure has
created other substantial Problems for residents of Park Place and all four ( 4) HOAs
surrounding Del Cerro Park that need be 'fixed' as well.
Fourth, Extenuating Circumstances continue for Park Place Residents' fear, emotional
distress, comparative fairness and equitable treatment in addition to major loss of
property value and Quality of Life.
We advocate specific 4 recommendations and requests for Park Place.
The First (1st) recommendation is:
1. Return to Crenshaw Blvd alll 0 spaces for RPV Recreation Permit Parking Only
that had been place there.
2. MOREOVER, remove all Parking stalls from Park Place except 1 Handicap stall.
This was voted 5-0 by City Council to vacate all stalls in March I April 2018.
3. In addition, then install some very low cost mechanism to block parking stalls
(such as metal vertical posts with metal chain that can easily be removed by
City). This would prevent any parking by 'visitors' or Non-Park Place Residents
on Park Place and leave for only access to Residents' homes. Having a chain
lock available to open by Park Place Residents, LA County Fire, etc. would allow
for Resident Parking Permit Only to Park Place Residents and appropriate other
access.
2
The Second (2nd) recommendation is:
1. Add a physical solution barrier gate at Park Place (at least at nighttime).
2. This physical solution is for at least nighttime.
3. We also propose that with the stalls removed, we return Park Place to the Right-
of-Way the Park Place was established to be in 1980 to allow access for all Residents to their homes.
4. Install the a nighttime gate to meet the RPV current policy and practice of a gate
to provide Del Cerro Park protection (as is done at other major traffic Parks in
RPV) and make possible the closing of Del Cerro Park at night for safety and
security .. This allows the City to close Del Cerro at-minimum at night as is
done at Ryan and Hesse etc. Parks
5. Work toward Park Place daytime as well as nighttime gate.
The Third (3rd) recommendation is:
1. Change signage to be the same size and number-4x larger than now and 6 signs.
This would be equal to what is placed as those entering Del Cerro HOA.
2. This requires changing signage and placed for easy and prominent sighting by
'visitors' at Park Place.
3. Signage needs include very large lettering, as suggested by Katie Lozano, to be
painted in red literally on the street of Park Place (very similar to the red STOP
painted on many streets).
The Fourth (4th) recommendation is:
1. Refer to the RPV City Attorney all materials regarding the Program of Utilization
and the stated, yet non-existing, placement of Parking Lot and Parking entrance
interior to Del Cerro Park as to have been provided.
Forward, also, the Park Place (street)
right-of-way Deed and RPV Survey showing stalls partially on the Park Place
right-of-way and partially in Del Cerro Park.
Additional data should include Mr. Steven Anderson's letter, Cory Linder Email describing
the limits of a
neighborhood park, full considerations for avoiding all 'mixed-use' of resident
right-of-way' with parking for the Park and Trails.
Please include all other reference materials related thereto as well as included herein.
2. Request the City Attorney to fully review all materials and render analysis as to
why the City is has not followed the POU, created unapproved mixed-use
(no stalls on right-of-way Deed or any other document) et al.
THANK YOU.
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Elias Sassoon
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 12:52 PM
mtd4homes@aol.com
CC; CityCierk
FW: Western Avenue Landscaping issues
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued at the same time:
• Beautification
• Traffic Flow
• Economic Development
The item which is on the City Council agenda for tonight is for the beautification of Western Avenue.
Please note that currently the City is working with the City of Los Angeles and CaiTran regarding mitigation measures to
enhance the traffic flow along Western Avenue.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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
From: mtd4homes@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:27
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Subject: Western Avenue Landscaping issues
1
8.
Dear City Council members,
Please note that as a resident of the Eastview area and members of area Home Owners Associate I am concerned about
some of the items you plan to discuss and approve.
I want to make sure all the safety and traffic flow issues are addressed before any beautification is done. We want the
available funds to address the future Western Ave wall and choice of vegetation for the median. Low level plants would be
my recommendation, similar to PV Dr South.
I do not see the need for banners and additional benches. Thank you for reading my email.
Please keep us updated when future meetings will take place in regard to this issue and others that affect our
neighborhood.
Hope you all are healthy and safe. Thank you for all you do for our city.
Maria Todora-Denue
The Todora Team-Your Everyday Realtors
A Family Team of Realtors
RE/MAX Estate Properties
Serving The South Bay & Beyond
(310) 729-9729/ (310) 831-1989
MTD4Homes@aol.com
www.TheTodoraTeam.com Visit our website to search for property
LIC. # 01110354
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:02 PM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
Subject: FW: Parking on Crenshaw and Park Place issues; meeting of March 17th
Late carr
From: John Girardi [mailto:jgirardi@girardikeese.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 12:57 PM
To: Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: pvpprof@gmail.com; jarasunas@cox.net
Subject: Parking on Crenshaw and Park Place issues; meeting of March 17th
Ms. Lozano and members of the City Council,
Our home is on Burrell Lane and abuts the south perimeter of Del Cerro Park. The Council has worked
assiduously in addressing the issues of parking control but for the residents of Park Place there is still a degree of
concern. The Parks Department and the Council have discussed a number of ways to address those concerns over the
last couple of years and I trust there will be a thoughtful resolution. I was though somewhat distressed to learn that at
least one resident of Park Place has again floated the idea of a 44 year old plan to park cars in what is Del Cerro
Park. Because this idea has been discussed by staff and by the City Council previously, I do not think it is necessary to
address those issues again. Suffice it to say that parkland is generally in short supply and there is a certain good for the
local community by the presence of the park as it currently exists. Also, the cost associated with such a change would
have a significant financial impact. With the challenges that presently confront us all, that is not a bill the City should be
paying. If there is to be discussion of this particular issue, I would respectfully suggest such discussion be continued as I
know that several other residents would wish to address the issue but are reluctant to attend a meeting this evening to
respect the recommendations and orders regarding social distancing.
Respectfully,
John Girardi
1
\ .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Elias Sassoon
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:03 PM
Elizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu
CC; CityCierk
RE: Western Avenue Enhancement (Agenda Item #8)
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued at the same time:
" Beautification
" Traffic Flow
.. Economic Development
The item which is on the City Council agenda for tonight is for the beautification of Western Avenue.
Please note that currently the City is working with the City of Los Angeles and CaiTran regarding mitigation measures to
enhance the traffic flow along Western Avenue.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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
From: Elizabeth Hoffman <Eiizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement (Agenda Item #8)
Dear Members of the City Council,
1
Regarding the City Council's upcoming March 17th consideration of Item #8, the Western Avenue
enhancement plan:
I am concerned that the City Council might approve a design plan before addressing some of the major issues
on Western: traffic mitigation, the wall on Western Avenue between Green Hills and Toscanini Drive, and
undergrounding of the utilities. I understand that these are major and expensive issues but they should be
addressed before we worry about landscaping. When we do get to landscaping, please make the landscaping
consistent with other areas on our Peninsula instead of looking at other cities. And PLEASE don't waste money
on such things as benches, and "decorative finishes" on sidewalks, and especially banners!
Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth Hoffman
2117 Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes
Member of Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association Board
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:07 PM
CityCierk
FW: Photos regarding Western Ave
20200317_124850jpg;20200317_114756jpg;20200317_114714jpg
From: Jeanne Lacombe [mailto:rpvjeanne@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:01PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Photos regarding Western Ave
I've taken a few photos to go along with my comments. I hope this helps! First one is Western near the Terraces
then our Delasonde entrance area.
Jeanne Lacombe
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:08 PM
CityCierk
Subject: FW: 3/17/20 Agenda -Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA response to Crenshaw/Portuguese
Bend traffic concerns
From: Romas Jarasunas [mailto:jarasunas@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 12:28 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>
Subject: Re: 3/17/20 Agenda-Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA response to Crenshaw/Portuguese Bend traffic concerns
Hi,
Please have my letter below read during public comments this evening. Only clarification is that we do not
support the Del Cerro Park "green space" reduced in any way to accommodate parking concerns. We join other
nieghboring HOAs were also quite vocal about that aspect to preserve precious park enjoyment.
Best,
Romas J arasunas
On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:39PM, Romas Jarasunas wrote:
Dear RPV City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued traffic monitoring in the Crenshaw/Portuguese Bend area. In
general, members of our HOA have observed decent City improvements pushing the congested
parking situation away from some of the neighborhoods and down Crenshaw where there is
ample parking. It is our observation that in addition to the problematic volume of people and
cars that continue to exist in the area, Park Place remains to be a major problem for a variety of
reasons, so we hope to expand on the background and present some options for consideration.
For Park Place issues, we will defer to the comments of Dr. Tom Olson, long time resident of
that mixed use street, who has observed multiple first hand negative experiences just in that past
few years. He represents others from that street who share the same concerns and may not have
made their comments public. He is an upstanding citizen just trying to do the right thing and
prevent safety and liability disasters just waiting to happen. We also empathize with Dr. Olson
and his neighbors, because this is really unfortunate that their property rights have been
compromised. It may not be widely known, but a resident on that put their house on the market
in 2018 and could not sell the property -their property value has probably plummeted and
probably the same with the neighbors and others in RPV who depend on comparable home
values. We hope the City Council addresses Dr. Olson's serious comments that have been
observed on that street.
From what we observe on the from the other side of Del Cerro Park (Burrell Lane), public
1
\ '
parking at Park Place continues to be an issue on weekends (ex. lots of queuing, U-tums,
pedestrian vs. auto safety concerns). Additional signage and enforcement have not and believe
will not change human behavior in this case. As previously stated in front of the RPV City
Council, there is continuous questionable nighttime activity from people conveniently driving in
and parking (ex. headlights, music, gathering, noise, alcohol/drug use, litter, found used
condoms). Enforcement is occasionally seen, but this has being ongoing for years.
A physical solution remains the next viable option-a new Park Place daytime and I or
nighttime gate, which now meets the previously identified criteria for approval (see Dr.
Olson's letter for met criteria). The precedent set by Ryan, Hesse and other RPV Parks is a
good solution to follow. Please note that in previous discussions, City Manager, Doug
Wilmore, stated to the City Council that this was an acceptable solution.
Benefits of a gate include:
-Unquestionable public and resident safety
-Reduced liability (which will offset any gate costs)
-Salvaged residents' property rights
-Preserved real estate market value in all RPV
-Minimal impact to public access
The Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA appreciates all that you have done, but there is still more
work to do. Please consider Dr. Olson's comments and suggestions, like some form of a gate or
street modifications, for the sake ofRPV public safety and reduced liability. We would gladly
meet with City representatives to discuss any future options.
Regards,
Romas J arasunas
Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA
2
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:09 PM
wmspinelli48@gmail.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Landscape Design
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued at the same time:
" Beautification
" Traffic Flow
" Economic Development
The item which is on the City Council agenda for tonight is for the beautification of Western Avenue.
Please note that currently the City is working with the City of Los Angeles and CaiTran regarding mitigation measures to
enhance the traffic flow along Western Avenue. The items which you sited are included in this aspect of work.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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
From: Bill Spinelli <wmspinelli48@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 5:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Landscape Design
Dear Honorable City Council Members
I have received the City's notice for agenda item #8 on March 17, 2020 agenda.
1 0
0·
I live in the Rollings Hills Riviera neighborhood along Western Avenue. It is my opinion that the staff
recommendations are not consistent with the Western Avenue Vision plan of years ago.
After the last Western A venue Vision Plan failed:
• there was supposed to be a traffic and bicycle use study done for Western Avenue. Not included in the
staff recommendations.
• There were supposed to be traffic mitigation as the #I priority. Not included in the staff
recommendations
• Reducing the number of cut outs and driveways into shopping centers were to be considered. Not
included in the staff recommendations
• Additional traffic signals and changing the signal timing were also to be considered. Not included in the
staff recommendations
• There were supposed to be efforts made to address our Western A venue wall between Green Hills and
Toscanini Drive. Again, this issue is not addressed.T
• he previous design had underground utilities. Now, there is no mention of under grounding utilities,
We need to join together and make sure these things are done before any landscaping is done.
Comments on Staff Recommendations;
• Please do not add any more benches along Western. The current ones are used by the homeless. If new
benches are needed then make sure that you can lay on them.
• Please keep the landscaping consistent with the rest RPV's perimeter streets
• Whatever landscaping is done there needs to be a maintenance budget and schedule that is biweekly or
monthly instead of the current quarterly schedule
• If banners are going to be on lights poles than they need to be consistent with the rest of RPV
streets· (Do they even have them??)
In conclusion please make the failed items on the Western A venue Vision Plan a reality before going forward
with landscaping
Thank you for your consideration,
Bill Spinelli
1916 Galerita Drive
Rolling Hills Riviera HOA-Board Member
2
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 17,2020 1:21 PM
mgt.spinelli@gmail.com
Cc: CC; CityCierk
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Enhancement
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued at the same time:
• Beautification
" Traffic Flow
" Economic Development
The item which is on the City Council agenda for tonight is for the beautification of Western Avenue. We will look into
the wall situation and see how this item can be addressed.
Please note that currently the City is working with the City of Los Angeles and CaiTran regarding mitigation measures to
enhance the traffic flow along Western Avenue.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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
From: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 8:53AM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Enhancement
1 8.
Thanks for reaching out to us.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued:
" Beautification
" Traffic Flow
" Economic Development
This item is focused on beautification and to provide direction to staff on how to proceed with a designer.
Please note that replacing the concrete block fence wall is not within the scope of this project.
This proposed project is to improve the streetcape within the public right of way along Western Avenue.
We will consider your recommendations regarding the improvements within the scope of this project during the design
phase.
Thanks,
Nasser Razepoor, PE
Associate Civil Engineer
Department of Public Works
~J1.Y...9.f_Bancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5307
From: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 6:30 PM
To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Western Avenue Enhancement
Pis respond
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
--------Origin a I message --------
From: Kit Fox <kfox@rpvca.gov>
Date: 3/14/205:19 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <8.r.~M..@__[Qvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Western Avenue Enhancement
2
FYI. Please copy the City Council on any response.
Kit
From: Margaret Spinelli <mgt.spinelli@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 5:11 PM
To:CC
Cc: Bill Spinelli
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am pleased that the issues of the Western Avenue entrance to
the east side of RPV are to be addressed at the upcoming City
Council meeting. However, I have concerns that the proposed
upgrades are only superficial, temporary improvements. For years
the residents have been asking for the city to address the "ugly"
block wall situation between Green Hills and Toscanini and yet we
have not ever had a resolution. Traffic mitigation is also a top
priority especially with the new construction.
I am aware that our area issues are unique to the Peninsula due to
the shared responsibility of the Western Avenue corridor with LA
and CaiTrans. However, I certainly hope that any improvements
will be consistent with the rest of the entrances into the
city. Landscaping would be lovely but only if there is funding
provided for maintenance biweekly or at a minimum of
monthly. Currently, there is a quarterly maintenance schedule and
it is poorly serviced even when completed. I am not sure anyone
supervises the quality of work.
When considering the design plan please note the following:
Replacing the concrete median with low level plants needs to
include watering and weed and trash removal
3
Palm trees are beautiful but also need to be maintained so that
fronds are not falling onto a very busy highway
Low voltage lighting would highlight the new landscaping at
night.
Sidewalk benches need to be replaced at the bus stops in such
a way that they do not become beds for the homeless. We do not
need additional benches as people do not sit on Western Avenue
for pleasure
Before sidewalks receive decorative finishes the wall needs to
replaced. No amount of decorative touches is going to look nice
with the wall as a backdrop
Thank you for your consideration of your Eastview residents' needs.
Margaret Spinelli
1916 Galerita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Elias Sasseen
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:28 PM
Barbara Sattler; Ara Mihranian; CC
AI; CityCierk; Nasser Razepoor
RE: comments re Western Ave. Beautification
3-17-2020 re Western Beautification.pdf
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued at the same time:
• Beautification
• Traffic Flow
• Economic Development
The item which is on the City Council agenda for tonight is for the beautification of Western Avenue.
Please note that currently the City is working with the City of Los Angeles and CaiTran regarding mitigation measures to
enhance the traffic flow as well as pedestrian access along Western Avenue.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 10:15 PM
To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>;
CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: AI <alsattler@igc.org>
Subject: comments re Western Ave. Beautification
Attached please find our comments on this Agenda item.
1
8.
AI & Barbara Sattler
2
March 15, 2020
re: Western Avenue "Beautification"
Dear Mr. Razepoor,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal for "Western Beautification".
Staffs comment that the street "was designed to accommodate automobile use, with a notable
poor pedestrian experience." applies to the whole length of Western within Rancho Palos
Verdes, not just the commercial cluster on the south end. The northern end is equally
unfriendly to pedestrian use.
Beautification of Western Avenue is of far less importance than making some real efforts to
make Western more pedestrian friendly. Benches, trash cans, various decorations and plants
are all very nice, but they do not address the core problem of why Western Avenue does not
support more pedestrian use. Generally there is rarely any well-designed dedicated safe
pedestrian access to the various shopping centers along Western Avenue. The driveways to
such shopping centers cut across the sidewalks without any hint that drivers should yield right
of way to pedestrians. Pedestrians must be on high alert at such locations which is not
comfortable or safe.
Improved plantings would be a nice change. However, please do not fall back on the tired
cliche of palm trees. Palm trees
• provide very little shade,
• are unlikely to benefit air quality as much as leafy shade trees,
• are hazardous in windy storms because of large heavy falling fronds,
• are hazardous vectors of fire,
• are hazardous to tree trimmers who must maintain them,
• harbor populations of rats and crows.
Please offer other tree options to the city and give higher consideration to pedestrian safety.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alfred & Barbara Sattler
To: Teresa Takaoka
Subject: RE: March 17th City Council Meeting Agenda Item # 1, Update on Public Parking
Measures for Portuguese Bend Reserve
From: AI and Kathy Edgerton [mailto:alnkathye@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:15PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: March 17th City Council Meeting Agenda Item# 1, Update on Public Parking Measures for Portuguese Bend
Reserve
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
While reading the Late Correspondence for item #1 on tonight's agenda, I realized that a Park Place resident
has suggested that parking spaces on Park Place be removed and replaced with a parking area within Del Cerro
Park itself. Over the last 5 years, Del Cerro HOA residents have consistently opposed that suggestion and again
ask that Council not consider taking that action tonight. Doing so would significantly degrade the usefulness of
the neighborhood park. The parking spaces would substantially reduce the large flat area of the park-the
most usable part of the park. They would also create an unsightly entrance into the park and diminish the
semi-rural look of the area.
As a neighborhood park, the area serves a very different purpose from the preserve. It is often used for family
picnics and kite flying, neighbor-to-neighbor chats, socialization of neighborhood pets, Land Conservancy
events, and even an occasional wedding. Over the years, it has been the location for many soccer and football
team practices for local youth.
In addition, after we experienced wildfires in the preserve in 2005 and 2009, all ofthe surrounding
neighborhoods joined together to host pancake breakfasts for the firefighters and deputies who protected our
homes to thank them for their service. In 2009, firefighters from 15 separate jurisdictions fought the fire here.
With the support of the RPV and Rolling Hills Councils and Staff, surrounding neighborhoods (including Del
Cerro, Burrell Lane/Park Place, Island View, Rancho Crest, and Portuguese Bend HOAs and Rolling Hills
Community Association} hosted the pancake breakfast for firefighters from all15 jurisdictions as well as
County officials and our local deputies to personally thank them. Over 300 honored guests and residents
attended each of these events. We know of no other place in the area where we would be able to hold such a
special event.
Most importantly, all of these activities have helped to forge strong ties among all of the surrounding HOAs in
ways that continue to facilitate our working together to address common issues.
Thank you for considering these points in your decision-making.
Sincerely,
Kathy Edgerton
President
Del Cerro HOA
1 \.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good afternoon:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Elias Sassoon
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:48 PM
rpvjeanne@gmail.com
CityCierk; CC
FW: Western Avenue improvements
Your email will be included in the late correspondence for this item.
In regards to Western Ave, there are three separate items being pursued at the same time:
" Beautification
" Traffic Flow
" Economic Development
The item which is on the City Council agenda for tonight is for the beautification of Western Avenue. We will look into
the wall situation and see how this item can be addressed. Please note that the Undergrounding is a separate issue and
can be addressed separately. Please let me know if you would like to have more info regarding undergrounding.
Please note that currently the City is working with the City of Los Angeles and CaiTran regarding mitigation measures to
enhance the traffic flow along Western Avenue.
Again, thanks for your email and please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
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
From: Jeanne Lacombe <rpvjeanne@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue improvements
1 8.
Good morning!
I'm planning on attending the March 17th meeting, however, if it gets closed to the public I wanted to make sure
my comments were considered.
Any comments in this email are my personal opinions and not the opinions of any board or committee that I am
currently serving on.
I was on the Western Avenue Vision Committee that Council member Anthony Misetich started. I was the only
resident on the committee and I was representing over 500 active Rolling Hills Riviera HOA members. I held
monthly meetings, did outreach through our monthly newsletter and took surveys regarding Western A venue.
There is a lot of information available regarding Western A venue and what happened on the committee, during
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. I hope that past mistakes won't be repeated. I hope that this
council will make Western Avenue improvements a priority. There are so many great businesses that bring in
significant tax money for the city and it is time to invest in beautifying our area. I believe our city staff is very
capable and talented and would be able to move forward on this project without hiring an out oftown
consultant.
The number one issue with Western A venue is traffic. I recall there was supposed to be a traffic study done in
2015. I haven't heard of one being completed though. There needs to be a traffic study as well as a study of
parking lot usages, bicycle traffic and pedestrian traffic studies as well. This will identify demand and usage
needs. For example the traffic going Northbound on Western turning into the Terraces shopping center back up
traffic on Western and cause a hazard at the Capitol and Western A venue intersection. The timing of signals
needs to be addressed as well. At Sam the signal at Green Hills automatically turns red for Western Avenue
traffic even though the cemetery is closed and no traffic needs to enter or exit. There are numerous complaints
about the A venida Aprenda intersection in our neighborhood which is very poorly designed since we have high
traffic due to Dodson Middle School. Also the Crestwood intersection signaling is poor because Eastbound
drivers doesn't always know they have the right of way. I rarely see bicycles or pedestrians along Western
Avenue.
Utilities. Have you noticed the San Pedro side has underground utilities? Putting utilities underground should
be the first thing that gets done on Western A venue. That alone would be a huge improvement!
Rolling Hills Riviera HOA mismatched wall along Western. I'm very small but it would be easy for me to pull
down some of those sections of concrete block wall because it is in such poor shape. Each section of wall is
owned by each individual homeowner. My suggestion is to get permission from each homeowner to remove
and replace their wall at the expense of the city as part of this beautification process. Everyone driving on
Western has to look at chain link, white vinyl, pink and tan block walls all within a half mile! If the utilities
were underground, there would be plenty of room to build a new wall on public property That way the city has
full control of the wall in the future. If the city doesn't want to incur the expense of removing the existing walsl,
then a new wall can be built right in front of the old wall. That will still leave room for a sidewalk and new
planter areas near the curb.
Benches. Homeless already utilize bus benches and areas around businesses on Western A venue. If you install
benches in plaza areas or "areas of repose", only homeless will use them. Benches and tables were put in along
a new walkway and green space on Gaffey and only homeless use those benches and tables. Western A venue is
a very busy noisy street and it is not pleasant to sit outside along Western A venue. I'm against benches.
2
Landscaping. I was disappointed to see images of other cities in the staff report as examples of landscaping
design. I would like to see landscaping that is consistent or at least complimentary to other places in our
city. Our Delasonde Ave entrance area to our neighborhood is beautiful and very low maintenance with Palo
Verde trees and drought resistant plants. The landscaping at the Terraces looks very nice as well. The
landscaping along PV Drive South is also beautiful with drought resistant plants and Hawthorne Blvd has lots
of mature pine trees. It would be disappointing to see the mature pine trees on Western removed. Please limit
gravel and rock landscaping designs. We live in a beautiful coastal community not Phoenix AZ. I think palm
trees are a poor choice, even date palms, and are rarely found along the streets of RPV. They are very high
maintenance and they drop hard seeds or fronds.
Flags and banners. RPV needs to have a cohesive appearance throughout the city and that includes Western
Avenue. I think flags and banners that are displayed 24/7look tacky and not found in the rest of the city. I
recommend nice street lights and decorations for the holidays. I also think the signs for businesses should be
improved and more appealing.
Encourage businesses to invest in beautifying their buildings/entrance signs and parking lots. Perhaps outreach
to those owners and waiving fees for permits would help.
Bike lanes. San Pedro and the City of LA want dedicated bike lanes on Western. I would agree but with only
the following restrictions. Only if street parking was eliminated and if the bike lanes look like the rest of the
bike lanes in RPV and not the bike lanes in the city of San Pedro (like the ones on Westmont). Due to the high
traffic and all the business parking lots accessing Western, I would like to see signals for bicyclists like they
have on Harbor Drive in Redondo (near the RB pier).
Street parking should be eliminated on Western A venue for both sides of Western A venue including San
Pedro. Most of the vehicles parked along Western have for sale signs on them which degrades the area.
Thank you for all your time and all you do for our city!
Jeanne Lacombe
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 2:52 PM
CC; Ara Mihranian; CityCierk; John Cruikshank
David Mayer; MaryBeth Woulfe; Adrienne Mohan
Objection to Award for NCCP/HCP
Letter re. City Award.pdf
Please see our attached letter relating to Item E. on the Consent Calendar of tonight's city council meeting
Jim York
1
I~ COX CASTLE
NICHOLSON
March 17, 2020
VIAE-MAIL
John Cruikshank
Mayor, City ofRancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4 710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Andrew B. Sabey
415.262.5103
asabey@coxcastle.com
File No. 080942
Re: League of Cities' Helen Putnam Award for Excellence Application
Dear Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of our client, York Point View Properties, LLC ("York"), we would like to
express our opposition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (the "City") application for the
League of Cities' Helen Putnam Award for Excellence (the "Award"). The City's Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan ("NCCPIHCP") does not deserve
such recognition.
In stark contrast to state legislative efforts to combat the current housing crisis, the City's
NCCP/HCP fails to appropriately balance resource conservation with ongoing development.
Throughout the NCCP/HCP approval process, the City has routinely ignored the concerns of
York and other residents regarding the NCCP/HCP's effects on private development. The City's
actions in approving the NCCP/HCP appear to be an attempt to take private property without
adequate compensation. For York in particular, the City has imposed onerous land use
restrictions that do not apply to any other private development in the plan area and rob the York
property of any meaningful development potential. These restrictions lack any scientific
foundation or rational basis, and the City should not be applauded for planning an illegal taking
of private property.
Under the NCCP/HCP, the City is requiring York to dedicate 40 acres of his property in a
contiguous configuration in order to establish a "wildlife movement corridor." This corridor
must maintain a minimum 300-foot width to connect the upper portions of the preserve to the
Abalone Cove, and it may not contain any agricultural land that currently exists on the property.
In effect, these restrictions require that virtually all of the remaining developable area ofYork's
property be dedicated to the City for purposes of an unsubstantiated and unnecessary wildlife
corridor, and they amount to an illegal exaction.
Until recently, the City did little to hide its intent to take York's property without
compensation. A March 2018 version ofthe NCCP/HCP provided that "any type of
development" on York's property would be "required to dedicate a minimum of 40 acres ofthe
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco
Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council
March 17, 2020
Page2
95-acre property to the Preserve," which would include a 300-foot-wide functional wildlife
corridor. However, recognizing the clear takings implications of this requirement, the City
recently amended and approved the final version of the NCCP/HCP, which now requires that
York dedicate "58% of the remaining undeveloped 69.5 acres of the property in a contiguous
configuration," which must still contribute to the 300-foot-wide corridor requirement.
Alternatively, York may subject future development to a conservation-to-development ratio of
1.4:1, provided that future development continues to satisfy the 58 percent conservation and 300-
foot corridor requirements.
Unsurprisingly, 58 percent ofthe remaining 69.5 acres ofthe property equates to 40.31
acres. Additionally, the 1.4:1 mitigation ratio would still require York to conserve
approximately 40.5 acres of the remaining 69.5 acres (again, in a contiguous configuration) for
any meaningful development proposal. Thus, the City's recently approved NCCP/HCP
continues to prevent feasible development in all material respects.
The City also singles out York's property for unfavorable treatment relative to similarly
situated land in the City. Under the NCCP/HCP, other private projects in the plan area are
subject to mitigation ratios for development impacts to non-native grasslands, native grasslands,
and coastal sage scrub ("CSS"). Unlike the York property, these private projects are subject to a
0.5:1 mitigation ratio for impact to non-native grassland, as well as a 2:1 mitigation ratio for
impact to CSS and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impact to native grassland. Under these standards,
York primarily would be subject to the 0.5:1 ratio, as the majority ofthe property is comprised of
non-native grassland. Yet, under the 1.4:1 ratio, the City is requiring that York conserve nearly
three times as much land, and it has done so without any justification.
The City's 1.4:1 ratio does not protect unique habitat characteristics, i.e., habitat
characteristics that are important for protected species foraging or are rare in the area. The 1.4:1
ratio is not designed with those characteristics in mind, because it treats all habitats the same,
whether or not the habitat provides important species-related functions. Thus, the 1.4:1
mitigation is not, and cannot be, justified by the NCCP/HCP's habitat-specific mitigation
requirements. It has been devised solely to mask the desire to maintain the 40-acre exaction
from the York property without compensation.
Further, the City has failed to demonstrate why a "wildlife movement corridor" through
York's property will even satisfy the City's desired "connectivity" between the upper portions of
the preserve and the Abalone Cove. Palos Verdes Drive South, a major thoroughfare that is
approximately 100-feet wide, divided, and heavily traveled, separates York's property from the
Abalone Cove. The City offers no explanation as to why this major roadway does not sever
connectivity between the upper preserve areas and the coast. Despite working on the
NCCP/HCP since the 1990s, the City's best explanation is that "it is the geographical situation of
the City that to reach the coast, wildlife must traverse Palos Verdes Drive South, and this is more
feasible for a flying species." This is not a scientific justification for requiring York to maintain
a 300-foot corridor on its property. The City cannot have it both ways-either flying species
Mayor Cruikshank and Members of the City Council
March 1 7, 2020
Page 3
require complete connectivity or they do not. Assuming the former, the City cannot require York
to provide a contiguous corridor if the desired connectivity is arleady destroyed by Palos Verdes
Drive South. Assuming the latter, the City cannot impose a one-off requirement of continuity on
York, when other configurations would provide the same habitat linkage while also allowing for
reasonable development on the property.
Apart from the lack of scientific justification, the City's NCCP/HCP also is procedurally
deficient. The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, which provides the City with the
underlying authority to create and adopt the NCCP/HCP, requires that the City make draft
NCCP/HCP documents publicly available for at least 60 days prior to adoption. Yet, in
approving the final version of the NCCPIHCP, which included significant alterations and
revisions as compared to the previous version, the City provided the public a scant six days to
review and comment on the changes. This falls far short ofthe Award's community engagement
standards.
York and its counsel have repeatedly commented on the legal and procedural deficiencies
of the NCCP/HCP that make it untenable for private landowners. Despite these comments, the
City has failed to adequately consider this input and amend the NCCPIHCP so that it treats the
York property equally to other private projects in the plan area. Instead, the City has opted for
development restrictions that deprive the York property of any meaningful development
potential and, worse yet, it last act was an eleventh-hour amendment obviously designed to mask
the City's plan to acquire York's property without having to pay for it. The City should not be
celebrated for actions that fail to fulfill the key tenets ofthe Award: promoting community
engagement and achieving fair, justifiable results.
Sincerely,
Andrew B. Sabey
080942\11533748vl
cc: Melissa Tualla, League of California Cities (mtual!a@cacities.org)
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 16, 2020
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 17, 2020 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
I Revised Attachment B (Agreement with Sunbeam Consulting, Inc.)
1 Email exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst Lozano and:
Fred Weiner; Tom Olsen; Emails from: Tom Olsen; Romas Jarasunas;
Del Cerro HOA Board;
2 Email from Bob Nelson
5 Email from Bob Nelson
7 Email from Bob Nelson
8 Emails from: Elizabeth Hoffman; Béa Jamshidian; Bob Nelson; Jeanne
Lacombe; Al and Barbara Sattler; Margaret Spinelli; Roger Metzler;
Ralph Appy
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Emily Colborn
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20200317 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
SUNBEAM CONSULTING
0!203.0006/630840.3 EQG 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
SUNBEAM CONSULTING
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into on , 2020, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, a California municipal corporation ("City") and SUNBEAM CONSULTING, a
California corporation ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or
collectively, as "Party" or "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the
performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Set-vices.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the "services" or
"work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to
properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and
professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated
herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder
and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG
standards of practice recognized by one or more first·class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant's J>roposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's scope of work or bid which shall be
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any
inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any "public work" or "maintenance work," as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a "public work" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR")
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 2
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
(d) Pavroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to:
keep accurate payroll records and verifY such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City ofthe location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of
its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours perfonned under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section
1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty ( 40) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of
eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and one-half (1 Y2) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers' Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3 700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract."
0!203JJ006/630840.3 EQG 3
Consultant's Authorized Initials~
(i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, J•'ces and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer.
1.7 Care ofWork.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caustlu by City's own negligence.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 4
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval ofthe Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of
the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred
eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either
separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by
Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in
the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to
be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than
Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation
therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other
Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be
valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.
1.10 Suecial Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed Eighty Nine Thousand Dollars and One Hundred and
Twenty ($89,120,000) (the "Contract Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved
pursuant to Section 1.9.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 5
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less
contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as
specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not
exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.4,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of
Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying
compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information
specified in Exhibit "C", and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
01203,0006/630840.3 EQG 6
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit ,.D" and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period( s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period( s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within ten (1 0) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's
determination shall be fmal and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1)
year from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhi!;lit
"D").
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatins and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 7
Alan Braadvedt
(Name)
(Name)
President
(Title)
(Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make
every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant's staff and
subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement.
Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any,
assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such
performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Ron Dragoo, City Engineer, or such person as may be
designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the
Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the
Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless
otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of
the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City
Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of
this Agreement.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 8
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or
means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or
control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise
with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or
encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise,
without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the
transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent
(25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on
a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy
proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or
any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liabilitv insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 0 1 covering bodily injury
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 9
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subconlra<.:lors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B".
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration ... of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of
primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be
endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City's own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 10
(d) City's rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium
paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient
to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Accsm.table insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City's Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against Cily, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of
insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (1 0) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
G) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, ofticials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be addilional insureds under sul:h policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 11
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(1) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agencv's right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
(o) Self~insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
( q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatmy claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein "claims
or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 12
entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or
indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors'
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 13
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 J~enorts.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials")
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use,
reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted
documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City's sole risk
and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties shall not extend to
such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use.
Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall
provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event
Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages
resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may
qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials
are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not releflse or ciisc:lose: :my suc:h
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 14
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, intetTogatories, request for admissions or other discove1y
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not
reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the
City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 15
invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the
outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City
may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part
of the City to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of
the City's legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, lo recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 16
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Liguidatcd Damages.
Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this
Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of
this Agreement, the Consultant and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the
sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the
performance of any service required hereunder. The City may withhold from any monies payable
on account of services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages.
7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant
reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60)
days' written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the
period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any
notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as
may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer
thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the
Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the
work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to
this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the
opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7 .2.
7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.10 Attorncvs' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 17
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
~.1 Non~liahili:!y of Citv Office•·s and Emplovees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms
of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees arc treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 18
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement,
and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens,
Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or
sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of
the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this
Agr~~m~nl. Ei~her party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall bc void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
s·ections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 19
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 WatTantv & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
"financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
"remote" or "noninterests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or
other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect. ~ ///
Consultant's Authorized Initials T
9.7 Corporate Authoritv.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG 20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn~ City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
John Cruikshank, Mayor
CONSULTANT:
:~~n;O:~~~~' a Califo~a
Name: Alan Braatvedt
Title: Pr
By:-T~r--------------------
Nam : "'hades Stephan
Title: Secretary
Address: 1817 Josie Ave.,
Long Beach, CA 90815
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL DE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULT ANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203,0006/630840.3 EQG 21
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to whiGh this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~
Or«><_,e
COUNTY OF bOS UIG!,;l ES
On M~r,h ~h '2020 before meP.J:Lt~tl;ifr;..,Po~~J,-t. , personally appeared a~~f,J ~,..l~""' , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(~) whose names(t~) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/s~ executed the same in his~r authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/h:erftlreif· signature( .e-) on the instrument the personEs ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certifY under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
OPTIONAL
Though the data b.elow is not required by Jaw, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment ofthis form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
0 INDIVIDUAL
~ CORPORATE OFFICER -.-k~t:~~'f--........................ ~----
0
0
0
0
0
0
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER~-----~-------------
.. _,, __ .. _____ ,_ '"""""'""""' __ _
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
(o., -/ro.e>'f .>...v.(.;,.-f 4r«:ne..d
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
.. --------SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
CALIFORNIA ALL· PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
( ,.. .,....f.l~'-'1 V'V?..t..>'c)
On ""1! o J I , 2020 before me, ~A~MA.r-'•11 "'"''>" , personally appeared /k11,..'l>I2.AA -r'IIG.'J:>'i', proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/~y executed the same in his/heF#heH:-authorized capacity(ies), and that by
hislfteritheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certifY under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the Jaws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official
Signature:--------
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CAP A CITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER. _____________ ~----
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
-··------·-"""'•"""""•'"''''"~----------
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
~ ... .,r:~::c .. ~~--"!kf>.S. A-t; &,rzle.6-..., IJ>.I"'r
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
------·········· .... ,,,,, .......... , .... , .............................. , ... _.
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following outreach, construction management, and
construction inspection services (the Services) in conjunction with the Hawthorne
Blvd. Median Beautification Project.
The City will construct a public project: Hawthorne Blvd. Median Beautification
In general, the work comprises without limitation, furnishing all necessary labor, materials,
equipment and other incidental and appurtenant work necessary to install new landscape
planting, median paving and bio-swale landscape system in the medians along Hawthorne
Boulevard from Palos Verdes Drive West to Crest Road within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
In general, the work comprises developing a traffic control plan and SWPPP, removing existing
green asphalt and existing topsoil in the medians along Hawthorne Boulevard, hauling off the
waste, new planting, installing all bio-swale system components, installing new concrete paving,
and watering via water truck.
I. Consultant will perform the following services:
A. Pre-Construction Phase:
Outreach to City, transit, and affected agencies regarding construction schedule
and possible utility conflicts; notification and meetings with residents regarding
construction activity; notification to utilities of schedule and possible utility
conflicts; coordination of construction activities and resident concerns with City
staff and engineer.
B. Construction Phase:
•:• Construction Management: Sunbeam will act as the Construction Manager and will
represent the City's interest and provide oversight over the entire project.
Sunbeam's mandate is to work with all parties to deliver the project on time, at
budget, and to the City's expected standard of quality, scope, and function.
Sunbeam will use industry-standard practices to manage the project successfully by
addressing all six areas of construction management services: schedule, cost,
safety, quality, function, and scope. More specifically:
1. Creating an agenda, chairing and generating minutes for the preconstruction
mt!t!ling
2. Approving the baseline schedule and monitoring progress against the schedule
and any particular City requirements, especially with regards to the work in
particular locations at specific times
0!203.0006/630840.3 EQG A-1
3. Reviewing RFis and submittals and acting as the interface between the City,
Designer and contractor
4. Agreeing pay applications with the contractor and recommending payments to the
City's Project Manager
5. Maintaining accurate records
6. Closing out of the project
•!• Inspection Services: Sunbeam will provide inspection and oversight of the
construction works to ensure procedures and materials comply with plans and
specifications. Sunbeam will provide the following inspection services:
1. Producing daily inspection reports
2. Examination of quality of installations for conformity to standards and
specifications
3. Interpret drawings and specifications and discuss deviations
4. Neat, accurate and complete records maintenance
5. Active participation in project meetings
6. Contractor's schedule monitoring
7. Field testing of soils, concrete and asphalt, and materials sampling
8. Assistance with change order review and completion
9. Monitoring and documentation of materials delivered and incorporated into the
work
10. Punch list preparation and completion monitoring
11. Assistance with smooth and timely project close-out
12. Dealing with all public relations issues on a daily basis
13. Constantly monitoring traffic controls and safety precautions including the
hauling of materials
14. Ensure that the installation complies with all requirements
15. Photograph conditions and activities throughout the project
16. Liaising with City Staffto keep them fully abreast of all aspects ofthe project
17. Monitoring the work as its installed; documenting the activities, progress and all
other relevant information
18. Coordinating the supply of the City provided boulders
19. Playing an active role in ensuring that the segments of the project are completed
and handed over as the work progresses
20. Ensuring that the installed plants are adequately cared for up until the completion
of the project
21. Providing all other services related to the inspection of the work performed by
the contractor
•!• Outreach to City, transit, and affected agencies; meetings with residents;
coordination with utilities; coordination with City staff and engineer.
C. Post-Construction Phase:
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG A-2
Outreach with City, transit, and affected agencies and punch list verification;
close-out meetings with residents; verification of utility completion;
coordination with City staff and engineer.
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City:
Not Applicable
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City updated of the status of performance by delivering the
following status reports:
Updates at weekly meetings during construction of the Project.
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be
revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory
and accepted by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. Alan Braatvedt, Senior CM
B. Joseph VanDer Linden, Public Works Inspector
C. Jim Pugh, Public Works Inspector
D. John Collins, Public Works Inspector
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG A-3
0 J 203,0006/630840,3 EQG
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
B-1
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following Services at the following rates:
Task* Function Hourly Rate Time (Hrs.) Sub-Budgrt
Task A Construction Management $160 5 $800
Task A . Ins£ection Services $128 0 $0 !---·--"'-
TaskB Construction Management $160 35 $5,600
TaskB Inspection Services $128 600 $76,800
TaskC Construction Management $160 5 $800
TaskC _Inspection Services $128 40 $5,120
Total $89,120
*See Exh1bit A Sect1on I
The above listed rate includes all mileage, equipment, document delivery, per diem and
other fees and costs incurred by the Consultant.
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract
retention to be paid as a part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of
services.
Not Applicable
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task sub-budget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 2.3.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the
hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
C-1
01203,000 l/267879.2
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials,
and travel properly charged to the Services.
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. Consultant's billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
01203.0001/267879.2
EXHIBIT "C-1"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
A. Personnel rate: $125/hour.
B. Overtime rate: $155/hour. "Overtime hours" shall be any hours worked in excess of9
hours per day, Monday through Friday.
C. "Double time" rate: $185/hour. "Double time" shall apply to any hours worked on the
weekend.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG C-1
EXIDBIT "D"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in lock-step with the Project
construction schedule. The construction schedule will be added to this document once
made available by the construction contractor (Marina Landscape Inc.) at pre-construction
meeting. Parties acknowledge the work is anticipated to begin on o_r about March 1, 2020,
with a projected end date of June 19, 2020.
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates. NOT APPLICABLE.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
01203.0006/630840.3 EQG D-1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Weiner,
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 16, 2020 5:32 PM
Fred Weiner
CityCierk
RE: City Council Agenda Item March 17th
Thank you again for your email and your time on the phone. We very much appreciate direct resident feedback. The City tries
to determine the best balance between signing areas for effective enforcement and what some consider over signage or
"signage pollution." This is a fairly newly signed area, and City staff and enforcement are still assessing its effectiveness. I am
keeping your suggestion on file as we continue to work toward improving this area.
I am sorry to hear that Preserve visitors were illegally parked in the Recreational Permit Parking zone on Park Place so that you
were not able to use your permit. Here is some additional information on how parking violations are enforced: the L.A. County
Sheriff Station provides parking enforcement in the area. Typically, when new parking regulations are implemented, deputies
offer increased presence in the area to set the tone and educate the public through education and enforcement, and then
after the new parking policies are established, the Sheriff's Station relies more on the Volunteers on Patrol Program for parking
enforcement. However, Deputies are able to write parking citations, and they respond to calls for parking violations in this
area. Their ability to enforce parking violations does get prioritized to take into consideration all of the violations and
situations the Sheriff Station is currently handling, so not all reports result in enforcement. However, this sounds like it may
have been a customer service issue, and I've also passed on the info and situation you provided to the LA County Sheriff's
Station to look into further. I would like to share that the City has recently chosen to double our Preserve enforcement level in
the Preserve with the employment of Park Rangers (while also resulting in cost savings), and our Rangers will be able to
augment existing parking enforcement activities at Preserve entry points.
Thank you also for sharing your mountain bike and electric bike observations. The Recreation and Parks Department logs all
public use issues/observations we receive from the public to help us with resource management. It is especially helpful to hear
observations from "regular" Preserve users. The City's current position is that electric bikes are not allowed in the Nature
Preserve, however the issue of electric bikes is an new and evolving issue, and so we are working with the City Attorney's
Office to make sure our municipal code can effectively enforce this. I have also passed your mountain bike, electric bike, and
Recreational Permit Parking concerns and observation onto our lead Park Ranger.
Thank you again for reaching out, and please feel free to contact me directly with any concerns or for additional
information. I've also cc'd our City Clerk so this can be included as late correspondence to the Preserve and Del Cerro parking
staff report.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Fred Weiner <fweiner08@yahoo.com>
To: Katie Lozano <katiel@rpvca.gov>
1 /.
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020, 11:22:05 PM PDT
Subject: Re: City Council Agenda Item March 17th
Ms. Lozano,
Thank you very much for the City Council Agenda report you emailed to me. It is very thorough and
provides an excellent review of the
history and issues relative to the upper Portuguese Bend Reserve.
I am not sure if I will be able to attend the City Council on March 17, 2020, when this matter will be
discussed. Per our telephone conversation today, March 12, 2020. my primary comments are:
1) The importance of continuing the Electronic Message Board trailer, that is in the Del Cerro Park parking
area, indicating a City issued Parking Permit is required, violators will be cited, and the Public should park
on Crenshaw. When the Electronic Message Board was removed for approximately 6-months in 2019,
frequently all of the parking spaces were occupied by vehicles that did not have the City required Parking
Permit.
2) Signs should also be posted all sign poles facing the parking stalls also indicating a City Parking Permit
is required, violators will be cited, and the Public should park on Crenshaw.
3) I have been told by a Sheriff's Deputy who was at the Del Cerro parking spaces that they do not enforce
the parking requirements.
In fact, on that occasion, all of the parking spaces were occupied by vehicles and I did not see a City
Parking Permit in any vehicles. When I mentioned to the Deputy that a City Parking Permit was required,
he did assist my getting a parking spot when another driver pulled out.
4) I have noticed that many visitors to the Reserve drive trucks with their mountain bikes. It is my opinion
that Mountain Bikes are inappropriate
and incompatible with the safety of others at the Reserve, including hikers, children, and horseback riders.
Mountain bikes travel at high speed going downhill and can seriously injure others using the Reserve.
Moreover, it appears that most of the Mountain Bike riders do not live
in RPV, as they drive trucks to transport their bikes to the Reserve area. Recently, I have noticed electric
bikes being ridden in the Reserve that
travel at a high speed going both downhill and uphill. As a separate, but related issue, I am not sure if an
electric bike can pose a fire hazard.
5) I commend the City for its diligence and thoughtful consideration of the many issues discussed in the
Agenda report. It is noteworthy that
the City has sought the input of Homeowner Associations. I suggest that RPV residents also be asked to
provide input to these issues.
I would appreciate it if you would forward my comments to the City Council and Staff prior to the City
Council meeting on March 17, 2020.
Thank you for all you do for our City, residents, and visitors.
Fred Weiner
Rancho Palos Verdes Resident
On Thursday, March 12, 2020, 04:36:58 PM PDT, Katie Lozano <katiel@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Fred,
2
Here is the staff report regarding access issues near upper Port. Bend Reserve.
https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1661 &meta id=80489
Thank you!
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative AnalysUOpen Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
31 0-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Dr. Olsen,
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 16, 2020 3:33 PM
pvpprof
CityCierk
RE: uncertainty regarding RPV CC meeting tomorrow 3/17/20
Thanks for talking with me on the phone. More information will be available on participating in tomorrow's City Council
Meeting in compliance with social distancing recommendations this evening or early tomorrow. Please contact
CityCierk@rpvca.gov for information on participating. I've cc'd them in this email as well so they are aware of your inquiry and
concern.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 2:37 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: uncertainty regarding RPV CC meeting tomorrow 3/17/20
Hi Katie.
Rather than wait, I decided to sent an email to the RPV CC with attachments including a letter containing more data
regarding Park Place and supportive documents.
I trust that these materials are helpful -if not for tomorrow, then for a postponed meeting ...
I copied you on this email.
FYI, I was just informed that in a CNN news broadcast over an hour ago, President Trump with his top CDC and
other medical professionals stated we should not gather together in groups 10 or more.
If we follow this US National message, this would alter having a CC meeting tomorrow. Messages from a number
of neighbors, who plan to attend and speak, are quite nervous about prospect that meeting will be held and jeopardize
their health and added worry and stress.
If you have additional information by end of day, we in our HOA as well as neighborhood other HOAs would
appreciate knowing ... thanks much.
Be well. Take good care.
Tom
On Mon, Mar 16,2020 at 1:55PM Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello Dr. Olsen,
1 /.
I am checking on this and will let you know shortly (certainly by the end of the day if not sooner). I apologize for the delay.
Thank you,
l<atie
From: pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:37 PM
To: l<atie Lozano <l<atiel@rpvca.gov>
Subject: uncertainty regarding RPV CC meeting tomorrow 3/17/20
Hello Katie,
Our HOA and persons from the other Del Cerro Park area HOAs are stating they are not comfortable or feeling safe
attending any gathering such as what would occur tomorrow for RPV CC.
The Center for Disease Control is stating these size meetings should not be held.
I have materials to send to the CC and copy to you -though I'm wondering about City Hall being closed today and if
these materials need be sent if the CC meeting is to be postponed.
I'd appreciate knowing asap as to your suggestions for getting materials to CC now.
Please call 541-0707. A short email reply would be helpful, too, to know more of status for tomorrow.
Thank you.
Tom
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 16, 2020 1:26 PM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: Park Place (street) problems/concerns and suggestions
Attachments: PROGRAM OF UTILIZATION.pdf; National Park Service March 27 2017 email to RPV.PDF; Park
Place Road Deed.PDF; Steve Anderson ltr April 2016 Park Place.PDF; 20 03 March 13 Park Place
letter to RPV CC.pdf
Late corr
From: pvpprof [mailto:pvpprof@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 1:25 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>
Subject: Park Place (street) problems/concerns and suggestions
Honorable Mayor and other Council Members, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Please find attached a letter to RPV CC regarding Park Place (street) residents and recurring and difficult
problems/issues related most directly to the Trail head proximate to Del Cerro Park. This letter is prepared on behalf
of the Park Place HOA and our President, Romas Jarasunas.
There is an attachment provided that describes the transfer of the land that we know most commonly as Del Cerro
Park and the Park Place residents whose homes are those on the North side of Del Cerro Park. This document, the
Program of Utilization (POU), describes a parking lot at Del Cerro Park and access to that parking
lot. Unfortunately, this lot was not preserved or created and 'mixed-use' with a residents right-of-way to their homes
has created significant problems over time. These adverse safety, traffic and parking problems, including associated
numerous crimes of assault, trespass, damage to personal property, illegal parking et al, continue to lower quality
of life, home values, peace and enjoyment and raise stress, uncertainty and concerns for Park Place residents ..
With the 'Open Space report from Katie Lozano, there is a bit of an introduction to Park Place, yet this is relatively
brief. To assist the City Council, this letter is provided by Park Place HOA to provide additional information
regarding when, how and in what contexts Park Place as a street came into being and the array of many problems that
occurred.
We are hopeful that the reader will learn more about these recurring problems and assist Park Place homeowners to
move forward with (proposed) solutions.
Thank you very much in advance for your support.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas (Tom) Olson
Park Place HOA
1 I
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPLICATION
TO BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
March 1, 1976
LADA NIKE SITE 55
POINT VICENTE, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
GSA NUMBER 9-D-Calif-1088
~nta Gos angeles
"-5onica
rancho lono. palos beach
l:.verd~ -----IJ<Ic;,.
tc Ocean
APPLICATIQN FOR FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY
FOR PUBLIC PARK OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
PART A
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
TO: Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Pacific Southwest Regional Office
P.O. Box 36062
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
The undersigned City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereinafter referred
to as the Applicant or Grantee, acting by and through Leonard G .
. ·wpod, City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne
, Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274, (213) 377-0360, hereby
·>~ lrtlakes application to the Unit.ed States pursuant to Section 20 3 (k) ( 2)
~ of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
\\ (63 Stat. 387), as amended, and in accordance with the rules and
~~_regulations of the Department of the Interior, for the transfer of
~\the following property which has been declared surplus by the
1/ General Services Administration and is subject to assignment to
i the Secretary of the Interior for disposal for public park or rec-
reation purposes:
LADA NIKE Site 55
Point Vicente, Rancho Palos Verdes
GSA Number 9-D-Calif-1088
80+ acres
1'he undersigned agrees that this application is made subject to
the following terms and conditions:
1. This application and its acceptance by the Department of the
Interior shall constitute the entire agreement betvreen the Appli-
cant and the Department of the Interiorr unless modified in
writing signed by both parties.
2. The descriptions of the property set forth above are believed
to be correct, but any error or omission shall not constitute
ground or reason for non-performance of the agreement resulting
from the acceptance of this application.
3. It is understood that the property is to be conveyed "as is"
and "where is" without representation, warranty, or guaranty as
to quantity, quality, character, condition, size, or kind, or
that the same is in condition or fit to be used for the purpose
intended, and no claim for any adjustments upon such grounds will
be considered after this application has been accepted.
4. The Applicant agrees to assume possession of the property
within 15 days o£ any written request given by the Department of
the Interior after the property has been assigned to the Depart-
ment of the Interior by the General Services Administration.
Should the Applicant fail to take actual possession within such
• .....
2.
period, it shall nonetheless be charged with constructive pos-
session commencing at 12:01 a.m., local time, of the 16th day
after such request by the Department of the Interior. The word
"possession" shall mean either actual physical possession or
constructive possession.
5. As of the date of assumption of possession of the property,
or the date of conveyance, whichever occurs first, the Applicant
shall assume responsibility for any general and special real and
personal property taxes which may have been or may be assessed on
the property, and to prorate sums paid, or due to be paid, by the
Federal Government in lieu of taxes.
6, As of the date of assumption of possession of the property,
.or the date of conveyance, whichever occurs first, the Applicant ~hall assume responsibility for care and handling and all risks
'dP.f loss or damage to the property, and have all obligations and
'\ iiabilities of ownership.
~ l • :.~\ 7. The Apphcant shall on a mutually agreeable date not later than
~~t\· 30 days after the property has been assigned to the Department of
~·the Interior, or such longer period as may be agreed upon in
' writing, tender to the Department of the Interior, the purchase
~ price, if a purchase price is due.
8. Conveyance of the property shall be accomplished by an instru-
ment, or instruments, in form satisfactory to the Department of
the Interior without warranty, express or implied, and shall con-
tain reservations, restrictions, and conditions substantially as
follows:
A. That the Grantee shall forever use the property in ac-
cordance with its application, and the approved Program
of Utilization included in Part B of this application.
B. That the Grantee shall, within 6 months of the date of
the signing of the Deed of Conveyance, erect and maintain
a sign or marker near the point of principal access to
the conveyed area indicating that: the property is a park
or recreation area; has been acquired from the Federal
Government for such use; and is or will be made available
for use by the general public.
c. The property shall not be sold, leased, assigned, or
otherwise disposed of except to another eligible govern-
mental agency that the Secretary of the Interior agrees in
writing can assure the continued use and maintenance of
the property for public park or public recreational pur-
poses subject to the same terms and conditions in the
original instrument of conveyance. However, nothing in
this provision shall preclude the Grantee from providing
related recreational facilities and services compatible
with the approved program mentioned under Item A, above,
through concession agreements entered into with third
parties, provided the prior concurrence of the Secretary
of the Interior in writing is obtained to such agreements.
3.
D. Biennial reports setting forth the use made of the prop-
erty during the preceding two-year period shall be pre-
pared by the Grantee and submitted to the appropriate
Regional Office of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation whose
return address appears on the transmittal letter to you,
for ten consecutive reports and as further determined by
the Secretary of the Interior.
E. If at any time the United States of America shall deter-
mine that the premises herein conveyed, or any part there-
of, are needed for the national defense, all right, title
and interest in and to said premises, or part thereof
determined to be necessary to such national defense, shall
revert to and become the property of the United States of
America.
F. The Federal Government shall have the right to reserve
all oil, gas, and mineral rights.
G. Title to the property transferred shall revert to the
United States at its option in the event of non-compliance
with any of the terms and conditions of disposal.
9. The Program of Utilization included in Part B of the applica-
tion may be amended, at the request of either the Applican·t or the
Federal Government, with the written concurrence of the other
party. Such amendments will be added to and become a part of the
original application and shall be consistent with purposes for which
the property was transferred. The Applicant further agrees to fur-
nish such data, maps, reports 1 and information as may be needed by
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
10. Any title evidence which may be desired by the Applicant will
be procured by the Applicant at its sole cost and expense. The
Federal Government will, ho~ever, cooperate with the Applicant or
its authorized agent in this connection, and will permit examina-
tion and inspection of such deeds, abstracts, affidavits of title,
judgements in condemnation proceedings, or other documents re-
lating to the title of the premises and property involved as it
may have available. It is understood that the Federal Government
will not be obligated to pay for any expense incurred in connection
with title matters of survey of the property.
11. 'l'he Applicant shall pay all taxes imposed on this transaction
and shall obtain at its own expense and affix to all instruments
of conveyance and security documents such revenue and documentary
stamps as may be required by Federal and local law. All instru-
ments of conveyance and security documents shall be recorded within
30 days of their receipt in the manner prescribed by local re-
cording statutes at the Applicant's expense.
12. "Assurance of Compliance with the Department of the Interior
"'·J Regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"
·>I I;
~\i
' t .,. .~ \
i~~l\ ' ~I
,. (
' .i
Dated:
The following agreement is made by the applicant
in consideration of and for the purpose of ob-
taining the transfer of any or all proper·ty covered
by this application and the applicant recognizes
and agrees that any such transfer will be made by
the United States in reliance on said agreement.
The applicant agrees that (1) the program for or
in connection with which any property covered by
this application as transferred to the applicant
will be conducted in compliance with, and the appli-
cant will comply with and require any other person
(any legal entity) who through contractual or other
arrangements with the applicant is authorized to
provide services or benefits under said program to
comply with, all requirements imposed by or pursuant
to the regulations of the Department of the Interior
(43 CPR Part 17) issued under the provisions of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) this
agreement shall be subject in all respects to the
provisions of said regulations; (3) the applicant
will promptly take and continue to take such action
as may be necessary to effectuate this agreement;
(4) the United States shall have the right to seek
judicial enforcement of this agreement; and (5) this
agreement shall be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the applicant.
4.
It is agreed that the instrument effectin>:J the trans-
fer to the applicant of any property covered by this
application will contain provisions satisfactory to
the United States incorporating the substance of the
foregoing agreement, such provisions to consist of
(a) a condition, coupled with a right reserved to the
United States to cause the prope:rt.y to r<~vert to the
United States in the event of any breach of such con-
dition, and (b) a covenant running with the land.
k~~krU~ (Sig ature) ,
City Manager
(Title)
February 27, 1976 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
(Address of Applicant)
··"'
5.
ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMEN'r
Accepted by and on behalf of the United States of America this
-'--/CJ..:..___._ day of
·• 'I' I I
i\\~. ~~.
~~\ ~'.
i ~
I
.j
··,,'
PART B
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
,j
6.
PROPOSED ACQUISITION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to utilize the following
portions of the surplus Federal property LADA NIKE SITE 55 for
park and recreation purposes:
A. 74.7 acre (or that portion of the main site that is not
used for the civic center, major access road right-of-way,
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District admin-
istration area, the fire station area, and the Los Angeles
County Department of Beaches area) portion surrounding
proposed civic center area to be maintained in passive
open space. 6+ acres of this portion are designated for
potential active recreation purposes, but to be used in
the interim for passive open space.
B. 4.49 acre site, formerly the Integrated Fire Control (IFC)
area, a parcel separate from the main site, located proxi-
mate to the intersection of Crest Road and Crenshaw
Boulevard for a neighborhood park.
Figures 1 and 2 indicate the approximate locations of the requested
portions of the site. No legal descriptions are available at this
time. These figures also show existing buildings, roads, ease-
ments, etc.
The other portions of the main site are proposed to be acquired by
the City and other public agencies under a coordinated use plan.
There is no known disagreement among these agencies.
·> >" I i
·onal vicinity reg1
7 •
..
(j
8.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The discussion below provides summary descriptions of the various
aspects of the physical setting of the site. The report on pos-
sible reuse possibilities prepared for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and funded by the Economic Development Administration is
included in the Appendix of this application and provides more de-
tail on the physical setting.
1. Soil Conditions
The NIKE site is composed of two soil types, Altamont clay
. l®am and Altamont clay adobe. Both types have a relatively low
, .,1 bearing strength, and exhibit adverse shrink-swell behavior. Con-
~equently, both are somewhat unsuitable for support or high-rise ~-structures or dense development, especially when associated with
~~ slopes of 10% or more. t· . A\2. Slope Conditions
I
j Most of the main NIKE site falls within two slope classes:
(a) 0-10% slope and (b) 10-25% slope. The first slope category,
0-10%, is suitable for development. The second category presents
problems for construction and environmental protection: water run-
off is difficult to control 1 grading cuts must be more extreme, and
so forth. As noted above, when Altamont clay loam and Altamont
clay adobe are associated with slopes exceeding 10%, soil instab-
ility becomes a problem.
Three major parts of the main site have slopes of less than
10% and therefore are suitable for development. The NIKE site ad-
ministration buildings are located in one of these areas and the
rifle range in another.
It is also important to note that portions of the main NIKE
site are "sea cliff" hazard areas, as designated by the General
Plan and the Southern Coastal Zone Commission. The Commission has
designated lands to be in this hazard category if they are located
above a 20% slope line drawn from the coastline. According to
Commission standards, these areas should not be used for develop-
ment unless a detailed study of the specific area reveals that it
is suitable and safe for development. This area is not, however,
in the portion being requested by the City in this application.
The upper 4.49 acre portion is generally level, with the ex-
isting structures located on top of a terrace formation.
3. Hydrology
The soil types of the site have low permeability and porosity.
Therefore, control of rain runoff and erosion must be considered.
9.
4. Landslide Potential
Approximately 1.5 miles east of the main site is an area
which is an active landslide, Portuguese Bend. The NIKE site
itself is considered to be an area of "modera·te ground response"
characteristics. Although areas in this category are not expected
to experience landslides or liquefaction, City and County stand-
ards recommend that seismic and soil reports be prepared for such
an area prior to high-cost, high-occupancy, or critical use develop-
ment.
s. Wildlife and Plant Habitat Considerations
The Southern Coastal Zone Commission and the City have iden-
t~fied wildlife and plant habitat areas for protection and presenta-
tion. That portion of the main site which is on the ocean side of
·i.IF;alos Verdes Drive falls within a "Class I Priority" zone. The
~~-habitat types deemed worthy of protection are the tidal pool areas,
~'1:1 the coastal sagebrush, and the seacliff zones. The area on the
~~\ inland side of Palos Verdes Drive is generally covered by vegeta-
1t\tion which is not considered endangered but is worthy of protection
r 'in its natural state.
'
I 6. Location and Surrounding Land Use Consideration
Generally, the land contiguous to the main NIKE site has not
been densely developed. The site is bordered on the southwest by
~.-a Coast Guard Station which operates a lighthouse and a radio
facility. It is bordered on the south by a strip of coastline
about 300 feet wide which is owned by the Los Angeles County De-
partment of Beaches; this strip is used as a fishing access route
from the top of the sea cliff, which is 1.50-200 feet above sea
level, down to the beach below Palos Verdes Drive.
The land directly to the east of the mnin site is occupied
by the Salvation Army training school and headquarters and that
to the southeast by Marineland, a commercial recreational facility,
now owned by Twentieth Century Fox Corpora·tion~ A portion of the
northern border of the site adjoins land developed for single-
faJUily homes and the Golden Cove shopping a:r:ea.. The remainder of
the northern border is contiguous to undeveloped land.
The upper site is bounded by a single family residential area
to the east and vacant land, zoned for single family residential
use, on all other sides.
7. Transportation Facilities
The main site is bisected by Palos Verdes Drive, one of the
major arterial roads serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This
four-lane road with divider strip is a proposed scenic highway
and also the route of a proposed bikeway. The arterial provides
spectacular open vistas over the Pacific Ocean at numerous points.
10.
A traffic count made in 1973 measured a total 24-hour traffic
volume of about 9800 vehicles. The peak hour traffic registered
877 vehicles.
The main site is served by a second major arterial, Hawthorne
Boulevard, which intersects Palos Verdes Drive only a few hundred
feet north of the site. Hawthorne Boulevard is a four-lane road
with a 24-hour traffic volume of about 10,000 vehicles at a point
near the site. The peak hour volume is about 1000 vehicles.
Thus, Palos Verdes Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard at present
provide adequate automobile access to the site. As is true of
the Los Angeles area as a whole, there is no "mass transit" service
to· the site.
. ·-,.I
,.,. The upper site is served by a major arterial 1 Crenshaw Boule-
.' Vard. This arterial stops, however, at the site entrance and ~· canno·t be extended in the foreseeable future due to the active
'>,1\ landslide area to the south.
1& \ \t, \8. Existing Structures
i)
j At present there are six major buildings on the main NIKE site.
The site has additional facilities associated with its former
military use, including underground missile storage silos and at-
tendant fuel, test, and assembly areas. There are also pre-World
War II shore gun emplacements, Coast Guard radio antennas, and
miscellaneous activity areas related to the requirements of a
NIKE installation. Lastly, on that part of the site west of Palos
Verdes Drive there is, as noted above 1 a rifle range. Almost
the entire site is bounded with chainlink fence.
The upper site contains five major buildings and served as
a radar control station as part of the NIKE base facilities.
The facilities are situated on top of a knoll having a precipitous
slope to the southwest and facing the ocean and are fenced with
chainlink fence.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the main and upper sites with
existing buildings (buildings are further described in the Appendix,
by number).
11.
NEED
A. Existing and Proposed Facilities
Recreational activity areas in Rancho Palos Verdes include
sites which have been set aside or are proposed for either active
or passive use. These sites are structured to various degrees to
allow specific site activities to take place.
The following groups recreational facilities into active rec-
reational areas and passive recreational areas. This grouping
was utilized in order to most accurately reflect the intensity
and type of site use provided by an individual facility. A fur-
-troer breakdown within active/passive groundings organizes recrea-
. tiona! facilities under the level of government which controls and ~1 6perates the facility.
t\.· 1. Active Recreational Areas ~ .. ~\, .
t \ Active recreational facilities include 205 acres of structured
~ recreational areas; however, only 176 acres are developed and 165
-i acres of that is a County golf course. Consequently, there is
presently only one small developed community park. The total ac-
reage figure does not include a significant amount of recreational
areas supplied by Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
facilities. It is difficult to calculate the acres supplied by
existing and proposed school sites. Prior to incorporation of the
City, the County did not require parkland or fees to serve new
development and residents were forced to rely on the use of school
facilities.
a. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Facilities
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District is the largest
supplier of public active recreational facilities within the
City. The School Distric·t provides these facilities for many age
levels in the form of open play areas, paved court areas, gymna-
siums, etc. Tennis courts are available on a first-come, first-
served basis. All other activities, such as baseball and foot-
ball, must be arranged in advance. It can be assumed that inter-
mediate and high school sites contain facilities which fulfill
the needs of young adults and adults, while elementary schools
provide recreational activities designed for the young. The City
is operating a summer program at Miraleste Pool and constructed
tennis courts at Miraleste High School under agreement with the
School District.
b. Los Angeles County Facilities
Los Verdes Golf Course is a fully developed 165 acre site
which is operated by the County. This facility contains a 18 hole,
par 72 course with associated facilities (clubhouse, banquet facil-
ities, coffee shop, lounge~ pro shop, two comfort. stations, locker
and shower rooms, and parking for 300 cars).
12.
c. Rancho Palos Verdes Facilities
Rancho Palos Verdes Park
This fully developed 11 acre City park contains highly
structured activity areas. These consist of .sports activities,
children's play apparatus, picnic facilities, concession potential,
and a recreational ac·tivity building. Recreational programs are
provided at the park activity building. These programs are de-
signed to offer activities for a wide range of age groups (3 years
to senior citizen) and are presently operating at full capacity.
Crestmont Park
·:, Crestmont Park is a 29 acre site which fronts on Hawthorne
, . 1 Boulevard between Verde Ridge Road and Locklenna Lane. This site
• t6 one of three sites that has been declared surplus by the Palos t\ Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. The purchasing of this t\ site by the City will take place over a five year period and is
i~planned to be developed into an active ~eighborhood park. Facil-
.,~ 1ity development may initially be provid'ed by private organizations
'/in order to eliminate financial burdens that would usually fall on
./ the community. No plans have been developed.
2. Passive Recreational Areas
a. Los Angeles County Facilities
Friendship Park
This 123 acre park site, of which 97 acres are within the
City, is on the eastern boundary of Rancho Palos Verdes, just
north of Twenty-fifth Street. Designed use capacity of this park is
approximately 1000 persons, with access being obtained from out-
side the City, off Ninth Street. The purpose of Friendship Park
is to provide a public facility which will give upland recreation-
al usage near shoreline areas. Development plans call for con-
struction of moderate day-use facilities, various.scenic vista
points, a nature trail, and minimal landscaping. The southwest
corner of the park is designated as a landslide hazard.
Shoreline Park
Shoreline Park consists of a 53 acre park which lies adja-
cent to the eastern boundary of the City, between the shoreline
and Twenty-Fifth Street. Preliminary development plans propose
light day use facilities.
Abalone Cove
This park includes 82 acres, located along the south side
of Palos Verdes Drive South between Sea Cove and Peppertree Drives.
The partially developed beach area park was only recently ac-
quired by the Coun·ty and one portion opened to the public the
sun1mer of 1975.
13.
This facility will be primarily a nature study area,
rather than a high density bathing beach. The only improvements
have been reinforcing and modification of existing improvements
(paddle tennis courts, parking lots, picnic areas, associated
buildings, and infrastructure systems} where they needed repair
or were below standards, and the installation of four portable
lifeguard stations. The headlands and other tidal reef areas
will be closed at minus tides except to guided or monitored walks
in special environmental corridors.
Point Vicente Fishing Access
Point Vicente Fishing Access lies on the ocean side of
Palos Verdes Drive South, between Point Vicente Lighthouse and
. ~~rineland. The fishing access is a fully developed 11 acre site
, which provides access to the shoreline for fishing and scuba
~~diving purposes.
~~ Lower Nike Site
:~~\
~ 1 The County is presently leasing a 28 acre portion of the
<r lower Nike Site for a limited recreation facility. The section
' being leased lies on the ocean side of Palos Verdes Drive West, 4 just north of Point Vicente Lighthouse. The County intends to re-
move the present rifle range and develop a light day use facility.
A light passive recreational use of this site would be of a com-
patible nature to the community's desire to maintain open space
~" uses in the coastal area.
b. City Facilities
Highland Park
Highland Park is being purchased by the City from Palos
Verdes School District in conjunction wit.h ·the Crestmont park
site. It is intended for this 17 acre site to :r:emain primarily
in a natural state for the next few years. At a later date, this
site will be developed into a passive recreational park with
limited facilities. No plans have been developed.
B. Future Demand for Recreational and Open Space
The Palos Verdes Peninsula has been one of the fastest growing
areas in Los Angeles County~ its population has doubled in each
decade from 1940 to 1970. By 1970, the population of the Penin-
sula had reached nearly 65,000, having increased at an annual
rate of 8.1% during the 1960s. The bulk of this growth occurred
in the unincorporated County area of the Peninsula, including
the adjacent area to the east near Western Avenue which had an
increase during the decade from 14,453 persons in 1960 to over
40,000 in 1970. The three incorporated communities of the Penin-
sula experienced slower growth during this period and accounted
for a combined population of approximately 22,000 persons by 1970.
14.
Since 1970 there has been a marked slowdown of growth on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. Due to declining in-migration to Los
Angeles County overall, economic downturns, and more restrictive
growth policies on the Peninsula, population growth for the Penin-
sula declined to 3.0 percent annually during the 1970-1973 period.
Population growth was down significantly in each Peninsula city
and most significantly in the unincorporated County area, which
had a decline in annual growth rates from over 11 percent in the
1960s to 3.8 percent in the early 1970s.
Rancho Palos Verdes had a population of 37,800 persons (esti-
mated by the Los Angeles Regional Planning commission) as of the
date of its incorporation, September 1973. The estimated 1960 pop-
ulation of the area which is now incorporated into Rancho Palos
. ~~rdes was approximately 10,000 persons 1 indicating nearly a four-
, . fold increase in 13 years. As in the rest of the Peninsula, pop-
'• ~ llllation growth has slowed considerably since 1970, dropping from t\,. 13 percent annually during the 19 60s to 3. 2 percent in the early ~~~ 1970s. ~~~\ For the future, the expectation of continued growth is re-
l"t fleeted in population and housing growth projections for the Palos
~ Verdes Peninsula. The demand potential for residential housing
/ in Rancho Palos Verdes is expected to increase 2.5% on an average
annual basis from 1970-1990. These estimates reflect demand po-
tential considered in light of the amount of land which will be
available for development of housing, and in light of public poli-
·--.. -" cy considerations.
Households in the Peninsula area are significantly larger
than in most communities in Los Angeles County. In 1970, average
household size for the Peninsula was 3.75 members, compared to
2.83 persons per household in Los Angeles County as a whole.
Larger household sizes are typical of suburban areas with large
families, limited rental housing, and fewer non-family households.
Household size in Peninsula communi ties has ~r:·emained fairly stable
in recent years.
Like most growing suburban areas, Rancho Palos Verdes is
characterized by a high proportion of children under 20 years of
age and parents age 30 to 54. Correspondingly, there is a rela-
tively low proportion of persons over 65 living in the area.
Forty-five percent of the population of Rancho Palos Verdes is
under 20 years of age; nearly 42 percent is between the ages of
30 and 54; and only 2.5 percent is over 65 years of age. Resi-
dents of Rancho Palos Verdes are on average slightly younger
than Palos Verdes Peninsula residents as a whole. The median age
of Rancho Palos Verdes residents is 28.8 years, compared to 29.9
years for all Palos Verdes Peninsula residents.
Incomes in Palos Verdes Peninsula communities were substan-
.:w.:;~,, tially higher than Los Angeles County averages in both 1960 and
~;;.;,;v 1970. Median family income for the Peninsula rose from $13,770
in 1960 to $24,930 in 1970, a percentage increase of 81 percent.
<' ., ~,.,
~~~~;
15.
Family income of Rancho Palos Verdes residents was slightly
lower than that of other Palos Verdes community residents in both
1960 and 1970. Median family income in Rancho Palos Verdes in-
creased 73 percent during the decade to $21,803 in 1970. The
highest income area on the Peninsula was Rolling Hills, with a
median family income of $36,379 in 1970.
There are two aspects to the demand for recreational and open
space. First, there is the regional demand, generated by the pop-
ulation of the greater Los Angeles area. Regional demand relates
to major park and recreational areas which offer the visitor an
opportunity for a variety of recreational experiences. With the
rapid disappearance of the supply of public open space in the Los
Angeles area and, at the same time, the demand increasing, an im-
~~lance between demand for and supply of recreational area is evi-
oent throughout the area. In contrast, there is a local demand
·~~~ ;t"or recreational and open space, which is generated by the popu-
~· lation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the City of Rancho Palos
'~ Verdes in particular. The local demand relates to the need for
~·~\ areas for passive activity as well as active recreational areas such
\\as ball fields, tennis courts, etc., and other types of facilities.
It
' As indicated in the previous section, approximately 176 devel-
; oped acre~ are available for active recreational activity (exclu-
sive of school sites). Since 165 acres of this are a golf course,
only 10 acres can be considered a developed community park. Using
the generally accepted standard of four acres per 1000 population
for local needs, an existing deficit, with an existing population
of nearly 42,000, of over 150 acres is evident. While this does
not include the use of school sites as recreational areas, which
would tend to reduce the deficit, it also presumes that the cur-
rently undeveloped County facilities adjacent to and within Rancho
Palos Verdes will be developed to planned levels.
Currently the General Plan of Rancho Palos Verdes provides for
an additional 1,710 acres for residential development, and approxi-
mately 8000-9000 additional people. Utilizing the same standard
for future needs, another 40 acres will be needed in addition to
the existing deficit.
Thus, the utilization of the 4.49 acre upper site and approxi-
mately 6.6 acres of the lower site for somewhat more active rec-
reational activities would begin to overcome the current deficit
and to meet the future needs of the City.
The additional 68.1 acres of proposed passive open space is
based upon both the need for additional open space as well as con-
sideration of environmental factors associated with this portion
of the site. As indicated in the environmental assessment of the
site (see Appendix), the sensitivity of this portion of the site
dictates a low level of development.
...........
16.
The particular sites chosen for open space and recreation
land would provide needed activity areas for the resident popu-
lation. Their location in the western portion of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula, in and adjacent to the coastal zone along the Pacific,
would provide recreation areas in proximity to a large portion of
the resident population. The anticipated voltme of use of the
sites would be limited based on the sensitivity of the land itself--
the potential active recreational area at the main site might
eventually have annual volumes at full development of 60,000,
significantly less for the open space areas, and 30,000 for the
upper neighborhood site.
An identified need of the current and future recreation pro-
gram is for building space for recreation classes and organized
group meetings. At present, Rancho Palos Verdes City park has
'ehe building which is used for this purpose, plus staff offic~s.
' .·,1 ?his facility is small and is used to capacity. There are many
~ community groups seeking space for their activities. Some would
t~ be willing to donate time and money to the City to provide space
\~\for cooperative use.
~ · There are no usable structures on that portion of the main
1
/ site for which application i.s being made. The upper site contains
./ five main structures. One of these can be eliminated from poten-
tial use due to its type of construction. The other four struc-
tures could provide space for recreation programs and group meet-
ings, compatible with the concept of a neighborhood park facility.
The need exists, but the major question is the suitability of the
particular structures and costs of renovation and maintenance.
17.
SUITABILITY
Those portions of the site that have been requested for use as
either active or passive recreational areas by the City are based
upon the demand for additional acreage generated by the added pop-
ulation as well as an assessment of the site suitability. As can
be seen by examination of the Re-use report (in the Appendix), al-
ternative uses of the site have been examined with the full partici-
pation of other interested public agencies in mind. It appears
that the best 11 mix" of uses for the site would be as an adminis-
trative site for a number of public agencies with the open space
and recreational portions being administered by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Los Angeles County .
.• I
Perhaps the single most important resource relating to the site and
·i.-1 4ts vicinity are the superb views to the site and panoramic vistas
~: from it. Point Vicente and the site of the proposed Civic Center ,~; are significant focal points which are highly visible from a number
~~ of vantage points in the surrounding area. In addition, these focal
\\,.points afford excellent 270° "view sheds" of the coastline and ocean.
,, 'The Point will offer exceptional views of surrounding marine habi-
, tats, surface geology, and additionally, vantage points to view
i the annual migration of the California Gray Whale. Views to the
site are of considerable importance because these focal points are
architectural features which tend to focus viewer attention from
a variety of view locations along major public routes and lands.
··· Because of these considerations as well as the recommended designa-
tion of Palos Verdes Drive as a scenic corridor and highway, visual
qualities of proposed development should be compatible with local
characteristics and should take advantage of, but not obstruct,
views from nearby vantage points.
/·'~~~~ ... · .... )
In the examination of possible uses for the site and portions
thereof, it became evident that only a small portion of the main
site should be utilized for intense urban uses such as an adminis-
trative area for public functions. After the identification of
this portion of the site 1 the remainder of the site, because of
its environmental sensitivity and the strong demand for recreation
and open space areas, was identified for such recreational uses.
The proposed City recreation area adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive
was chosen because it represented topographically the best por-
tion of the site for potential active recreation activities and
its adjacency to Palos Verdes Drive means that ingress and egress
to the proposed recreational area can be readily provided by con-
struction of an access road off of Palos Verdes Drive.
The major access point to the main site will continue in its pre-
sent location from Hawthorne Boulevard. It is proposed to nego-
tiate with GSA for a road right-of-way designed to provide access
for all agencies using the main site.
The rest of the land requested by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
at the main site will remain essentially in its natural state.
Native ground cover will be rnaint.ained in those areas not desig-
18.
nated for recreational purposes. In areas where native and intro-
duced species are necessary for slope control or for visual ef-
fects, they will be selected from hearty, arid climate, erosion
prevention varieties. No ingress and egress to this portion of the
site will be required. The Coast Guard has an easement containing a
buried cable leading to its antennas. This should present no in-
compatibility with the open space use and trails.
The portions of the main site proposed for recreational and open
space use by the City do not include existing physical improve-
ments of use and would require demolition. This includes several
gatehouses or control stations, theatre building (T-8}, generator
building (S-201), kennels, and chainlink fence. The vast missile
storage and launching area present a still unsolved problem. The
~round level concrete area will lend itself to providing a vista
ar~a with, for example, the installation of telescope and benches.
•i '~' Jrhe underground area might provide space for a recreation use, but
it ... nothing is proposed at this time. On the other hand 1 these under-
'~ ground areas may need to be permanently sealed off.
~i·~~ \ 'Th . t f 4 4 9 . ' d f ' 1 . ' · \ e upper s1 e o . acres conta1ns structures an ac1 1t1es
·1 'associated with its former rol.e as an Integrated Fire Control (IFC)
' Center. The recreational uses proposed will leave the existing ) topography and much of the existing vegetation intact. Further-
more, the low level of outdoor use by these activities will not
be threatened by adverse geological conditions. Finally, these
activities will, if the proper landscape design is instituted, en-
~~ hance the visual quality of the area. Four of the existing build-
ings might be suitable for use for recreation programs and meeting
rooms. The City would like to keep the flexibility of further
evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of utilizing some or all of the
four buildings and the platform or of demolishing all of them and
making the site totally passive. The guard house 1 small storage
building, building S-310, and the chainlink fence would be removed.
Th 't t ' I. ' t Th' t e upper s1 e con a1ns a J01nt use access easemen • 1s easemen
is not incompatible with the proposed park use. The existing
access drive would be continued.
19.
CAPABILITY
As a newly incorporated City (1973), Rancho Palos Verdes is in
the initial stage of developing a City administrative and support
structure to accommodate the service needs for an estimated cur-
rent population of nearly 42,000 and the ability to meet the
needs of an ultimate population of approximately 50,000. The
City does not yet have a capital improvements program.
Currently, the City contracts with Los Angeles County for a number
of services, including police, roads, animal control, building and
safety, engineering, and recreation services. The operating bud-
get for the current fiscal year (1975-76) for recreation services
·ip $125,000 (see Appendix). This budget includes park adminis-
tration, grounds maintenance, and construction and repair, with
·~ ~ ,E} staff of two full-time and 26 part-time personnel. It is antici-
~ .... pated that eventually the City might take over all operations re-
t~ lated to the providing of recrea·tion services.
·~:~\·rn terms of capital budge·ts related to the acquisition and de-
, 11 'velopment of recreation and·open space sites, the City is in the
" process of acquiring two surplus school sites from the Palos Verdes
j Unified School District to increase the supply of recreational land.
To initiate the purchase of the Crestmont and Highland School
Sites, $405,500 has been provided in the Capital Improvements and
Acquisition Fund in fiscal year 1975-76 for the first installment
~r· on these sites. For fiscal 1975-76, funds were transferred from
surplus in the general fund 1 the Environmental Excise Tax Fund,
and the Revenue Sharing Fund to the Capital Improvements Fund. Ad-
ditionally, monies totaling $100,000 for design studies related
to parkland development were appropriated and included in this
fund.
The major sources of funds for acquisition and development of
parkland are the Environmental Excise Tax and Parkland Dedication
from subdivisions. At the present time, there is an unappropri-
ated balance of $862,927 in the Environmental Excise Tax Fund.
There is interest on the part of several community groups for
working with the City to develop these facilities. The City is,
however, committed to a fiscal philosophy of carefully programming
future long-range costs, rather than only short-range expendiency.
This analysis, relative to volunteer resources, has not been ac-
complished, since acquisition of the site was uncertain.
Recently, a Parks and Recreation Committee was appointed by the
City Council to provide policy guidance for the development of
recreational land and programs.
'• I" I'
', I
./
20.
PARKS AND RECREATION ORGANIZATION CHART
City Council
~Parks
City Manager
I I
Parks & Recreation Dept.
(contract)
& Recreation Committee
b
Public Works
21.
PROGRAM OF UTILIZATION
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to develop approximately
80 acres of the 115 acre surplus NIKE site for a variety of rec-
reational and open space uses. Figures 6 and 7 show the portions
to be acquired for parkland in relation to other proposed uses for
the remainder of the site. At the main site, the 6.6 acre poten-
tial active recreational area would complement the proposed Los
Angeles County Department of Beaches development on the coast side
of Palos Verdes Drive as well as meeting an identified need for
additional recreational land in the City. The 68 acres of passive
open space surrounds and complements the proposed administrative
center and provides needed open space for this part of the City.
The 4.49 acre upper site would be used primarily as a neighborhood
'j;iark capitalizing on the dramatic views from this location.
' ·~¥"I i. Potential Active Recreational Area at Main Site (Figure 6) ~\ Eventually, this area might contain picnic ~~~-courts 1 and an athletic field. This rrulti-use
·~ 1-day use only.
areas, tennis
area will be for
i I
;
4 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 a five-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)
The 68.1 acres of land surrounding the proposed administrative
area is to be left essentially ·in its natural state with no active
recreational facilities proposed for this area. Because of slope
stability and topography considerations, development would include
initially only vista and picnic areas and trails. Additional land-
scaping would be planted to enhance the native growth. A parking
area would be added in the future. All existing structures on
this por·tion would be demolishe¢1. The missile storage and· launch-
ing-area would be used ·at ground level for a vista area, with the
addition of telescopes and benches. It could also be used by
organized groups as well as individuals for such activities as
whale watching, coastal study, etc.
3. Upper Site (Figure 7)
Development at this site includes minor landscaping and es-
tablishment of picnic areas. The parking lot would be expanded
in the future. A level playing area would be established between
the street and the parking lot. Two alternatives exist for the
existing structures: (1) Demolish all, landscape, and use area
only for picnics, viewing, etc., (2) Renovate (with the coopera-
tion of community groups) one to four existing structures
(S-302, S-303, S-304, S-307), demolishing the other structures,
and use for recreation programs and group meetings as well as for
22.
picnics, viewing, etc. The City wishes to keep these two alterna-
tives as feasible approaches at this time.
The City would be responsible for approximately 75 acres of
recreational and open space land at the main NIKE site and. 4.5
acres at the upper site on Crenshaw Boulevard. It has been as-
sumed for purposes of fiscal impact analysis that there will be
no cost of acquisition; thus, the City would bear only development
and maintenance costs. It is estimated that during a five-year
period, beginning 1978-79, approximately $132,000 will be required
for development of the 6.6 acre area including sports field, pic-
nic areas, and tennis courts (Table 1). Maintenance during the
same period for this developed area will start at rougly $5,000i
by 1982, at full development, the annual cost will approximate
$33,000. . ..... ,
~11 , For the larger open space and passive recreational area, it is
. again assumed that there will be no site acquisition cost. Total t\ development cost is estimated at $84,000, plus $6 1 000 demolition
'•.;. cost. The maintenance cost would increase gradually from about
~~\~ .. $2,800 and level off at approximately $14,000 annually. i I .
1) For the recreational area at the upper site, composed of 4.49
·i acres, it is estimated that for Alternative (1) costs would be
approximately $3,500 for total demolition and $25,000 for develop-
ment, with annual maintenance estimated at $1,000 per acre. Al-
ternative (2) costs would be approximately $1,500 for partial
demolition and $50,000 for development (primarily in partial reno-
vation of structures), with annual maintenance estimated at $1,500
per acre.
23.
TABLE 1
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT
______________ A_n~n_\_l_a_l __ F_i __ ssal_Requirements
Developed Recreational
Area (6.6 acres)
'site Acquisition Costsa
·:1 Development Costsb
·~ r ; ; Haintenance CostsC
t~·
'.;~·\ Open Space and Passive
\. , ·Recreational Area (70 ac.) . I
! I
'
,{
Site Acquisition Costsa
Development Costsd
Haintenance Costse
Recreational Area at
Upper Site (4.9 acres)
Site Acquisition Costsd
Alternative (l)
Demolition
Development Costsf
Maintenance Costs9
Alternative (2)
Demolition
Development Costs
Maintenance Costsh
TOTAL w/Alternative (1)
TOTAL w/Alternative (2)
Fiscal
Year
1975-76
Fiscal
Year
1976-77
200
$23,000
2,800
3,500
Fiscal
Year
1977-78
200
$17,000
5,600
500 10,000
3,000
1,500
500 15,000
500 4,000
$30,000 $35,HOO
$28,500 $41,800
Fiscal
Year
1978-79
$26,400
5,000
$17,000
8,400
10,000
4,000
15,000
5,000
$70,800
$76,800
a. Assumes 100% discount from Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
b. Assumes total development costs of $132,000 ($20,000 per acre)
c. Assumes maintenance cost of $5,000 per developed acre
Fiscal
Year
1979-80
$26,400
10,000
$17,000
11,200
4,500
10,000
5,000
$69,100
$79,600
Fiscal
Year
1980-81
$26,400
17,000
$17,000
14,000
4,500
10,000
6,700
$78,900
$91,100
d. Assumes total development cost of $84,000 ($1,200 per acre) + $6,000 demolition
e. Assumes maintenance costs of $200 per acre
f. Assumes total demolition and development costs of $25,000
{";··· g. Assumes maintenance costs of $1,000 per acre
~ h. Assumes maintenance costs of $1,500 per acre
,1.00
.· .j
/ / ~··-··')
1150
llOO
jl n
II I scale : 1 = 200
~--.... ----'
,. (ol·)
\
Addr•~~:3D940 Hawthorne Dlvd.,
J
[~EE ~r!'l
ttty: ~JnCh~ Palo1 Verd~s, CA.BD27A
I
A;tu: t:l ty Cl!trk
·--·-·······-.. ----.... -.. ----·~--·······-··--·---·····---Tii~a-iil.iov~ t'fiT'S-rfni""'f(lr retarder's U$1:
Rci\d !Ieee!
Fur (I Hluat.lu tontidill'"lltlon, riH:efpt of' ~1hich i.s hereby acknowledged.,
.. --·-----------~--··-----
d.,astterillly grant to the CITY Or RMICIIO PALOS VEP.OF.S, a munfciJ)al t:orporatfon,
oflo5 Allgi!ll!s County, State of California, an 1!1\sement for publir. .ROAO ANO
HIGHWAY purpose~ and tncldants thereto, in th• following de$t:r1bed r~al
property in the CllY OF P.ANCIIO I'III.OS Vt:IWES, County of Los Angeles, State or
C~ltfornla, described as:
LEGAL, DJ;:SC.!Ul>'l"I2.,!;!
nlifi.n~:t a porl:.ion of ·tot Mil" part:H:i,on ot nnncho Los t•«los Verdes .al-
.lot:t.utt to .:tatham !liMb)' b)• deel'ef.'l . of partition in action ontitl>Vt\
"!l:i.Xby, et al vs. Bent, 11.rt al" ,;~s shown on map !!led in caGe nt1. 2373
J.n the District court of the 17th JuiUchl !liut:l"ict:. of the State. of
C~•liftll:nia in and fen: the county of Los 1\nge:les end er1tered in !look 4,
r•age 57, of •rudgements in the Superior Com:t of snid county, Records
o.f 'Los Anqeles County, State of Californta and t1 portion of Am~ndm(!.nt
to Docla:a~ation of Taldng, r.eco:t·d.ed December 1, 1954, as t>ocu.mont t~o.
462'5:!, Page 4iJ5 of OffioiaJ. ll.ecords cr! tllc County of L()s .llrlgolcll,
State of Cali.f'orn.i.n, and as sllO\In on Map of 'l'X:Ilct: No. 32.110 .filed in
BoC'•k 93S, t'agQS 47 through 51 inclusive of Mllps, in th(\ office ()f thn
County Roco'l:da:r, County of Los J\ngi!los, St:tJt~ of CaHfornia dencdbcd
a~ fol.).o~o~a;
llll!t;·i.nninq !It th(l most. Oilllturly cornel" oJ; Lot. 2, l'ract. No, 321.10 as
t>ho>v.n on rnap of lillid tract, :aaid point bu1ng abo on the vesterly
~ddel:i.ntf of C.r.cnllha.w Uoule.v12rd llP fuel;. Wi'Je as sll(>Wn per map of na.id tract<
thenco along uid tract boundu·y Sooth 29 13' 04" !ient:, 5-:ICL 67 feet~
l:hencu•dupart:.in9 f:rom.sald tract hounda:ey,North 74 lJ' OJ", East, 77.08
f~atr thenco ~orth 29 13' 04" East, 2.03.55 feet:. to a tangent curve
cono1we westerly having a radius ot 120. QO f.:. crt; thence no:rtht<rly along
ltaid curve tln:o\lgh a cent:rt~l IU'Iqla of 21 5'1' OG'' an arc distrance of
45.98 feet to 11 ·t:angont curve concave na.storly bavi:n9 n radius of ao.oa
fc~t; tl1e.nca :northc.rly alon(} said curve throu9h a cr..nl:l'al 0 an~lf! of
21 57' 06" an arc dtstance of 30.65 £oct1 thencC!. ~ort:h 2!1 1:1' 04~ t:ut,
1.92.01.1 teet to a voint in the WCli'tedy sidul.i.nu of Crenshaw nouluvard,
BO fcc.t widu, an shown on ITI.IIfl o:f 51\id t..:ruc\:1 sllid we:sterly Ridelinu
bo:l.nq a curve cont:aVI'l westerly l!ilV:ing 11 radlu!l of !HIGO.OO feat. A
radial :Unu tht-ough Ga.id point bears North :11 li' >16" East. 'l'henoo
northerly .f'l·om .l.aut. oontion~d point al.onq 11nld wes t:erly sideline t.hn.1119h
a. central anglc. ot o• 23 • 19" an nrc distance of 40.42 .!'ece to t:hc Point
of lleginn.l.nq.
Oat ll d t hh .....l1l!l. day of ·-".U.W~E"------·, 1!1 JllL
~~L~~
so..:. .61219$
'!'his is to certifv that t:he interest in real property conveyed l.Jy
thi# writ ten deed or qrant· to the Ci t.y of Hancho ra to:> Verdes, a governmen ta
agency, is hereby accept1:!d by the City and the Gnmt.c~ consents to the
recordation thereof ~ its duly <~U orized off:ic.:Jr.
Dat.-,d this /'L day o( ·-' l92Q_
RON W. lfiGII'I'Oii£H, IIC'l'l:NI:i cr'I'Y Ct.Eru<
C!'l'Y 0}' AANC.iO i'I'.Lt:l3 V£lWES
l!y /YZ.,J."'" 0. ./~ ~-+J7f(j -.r;~-~
------~----·-------·-.. --· ·----.. ~---------
Pt//3L!C ACC£5
{)RIVe WAY
n;; ,u• r t,ffi 1'? I H
Dear Honorable RPV City Council Mayor and Members
The Park Place HOA and residents of Park Place feel it appropriate to provide additional
information and facts to the City Report prepared by Katie Lozano for March 17, 2020.
Thank you for your continued efforts to work to improve parking, as a part of more inter-
connected and complex set of problems, in the Del Cerro Park area. Efforts in the other three (3)
HOAs (other than Park Place street in Park Place HOA) near Del Cerro Park seem to have good
results.
HOWEVER, there is only one Resident Home street that experiences Continuing Adverse and
Large Impact Issues.
This only distressed area of any ofthe four (4) HOAs is Park Place.
Four (4) Ma.ior Problems for Park Place:
First, Non-Performance to Land Transfer document (Program of Utilization-POll) for
Del Cerro Park has created substantial 'Mixed-Use' Problems for Park Place (street)
that need be 'fixed' over long-term.
Second, Land Use is NOT FOLLOWED for Del Cerro Park as stated in the POll Legal
Transfer of Land document from Department ofinterior to RPV for Del Cerro Park.
]'his has led to host of significant safety, tmmc and parli:ing problems over past years.
'I'hird, Non-Performance to RPV Parli: Safety ami Security Policy and Procedure has
created other substantial Problems for residents ofPark Place and all four (4) HOAs
surrounding Del Cerro Park that need he 'fixed' as welt
Fourth, Extenuating Circumstances continue for Park Place .Residents' fear, emotional
distress, comparative fairness and equitable treatment in addition to major loss of
property value and Quality of Life.
First, 'Mixed-Use' Prob)ems for Park Place (street) that need be 'fixed' over long-
term
Negatives for Park Place are a result of the other three (3) HOAs having Resident Parking
Permit Only. HOWEVER, for Park Place HOA, we have Recreation Permit Parking
Only.
THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
Recreation Parking Permits allow parking for Conservancy Trails (predominantly used for a
huge population much bigger than the Neighborhood) as well as for Neighborhood Del Cerro
Park (very little used by Recreation Permit holders).
Resident Parking Permits are to be for Residents and their guests and no one else.
Further, Park Place residents are very adversely affected due to the 'MIXED USE' of Park Place.
USE of Park Place is both a:
1. Public-Right-of-Way for Residents (Resident Parking Permit) AND
2. 'Destination' for a much broader number of people than our Neighborhood for Recreation
purposes (Recreation Parking Permit).
LEGALLY. Park Place is a Public-Right-of-Way ROAD DEED in June 17, 1980.
See attached drawing of Park Place established as a Right-of-Way to access Resident properties.
THERE ARE NO PARKING STALLS on original ROAD DEED.
Park Place CURRENT USE as 'Parking Lot' for Trails and Del Cerro Park IS NOT
per Road Deed or Program of Utilization (POU)
Per the PROGRAM OF UTILIZATION (POU)-the 'Foundation/Creating Document' for Del
Cerro Park -Parking for the Park was to have an Existing Access Road to an Existing Parking
Lot interior to the Park. HOWEVER, the access Road and Parking Lot were removed AND
Parking Stalls were placed on Park Place WITHOUT a CHANGE TO THE POU & NO
APPROVAL OF THE DEPT OF INTERIOR and NO DUE PROCESS by the CITY OF RPV.
This is confirmed by David Siegenthaler. National Parks Service, DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR in his letter to RPVin March 2017.
Non-compliance to having the Public-Right-of-Way be separate and apart from the Access
Road and Parking Lot for Del Cerro Park creates a big 'MIXED-USE' problem. This is
extremely unusual as all known municipalities work very hard to NOT HAVE MIXED-USE for
rather obvious reasons that force Residents trying to get home must 'compete' for access with
Non-Residents to use the Park or most extensively the Conservancy Trails.
Due to the MIXED-USE, relocating the congested parking from Del Cerro Park has seen
little, if any, improvement. Heavy traffic continues as has abusive behavior and language
including assaults of residents. In addition, due to all the interconnected problems, the
most important and most affected by these problems is the loss of valuation of resident
properties on Park Place and adverse comparative to other neighboring HOAs. It is our
observation that Park Place remains to have a much longer list of inter-connected problems.
Second, Land lise is NOT FOLLOWED for Del Cerro Park as stated in the POlJ
Legal Transfer of Land document from Department of Interior to RPV for Del
Cerro Pari<
l. Propertp Trans(er Program o{ Utilization (POU! not (ollowed-parking not put
where DESIGNATED in park & NOT ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF "VA Y -Reference:
the 'transfer Deed document' of Del Cerro to the City-it is important to please see:
• 1. p. 6-item B of POU: -"4.49 acre site (Del Cerro Park) designated "neighborhood
park'. Del Cerro is not used now (and for the past many recent years) 11s a
Neighborhood park -largely because parking for the Pari< does not really exist in
that all parking stalls are essentiaHy used by out-of-area vehicles for access to the
Conservancy I Trails. Neighborhood means small radius of .5 up possibly 1 mile
(per RPV Parks & Recreation). This does not include in any way all of RPV-only a
very small population ofRPV most proximate-primarily North & East-to Del
Cerro Park.
• All Del Cerro parking is near exclusive use for 'visitors to the trails' (AND NOT THE
PARK) and use by essentially all persons who are 'non-neighborhood visitors'.
Parking stalls are often fun, but no one is in the Park.
• 2. p. 18-last paragraph (circled) of POU:-"the upper site (Del Cerro Park)
"existing access drive vvould be continued." This access drive was 'removed' with no
known City Council approval or National Park Service formal agreement or
process. Further, this access road provided access from Crenshaw to the existing
Parldng Lot for the Nil<e Site at the "upper site" .... this would be the reference
parking lot interior to the Pari< in the POlJ ...
• 3. p. 25 (sequentially accurate albeit not numbered) ofPOli:-"figure 2-upper site"
shows pictorial evidence of existing access road from Crenshaw Hi. to Nike Site
Parking Lot. THIS IS TO WHAT THE POlJ REFERRED as 'Parking for the new
Del Cerro Park'. This 'Parking Lot', or any other 'Parking Lot' referred to as
internal to the Park, DOES NOT EXIST.
2. Original DEED tor the tmns(er o(land to provide (or tlle_!public-right-ofwaJ?.' Park
Place SHOW'S NO PARKING STALLS.
• There are no known City Council Minutes on. formal re<1uired communications
from the City of RPV to the Department of Interior that in any way request, let alone
discuss, any changes to the POU.
• Park Place residents have repeated asked for specific City Council minutes and
correspondence to the Department of Interior with specific reference to
providing Del Cerro parking that is not internal to the park as Mr. Siegenthaler and
the POU state.
• On request ofRPV, there has been a review of aU City Correspondence to the
Department of Interior. This review includes all these materials in-depth by Park
Place rcsidents/HOA and/or City of R.PV personnel. And no references have been
found to any changes to the POlJ that would have been required to 'move parking'
from what ·was agreed in the POlJ to anywhere else. This would seem a significant
violation of a major change-let alone approval-not disclosed by the City to the
Department of Interior. This is the problem referred to by Steve Anderson, Past
President of Park Place BOA, to City of RPV in his letter dated April 25, 2016.
3. Parking : .. -tails are 'not legal'. (Please reference applicable Code requirements for legal
paridng space.) The parking stalls, as exist, are 'not legal' as a portion of each stall is
physically and determined by a recent City survey to be partially in the Park and
partially in the public-right-of-way (Park Place street). City Survey confirms this.
• City needs perform major changes such that an stalls are located within Del Cerro in
any regard in order to conform to the POlJ and to provide a legal park stan that docs
not 'protrude' into the public right of way. Please see the recent City Survey in
which these facts are wen documented. As not provided in this communication, we
request that City Staff provide any/all Survey reference documents identified herein
to Council with sufficient time for Council to read and. review prior to 3/20/18.
4. Approval to decide Parking-Local klmwgement Decision: Please see the letter from
Mr. David Siegethaler ofthe National Park Service, dated March 2017, in which he
states that "parking that fits for the parlc .. is really a local management decision". Mr.
Siegenthaler also notes: "In fact, the original concept plan (POU) for that area had the
parking more within the park": Both of Mr. Siegethaler's comments are significant
with the City being recognized as the "local management dedsion"-maker and the fact
that the POlJ cans for "parking more within the pari~" (a separate parli:ing lot).
• Performing to the original POU seems quite relevant here and a substantial basis of
the City not performing as required. In addition, as the POU states, if there is non-
compliance, the hmd (Hel Cerro Park) can and should then reverted to the
ownership and control of the Department of Interior.
Summary of Important Del Cerro Land Use Facts:
• 1. There are no known historical Building Plans or Public Hearings regarding construction
of parking stalls or parking lot at Del Cerro Park. This tells us that there are no plans for
existing stalls.
• 2. The controlling 'contract' for RPV 'acquiring' what we know today as Del Cerro Park
is the Property transfer Program of Utilization (POU). This is only known document is
the 1976 "Application ... shall constitute the entire agreement" (p. 1) from the City ofRPV
to accept transfer of two (2) pieces of property from the Department of Interior. This
Application ... agreement" document is what some City ofRPV Staff title "Program of
Utilization". One of these pieces is what we know today as Del Cerro Park (the other is
San Vincente).
• In that application, it is clear that parking is quite a distance removed from what is
currently Park Place (street). See the page 25 of this Application agreement". The
parking as identified in the "Application ... agreement" is the then-existing Nike facility
Parking Lot that is accessed from Crenshaw Boulevard. From the 1976 POU document,
the access road existed then to the former parking lot for the Nike site buildings at Del
Cerro Park from Crenshaw Boulevard.
• Most important, on page 18 it is stated AND reinforced as very important as it has been
'circled' by the City ofRPV:
• The existing access drive would be continued' (emphasis added).
• 3. A review of the 1979 grant deed from the Department of the Interior to the City of
RPV indicates no language regarding parking on what is Park Place (street) now at all.
• 4. Further, the 1980 Road Deed for Park Place (street) has no inclusions of any parking
stalls at all either.
• From these seminal documents, it is apparent, as Nicole Jules stated, that the parking stalls
on Park Place (street) have no known documents approving or specifying any stall parking
on Park Place (street). This tells us that there is no "agreement" (known) and no Formal
Public Hearing OR Approval for and/or before RPV residents or RPV City Council.
• From the documents we know now, parking at Del Cerro would and should be entered and
exited on the roadway from Crenshaw to the existing parking lot for the Nike base. As
parking using the existing access and lot is a very clear basis (pages 18 and 25) for the
transfer of the land, and no other known documents relate to parking on Park Place
(street). As there is no mention regarding parking on what is known as Park Place
(street) today in any of the Application Plan or literal transfer Documents, the 1976
document is the primary and the basis for parking at Del Cerro.
].'bird, Non-Performance to RPV Pari< Safety ami Security Policy and Procedure has
created other substantia) Problems for residents of Park Place and an four (4) HOAs
surrounding Del Cerro Park that need be 'fixed' as welt
Public parking at Park Place continues to be a huge issue and more heavy, still, on weekends and
holidays and including most other days during each year. These issues include many vehicles
'queuing' and waiting, U-turns, pedestrian and auto safety concerns as well. Additional signage
and limited enforcement (if it can respond) has not, and believe will not, change human behavior
in this case.
THIS IS DEMONSTRSTED by the Solar Powered Blinking Mobile sign at Del Cerro Park.
This larger Blinking Mobile sign was placed and then removed. Moreover then, the traffic flow
and illegal parking returned being very poor as it was. The Blinking Mobile sign was then
requested to be returned by Park Place residents at the RPV Traffic Committee. On return of the
Blinking Mobile sign, the traffic flow continued. And in a subsequent dispatched Sheriff call on
Jan 5 2020, vehicles and persons entering Park Place (all without a permit) were told to leave by
Deputies Smith and Lopez on that day. Unfortunately, without SheriffDeputies physically
present, the traffic flows continue to be heavy and substantive illegal parking continues as well.
Further, Permit Required signage does not exist on Park Place in any like way as it does for Del
Cerro HOA. For Del Cerro HOA, there are 6 signs that measure 4X the size of those for Park
Place. Park Place signs are stated as being "Standard" by RPV Public Works Director. Yet the
6 signs at entrance to Del Cerro HOA were installed at the same time are 4x the size. IF RPV
states 'Standard' size for Park Place and 4x the size for Del Cerro HOA, then there is significant
NOT EQUAL TREATMENT for Park Place and advantages provided to Del Cerro HOA.
Park Place requests EQUAL TREATMENT.
THERE ARE VERY REASONABLE SOLUTIONS to recommend for Park Place HOA:
1. Return to Crenshaw Blvd alllO spaces for RPV Recreation Permit Parking Only that
had been place there. MOREOVER, remove all Parking stalls from Park Place except 1
Handicap stall. This was voted 5 -0 by City Council to vacate all stalls in March I April
2018. In addition, then install some very low cost mechanism to block parking stalls
(such as metal vertical posts with metal chain that can easily be removed by City). This
would prevent any parking by 'visitors' or Non-Park Place Residents on Park Place and
leave for only access to Residents' homes. Having a chain lock available to open by Park
Place Residents, LA County Fire, etc. would allow for Resident Parking Permit Only to
Park Place Residents and appropriate other access.
2. Add a physical solution barrier gate at Park Place. This physical solution remains an
adjunct viable option - a new Park Place daytime and I or nighttime gate, which now
meets the previously identified criteria (Table 2) for approval. This allows the City
to close Del Cerro at-minimum at night as is done at Ryan and Hesse Parks. Please see
more detail at conclusion of this communication.
3. Change signage to be the same size and number-4x larger than now and 6 signs. This
would be equal to what is placed as those entering Del Cerro HOA. This requires
changing signage and placed for easy and prominent sighting by 'visitors' at Park Place.
Signage needs include very large lettering, as suggested by Katie Lozano, to be painted in
red literally on the street of Park Place (very similar to the red STOP painted on many
streets)
4. Request analysis by RPV City Attorney. Please see more detail at conclusion ofthis
communication.
We view the above Recommendations as collaborative and supportive of each other. And each
has been advocated in past by RPV-most specifically, City Manager, Doug Wilmore.
We see #1 as straightforward and implementable now and taking very short time to see
big measurable positive results. We see #2 as appropriate to Del Cerro Park, particularly at
night, with vacating of parking stalls back to Crenshaw Blvd. Returning the circumstances at
Park Place, the prior used 4 criteria data are different and require a substantive review to move
forward to the Gate that City Manager Doug Wilmore stated to City Council was an acceptable
solution. We see #3 as a must such that 'visitors' will have prominent font size (equal to Del
Cerro HOA) to literally see and read.
We argue that a Gate is strongly supported by:
1. PRIOR RPV Plans in early and middle 2018 for Changes to Park Place including the
installation of a gate. These plans were created by City Public Works and approved by City
Manager Doug Wilmore. These plans were presented to the City Council and City Council
voted 5-0 in favor of removing all parking stalls. . .. and ... further ...
2. Criteria described re: installation of gate (and not fence as presented in the Cal Vehicle Code)
are met. Regarding these criteria, the first is for crime with excess. This is easily demonstrated
by continual resident harassment, assault, trespass, damage to personal property and more in
addition to 1000s of traffic flow, blocking driveways and parking violations at red curbs and
stalls. The continual adverse parking and continuing conditions of Citations required is serious
in that Residents safety (from harassment, trespass, property damage, assault-physical and
verbal) have been experienced continuing and essentially on a daily basis. This is serious to the
peace and enjoyment of immediate Residents on Park Place as well as to the Neighborhood of3
other HOAs to be serviced by Del Cerro Neighborhood Park.
Gate criteria supported as follows:
(1) (A) Serious crime activity include, for example:
-attempted home invasions with aggravating behavior (specific example, recent 5150 arrest of
29-yr old male w knife prior released by Deputies trespassing & attempted invasion on Park Pl.)
-belligerent language and profane gestures provoking physical encounters between Park Place
residents as well as other visitors,
-Physical and Verbal assaults-person(s) to person(s), as well as in large mass by bus loads of
people 'dropped' by bus at Park illegally parked in 7 parking stalls.
-Trespass with $$ physical damages to residents property,
Please know that when Sheriff were contact for many of the above, there was not always a
response and when a response, there were no citations given, arrests made and no formal police
reports.
(1) (B) Serious and continual dumping:
-Furniture and all variety of other household & garage items, car and truck parts, oil & paint,
wood & metal fencing and building materials, all variety of personal items & other belongings.
Please know, also, that when Sheriff were contact for the above, there was not always a response
andwhen a response, there were no citations given or arrests made and no formal police report.
(2) Park Place (street) is not designated as a through highway, etc.
(3) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic contributes to the Crime and Dumping.
(4) Closure ofPark Place with not substantially adversely affect Traffic Flow or Safety on
adjacent streets or surrounding neighborhoods, etc.
All criteria are met for GATE. Please observe that these criteria are not being applied for fence.
Additional comment:
1) Illegal activity-Multiple residents recently report numerous altercations, trespassing with
substantive $$$ damages as well as attempted home invasion, police interventions. Nighttime
parking on Park Place is very accessible and continues to attract questionable activities (ex.
partying with alcohol and drug use, loud noise, bright lights, loud music, larger than allowed and
endangering behavior gatherings). These illegal acts can be stopped by use of a nighttime gate
similar to the precedents set by other parks (as at Ryan, Hesse and others). The gate could
also be automated to not have to pay any person to manually close a manual gate ... or the
responsibility could be transferred to the Park Place Neighborhood Watch Captain and Team,
which is overseen by City ofRPV.
2) City Services Access as with LA County Fire -Fire Gate Access occurs and works well at
1 OOs of other gated streets through RPV. LA County Fire is mandated to remain neutral on
public sector issues such as a decision regarding a specific Gate. Fire personnel at each RPV
Fire Station (53, 56 and 106) all stated a Gate at Park Place would not be an issue for
them. Moreover, as Fire Gate Access occurs throughout RPV, LA County Fire would not be a
part of decision-making suggestions to limited use of a gate. LA County Fire to not support
stated that would require them to seek approval to provide in writing on LA County Fire
letterhead.
3) Approved use of a Gate (not Fence) for nighttime use is permitted in meeting the essence and
spirit of the more stringent criteria for a Fence that a movable Gate, as is a major element at other
major RPV Parks.
Benefits of a gate include:
-Increased safety
-Reduced liability
-Salvaged residents' property rights
-Preserved real estate market value
-Minimal impact to public access and non with RPV Permit Parking returned to Crenshaw as it
was and where it 'worked' quite well and essentially never fully occupied.
Fourth, Extenuating Circumstances of Park Place Uesidcnt fear, emotional distress,
comparative fairness and equitable treatment, in addition to
major loss of property value and Quality of Life.
1. ALL OTHER COMMUNITY AREAS PROXIMATE TO DEL CERRO RECEIVE
RELIEF, BUT NOT PARK PLACE.
• This is not {trir and equal treatment. This also violates the 'en,ioyment residence' as
well as 'rights of ownership' including, most importantly, protection from Park
circumstances that lower (dramatically) property values. Please reference the Steve
Anderson letter to the RPV Traffic Committee (see-"Park Place IIOA Letter to
RPV '[raffic Safety Committee").
• We at Park Place are very hopeful Hmt the solutions discussed with City
Administration (as with POU required parking internal to Del Cerro) wm allow for
the street modifaction of Parli Place to which aU-current residents request. Thank
you so much in advance for your availability, listening to the concerns, and take
strong affirmative actions to protect the few at Pnrk Place that truly need protection
as provided every other of the lOOs of homes and 1000s of residents proximate to Del
Cerro Park
2. FEAR, ANXIOUS & S'.rRESSED-please reference the lOOs of pictures that have
been provided to the City. These give direct evidence of mega! double or triple parking
at resident's driveways (that prevent literal resident ingress to, or egress from, their own
property), illegal parking at red curbs, illegal 'stopping' in the 'public right of way" (the
street) that does not allow for traffic flow and on and on. These 'repeated illegal
parking events' make residents' verv [rightened, anxious and stressed.
• Park Place residents believe strongly in Enjoyable Quality of Life and comparable
property values that do not now exist.
3. PROBLEMS REJMAIN NOT l1VIPROVED
• Residents lives arc so adversely affected and compromised !mowing that when Park
Place residents need to leave or retu nt home, each resident may well be prevented
from doing so by all vehicles (some very large) that drive on Park Place IN A
SINGLE DAY including every F, Sat and Sun and Holidays and most 'work days'
during the week.
• Pictures late at night are particularly important, too, as Park is LEGALLY
CLOSED-yet Park Place stalls have parked vehicles at night (at aH hours-scary) of
every day/night when the Park is legally dosed ... and there are signs stating so. It is
not on(v daytime huge problems ... there are nighttime big :;·q{e(v and assault ami illegal
behaviors on Park Place that are potentially quite dangerous as well (and
uncontrollable at present)
In conclusion, our recmumemlations arc restated here:
We advocate specific recommendations and requests for Park Place.
The First (1st) recommendation is:
1. Return to Crenshaw Blvd all 10 spaces for RPV Recreation Permit Parking Only
that had been place there.
2. MOREOVER, remove all Parking stalls from Park Place except 1 Handicap stall.
This was voted 5-0 by City Council to vacate all stalls in March I April2018.
3. In addition, then install some very low cost mechanism to block parking stalls
(such as metal vertical posts with metal chain that can easily be removed by
City). This would prevent any parking by 'visitors' or Non-Park Place Residents
on Park Place and leave for only access to Residents' homes. Having a chain
lock available to open by Park Place Residents, LA County Fire, etc. would allow
for Resident Parking Permit Only to Park Place Residents and appropriate other
access.
The Second (2nd) recommendation is:
1. Add a physical solution barrier gate at Park Place.
2. This physical solution is for at least nighttime.
3. We also propose that with the stalls removed, we return Park Place to the Right-
of-Way the Park Place was established to be in 1980 to allow access for all
Residents to their homes.
4. Install the a nighttime gate to meet the RPV current policy and practice of a gate
to provide Del Cerro Park protection (as is done at other major traffic Parks in
RPV) and make possible the closing of Del Cerro Park at night for safety and
security. . This allows the City to close Del Cerro at-minimum at night as is
done at Ryan and Hesse etc. Parks
5. Work toward Park Place daytime as well as nighttime gate.
The Third (3rd) recommendation is:
1. Change signage to be the same size and number-4x larger than now and 6 signs.
This would be equal to what is placed as those entering Del Cerro HOA.
2. This requires changing signage and placed for easy and prominent sighting by
'visitors' at Park Place.
3. Signage needs include very large lettering, as suggested by Katie Lozano, to be
painted in red literally on the street of Park Place (very similar to the red STOP
painted on many streets).
The Fourth (4th) recommendation is:
1. Refer to the RPV City Attorney all materials regarding the Program ofUtilization
and the stated, yet non-existing, placement of Parking Lot and Parking entrance
interior to Del Cerro Park as to have been provided. Forward, also, the Park Place
right-of-way Deed and RPV Survey showing stalls partially on the Park Place
right-of-way and partially in Del Cerro Park. Additional data should include Mr.
Steven Anderson's letter, Cory Linder Email describing the limits of a
neighborhood park, full considerations for avoiding all 'mixed-use' of resident
right-of-way' with parking for the Park and Trails. Please include all other
reference materials related thereto as well as included herein.
2. Request the City Attorney to fully review all materials and render analysis as to
why the City is has not followed the POU, created unapproved mixed-use (no
stalls on right-of-way Deed or any other document) et al.
• 'l'Jumks much again for ymn attention to the mess of huge problems dmt needed
fixing months I years ago. "We arc hopeful that this meeting on 3/17/2020 wm bring
swift dosing of traffic I parking.
The Park Place HOA appreciates all that you have done, but there is still more work to do. We
believe other neighboring HOAs would support this approach. We would gladly meet with City
representatives to implement the above parking changes and gate installation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas (Tom) Olson,
Park Place HOA
Neighborhood Watch Captain/Team Member
From: Siegenthaler, David [r]}[Jjlg>_:§!<:~_Y.i9_~i~-g~f1Jb.?.kr..@I1P~!ggy]
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 5:50PM
To: Nicole Jules <f'JJ.fgl~)@_ti! .. Y.t:5J:gQ.I£>
Subject: Re: Rancho Palos Verdes-Del Cerro Park {LADA Nike Site 55 Pt. Vicente 4.49 acre upper
site GSA#9-D-Calif_1088)
Nicole,
Parking is part of the Program of Utilization for the park, so as long as you're providing parking
that fits for the park along with the other ~se City inte~ded foritLyog:r.t:.~imiqJD§,.§l,!\gyyed
public J?9Fk and recreation area purpose. . u'pro~!if~~~)f§~~alfY~,Ipcatmanag·emefflf f,:
decision. I don't see anything in the deed that would provide additional particular limitations and
I don't think there have been LWCF grants at the site have there? In fact, it looks like the
original concept plan for that area had the parking more internal to the park. I guess that might
mean taking some of the open play field area (that people are used to using for that purpose) for
parking -but that's a local decision.
Does that answer it well enough for you for now? I'd be glad to look at different scenarios if you
want, but it's not required that I do so unless you do find that something might contravene the
original intent of an LWCF grant.
Thanks,
David
David Siegenthaler
Pacific West Region
National Park Service
333 Bush Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 941 04-2828
v: :±l:i:(t?J: 23 ;\:+
F: :JI5:923:..z.;h~1
Federal Lands to Parks
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Program
April 25, 2016
VlA E-MAIL
TRAFFIC@ RPVCA.GOV
Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety
Commission
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
stcvcm1ndcrson <f!l quinncnmnucl.com
Re: Park Place HOA Request for RPV Permit Parking for Park Place
Dear Traffic Committee Members:
I am the president of the Park Place Homeowners Association (covering Burrell Lane and Park
Place) since the start of 2016. r want to express on behalf of our HOA how grateful we are for
all the parking restrictions that have been implemented in the past several months by the City-
the red striping on the Crenshaw extension to Burma Road, the red striping on portions of
Crenshaw and the entrance to Park Place, and the provision of RPV permit parking on streets
covered by the Del Cerro and Island View HOAs. These restrictions have eliminated all of the
traffic and congestion on and around the Crenshaw extension and have significantly enhanced
the safety and security of our HOA members on Burrell Lane, as well as for the members of the
Del Cerro and Island View BOAs.
Unfortunately, however, the residents on one street among all of the streets of these three HOAs
have not received the same benefits of safety and security from the new parking restrictions-
those on Park Place. This needs to be rectified by the provision ofRPV permit parking for that
street, as these residents have requested.
An unintended consequence of the new parking restrictions has been to shift to Park Place the
traffic and congestion that had been occurring on and around the Crenshaw extension (e.g .. cars
repeatedly driving the length of the extension looking for a parking spot and then making a three-
point U-turn at the end of the extension to drive back out when no spot was available). I
understand that there has been some discussions on this issue between a member of our HOA on
Park Place, Dr. Thomas Olson, and Ms. Jules. I also understand that Ms. Jules has submitted a
1~)~.·\~'i\'·F!i:"Sil'![iH.JY·.a.:K ~;.--..;...:rJI.\>U,;J'~Z.>J 1,Jj!;···> \'·\l!l"Y 'l·i!C:.~~·a·~ w . .-<::H1f',··r•'"l,!~· '1f(l~h"l"=·~,·i~'.L"11
99'199~092 Un9o7H3(?.:·h,r>: ~>. f!)t-. ·\·~ 1 M ,.,., t''i-..'IIEJ>-1 1 >.r;:):~· • ,w ' HA \r ;H q~,.. :· ~KI\ ~~ '.~:<! '· 1 i i ~.yp··~r, i 1 '· -,~(; 1~c::-r . = r.i~l j·,~;r 1 <;
recommendation to the Committee to deny the Park Place resident's request for RPV permit
parking. l can confirm, however, that concerns with the trallic and congestion on Park Place as a
result of the new parking restrictions implemented by the City are very real.
Indeed, yesterday morning I walked over to Park Place from Burrell at about 10:00 am to
observe for myself the current conditions. In the span of about I 0 minutes, 1 saw approximately
15 vehicles turn from Crenshaw onto Park Place, proceed up the street to look for an open
parking stall (which were all filled), make a U-turn in the tight circle at the end of the street that
abuts the driveways for residences 1 and 3 Park Place, and then proceed back out to Crenshaw.
In addition, while most of these cars were making the U-turn, 1 observed the young children of
our newest HOA member, Benny Da (No.3), who 1 understand are ages 3 and 6, playing at the
end of their driveway within about three feet of the passing cars.
It would be unreasonable to deny that this amount of tratlic flow funneled down Park Place as a
result of the new parking restrictions implemented by the City, and in such close proximity to the
residences on the street, presents a true threat to the safety and security of Park Place residents
and diminishes their rights to the quiet enjoyment of their properties. The only way to remedy
these issues is to grant the Park Place residents' request for RYP permit parking on the street. In
addition, it is in the best interest of all RPY residents for the Committee to grant this relief to
avoid the potential of any liability the City could face should this enhanced traffic tlow caused
by City policies result in injury to residents or others on Park Place.
It is also in the best interest of all RPY residents to ensure that the parking stalls intended for
visitors to Del Cerro Park are available for all RPV residents who wish to enjoy it. When .I first
arrived at Park Place yesterday morning, all of the parking stalls were filled. Yet, I observed
only one family playing in the park and one individual enjoying the view from the cliff. So
clearly, all of the remaining parking stalls were filled by visitors to the Preserve. And, in the
one or two instances when hikers came back from the trailhead of the Preserve and backed out of
a parking stall on Park Place, the people who pulled into the stall right behind them also headed
toward the Preserve. Again, the only way to protect the rights of all RPV residents to visit and
enjoy Del Cerro Park is to grant the Park Place residents' request for RPV permit parking on
Park Place.
Finally, I note that the Harris & Associates report dated April 18, 2016 ("H&A") that was
commissioned by the Committee identifies the covenants and conditions of the property transfer
from the United States that created Del Cerro Park, the first of which is ''[u]se of the property is
specific for public park and recreational purposes." H&A at 2 (Item 4). The report also indicates
that the Del Cerro Park property will "[r]evert to USA if determined .. , [there is a] [b]reach of
any of the conditions and covenants of the property transfer." ld. While I have not researched
this issue, the Committee should consider, fnr the benetit of all residents of RPY, whether the
primary use of the parking stalls on Park Place for visitors to the Preserve rather than visitors to
Del Cerro Park, as currently pennitted by the City, creates a breach of the covenants and
conditions of the property transfer from the United States. Of course, the Committee could
eliminate this risk entirely simply by granting the Park Place residents' request for RPV permit
parking on Park Place.
')<)!)')'J.(~J21Jf/907836.1 2
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Traffic Safety Committee should grant the Park Place
residents' request.
Very truly yours,
Steven M. Anderson
SMA
cc: Nicole Jules, Park Place HOA (all via e-mail)
99999-0921.ll7f)(J78:16. I
99'J9lJ-(}'J21317907836. I 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Please see concern below.
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 16, 2020 3:49 PM
CityCierk
FW: uncertainty regarding RPV CC meeting tomorrow 3/17/20
From: pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: uncertainty regarding RPV CC meeting tomorrow 3/17/20
Hello Katie,
Our HOA and persons from the other Del Cerro Park area HOAs are stating they are not comfortable or feeling safe
attending any gathering such as what would occur tomorrow for RPV CC.
The Center for Disease Control is stating these size meetings should not be held.
I have materials to send to the CC and copy to you -though I'm wondering about City Hall being closed today and if
these materials need be sent if the CC meeting is to be postponed.
I'd appreciate knowing asap as to your suggestions for getting materials to CC now.
Please call 541-0707. A short email reply would be helpful, too, to know more of status for tomorrow.
Thank you.
Tom
1 !
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Please see request below.
-----Original Message-----
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 16, 2020 3:48 PM
CityCierk
FW: T 3/17 cancel request of RPVCC
Follow up
Completed
From: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:12AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; pvpprof <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Subject: T 3/17 cancel request of RPVCC
Hi Ara,
Good morning. As interested participants in Tuesday's 3/17 RPVCC agenda, our HOA does not think it is wise to keep the
scheduled public meeting due to the serious public risk of the virus spreading. We have some senior citizens and others that
wish to speak on some concerning agenda items.
Our membership cannot come due to the circumstances and we then have lost voice to which we are entitled to as City
residents.
Hope you can understand the cautionary predicament everyone is in.
Regards,
Romas Jarasunas
Burrell Lane I Park Place HOA
Sent from my iPhone
1 /.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 16, 2020 8:53 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli
Subject: FW: 3/17/20 Agenda -Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA response to Crenshaw/Portuguese Bend
traffic concerns
LC
From: Romas Jarasunas [mailto:jarasunas@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 7:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net>; pvpprof 01 <pvpprof@gmail.com>
Subject: 3/17/20 Agenda-Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA response to Crenshaw/Portuguese Bend traffic concerns
Dear RPV City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued traffic monitoring in the Crenshaw/Portuguese Bend area. In general, members of our
HOA have observed decent City improvements pushing the congested parking situation away from some of the
neighborhoods and down Crenshaw where there is ample parking. It is our observation that in addition to the
problematic volume of people and cars that continue to exist in the area, Park Place remains to be a major problem for
a variety of reasons, so we hope to expand on the background and present some options for consideration.
For Park Place issues, we will defer to the comments of Dr. Tom Olson, long time resident of that mixed use street,
who has observed multiple first hand negative experiences just in that past few years. He represents others from that
street who share the same concerns and may not have made their comments public. He is an upstanding citizen just
trying to do the right thing and prevent safety and liability disasters just waiting to happen. We also empathize with
Dr. Olson and his neighbors, because this is really unfortunate that their property rights have been compromised. It
may not be widely known, but a resident on that put their house on the market in 2018 and could not sell the property
-their property value has probably plummeted and probably the same with the neighbors and others in RPV who
depend on comparable home values. We hope the City Council addresses Dr. Olson's serious comments that have
been observed on that street.
From what we observe on the from the other side of Del Cerro Park (Burrell Lane), public parking at Park Place
continues to be an issue on weekends (ex. lots of queuing, U-turns, pedestrian vs. auto safety concerns). Additional
signage and enforcement have not and believe will not change human behavior in this case. As previously stated in
front of the RPV City Council, there is continuous questionable nighttime activity from people conveniently driving
in and parking (ex. headlights, music, gathering, noise, alcohol/drug use, litter, found used condoms). Enforcement is
occasionally seen, but this has being ongoing for years.
A physical solution remains the next viable option -a new Park Place daytime and I or nighttime gate, which now
meets the previously identified criteria for approval (see Dr. Olson's letter for met criteria). The precedent set by
Ryan, Hesse and other RPV Parks is a good solution to follow. Please note that in previous discussions, City
Manager, Doug Wilmore, stated to the City Council that this was an acceptable solution.
Benefits of a gate include:
-Unquestionable public and resident safety
-Reduced liability (which will offset any gate costs)
-Salvaged residents' property rights
-Preserved real estate market value in all RPV
1
-Minimal impact to public access
The Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA appreciates all that you have done, but there is still more work to do. Please
consider Dr. Olson's comments and suggestions, like some form of a gate or street modifications, for the sake ofRPV
public safety and reduced liability. We would gladly meet with City representatives to discuss any future options.
Regards,
Romas J arasunas
Burrell Lane & Park Place HOA
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 8:51 AM
Nathan Zweizig To:
Subject: FW: March 17th City Council Meeting Agenda Item # 1, Update on Public Parking Measures for
Portuguese Bend Reserve
LC
From: Del Cerro HOA [mailto:DeiCerro_HOA@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 1:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: AI & Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>
Subject: March 17th City Council Meeting Agenda Item# 1, Update on Public Parking Measures for Portuguese Bend Reserve
Honorable Mayor Cruikshank and Council Members,
Del Cerro HOA wants to thank you for requesting an update on the effectiveness of preserve access, parking, and
traffic measures that the city has implemented over the past five years to mitigate the impact on our neighborhood
of the large number of visitors to the nature preserve adjacent to Del Cerro homes. And we want to express our
appreciation of the City Recreation and Parks and Public Works staff who have worked closely with our HOA to
successfully implement measures requested by the HOA and approved by the Council. Katie Lozano's staff report
contains an excellent and comprehensive discussion of actions taken to date. We are extremely grateful to the City
for your continued efforts in looking for ways to improve conditions and for monitoring results for effectiveness.
Overall, the following City actions have greatly improved the peace and quiet in the neighborhood:
• Red-striping along the Del Cerro side of Crenshaw Blvd. has greatly improved the traffic flow along Crenshaw
-by allowing additional space between the parallel parking spaces and traffic lanes for cars to pull into
parking spaces while still allowing traffic to flow smoothly through the area.
• Establishing permit parking in Del Cerro has virtually eliminated preserve visitor parking within the
neighborhood, improving the safety of traffic flow and access to homes within Del Cerro-and reducing the
associated noise and disturbance of the neighborhood peace and quiet.
• Prohibition of night-time parking on Crenshaw (from 1 hour after sunset to 1 hour before sunrise) has helped
to reduce the number of hikers entering the preserve at night after the preserve is closed as well as night-
time visitors to Del Cerro Park. However, the parking restrictions alone have not completely eliminated the
night-time visitors, as that would likely require round-the-clock enforcement which we recognize is not an
efficient use of City resources.
We request that priority be placed on the following actions previously approved by the Council, but not yet
implemented:
• We request that tall gates at the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail trail heads be installed to prevent entrance
into the preserve after hours, as approved by the City Council July 31, 2018 (for the Burma Rd. gate) and
January 15, 2019 (for the Rattlesnake Trail gate). We understand that purchasing obstacles and legal issues
have impeded progress on this project. However, without the gates in place, visitors still enter the preserve
late at night and especially in the early morning hours. Visitors arrive as early as 4:30am (even in winter)
almost every day of the week carrying flashlights, s:amming vehicle doors, locking doors/setting alarms w~
associated horn honks, and talking loudly-awakening neighbors who live along the ocean side of Oceana ire
and the first homes on Amber Sky. On weekends, holidays and even regular weekdays, parking spaces on
Crenshaw Blvd. are often full by 6 am. The gates would prevent entrance into the preserve during closed
hours but allow exit in case someone stays in the preserve after closing time. This action will greatly reduce
the number of visitors who remain in the preserve well beyond closing time without requiring additional
personnel to enforce opening and closing times. It would also help to prevent entrance during rain closures
and reduce the risk of damage to the trails and habitat during that time. During our many discussions with
City staff, to ease the workload of the staff in opening and closing the gate, our residents have committed to
helping to close the gates at the appropriate time at least two evenings a week and are willing to perform
those tasks more often, if needed.
• Once the gates are installed, we request that the gates remain closed until sunrise (rather than the current
policy of opening one hour before sunrise) and that the gates be locked at sunset while allowing visitors to
remain in the preserve until one hour after sunset. (The current policy would require closing the gate one
hour after sunset, allowing people to enter just as the preserve is closing and staying in for an extended time
after that.) The later opening will help to reduce the late night and early morning noise that often disturbs
residents. The shortened hours were included in the late-night amended motion that the Council passed on
January 15, 2019 to approve a revised preserve night hike policy; however, it is our understanding that City
staff was concerned that this change was not sufficiently communicated to the general public to enable
public input from other affected parties before the decision was made. As a result, we are requesting that
the Council confirm that decision.
Most importantly, we ask the City to continue to search for places to open new trailheads or enhance existing
trail heads away from residential neighborhoods with free entrance and parking to help reduce the number of
visitors who pass through the Burma Rd. trailhead -and to re-direct internet searches for Palos Verdes trails to other
trailheads away from residential neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact Kathy Edgerton, President of Del Cerro HOA (alnkathye@msn.com or 310-544-7390}.
Del Cerro HOA Board
AI & Kathy Edgerton, President
Gregory MacDonald, Vice President
Miriam Varend, Secretary
Dion Hatch, Treasurer
Mark Kernen
Amy & Jeff Wang
Bharathi Singh
2
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
March 17, 2020 Meeting:
Item: Regular Business #2
Late Correspondence
SG Small Wireless Facilities: Master Deployment Plan
Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro-Tem Alegria, Members Dyda, Bradley,
Ferraro
1. It is my pleasure to agree with the importance of RPV having a
plan to accommodate oncoming SG communications.
2. Councilman Bradley would be the ideal person to head up our
efforts. His Planning Commission contributions have brought us
to this point.
3. The comment 'The initial step in developing a master deployment
plan is to identify the locations where the services are not
provided or the signals are weak ... 'and the method to determine
these is proposed is a critical pt step.
4. 5G signals are different from 4G in many ways, particularly 5G's
shortened signal range. 5G's need for substantially more
antennae will impact the location study and I'm sure Councilman
Bradley can address this.
5. It is my firm belief that you should, at this meeting, commit to not
only receive and file but to give direction that staff report back in
3 months with this 'no or weak' signal map of our city. Do not let
this be dragged it out. It is the keystone for future steps.
6. Realize 5G will not be in RPV for probably 2-4 years at the earliest.
It is being introduced where development I implementation
expense can easily be recovered and that is not residential.
Thank you for this consideration. And thank you for your service
your community!
Bob Nelson
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
March 17, 2020 Meeting:
Item: Regular Business #5
Late Correspondence
CaiPers Presentation: Thought
Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro-Tem Alegria, Members Dyda, Bradley,
Ferraro
1. Pension costs /liabilities are usually the unmentioned elephant in
most cities budget.
2. You deserve the best possible information. This includes
independent, up-to-date information so you can plan ahead
without sudden surprises.
3. Key staff report words: 'benefit changes that resulted in the
increase in the city's unfunded liability.'
4. So what is RPV's current unfunded liability and future projection?
5. 'Current' means current. Not stale data.
6. In your business, would you accept a financial report based on 2
year-old data? If you did, you would probably be accepting it from
a soon-to-be ex-employee!
7. As you have been told, city's like PVE have employed pension
consultants at no charge to present current I future situation.
8. Do so here.
9. STAFF WANTS YOU TO DIRECT A DRAFT PENSION POLICY-CAN'T
THAT INCLUDE SUCH AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF WHAT YOU
FACE BUDGETWISE?
10. If you proceed as staff wants, you will ignore the reality of your
current, not stale data, situation.
11. Remember, pension liability is your citizens pubic liability, it will
be paid regardless of any fiscal chaos our future brings. Even
bankruptcy does not void pension liability or payments.
Thank you for this consideration. And thank you for your service your
community!
Bob Nelson
~'
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
March 17, 2020 Meeting:
Item: Regular Business #7
Late Correspondence
Amending Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Exemption Category 1 U'
Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro-Tem Alegria, Members Dyda, Bradley,
Ferraro
1. It is my pleasure to agree with Staff report permitting 48
Cinnamon Lane to be developed on the same terms as Exception
Category 1 P2.'
2. This action will close a currently existing dichotomy in
development standards, aligning 48 Cinnamon development with
the standards adopted for our 31 undeveloped lots in Zone 2.
3. This action will close the book on what has been years of effort by
both our city and this property owner to provide housing in
Portuguese Bend.
4. With our city facing state Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) quotas that will be significantly challenging, all avenues of
housing availability are needed, including Portuguese Bend,
auxiliary dwelling units, junior auxiliary dwelling units and Zone 2
lot splits.
Thank you for this consideration. And thank you for your service
your community!
Bob Nelson
7.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:37 PM
Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig
FW: Western Avenue Enhancement (Agenda Item #8)
From: Elizabeth Hoffman [mailto:Eiizabeth.Hoffman@csulb.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement (Agenda Item #8)
Dear Members of the City Council,
Regarding the City Council's upcoming March 17th consideration of Item #8, the Western Avenue enhancement
plan:
I am concerned that the City Council might approve a design plan before addressing some of the major issues on
Western: traffic mitigation, the wall on Western Avenue between Green Hills and Toscanini Drive, and
undergrounding of the utilities. I understand that these are major and expensive issues but they should be
addressed before we worry about landscaping. When we do get to landscaping, please make the landscaping
consistent with other areas on our Peninsula instead of looking at other cities. And PLEASE don't waste money on
such things as benches, and "decorative finishes" on sidewalks, and especially banners!
Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth Hoffman
2117 Avenida Aprenda
Rancho Palos Verdes
Member of Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association Board
1
8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:33 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: Western Avenue improvement
From: Bea Jamshidian [mailto:bjamshidian@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:27AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue improvement
Dear council members,
For several years now we have been hearing about improvements for Western Avenue. In review of the submittals I don't see
any mention of burying the electrical poles underground which are extremely unsightly. The second major unsightly problem
we have are the existing block walls which should be all uniform.
I propose the landscape trees to be Date palms, Palo Verde, or California pepper trees with drought plants and decomposed
granite to cover the dirt.
No additional benches should be installed as we already have a problem major problem with the homeless sleeping on them.
Any changes to the benches should be those which have separate seats to discourage anyone from sleeping on them.
Thank you
Bea Jamshidian
Galerita Drive
1 B.
Bob Nelson March 17, 2020 Meeting:
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Item: Regular Business #8
Late Correspondence
Western Avenue: Proposal to Receive Presentation on Enhancing
Aesthetics
Mayor Cruikshank, Mayor Pro-Tem Alegria, Members Dyda, Bradley,
Ferraro
1. No. Aesthetics are not the problem, moving traffic is.
2. Staff wants you to 'place the project in the upcoming Capital
Improvement Projects budget,' ie, put money in aesthetics.
3. Kill this now. Say, 'Thank you but we have other CIP needs.'
4. Some of you were not involved with our prior Western Avenue
beautification presentations which called Western a 'destination,'
not the 'thoroughfare' it is. FYI:
5. LA Councilman Buscaino, our city manager and Jim Knight as
Mayor appeared before our Planning Commission one night for a
couple of hours. A barely understandable consultant made a
lengthy, 40 page presentation (and was never asked back!).
Highlights:
a. Streetcars between Summerland and PVDN!
b. Bike paths (told the only way to get outside money for this)
c. Moved store fronts to the sidewalk!
d. All sorts of filigree (chairs, plantings, etc.)
e. Totally ignored reality:
1. Western is a thoroughfare, never will be a destination,
ii. Need to move traffic-not beautify the route,
iii. 700 homes are being built opposite Green Hills and will
impact traffic,
iv. Involves 3 agencies: RPV, LA, CaiTrans-our
Commission could not fathom just coordinating these
meetings, not to say anything about reaching
agreements,
v. Will be a not-needed, decades -long, consultant-staffs
gravy train in the tens of millions of dollars. Something
RPV doesn't need.
6. As Chair, I received well-targeted broadsides from my fellow
Commissioners for violating the 3 minute speaking rule for these
folks! Buscaino and Doug spoke for over 15 minutes each, Jim
held himself to around 10 minutes. The consultant went on and
on, as consultants are want to do! And LA Planning staff was there
and commented. But the trolley cars, bike paths, ignorance of
traffic flows or our consultant trying to estimate his future
monetary requirements made our evening almost a Saturday
Night Live skit as pieces of paper flew about or Commission with
various exclamations.
7. Obviously, I will support efforts to improve moving the traffic but
this proposal is a waste of staff time and our money. We have
enough projects in RPV's hoper demanding millions to complete.
8. I urge you to kill this right now but ask staff for a study to you in
3 months detailing how to move more traffic on Western. Public
Works' Traffic Consultant team can do this expeditiously and
professionally.
Thank you for this consideration. And thank you for your service
your community!
Bob Nelson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 16, 2020 12:32 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Western Avenue improvements
From: Jeanne Lacombe [mailto:rpvjeanne@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue improvements
Good morning!
I'm planning on attending the March 17th meeting, however, if it gets closed to the public I wanted to make sure my
comments were considered.
Any comments in this email are my personal opinions and not the opinions of any board or committee that I am
currently serving on.
I was on the Western Avenue Vision Committee that Council member Anthony Misetich started. I was the only
resident on the committee and I was representing over 500 active Rolling Hills Riviera HOA members. I held
monthly meetings, did outreach through our monthly newsletter and took surveys regarding Western Avenue.
There is a lot of information available regarding Western A venue and what happened on the committee, during
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. I hope that past mistakes won't be repeated. I hope that this council
will make Western Avenue improvements a priority. There are so many great businesses that bring in significant tax
money for the city and it is time to invest in beautifying our area. I believe our city staff is very capable and talented
and would be able to move forward on this project without hiring an out of town consultant.
The number one issue with Western Avenue is traffic. I recall there was supposed to be a traffic study done in 2015. I
haven't heard of one being completed though. There needs to be a traffic study as well as a study of parking lot
usages, bicycle traffic and pedestrian traffic studies as well. This will identify demand and usage needs. For example
the traffic going Northbound on Western turning into the Terraces shopping center back up traffic on Western and
cause a hazard at the Capitol and Western A venue intersection. The timing of signals needs to be addressed as
well. At Sam the signal at Green Hills automatically turns red for Western Avenue traffic even though the cemetery
is closed and no traffic needs to enter or exit. There are numerous complaints about the A venida Aprenda intersection
in our neighborhood which is very poorly designed since we have high traffic due to Dodson Middle School. Also
the Crestwood intersection signaling is poor because Eastbound drivers doesn't always know they have the right of
way. I rarely see bicycles or pedestrians along Western Avenue.
Utilities. Have you noticed the San Pedro side has underground utilities? Putting utilities underground should be the
first thing that gets done on Western A venue. That alone would be a huge improvement!
Rolling Hills Riviera HOA mismatched wall along Western. I'm very small but it would be easy for me to pull down
some of those sections of concrete block wall because it is in such poor shape. Each section of wall is owned by each
individual homeowner. My suggestion is to get permission from each homeowner to remove and replace their wall at
the expense of the city as part of this beautification process. Everyone driving on Western has to look at chain link,
white vinyl, pink and tan block walls all within a half mile! If the utilities were underground, there would be plenty
1 (5?,
of room to build a new wall on public property That way the city has full control of the wall in the future. If the city
doesn't want to incur the expense of removing the existing walsl, then a new wall can be built right in front of the old
wall. That will still leave room for a sidewalk and new planter areas near the curb.
Benches. Homeless already utilize bus benches and areas around businesses on Western Avenue. If you install
benches in plaza areas or "areas of repose", only homeless will use them. Benches and tables were put in along a new
walkway and green space on Gaffey and only homeless use those benches and tables. Western Avenue is a very busy
noisy street and it is not pleasant to sit outside along Western A venue. I'm against benches.
Landscaping. I was disappointed to see images of other cities in the staff report as examples of landscaping design. I
would like to see landscaping that is consistent or at least complimentary to other places in our city. Our Delasonde
Ave entrance area to our neighborhood is beautiful and very low maintenance with Palo Verde trees and drought
resistant plants. The landscaping at the Terraces looks very nice as well. The landscaping along PV Drive South is
also beautiful with drought resistant plants and Hawthorne Blvd has lots of mature pine trees. It would be
disappointing to see the mature pine trees on Western removed. Please limit gravel and rock landscaping
designs. We live in a beautiful coastal community not Phoenix AZ. I think palm trees are a poor choice, even date
palms, and are rarely found along the streets ofRPV. They are very high maintenance and they drop hard seeds or
fronds.
Flags and banners. RPV needs to have a cohesive appearance throughout the city and that includes Western
Avenue. I think flags and banners that are displayed 24/7look tacky and not found in the rest of the city. I
recommend nice street lights and decorations for the holidays. I also think the signs for businesses should be
improved and more appealing.
Encourage businesses to invest in beautifying their buildings/entrance signs and parking lots. Perhaps outreach to
those owners and waiving fees for permits would help.
Bike lanes. San Pedro and the City of LA want dedicated bike lanes on Western. I would agree but with only the
following restrictions. Only if street parking was eliminated and if the bike lanes look like the rest of the bike lanes in
RPV and not the bike lanes in the city of San Pedro (like the ones on Westmont). Due to the high traffic and all the
business parking lots accessing Western, I would like to see signals for bicyclists like they have on Harbor Drive in
Redondo (near the RB pier).
Street parking should be eliminated on Western Avenue for both sides of Western Avenue including San Pedro. Most
of the vehicles parked along Western have for sale signs on them which degrades the area.
Thank you for all your time and all you do for our city!
Jeanne Lacombe
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
LC
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 16, 2020 8:54 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli
FW: comments re Western Ave. Beautification
3-17-2020 re Western Beautification.pdf
From: Barbara Sattler [mailto:bsattler@igc.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 10:15 PM
To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@ rpvca .gov>
Cc: AI <alsattler@igc.org>
Subject: comments re Western Ave. Beautification
Attached please find our comments on this Agenda item.
AI & Barbara Sattler
8.
1
March 15, 2020
re: Western Avenue "Beautification"
Dear Mr. Razepoor,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal for "Western Beautification".
Staffs comment that the street "was designed to accommodate automobile use, with a notable
poor pedestrian experience." applies to the whole length of Western within Rancho Palos
Verdes, not just the commercial cluster on the south end. The northern end is equally
unfriendly to pedestrian use.
Beautification of Western Avenue is of far less importance than making some real efforts to
make Western more pedestrian friendly. Benches, trash cans, various decorations and plants
are all very nice, but they do not address the core problem of why Western Avenue does not
support more pedestrian use. Generally there is rarely any well-designed dedicated safe
pedestrian access to the various shopping centers along Western Avenue. The driveways to
such shopping centers cut across the sidewalks without any hint that drivers should yield right
of way to pedestrians. Pedestrians must be on high alert at such locations which is not
comfortable or safe.
Improved plantings would be a nice change. However, please do not fall back on the tired
cliche of palm trees. Palm trees
• provide very little shade,
• are unlikely to benefit air quality as much as leafy shade trees,
• are hazardous in windy storms because of large heavy falling fronds,
• are hazardous vectors of fire,
• are hazardous to tree trimmers who must maintain them,
• harbor populations of rats and crows.
Please offer other tree options to the city and give higher consideration to pedestrian safety.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alfred & Barbara Sattler
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, March 16, 2020 8:50 AM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: Western Avenue Enhancement
From: Margaret Spinelli [mailto:mgt.spinelli@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 5:12 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Bill Spinelli <wmspinelli48@gmail.com>
Subject: Western Avenue Enhancement
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am pleased that the issues of the Western Avenue entrance to the
east side of RPV are to be addressed at the upcoming City Council
meeting. However, I have concerns that the proposed upgrades are
only superficial, temporary improvements. For years the residents
have been asking for the city to address the "ugly" block wall situation
between Green Hills and Toscanini and yet we have not ever had a
resolution. Traffic mitigation is also a top priority especially with the
new construction.
I am aware that our area issues are unique to the Peninsula due to the
shared responsibility of the Western Avenue corridor with LA and
CaiTrans. However, I certainly hope that any improvements will be
consistent with the rest of the entrances into the city. Landscaping
would be lovely but only if there is funding provided for maintenance
biweekly or at a minimum of monthly. Currently, there is a quarterly
maintenance schedule and it is poorly serviced even when
completed. I am not sure anyone supervises the quality of work.
When considering the design plan please note the following:
Replacing the concrete median with low level plants needs to
include watering and weed and trash removal
1 8.
Palm trees are beautiful but also need to be maintained so that
fronds are not falling onto a very busy highway
Low voltage lighting would highlight the new landscaping at night.
Sidewalk benches need to be replaced at the bus stops in such a
way that they do not become beds for the homeless. We do not need
additional benches as people do not sit on Western Avenue for
pleasure
Before sidewalks receive decorative finishes the wall needs to
replaced. No amount of decorative touches is going to look nice with
the wall as a backdrop
Thank you for your consideration of your Eastview residents' needs.
Margaret Spinelli
1916 Galerita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Nasser Razepoor
Friday, March 13,2020 9:17AM
metzler.roger@gmail.com
CityCierk
FW: Western Avenue Beautification Options
WesternAve_BeautificationComments_2020.pdf
Your letter will be included as a late correspondence for this item.
Thanks,
Nasser Razepoor, PE
Associate Civil Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5307
From: Roger Metzler <metzler.roger@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 3:34PM
To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Beautification Options
Mr. Razepoor,
I appreciate the opportunity to submit my input to your beautification project. They are attached.
Roger Metzler
metzler.roger@gmail.com
1
8.
Mr. Razepoor,
I am a resident of the Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhood, off of Western A venue, just south of
Green Hills Cemetery. I would like to offer some input regarding the Western Avenue
Beautification Options that will be presented to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on March
13.
I believe the highest priority regarding Western A venue is to optimize traffic flow as much as
possible. As the Ponte Vista development progresses and the new homes become populated the
traffic on Western will only become worse. Measures that can decrease congestion and promote
the flow of traffic should be implemented. One specific measure is the timing of traffic signals.
Currently, the traffic signal at Green Hills Drive is on a regular, timed cycle. It turns red for
traffic on Western when there is no traffic exiting Green Hills Drive. This causes a backup and
an unnecessary obstruction to the flow of traffic along Western. Similarly, when the new traffic
signal is installed at Peninsula Verde Drive and becomes operative, it is imperative that it not be
on a regular, timed cycle, but that it only turns red to Western A venue to allow egress of traffic
from Peninsula Verde. This same imperative can be applied to other signals on Western. I realize
that the management of traffic signals along Western is not under control of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, but the input and authority of the RPV City Council should be utilized to influence
the entity that does manage the timing of these traffic signals.
Conversely, measures that increase congestion and discourage the flow of traffic should be
discarded. This includes the narrowing or removal of traffic lanes, implementation of pedestrian
walkways, and especially installation of bike lanes.
I would suggest that the implementation of any beautification options catering to pedestrians is
unnecessary and a waste of money. Western A venue is not a pedestrian thoroughfare; it is an
automobile thoroughfare. Such features as benches would not be utilized enough to justify their
cost, and would probably just be vandalized or fall into disrepair. If benches existed, I submit
that they would seldom be used. Pedestrians aren't going to sit on a bench and breathe in the
exhaust fumes from the cars and trucks.
The correct types and mix of landscaping features could be used effectively to improve the
appeal of Western Avenue, and perhaps even promote a "calming effect" on frazzled motorists.
The ugly, messy, misshapen trees that were planted several years ago on the west side of the
street from the northern border of the Ponte Vista property to Palos Verdes Drive North are NOT
what I have in mind. Rather the low, flowery shrubbery, such as that planted in the median along
Palos Verdes Drive South from the San Pedro border to Trump National; and the median
landscaping in Palos Verdes Estates north of Golden Cove Plaza are much more attractive.
Western A venue will never have the ocean view that those stretches of roadway offer, but at
least similar landscaping could be installed!
I appreciate the opportunity to submit my input to your beautification project. Good luck on your
efforts. I look forward to their fruition.
Roger Metzler
1921 A venida Feliciano
Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Nasser Razepoor
Sent:
To:
Friday, March 13, 2020 9:13 AM
Ralph Appy
Cc: CityCierk
Subject: RE: Western Avenue Improvements
Thanks for reaching out to us.
Your email will be included as a late correspondence for this item.
Thanks,
Nasser Razepoor, PE
Associate Civil Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5307
Fax: 310-544-5292
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Appy <r.appy@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:20PM
To: Nasser Razepoor <nrazepoor@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Western Avenue Improvements
I thought there were going to be bike lanes added to Western at some point.
The present beautification doesn't address the real danger to bikers along this unavoidable route?
I commented on an earlier project that accomplished this ... what happened?
Ralph Appy
28615 Mt. Whitney Way
RPV,90275
1 8.