The URL can be used to link to this page

20201020 Late CorrespondenceFrom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: See below Cory Linder Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:32 PM CityCierk Daniel Trautner; Matt Waters; Katie Lozano FW: Parking on Crenshaw From: Janet Mock <janetlmock@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:25 PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Parking on Crenshaw Hello, I sent my letter regarding parking on Crenshaw to cc@rpvca.gov October 12th. I do not see it listed in the agenda. Can you please include it? Thank you, Janet Mock Thank you, Janet Mock Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Janet Mock <janetlmock@aol.com> Date: October 12,2020 at 11:18:58 AM CDT To: cc@rpvca.gov Subject: Parking on Crenshaw Dear Members of the City Council, I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes for 38 years, and have resided in Island View for the past 28 years. I have always enjoyed our quiet neighborhood, and walks to Del Cerro Park. Since the popularity of the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy has grown, the quality of life in the local neighborhoods has diminished. Hikers that come have little regard for the rules and regulations of the park or city. There is little respect or consideration given the residents living around the Preserve. They hike at all hours, park where ever they choose, and trespass onto private property. They make dangerous u-turns, and double park while trying to I find open parking spaces. There is also much more trash on the road side, and in 1 ~ Del Cerro Park. They have trampled through Island View shrubbery, which has to be replaced at the expense of the Island View Homeowners Association. The Rattlesnake trail head, used to be 3 feet wide. It is now 30 feet wide due to constant use. Hikers also trespass onto Island View's park and tennis courts to use the stairs. I have counted as many as 15 people loitering in the park. Now, a fence has to be built, at Island View's expense, to enforce the law and protect the homeowners against any liability. Crenshaw was never meant to be a parking lot. As a local tax payer, I am asking the City Council to please help us, and find alternative parking for the hikers. I ask that you eliminate parking south of Crest in order to relieve the traffic congestion in our neighborhoods. Although non-residents have the right to visit and enjoy the beauty of the peninsula, they do not have to right to take over our neighborhoods, and diminish our quality of life. Please support the local taxpayers and protect our neighborhoods! Respectfully yours, Janet Mock 35 Santa Barbara Dr J anetlmock@aol.com 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:43 PM CityCierk FW: PORTUGUESE BEND PRESERVE From: jessica <jessboop@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:16 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: PORTUGUESE BEND PRESERVE DEAR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE A PROFESSIONAL STUDY SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THE CONGESTION THAT IS OCCURRING DUE TO VISITATION TO OUR BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. THERE ARE NEW TRAILS OPENING SOON WITHIN THE TRUMP/OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT, BOTH CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN. WITH THE COVID SITUATION, MORE AND MORE PEOPLE WANT TO BE OUTSIDE WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES. WE ARE NOW ON THE "MAP" SO TO SPEAK. WE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. WOULD YOU RATHER BE HERE OR INLAND? SO, WE NEED TO REEVALUATE OUR TRAIL SYSTEM, PRESERVES, OUR PARKS, OUR PARKING TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS, THEIR PRIVACY, TRANQUILITY AND THE ABILITY TO MOVE ABOUT EASILY AND FREELY. WE HAVE GROWN VERY FAST, AND NOW WITH THE TRUMP DEVELOPMENT FINISHING ITS PROJECT AND 22 OR MORE NEW HOMES PLANNED. WE ARE GETIING VERY CROWDED. THERE IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT OF ABOUT 700 HOMES COMING IN OFF WESTERN AVENUE. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE OUR DEVELOPMENT, NEVER MIND PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THE AREA! I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT RUSH INTO ANY DECISION WITHOUT A THOROUGH REVIEW. AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES HERE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT GETIING OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY TAKES MUCH MORE TIME THEN IT USED TO. WE NEED MORE PARKING, HOWEVER, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE OFF SIGHT, AWAY FROM THE COAST AND PEOPLE COULD BE SHUTILED IN THEREBY ELIMINATING SO MUCH CROWDING ON THE STREETS. AS A REMINDER, PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH IS ONE LANE EACH WAY .. THAT IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH RIGHT NOW; WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT HOMES ARE COMPLETED. GOD FORBID THERE WERE AN EMERGENCY (AN EVACUATION, AN EARHTHQUAKE, ETC) HOW WOULD WE GET OUT. WE DO NOT NEED MORE TRAFFIC! PLEASE THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT THIS. OUR LIVES ARE IN YOUR HANDS; OUR EVERYDAY ENJOYMENT IS IN YOUR HANDS. THINK OF YOUR RESIDENTS! 1 I THANK YOU, JESSICA LEEDS 818 399 2408 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dawn Fulton Redondo Beach, CA Dawn Fulton <dawnmarief5@gmail.com> Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:53 PM CityCierk Dawn Fulton Tonight's Meet re; Parking Public lands access is one of the most vital issues concerning the conservation and preservation of public lands. Without accessibility, the land remains not an integral aspect of a community's life but an enclosed space for only those with the means to access it. Los Angeles County's funding of Portguese Bend requires non-discrimination in part of the jurisdictions and organizations that manage it. Two of these factors include disability and place of residence. A parking fee of $30 or more is not simply a nominal fee required by an area to provide for public safety (ie. a parking meter or low cost pay-to-park scheme) but rather is evidently prohibitive in who can have access. Those who do not have to pay are those who have parking at their residence-the majority white community that populates the entirety of the Palos Verdes Peninsula (less than 11% of residents are black or Iatino). This also includes indigenous people who regard the area as a cultural homeland and are not represented in the population who would be able to readily access Portuguese Bend without restriction. Red lining is not in the best interest of public safety. Thank you for your consideration. 1 ;. From: Katie Lozano Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:20 PM CityCierk Subject: FW: Oct City Council meeting tonight -----Original Message----- From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:18PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Oct City Council meeting tonight I appreciate the hours change for the present to open at 7 and close 1 hr after sunset. I wanted to underscore the dangers of Gateway Park as an unrealistic parking solution for the Preserve and encourage parking in the PVPUSD lot as a viable alternative . Thank you, Diane Mills President, Ladera Linda Homeowners Association 310-714-1167 dianebmills@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Enyssa, Enyssa Memoli Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:18 PM Teresa Takaoka CityCierk Kristen Zaleski If you have time, here is my comment: I have been an avid hiker of the RPV Porteguse Bend Reserve as well as have used the park at night to star gaze for important solar events in our night sky for almost two decades. I have taught my daughter since she was a child, now 10, the importance of outdoor space and have used the park to show her how wildflowers bloom in the Spring and how whales migrate. This park is a part of the community, paid for by our community, and should be widely available to the community in which it serves. Taking away parking in the manner in which you describe is not upholding the tenets of this park's creation. Please do not allow parking to be taken away from our community members. Further, I would like to note that I put in my request for public recording last week. I only received instruction on how to do this this morning at 8:30a.m. This too, seems to be limiting community engagement. Thanks for listening. Kristen Zaleski Hermosa Beach CA Thanks, City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website 1 I From: Katie Lozano Sent: To: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 8:02AM CityCierk Subject: FW: Request for minutes Is it too late for this late carr? From: akira kugaya <akug2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:37 PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Request for minutes I seemed to mix up the date. If you allow me to provide a comment that I missed the opportunity today, one idea is to shuttle visitors from the Promenade mall parking to the park. Sincerely, Akira Kugaya On Tuesday, October 20, 2020, 10:47 AM, akira kugaya <akug2000@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Ms Lozano, I unfortunately missed the October 20 City Council Meeting and wonder where the results of discussion or minutes of recent meetings can be found. Please advice. Also if you can advise how to be kept posted on upcoming meetings. Thank you for working for our city and the nature. Sincerely, Akira Kugaya, MD Sent from iPhone 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK OCTOBER 20, 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. D 1 Description of Material Comments from City Attorney's office Minutes from October 13, 2020 Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Quarterly Public Forum; Code and Fine Schedule Email exchanges between Senior Analyst Waters and: Bryan Bergsteinsson; Jackson Foster; Joseph Symond; Sylvia Macia; Bill and Marty Foster; Laura Fettig; Mary Stuart; Nancy Rey; Joann Gioia; Mickey Radich; Robert Moore; Carolyn Bumatay; Naveen Agrawal; Colin Schultz; Machika Yasuda; Charlotte Fagan; Diane and Troy Slome; Michael Ozawa; Ashley Kruythoff; Elizabeth Lawton Kuriakose; Jon Christensen; Christopher Cox; Mie Fricano; Victor Poon; James Florez Email exchanges between Senior Analyst Lozano and: Dorie and Brooks Emails from: Guri Otterlei; Miriam Varend; Gerard and Mary Melling; Deb Seal; Jill Klausen; Kim Lindsey; Lucy Melling; Donald Bell; Janet Mock 3 Email from Kathy Campbell **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, September 19, 2020**. Re~mitted, Emily Colborn L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20201020 additions revisions to agenda.docx From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good afternoon, Jaehee Yoon Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:15 PM CityCierk dalehanks FW: Noncommercial Antenna_Draft Ord._City Council Meeting Please include the following email from theCA's office as late correspondence to consent item no. D. Thank you. Jaehee From: Christy M. Lopez <clopez@awattorneys.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:26 PM To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Noncommercial Antenna_Draft Ord._City Council Meeting Jaehee-Here are my thoughts regarding the comments. C2e-This language was intentional. Since guy wires can be unsightly, they have to be approved by the PC. But if the City is so inclined to allow them with Director approval for those under 41 feet, I can propose language. (If the City chooses to add the language I will need to ask Bill about whether he wants it to go back to the PC.) C2i-This issue was raised at the PC level, we sought direction from the PC (e.g. when not in use in excess of 4 hours) but they declined to add the language. C2k -I do not recommend deleting or amending. To the extent this becomes an issue, it can be dealt with on a case by case basis. From a legal perspective, a bank refinance is not a transfer, nor do I believe the City would do anything to impact to the permit under these facts. Same is likely true if the home went from dual ownership to single ownership. C4bii-The term "typed" can mean typed in any form (on a type writer but more likely typed on a computer). The intent is to prohibit handwritten lists. I do not recommend changing. C4bv-I am fine with the change. And I don't think we would have to go to back to the PC. "The applicant shall certify that the proposed antennas and installation, comply with FCC regulations related to interference and in the event the interference occurs, the applicant will promptly take all steps required by FCC regulations which are necessary to resolve the same." Christy Marie Lopez I Partner Aleshire & Wynder, LLP I 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92612 Mobile: {949} 680-5839 I Tel: {949} 223-1170 I Dir: {949} 250-54191 Fax: {949} 223-1180 clopez@awattorneys.com I awattorneys.com 1 b From: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 1:00 PM To: Christy M. Lopez <clopez@awattorneys.com> Subject: Fwd: Noncommercial Antenna_Draft Ord._City Council Meeting Hi Christy, Hope all is well. Please refer to the email on the proposed ordinance. It will be included as late correspondence. Let me know if you have any thoughts and if we need to consider any modification to the language. Thank you. Jaehee From: dalehanks <dalehanks@pvstk.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:05:07 PM To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Noncommercial Antenna_Draft Ord._City Council Meeting Yahee Yoon; Please submit the attachment for City Council meeting October 20. Thanks. Dale Hanks On October 14, 2020 11:04 AM Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear all, As an interested party regarding the proposed noncommercial amateur radio antenna code amendment, please find attached the Oct. 22nd City Council staff report for the 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance. If you wish to participate in the virtual zoom meeting to speak, please fill out the following link: http ://rpvca .gov /Fo rmCe nte r /City-Service-Reg uests-3/P u bl ic-Pa rticipatio n-and -Comment -Reg uest-82 Should you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. 2 Sincerely, Jaehee Yoon Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (3 I 0) 544-5224 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. 3 MINUTES PALOS VERDES NATURE PRESERVE QUARTERLY PUBLIC FORUM OCTOBER 13, 2020 CALL TO ORDER: The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Quarterly Public Forum was called to begin by Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst at 6:05 P.M. at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, and via teleconference/virtual meeting using the Zoom platform. Senior Analyst Lozano welcomed everyone on the Zoom call and shared instructions for participants. She reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Staff Present: Karina Banales, Cory Linder, Daniel Trautner, Lukasz Buchwald, Matt Waters, Katie Lozano, Norma Saldana, Keith Hunter, Taylor Fox, Juan Hernandez, James O'Neill, Enyssa Momoli, Mary Hirsch, and Karen Okstad, PVPLC Conservation Director Cris Sarabia. 42 members of the public participated. 1. PRESERVE PROJECTS Senior Analyst Lozano reviewed current and upcoming City Projects, including the Landslide Mitigation Project. Ranger Fox gave an update on the gates and fencing at Burma Road and Rattlesnake Trailheads, including that they will be constructed by December 2020 and periodic trailhead closures may be necessary. He reported on the Blufftop Fence Replacement Project. He shared that the City is in Phase 3 of the project located at Vicente Bluffs Reserve. The project is experiencing delays due to cement powder shortages but is still expected to be complete by December 2020. Public Works Project Manager O'Neill reported on the City's fuel modification areas, and the City's current status. Fuel modification was concluded in September for this calendar year. Ranger Hunter reported on the Cal Water Trail damage (water main break) that took place on October 81h. The City is working with Cal Water representatives and PVPLC on appropriate repair, and Vanderlip Trail will be closed until repairs are complete. PVPLC Conservation Director, Sarabia spoke to the PVPLC projects including weed control and active habitat restoration projects at Alta Vicente, Abalone Cove, and Agua Amarga Reserves. He provided additional information on PVPLC's most recent habitat restoration at Abalone Cove Reserve. He shared information on PVPLC fuel load reduction projects, including a recent 40 acres of acacia removal from the Preserve. / He also shared that PVPLC has coordinated installation of the final monument entry signage for the Preserve at Ocean Trails Reserve. Director Sarabia reported out on Volunteer Trail Crew and Rapid Response projects, and explained how they are operated under LA County Health Department guidelines. Trail Projects have focused on closing spur trails, trail repair, and maintenance. He also shared information on the PVPLC's successful Adopt-a-Plot habitat restoration projects. Public Comments/Questions: Miriam Varend of the Del Cerro neighborhood spoke in support of the gates at Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trailhead. She opposes the hours and asks that the gates be open no earlier than 7 a.m. to keep the area quieter, because people arrive as early as 4 a.m. and residents hear individuals activating car alarms, slamming car doors and trunks, talking, music, etc. There is also rowdy afterhours use as late as midnight. Corinne Gerrard reported an increase in rattlesnakes in the Portuguese Bend Reserve. She asked if there is a plan for the rattlesnake control. She reported that a 2-year old boy and a dog have been bitten near the end of Narcissa Dr. and the dirt trail area. Senior Analyst Lozano responded that staff will follow up with more information. PVPLC Conservation Director Sarabia stated that the restoration PVPLC does in the Preserve should help with rattlesnake control as rattlesnakes are attracted to the habitat restoration area where they find shelter and their food supply. Kathy Edgerton spoke in support of the gates. She said the Del Cerro residents have waited a long time (2 years) for the gates. She appreciates the City's work on this. She asks that the City not open the gates until 7 a.m. and that they be closed at sunset. She also asked that the parking hours on Crenshaw Blvd. mirror the proposed gate hours of operation (parking allowed from 7 a.m. to one hour after sunset). She has also noticed the rattlesnake population increase. Senior Analyst Lozano stated that as part of the October 20th staff report, staff will be recommending a 7:00a.m. opening of the gates. Don Douthwright agrees with Ms. Varend and Ms. Egerton's comments. He reported a lot of snake issues as well. He stated that hikers continue to use illegal spur trails between Rattlesnake Trail and the stairs on Island View HOA's property, and the public continues to use the stairs illegally. He requested assistance blocking spur trails in that area. 2. UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Senior Analyst Lozano reported on the upcoming City Council Agenda Topics. She shared information on: • October 20th: Del Cerro Parking Mitigation Status Report • October 2Qth: Consider Adopting NCCP/HCP Coastal Sage Scrub Urgency Ordinance • November 4th: PVPLC Comprehensive Report • December 1st: Forrestal Security Options. She went into much detail on the Del Cerro Parking Mitigation Status Report. She shared that Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. has seen a substantial increase in use over the past 10 years, and even more so since LA County lifted its trail closure orders in May. She indicated that this access area was not planned or designed to handle the over 240,000 visitors it sees annually. The heavy use and ineffective access/staging area is resulting in poor quality of life for Preserve neighbors in the area who are experiencing unsafe traffic conditions, difficulty accessing their homes, early morning and evening activity, noise, and more. She shared detailed information on the six directives the City Council gave staff on August 18th in order to strike a balance between public access and protecting Preserve neighbor quality of life. She indicated that Staff will be giving status reports and seeking direction on these directives on October 20th. She shared information on participating in the October 20th City Council Meeting. Public Comments/Questions Del Cerro HOA President Kathy Edgerton indicated that she feels before the City opens up more parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve, the City should develop a holistic parking strategy that includes opening up additional trail heads in other areas of the City, for example a parking area off of Palos Verdes Drive South. She spoke in favor of a parking permit/fee solution to resolve traffic issues on Crenshaw Blvd. She spoke to unsafe traffic conditions on Crenshaw, including a recent accident in which an individual was hospitalized. She would like the parking restrictions on Crenshaw Blvd. continued until an effective parking mitigation plan is implemented on Crenshaw Blvd. Pamela Nathan lives in Manhattan Beach near the water with many members of the public passing through her neighborhood to access the beach. She shared that parking is difficult in her neighborhood as well. She hikes Portuguese Bend Reserve regularly with a group of seniors, and she feels the Preserve must be shared, and that parking north of Crest Rd. is not safe. She stated that the Preserve should be open to the public as is the beach in Manhattan Beach. Rancho Crest HOA President Louis Smolensky commented on the parking at Rancho Del Mar School. He requests that the Polliwog Bog Trail be closed because of its proximity of neighbors' backyards due to concerns with privacy, noise, fire danger, liability, decreased homeowner value, and crime. He also recommended that signage be posted letting the public know that parking north of Crest Rd. is free to encourage the public to park there for free. Recreation and Parks Director Cory Linder thanked Mr. Smolensky for their recent meeting, and indicated that if the City were to get permission and guidance to use Rancho Del Mar School as additional parking, staff would recommend focusing circulation along the sidewalk, and not Pollywog Bog Trail. Douglas Butler, a resident on Valley View Rd. stated that if the parking will be offsite at Rancho Del Mar school, please keep parking further from homes and implement the same parking hours proposed for Crenshaw Blvd. He also requested that Pollywog Bog Trail not be used due to its proximity to homes. Island View HOA President Don Douthwright feels a primary solution is opening up Gateway Park as an alternate parking location and he stated the perceived benefits. He indicated that reducing parking on Crenshaw Blvd. does not fully solve the traffic issue. He does not support a reservation system, and prefers eliminating parking on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. and indicated that alternate parking is available north of Crest Rd. He also spoke of the negative impacts of the public illegally access the stairs on Island View property, and he is looking forward to a new fence on Island View HOA's property and its ability to deter the illegal activity/trespassing. He requested the City's help with closing spur trails and additional signage. GP Suddeth lives near Polliwog Park in Manhattan Beach. He empathized with neighbors negatively impacted by visitors behaving poorly. He indicated that Manhattan Beach does not attempt to mitigate crowds at Pollywog Park by using red curbing. He indicates that there must be some give and take. He described his experiences at Wilderness Park and that red curbing in the Del Cerro neighborhood could make others feel unwelcome. He requested solutions that are considerate of people who live outside the area. Linda Varner stated that she has been a PVPLC Trail Watch volunteer for many years and seen a lot of Preserve activity. She feels the Preserve should be open to all and is a natural resource to be shared. She indicated that Portuguese Bend Reserve is most popularity because of its miles of connected trails, and that the focus should be on driving visitors to Portuguese Bend reserve and making it more accessible for everyone. She disagrees strongly with the red curbing and asked for it to be removed. Miriam Varend indicated that her neighborhood supports Preserve visitation, as it's a wonderful place. Many neighbors contributed financially to the creation of the Preserve. She feels Portuguese Bend is large enough to support large numbers of visitors, but that the parking and access area is not. She mentioned traffic safety issues. She felt Manhattan Beach is not a fair comparison to the Portuguese Bend Reserve due to the different parking and access situations. Suzanne Sobel lives in the Island View neighborhood. Her quality of life is negatively impacted by the high visitation to the Portuguese Bend Reserve access on Crenshaw Blvd., including traffic safety issues. She feels the issue is particular to Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd. She also asked the City to remove the flashing temporary parking sign, wish she feels is an eyesore. Gregory MacDonald lives in the Del Cerro area. He supports opening Gateway Park to provide additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve and lessen impacts to the Del Cerro neighborhood. He mentions people standing in the street on Crenshaw Blvd., south of Crest Rd., dangerous u-turns, and dangerous traffic conditions. He shared the benefit of the City providing off-street parking for the Reserve. He thinks that so many people appreciate and experience the amazing asset of the Preserve, but he feels the access point is an issue. Bob Moore supports the red curb on Crenshaw Blvd. This has helped make the situation better. The focus should be on creating a parking area that can accommodate the 240,000 visitors annually. He supports implementing the Gateway Park concept or other areas for off street parking. Terry Scott does not live in the Portuguese Bend area. She feels the solution is an alternative parking area such as Gateway. She wishes that City not take away parking, until more can be opened up elsewhere. 3. PRESERVE OPERATIONS Senior Ranger Saldana provided the 3rd Quarter Preserve Enforcement report, which is available on the City's Preserve webpage, at httQ://rpvca.gov/701/Enforcement- Q ua rterly-Reports PVPLC Conservation Director Sarabia reported on Volunteer Trail Watch Reports. He said the group of 53 volunteers are out in the Preserve educating the public and serve as eyes and ears for Preserve managers. He also shared information on PVPLC native plant sales available on PVPLC.org Public Comments/Questions None The meeting concluded at 7:55p.m. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi team, Use this as late Corr. -K From: Karina Banales Karina Banales Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:58 PM Emily Colborn; Enyssa Memoli; Nathan Zweizig; Teresa Takaoka Ara Mihranian FW: PART ONE Code and Fine Amount.pdf Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:20 PM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: PART ONE Karina Bonates Deputy City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5203 kbanales@rpvca.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. 1 A C ,, of 1 DB F G 75% J K Fine Schedule fine: 1004025 10.04.025 RPVMC $40.00 $15.00 $0.0 0 FAILURE TO TURN WHEELS TO CURB 1004060 10.04.060 LACO $65.00 $105.00 $0.0 0 15 MIN VENDING PKG 10040BOA 10.04.080A RHEMC $55.00 $83.00 $0.00 UNAUTH PRKG PUBUPRIV PROP 10040808 10.04.0808 RHEMC $55.00 $83.00 $0.00 PRIVIPUBL PRKG W/OUT CONSENT 1016090 10.16.090 RHMC $70.00 $35.00 $0.00 NO REAR PLATE 1020130 10.20.130 RPVMC $30.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PARKING PERMIT 1024020 10.24.020 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 PKG PAINTED CRB~REDfv\.tiT/ETC. 1024020A 10.24.020A RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 SGNS&CRB MKGS-NO STNDIPKG OV 5 10240208 10.24.0208 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0,00 SGNS&CRB MKGS-STNDGIPKG OVR 12 1024020C 10.24.020C RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 SGNS&CRB MKGS~STNDGIPKG OVR 24 1024030 10.24.030 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 40 MINUTE TIME LMT PKG 9AM-6PM 1024040 10.24.040 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 1 HR TIME LMT PKG-9AM TO 6PM 1024050 10.24.050 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 TIME LIMITED PARKING 10240608 10.24.0608 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PKG LFT SO OF ROAD UNLS PRM 1024070 10.24.070 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0,00 DIAGONAL PKG/PK WIIN SPACES 10240808 10.24.0808 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 MUST PARK VEH IN MARKED SPACE 1024080C 10.24.080C RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 PKG EXCESS OF 181N FROM CURB 1024090 10.24.090 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 OVRNGHT PKG PROHIB 3AMM5AM 1024100A 10.24.100A RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PKG WITHIN DIVISIONAL ISLND 1024100C 10.24.100C RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 ROAD REPAIRMPSTD NO PKG 1024100D 10.24.100D RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PKG W/IN 20FT OF SAFETY ZNE 1024100E 10.24.100E RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PKG W/IN 20FT OF CROSSWALKS 1024120 10.24.120 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 PKG ON GRADES OVR 30ft ... CURB \M-iLS 1024130 10.24.130 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 72 HOUR PKG ON PUBLIC STREETS 1024140 10.24.140 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PKG COMM DISCONNECTED TRLRS 1024150 10.24.150 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 DISP OF FOR SALE SIGN&-PUB STS 1024160 10.24.160 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO STOPPING ZONES, SIGNS PSTD 1024180 10.24.180 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 PARKWAYSMSTOPPNG/STNDG PROHIB 10241908 10.24.1908 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 VIOL OF PSTD EMERGffEMP NO PKG 1024200 10,24.200 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 UNLAVvFUL PKG OF VENDORSffAXIS 1024210 10.24.210 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 REPAIRING VEH ON PUB STREETS 1024220 10.24.220 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 WASHING/POLISH VEH ON PUB STS 1024240 10.24.240 RHEMC $53.00 $39.00 $0.00 Vv1-liTE CURBJBUS LOADING ZONE 1028130 10.28.130 RPVMC $25.00 $34.00 $0.00 PERMIT PARKING ONLY 1032020 10.32.020 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 VIOLATION OF PAINTED CURBS 1032040 10.32.040 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 OVRTIME-STOP/LOAOILJNLOAD ZONES 1032050 10.32.050 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO STOPPING-PASS LOADAJNLOAD 1032060 10.32.060 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO STOPPING/STANDING IN ALLEYS 1036010 10.36.010 RPVMC $120.00 $15.00 $0.00 NO PKG OF OVERSIZED VEHICLE 1036020 10.36.020 RPVMC $120.00 $105.00 $0.00 OVERSIZE VEH PERMIT ONLY 1052010 10.52.010 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 PVT PROP-NO PKG W/0 PERMISSION 1052050 10.52.050 RHEMC $53.00 $15.00 $0.00 PASSENGER LOADING ZONE 1052100 10.52.100 RHMC $45.00 $55.00 $0.00 PARKING Vv'ITHIN INTERSECTION 1052110 10.52.110RHMC $45.00 $55.00 $0.00 PARKING ON CROSSWALK 1052120 10.52.120 RHMC $60.00 $70.00 $0.00 PKG AT FIRE STATION ENTRANCE 1052130 10.52.130 RHMC $45.00 $55.00 $0.00 HAZARDOUS PARKING 1052140 10.52.140 RHMC $45.00 $55.00 $0.00 NO PARKING ON BRIDAL PATH •nt:.,•r:n •n r;.,,.~;nouur ran nn t'7nnn l'n "" \ACIII\t .. kt::T At:: !:CCC: UV!">CAI\CTC' From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Bergsteinsson: Matt Waters Monday, October 19, 2020 6:04 PM 'bryan_bergsteinsson@yahoo.com' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Nature preserve parking Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, Dell Cerro, and your opinion on the use of Gateway Park as a potential parking location for access the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The City Council will be discussing the 60 day moratorium on parking on designated areas of Crenshaw and whether to extend the moratorium to give Staff an opportunity to better gauge its effectiveness and to look at other measures as well. The issue of Gateway was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Your email will be included as late correspondence to the City Council for tomorrow night's meeting. Please click https:/Lca-ranchopalosverdes2.civicplus.comflist.aspx?ListiD=262L to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click https:/Lrpv.granicus.comLGeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=S&event id==1675 to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov mi2ttW@JQvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: bryan bergsteinsson <bryan bergsteinsson@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:26 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Nature preserve parking 1 I I am a 20+ year resident of the Island View. I have sadly witnessed the popularity of the preserve grow over the last few years. I understand the appeal of the preserve and believe the public should have access to the space. That however has to be balanced against quality of life issues for the residents that are impacted. In that context I suggest three actions; Create significant parking at the bottom of the preserve along PV drive South. There certainly is space and it is away from any residential areas. Limit parking on Crenshaw. I realize that is counter productive, but there will never be enough parking on Crenshaw to satisfy demand. Parking should be restricted between Crest Rd and Del Cerro. Promote access to the preserve from points beyond the Burma Rd. This will be an ongoing challenge requiring both immediate mitigation as well as long term strategies to address the problem. Thanks for listening. Bryan Bergsteinsson 55 Santa Barbara Dr (310) 541-2872 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Foster: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:23 PM 'Foster, Jackson' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Parking Access to Del Cerro I Portuguese Bend Reserve Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in this important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 \fVWW. rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Foster, Jackson [mailto:jackson.foster.2021@anderson.ucla.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:08 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking Access to Del Cerro I Portuguese Bend Reserve Hello, 1 /. I'm emailing about city's removal of ~20 street parking spaces near Del Cerro/Portuguese Bend Reserve and proposal to charge $30-$50 per 4-hr block for public street parking. This trailhead gives access to one of LA County's most significant open spaces, and I think it would be a shame to turn access to it into a class privilege for those who can afford to pay when it is so important for anyone to have equal access to this open space. I could go on, but in the interest of time, I'll simply say this: please preserve equitable access to this space for all through a means that doesn't require exorbitant spending in order to enjoy a public right to outdoor spaces. Best, Jackson Jackson Foster MBA Candidate at UCLA Anderson M +i 650 222 5431 LioJs.g_<:JJrL 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Symond, Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:38 PM 'jmsymond' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Comments for October 20th City Council Meeting Thank you. I'd like to respond to your point about residents knowing they were buying property next to a public hiking area. The Preserve did not officially become public until 2008., so a significant majority of homeowners in that area bought their property before that time. Sincerely, Matt Waters From: jmsymond [mailto:josephsymond@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:43 PM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Comments for October 20th City Council Meeting Thanks for your response Matt, I live directly across the street from a public park. Outside of after-hours noise, we have people of all ages coming and going all day long playing sports, running around, and generally making a ton of noise. But I have no right to complain. I also live a couple of blocks from the beach. I hear the ocean crashing loudly at night. And we have streams of people walking past our house loudly talking at all hours as they make their way from their (freely parked) vehicles to access the beach. I still have no right to complain. Why do I have no right to complain? Because I chose to live here knowing full well what that entails. It's on me. As is the case with all of the residents who chose to live in RPV right next to the head of a popular, publicly accessible trail. Those trails did not appear overnight. But many likely thought they would move-in first, then figure some way to change the law later so as to remove the potential nuisance. Mostly related to parking it seems. Ultimately most trails in RPV came long before the homes did. And unless people are found to be trespassing, or performing illegal acts, those residents literally have no right to complain. And the general public have every right to unimpeded access without being dissuaded via parking fees for doing so. Seems the winners in these situations are most always the consultants though. 1 I Sincerely Joseph M. Symond On Oct 20, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Symond: Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Your email will be attached as late correspondence. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County-wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately 1!4 mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. 2 Please click on Notjfv Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue and I encourage you to continue visiting the Preserve. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: jmsymond [mailto:iosephsvmond@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:22 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments for October 20th City Council Meeting I have been hiking the beautiful trails in Rancho Palos Verdes over the past 20-years, and now take my children regularly so as to enjoy the view and some much needed outdoor freedom during this time of COVID. As such, I read today with great interest and disappointment, your (the City ofRPV's) response to an article posted 10/19/20 on modcrnhikcr.com titled:'HIKING IN RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAY BECOME VERY EXPENSIVE'. Firstly, I commend your representative for the eloquence and wordcraft that is ubiquitous in responses from local and state governments whenever a serious concern is being raised. Unsurprisingly, no trace of accountability was to be found anywhere. Only deflection. Secondly, your proposed actions are hardly as 'holistic' as you repeatedly claimed. Thirdly, we all know how you intend to restrict access to public spaces such as the trails and beaches in RPV. Obviously, the City ofRPV aren't bold enough to put up a fence or barrier to prevent access. That would be illegal. Instead, you plan to gradually replace most of the available parking with red paint, and are currently deciding on which level of exorbitant fee to impose for parking in the few spaces that remain. A very clever tactic if I do say so myself. 'Virtually' closing the trails to anyone who cannot afford to pay for the parking needed to reach them. If you truly want anyone to perceive your (intended) actions as 'holistic' as you claim they are, then remove any and all mention of parking fees to begin with, stop redlining areas where parking used to be in an effort to 'herd' the public, and stop playing games with where, when, and for how long the general public can park to access 'public land'. 3 The City of RPV are merely playing games with parking in an effort to squeeze out visitors from certain areas on behalf of a few complaining residents. It's that simple. And those facts should be made very clear to all. I believe also, we should be provided the names and addresses of all those who initially tabled this plan, and how it impacts them, so we can better understand their motivation. Sincerely Joseph M. Symond Hermosa Beach CA. 4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Macia, Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:30 PM 'sylmac4040@yahoo.com' CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner RE: As a resident and voter I wanted to let you all know I oppose the proposed "Gateway Park parking lot for the Preserve" in tonight's CC mtg Agenda Item #1 Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway Park and other potential parking locations was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in the October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future. The concerns in your email will be considered if Council directs Staff to move forward with an analysis of Gateway Park or other potential alternative locations. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in this important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Sylvia Macia <sylmac4040@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:31 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: As a resident and voter I wanted to let you all know I oppose the proposed "Gateway Park parking lot for the Preserve" in tonight's CC mtg Agenda Item #1 1 / Dear City Council Members, 1) I am not in favor of a Gateway Park parking lot for the Preserve. It will create traffic bottlenecks and accidents on PVDS. Just look at the mess at Abalone Cove and we don't want a repeat of that every weekend at the proposed site. 2) I am in favor of using the School District's parking lot located adjacent to the City of Rolling Hills Crest Road gate, with a possible shuttle using the idle PVP Transportation busses. 3) We feel that controlling the number of people in the preserve is the best way to protect the habitat as is our mandate for the preserve, and eliminate noise and traffic issues around Del Cerro. Thank you for protecting our preserve and our wonderful standards of living in RPV. Yours, Sylvia Macia 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Bill and Marty Foster: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:24 PM martycrna@gmail.com CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: The Preserve Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway Park and other potential parking locations was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in the October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future. The concerns in your email will be considered if Council directs Staff to move forward with an analysis of Gateway Park or other potential alternative locations. Thank again for your interest in this important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca .gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-{310) 544-5291 f -----Original Message----- From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:19 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: The Preserve As the council addresses the many problems RPV residents face in light of large numbers of visitors accessing the trails, we hope the solutions do not include parking on PVDS at Gateway Park. 1 I . This two lane arterial is fragile related to the PB landslide. I suspect the traffic committee often addresses problems related to the increased traffic on PVDS. More traffic and parking at Gateway poses significant danger to all driving on PVDS and certainly those crossing on foot. We hope the CC can define the number of visitors to the preserve deemed reasonable on both weekdays and weekends. If that number can be established, planning can go forward regarding parking spaces and personnel. The idea of adding enforcement at city expense, a bad idea on its face, could be rendered moot if numbers are controlled. Parking at the PVUSD lot on Crest would alleviate many issues for Del Cerro residents. Certainly, adding parking meters there would help defray the RPV residents' contributions to those non residents enjoying the Preserve. It must be said that monies devoted to the Preserve by the city then cannot be used in ways that benefit RPV residents. Our thanks and best wishes as you address these issues. Bill and Marty Foster LLHOA residents Sent from my iPad 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Fettig: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:20 PM 'dancewithme153@aol.com' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Parking in RPV Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Please click on NQlif'L Me. to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov mS!t~@[Q..vca.qoy:-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Laura Fettig <dancewithme153@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:07 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking in RPV Dear Executives, Please submit my vote for free parking access to all park and street locations. I vote to take out red painted street curbs that limit parking. I vote for free shuttles to and from the hiking and park sites. I pay the same property taxes where I live and have cars parked all around my home and there is no limits on who can walk the sidewalks! Thank you, 1 /_ Laura Fettig 14903 Burin Avenue Lawndale, CA 90260 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Stuart: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:22 PM 'mary@digiscope.com' CC; CityCierk; Daniel Trautner; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano FW: Burma Road Trailhead Access and Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Honorable Mayor.docx Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca .gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f -----Original Message----- From: Mary Stuart <mary@digiscope.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Subject: Burma Road Trailhead Access and Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Letter submission attached addressing parking for Portuguese Bend Reserve on tonight's agenda. Many thanks, Mary 1 I Honorable Mayor, Mayor ProTem, and Council Members: My mother and father moved to the Del Cerro neighborhood in 1969. They fell in love with the quiet rural ambience and the beautiful ocean views. I was raised on Oceanaire and I now have a home of my own on Amber Sky Drive. In 2005 my mother and I were thrilled that the Portuguese Bend Preserve was established. We had attended the early meetings where we first heard of the city's plan to establish the main entrance off of Palos Verdes South, an entrance to be named Gateway Park. Like the majority of our neighbors, we gave our full support. We donated money for the purchase of preserve land and continued for many years to provide financial support to the Land Conservancy while continuing to believe that the city would initiate what they had proposed, the Gateway Park entrance. *i Providing safe access to the 399 acre Portuguese Bend Reserve should be a shared responsibility by the city, the conservancy and all the neighborhoods within the peninsula. However, for over a decade, only those neighborhoods adjacent to the Burma Road entrance have patiently endured the ever growing number of visitors ... now estimated at over 200,000 per year. Burma Road was never planned to be the only entrance to the preserve, nor should it be. I appreciate the actions the city has taken over the last few years to help mitigate the number of parking spaces on Crenshaw south of Crest. The new red curb between Rattlesnake Trail and Del Cerro Park is an improvement and has reduced the number oftraffic issues for our residents as they enter and exit our neighborhood. I'm also looking forward to the installation of the Burma Road and Rattlesnake Trail gates (item #3), that were approved over 2 years ago. I also agree that the gates should not open earlier than 7am and that they should close at sunset (item #4). Too many of our residents on Oceanaire and Amber Sky have been awakened or gone to bed to loud conversations, chirping car alarms and blaring music. I also support item #1... a continued social media campaign to direct visitors to other parking options besides the Burma Road entrance and #2 ... to create a "holistic" parking analysis for the entire preserve. I also support #8 to extend the 60 day parking prohibition on Crenshaw until another entry point into the preserve is established. #6 Parking Reservation System: Creating a parking reservation system, no matter how high tech, requires enforcement. Over the last few years, I have not seen any tickets given out for parallel parking, or u-turns as they occurred under police observation. Any assignment of parking spaces through a reservation system would require enforcement over the entire time the gates to the trailheads are open. In this regard, item #5 falls short by only recommending the hiring of part-time employees to monitor parking. More importantly, if there is no additional red curbing on Crenshaw south of Crest, the reservation system will not reduce the car traffic in our area. The proposed $20 to $50 dollars reservation fee is excessive. Allowing only those who can afford it to park near the trail entrance is discriminatory, the optics of this puts the city and community in a bad light. # 7 Parking lot at the Rancho Del Mar School I strongly oppose item #7. Direct Staff to enter into an agreement with the Palos Verdes Penninsula Unified School District to all the use of a parking lot at Rancho Del Mar School for Preserve parking on weekends and holidays by December 15, 2020 This action, though deemed temporary, does not alleviate the number of visitors entering Burma Road via Crenshaw, nor does it provide a provision to reduce the number of parking spaces on Crenshaw. Adding more parking only increases the number of visitors while further amplifying the early morning noise on the other side of our neighborhood. As to the shuttle buses, it would be far more effective to offer a shuttle service from City Hall. This location would introduce hikers to the trails nearer to the ocean ... again a shared solution. Parking for Burma Road trailhead should be moved down Crenshaw north of Crest. There is ample parking on Crestridge west of Crenshaw. A shuttle service from there to Crest should also be considered. The Portuguese Bend Preserve should be for everyone to enjoy that's why I strongly support the creation of a parking lot with a nature center and amenities accessible from Palos Verdes South. In the meantime, I ask the council to enforce no parking on Crenshaw south of Crest until staff recommendations for a "holistic" approach are implemented. Sincerely, Mary Stuart & Diane Trudell Dell Cerro Residents i In the 2014/2015 the pdf presentation lists two of the reasons to create Gateway Park as: "Parking needed to alleviate congestion at Crenshaw Blvd" and to "Discourage public access to private communities" Reference: https:/ /www. rpvca .gov /Docu m entCenter /View /5229/12032014-Gateway-Pa rk-Public- Workshop-Parks-Master-Pian-Presentation-PDF From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Rey: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:19 PM 'NANCY REV' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Del Cerro/Portuguese Bend Reserve Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more ''prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: NANCY REV [mailto:nancymrey@icloud.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro/Portuguese Bend Reserve To set such a high price for parking for access to this reserve is making access to this "community-valued recreation" area (quoted from pvplc.org) a matter of privilege. Is that the goal? 1 I Please consider different solutions. Thank you, Nancy Rey 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Gioia, Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:15 PM 'gioiajoann@gmail.com' CC; CityCierk; Katie Lozano; Norma Saldana; Daniel Trautner; Cory Linder response re Ocean Trails Reserve Thank you again for your email. I'd like to respond to your concerns in more detail. Thank you for letting us know about what you're experiencing from hikers at Ocean Trails Reserve near your home in South Shores. Addressing negative impacts to our neighbors in San Pedro is of the utmost concern to the City of RPV. It is very unfortunate that some trail users scatter trash behind or don't follow posted guidelines. I will forward your email to the supervisor of our Open Space Management division and Park Rangers for their attention. This email will be attached as late correspondence for tonight's City Council meeting. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov .ITli:l.ll~L@.lJ'2Y£~.9..0V-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Joann Gioia <gioiajoann@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:28 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ocean Trails Reserve This e-mail is concerning the Ocean Trails Reserve. I live in South Shores San Pedro, while I am not a Rancho Palos Verdes Resident, I am directly affected by the hikers visiting the Ocean Trails Reserve. My Husband and I are constantly picking up trash along 25th Street. The trash is from the hikers entering and parking along 25th Street to access the Ocean Trails Reserve. I think the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should be responsible for picking up the trash along 25th Street. There is no reason that the residents of San Pedro should have to put up with unsightly trash left behind by hikers using the Ocean Trails Reserve. A Park Ranger or private security should be assigned to the entrance of the reserve by 25th Street to pass out citations for littering. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes should assign someone to pick up the trash at least 3 times a week. The trails are also a health hazard because the Covid protocols are not respected. Most hikers do not wear masks or social distance. Citations should also be issued for not obeying Covid protocols. I My suggestion is close all the trails for 60 days. Hopefully in that time period, people will find something else to amuse themselves and we can go back to our quiet, serene life. The trails are the responsibility of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and so are all the issues that accompany that responsibility. Best Regards, Joann Gioia Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov .r:natt.w@mvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f 2 From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:51 PM Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Cc: Subject: CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: City Council Meeting-Oct. 20,2020 -Agenda Item # 1 Hi Mickey, Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in this important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Y::!..Y:!YY..l'QVCa .:..99_\L fD..§!lt,W.@[QVC~..9.QY.:-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:10 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting-Oct. 20,2020-Agenda Item# 1 Subject: City Council Meeting-Oct. 20,2020-Agenda Item# 1 Agenda Item #1: Address Parking and Access Issues In The Preserve. I would like to address some of the problems I find in the Staff Report recommendations to the City Council for this item. Herb Stark of the LLHOA Park Committee did send in a reply to the City Council, but I did not notice it in your 300+ page Staff Report: 1 I 1. I feel that using the PVPUSD vacant parking lot, whose entrance is just before the City of Rolling Hills gate on Crest Road, is a solution. 2. Once the hikers park in the PVPUSD parking lot they can either: a} Walk along Crest, past St. John Fisher Church, and onto Crenshaw to the trail head, or b) Use of the weekend parked PVP Transportation Buses as part of a shuttle system to get to the trail head, or c) Many of the hikers that presently park on Crenshaw Blvd., North of Crest Road are already hiking the equivalent distanceof the shuttle bus ride to get to the Preserve. They can simply walk on level ground from the parking lot to the Preserve entrance. 3. RPV should charge enough per hour for parking in the PVPUSD lot, with a reservation system, to offset all costs involved. 4. Gateway Park keeps creeping up again and again, even though a previous Council reviewed all of the issues and determined that it was not a safe area to locate a parking lot with issues such as: a} users crossing PVDS to reach Sacred Cove, b) Once the lot is full, people will block PVDS waiting for someone to leave the lot which will lead to a dangerous situation. c) See what happens every week-end at Abalone Cove parking lot where cars are lined up in the street back to the Fire Station. and d) That is the area in the slide with the highest land movement, approx, 24 feet per year, necessitating constant ground repair with bulldozers to fill the crevices. Take a walk to see the large crevices on the South side of the roadway. 5. The Staff should not even be suggesting that part time rangers be covered by CALpers pensions. The City is already faced with millions of dollars in debt because of CALpers. Using that option will be costlier than any of their other plans for contracting out to public companies for their ranger plans in the long run. 6. I think that RPV should be controlling the number of people in the preserve and charge a fee and not be in the reserved parking business along Crenshaw, South of Crest. 7. The Mission Statement for our Preserves state that our responsibility is to protect 4 plant species in preserve habitat. Controlling the number of people in the Preserve at all times is the best method to protect the habitat. 8. I feel that the Preserve hours are a big part of the problem that residents next to the Preserve entrances face every day. I don't believe there should be any night hikes, period. Staff is working on placing gates at the preserve entrances at Del Cerro and proposed for Ladera Linda. That's great, but the users are still going to be there way before the "1 hour before sunrise"opening. That is what creates the vehicle and noise problems and the complaints by the nearby residents. I think there should be set hours for the Preserves. Since they will be locked at night, the opening hours should be at 7:00AM. This will help eliminate the vehicle and noise issues in the early morning hours. We at Ladera Linda have seen a noise reduction in the mornings due to the painted red curbs, however we still see late night partying going on in the Forrestal Preserve. People park in the red curb area and walk into Ladera Linda or into the Preserve after 10:00 PM and make noise when they come out around midnight. 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Moore, Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:34 PM 'rmoore!@gmail.com' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Please click on Notify lYle to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Y\'Y.L\"{_,.,I]:;?..Y.Q§l_.:!lQ.Y. .OJi:JJtW@IQVQf.L.9Q.Y-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Robert Moore <rmoorel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:50 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Dear Mayor and City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes, Thank you for providing relief to the Del Cerro neighborhood that was enacted at the August 18 City Council meeting! By red-curbing the bottleneck area at the South end of Crenshaw you have greatly improved safety for both residents and users of the preserve. The change made an immediate impact. I was used to daily "close calls" in having to unexpectedly swerve or brake to avoid hitting car doors suddenly opening into traffic, cars suddenly pulling out and making U-turns from parking spaces, and pedestrians walking in the street. The number of these potentially deadly incidents has been greatly reduced since the curbs have been red striped, and I now only experience close calls with pedestrians or cars on this section of 1 I Crenshaw once or twice weekly. I really appreciate the relief you have provided neighbors and the added safety provided for visitors to the preserve. I urge you to make the red-curbed areas a permanent safety action. But the long-term solution to the parking mess at the end of Crenshaw cannot be solved with paint. The root cause is the fact that the Del Cerro Park neighborhood is wholly inadequate to serve as the main entrance to the Nature Preserve, and it was never intended to serve as such. Our neighborhood was enticed to support the creation of the Preserve by the representation that the main "Gateway" to the Preserve would be in a parking area to be constructed off PV Drive South, which has never materialized. The presentation made at the Preserve Public Forum held on October 13, stated that over 240,000 people visit the Preserve annually, and most currently use the Burma Road entrance. Our neighborhood camera study of the number of vehicles arriving on Crenshaw South of Crest totaled 8,000 per week or over 400,000 annually (which should be doubled as each vehicle must exit the way it entered). It is absurd to expect any neighborhood to endure this. This is analogous to having the main entrance to Disneyland located in an Anaheim residential neighborhood. The only long-term solution is to create the long awaited Gateway entrance to the Preserve with off street parking. Perhaps it would be appropriate to close the Burma Road trailhead until this can be accomplished. Respectfully, Robert Moore 10 Amber Sky Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2 From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:31 PM 'cbumatay@cox.net' Cc: CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano Subject: RE: Feedback re: proposed change in hours at Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard trailheads Dear Ms. Bumatay, Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Carolyn Bumatay <cbumatay@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 10:59 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Feedback re: proposed change in hours at Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard trailheads 1 To the RPV City Council, I am a long-time RPV resident writing to ask that you please consider allowing the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve hours to remain unchanged, with access from any of the current trail heads. I hike in Portuguese Bend regularly, and when using the Burma Road or Rattlesnake Trail entrances as well as trails in other areas, I have never encountered other Preserve visitors causing disruptions that would disturb neighbors in the early morning. As a member of the PVPLC Volunteer Trail Watch, I speak for myself (not the organization) but I observe activity regularly and find that hikers and bikers are generally considerate of each other as well as the surrounding area. If there have been incidents disturbing local residents, I would hope that enforcement of the rules for violators could be encouraged, rather than making the trails off-limits to all visitors including residents. In addition to providing easy and non-disruptive access to the Preserve, I believe that leaving gates unlocked during all daylight hours will avoid visitors simply parking in other areas of the city that are closer to residences. If it becomes necessary to limit parking before 7am on Crenshaw or at other locations, could you please at least allow for residents with parking permits to continue to park in the designated resident spaces such as Del Cerro Park, and to access the trails during the same hours that they are currently open? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carolyn Bumatay Whitecliff Drive Rancho Palos Verdes On Oct 19, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Do Not Reply@rpvca.gov <listserv@civicplus.com> wrote: I am Reminder: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Mitigation Status Report Tomorrow, October 20, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will consider strategies to mitigate traffic and congestion impacts associated with the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, including along Crenshaw Boulevard surrounding residences near Del Cerro Park and the Portuguese Bend Reserve. The meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in McTaggart Hall at Fred Hesse Jr. Community Park with safety protocols to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, though virtual participation is highly encouraged. The meeting will be live-streamed on the City website and televised on RPVtv Cox 33/Frontier FiOS 38. A staff report for this topic is available at https://rpv.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1675&meta id=87233. Please submit your questions and concerns to the City Council in advance of the meeting by emailing them to cc@rpvca.gov. If you would like to provide comments during the meeting or leave a pre-recorded voice message, please complete a form at rpvca.gov/participate. If you are a person with a disability and need an accommodation to participate in programs, services, activities and meetings, contact the City's ADA Coordinator/Risk Manager at 310-683- 3157, adarequests@rpvca.gov, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, at least 48 hours in advance to request an auxiliary aid or accommodation. f Share on Facebook '"# Share on Twitter II Share via Email 2 Copyright 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes. All Rights Reserved. 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Powered by ~~1Y.I~SEND Email not displaying correctly? Vi!?..Y'LLUn...Your tl[Q..\'>f....?er. 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Agrawal: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:27 PM 'Naveen Agrawal' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Del Cerro Park: Concerns about removal of street parking Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov -(31 0) 544-5218 p -(31 0) 544-5291 f From: Naveen Agrawal [mailto:theskinnyindian@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:24 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro Park: Concerns about removal of street parking Good morning, 1 / My name is Naveen, and I am a longtime resident of Palos Verdes. I grew up about two miles from Del Cerro Park, and I am writing with concern for the removal of parking spaces in the area as a baldly classist attempt to privatize public space. My family regularly walks in the area, and although they live nearby, they drive to the park because it is the open space they enjoy more than the hourlong walk to get there. Such spaces are made to be public space. The elimination of parking, or charging for parking (which serves the same ends), effectively defines this "public" space as belonging to the neighborhood. Palos Verdes was designed as a sundown town, with an explicit call to keep people of color out of the neighborhood in its founding vision. I sincerely hope that, especially in this political moment, the City Council chooses a path of acceptance and welcoming, rather than isolation, segregation, and racism. Thank you for your consideration. Naveen Agrawal 2 From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:25 PM 'cas493@cornell.edu' Cc: Subject: CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Street Parking removal and fees Dear Mr. Schultz: Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Collin Schultz <cas493@cornell.equ> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:06 AM To: CC <C.~_@.Il2'£.<;;.?_,Eov>; Trails <traii~.P_vca.gov> Subject: Street Parking removal and fees To whom it may concern, 1 I am writing today to communicate my displeasure at the city of Rancho Palos Verdes for entertaining the removal of public parking spaces which allow access to some of the best hiking trails in the LA Basin area. Street parking is a public good, and removing additional parking spaces at the request of a small number of local residents is an unfathomable decision to make. The discussions of charging hikers up to $30-50 for a 4 hour parking block would be unacceptable at any time, but currently with a pandemic and recession the prospect is unreasonable. Hiking and open public spaces are one of the truly safe activities currently. Reducing access to any safe activity is unacceptable, the city council should reject removing parking spaces and should not charge money for the ability of citizens and guests to enjoy a safe activity. Collin Schultz Hiker, trail runner, and PVE resident 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To M. Yasuda: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:23 PM 'machiko@hey.com' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Del Cerro and Parking concerns Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rgvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: machiko yasuda <machiko@hey.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:14 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro Park and Parking concerns To the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes: 1 I I was born and raised Rancho Palos Verdes, a graduate of PVPHS and a daughter of proud parents who chose to live in RPV. I visit RPV and its parks quite frequently, especially now during this pandemic. I now am a resident and homeowner on the other side of Los Angeles county in Altadena -another area high up on a hill, flanked by gorgeous views and known for its open space and nature. I live next to the Angeles National Forest-just two doors down -and I can see people at all times of the day and night, hiking the popular Echo Mountain Trail. To those residents who bought a house next to open space, I'd like to remind you: You chose to buy a house next to one of the biggest open space in the most populous county in the country. You chose to live next to a popular regional attraction. I am writing to you with concern about the council's recommendations of exorbitantly high street parking fees and removal of street parking spots at Del Cerro Park. I am asking you to reconsider the parking costs-a cost that is too high. This prohibitive cost is discriminatory to those who live farther away from the park. It's the people who live closest to the park who can most easily walk or bike to the park-why would they need permit parking spots? I commend the city for many of its actions its researched and taken to alleviate park crowding: the large signs on Crenshaw Blvd. directing people to other parks, the social media outreach and the plans of Gateway Park. Thank you. Although the plans for a shuttle system is something I support, it's unfortunately not one that is helpful in this pandemic and economic downturn -when hiking at a park is one of the safest, economically viable activities you can do. By putting in these parking meters, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes is prioritizing health and recreation for those who can already afford more options -and putting healthy, affordable recreation more out of reach for those who need it the most. Best, Machiko Yasuda 2 From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:21 PM 'charlotte.fagan@gmail.com' Cc: Subject: CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Del Cerro/Portuguese Bend Reserve Parking Dear Ms. Fagan: Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Charlotte Fagan <£barlotte.i'ill£!l@gmail.cQJJ.P Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:14 AM To: CC <!X.@.mvq,t:gov>; Trails <tr<.:!l~yca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro/Portuguese Bend Reserve Parking To Who It May Concern- 1 I am writing because of the proposal to privatize parking near Del Cerro I Portuguese Bend. As an avid trail user, I often drive to these trails. These trails are meant for all LA residents, not just those that live close to the area, and to privatize the parking and charge such high fees it will result in severely limiting the publics' ability to use public land. Please do not close this parking! Thanks, Charlotte Fagan 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Sloam: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:05 PM 'slome1 @verizon.net' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Daniel Trautner RE: Portuguese Bend Parking 10/20 Mtg: question Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway Park and other potential parking locations was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in the October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future. The concerns in your email will be considered if Council directs Staff to move forward with an analysis of Gateway Park or other potential alternative locations. Thank again for your interest in this important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca .gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca .gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-{310) 544-5291 f -----Original Message----- From: Diane Slome [mailto:slome1@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:04 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Troy Slome <tslome@mdjalaw.com> 1 Subject: Portuguese Bend Parking 10/20 Mtg: question I wanted to share my thoughts. I reside in Mesa in Sunmist Drive, adjacent to Crenshaw/Crest. We have people park in our neighborhood during high traffic periods. My concern: lfthere is no formal parking area, parking will move into the neighborhoods, increasing the risk of: trash, noise, crime (shared by residents near the Hollywood Sign for example). Question: On weekends, can we establish areas where hikers can park for an hourly fee, for example $20? Businesses that participate benefit (e.g. St. John Fisher, Art Center) OR Park at the Promenade (if they agree) also for an hourly fee with shuttle services? Or RPV or RHE city Hall? This area has grown in popularity due to social media. Has there been an effort to monitor/offset postings to mitigate traffic to our area? Thank you. Diane and Troy Slome 310-594-4036 m Sent from my iPhone 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: mozawa@cox.net Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:26 PM Matt Waters CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: City Council meeting 10/20/2020 agenda item 1 to address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Matt, I can fully appreciate the challenges faced by the city council as they striving to achieve balance on this issue. Further, as a hiker, I don't mind having our public spaces shared by all in a respectful and safe way (considering neighbors, the preserve and visitors). Michael Ozawa mozawa@cox.net (213) 705-9339 From: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:14 PM To: 'mozawa@cox.net' <mozawa@cox.net> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: City Council meeting 10/20/2020 agenda item 1 to address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Dear Mr. Mozawa: Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again foryour interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvc"(:l.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f 1 / From: mozawa@cox.net <mozawa@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:29 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'Louis smolensky' <smolensky.louis@gmail.com> Subject: City Council meeting 10/20/2020 agenda item 1 to address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve My name is Michael Ozawa. I live at 5234 Valley View Road in The Countryside neighborhood adjacent to Del Cerro and Island View. The Countryside is also the Rancho Crest HOA. I am opposed to using the Pollywog Bog Trail to connect parking at Rancho Del Mar School to the Burma Road or Rattlesnake trail heads. I do not want a stream of visitors to be walking behind my home. Besides noise to interrupt our quiet enjoyment which was a major reason for selecting our home, I do not need trash and animal waste accumulating behind our home. Is the city or the PVLC going to monitor, police and clean the trail or does that responsibility fall to me or our HOA? Also, what if someone gets hurt on our HOA common property? Who bears the increased cost when we have to notify our insurance carrier of the increased pedestrian and pet traffic on our common area? Furthermore, during the rainy season the trail will be inaccessible because it is on the LA County storm drain easement. The soil becomes a muddy mess for days. Anyone wanting to walk the trail will have to walk on the hillside creating an erosion problem. One solution if the parking lot at Rancho Del Mar school needs to be used is to provide access to the preserve via the Fire Station Trail. So instead of hikers parking at Rancho Del Mar and going west along the Crest Road to Crenshaw, they could go east along the eastern portion of the Pollywog Bog Trail to the Fire Station Trail. Also, why are cars not directed to park on the west side of Crenshaw between Crestridge Road and Crest (in front of the Art Center and going south)? There appears to enough parking along that side of the street to replace lost parking on Crenshaw south of Crest. Thank you, Michael Michael Ozawa 5234 Valley View Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dl.QZ£.\'Ya@cox.net (213) 705-9339 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Ashley Kruyhoff: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:11 PM 'Ashley Kruythoff' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Removal of 20 street parking spaces and proposal to charge Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use ofthe parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again foryour interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov !].§ttw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Ashley Kruythoff [mailto:ashley.aak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:59 AM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Removal of 20 street parking spaces and proposal to charge To Whom it May Concern, 1 I The trails, beaches, and views near Del Cerro I Portuguese Bend Reserve are beautiful and every Angeleno or visitor would appreciate its beauty. Your proposal to remove 20 street parking spaces and to charge $30-50 per 4-hour block for public street parking begs the question who are you serving and, more importantly, who are you NOT serving. Clearly this move is driven by profit, not a willingness to share nature with those who cannot afford it. You have expunged free parking spots and are asking a very expensive price for your average family in Los Angeles. As of2018, the median household income for a Los Angeles family is $62,474, a figure I'm sure you as a reader earn within a fraction of year. A $30-50 fee is terribly high for the average family and by demanding this cost, you are in effect shutting out those who cannot afford it like poorer communities of color. Is this your plan? Is that your purpose? How would it feel if you were in someone else's shoes? This is disgusting, snobby, and elitist. Perhaps you only care about the bottom line and saving your coastline only for the white rich. You may deny that is your intention, but believe me, the writing on the wall is clear as day. Shame on you. Seriously. Ashley Kruythoff UCLA 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Kuriakose: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:09 PM 'Elizabeth Lawton Kuriakose' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Parking changes near Del Cerro/ Portuguese Bend Reserve Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item on Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Elizabeth Lawton Kuriakose [mailto:ealawton@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:09 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking changes near Del Cerro/ Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear City Council members, 1 ( I am writing to express my opposition to the removal of 20 parking spots near the Portguese Bend Reserve and proposal to instead charge $30-$50 for public street parking. I urge you to vote against this proposal. I certainly appreciate the concerns of neighbors who have felt overrun by the influx of visitors in recent months. However, the purpose of the parking changes is to make these spaces less accessible to the public, which is inconsistent with the public good these lands are meant to provide. Accepting millions in state investment for this area deepened RPV's responsibility to ensure that others from the LA area--not just Del Cerro's immediate neighbors--should reasonably be able to access those lands. Many residents in surrounding communities are hungry for opportunities to promote their own physical and mental health but have little access to green spaces in their own neighborhoods. Maintaining street parking in this area is necessary to ensure many people will enjoy and value these beautiful, publicly funded spaces. Elizabeth Lawton Kuriakose 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:07 PM 'jonchristensen@ioes.ucla.edu' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano Subject: RE: Please do not restrict street parking and increase fees at Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear Mr. Christenson: Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item regarding Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Jon Christensen <jonchristensen@ioes.ucla.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:49 AM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Please do not restrict street parking and increase fees at Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, 1 I I'm writing to express great concern about the city's recent removal of street parking spaces on Crenshaw Boulevard near a popular trailhead for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and its proposal to charge $30 to $50 for a four-hour block of parking. I teach and research environmental equity and access in the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and the Luskin Center for Innovation at UCLA. I have conducted research and wrote a recent report on coastal access. Two two of our major findings, relevant for your decision making, were that the vast majority, around 90% of coastal visitors, come by car and need nearby parking. We also found that the cost of parking was a major factor making day trips to the coast economically prohibitive for roughly half of all Californians. (See: https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/project/coastal- access-ca liforn ia/) This is not simply a parking issue. It is an issue of equitable access to nature and outdoor recreation on our coast. And it is not simply a city issue. It is an issue that concerns and affects people beyond Rancho Palos Verdes. The vision for the preserve was always to be welcoming to people across the region, not just nearby homeowners. It's a major reason the state-the people of California-contributed at least $17 million for conservation of the two parcels. In addition to habitat preservation, the Portuguese Bend Reserve and Filiorum Reserve provide access to trails and recreation not only for hikers from wealthy communities on the peninsula, but also for nearby communities like Harbor City, Lomita, Carson, and Wilmington which have lower-income populations, higher air pollution burdens, and limited access to green space. These trails and open space are even more important during the pandemic, as hiking and outdoor recreation have been endorsed by public health officials to support physical and mental health while minimizing risk of coronavirus transmission. I urge the city council to consider restoring the parking spaces it removed by painting curbs red last month and if it does install parking fees, which are common at other urban open spaces, the rates should be reasonable. Thank you for your careful consideration of the wider ramifications of your decisions on coastal access for all Californians. And please don't hesitate to contact me if you'd like to discuss these issues further. Yours truly, Jon Christensen Adjunct Assistant Professor UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability Luskin Center for Innovation Laboratory for Environmental Narrative Strategies mobile: 650-759-6534 I email: jonchristensen@ioes.ucla.edu christensen Ia b. net 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:04 PM 'caccox@gmail.com' CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Octavia Silva; Katie Lozano Subject: FW: Comments for RPV City council meeting regarding proposed parking changes at gel Cera park Attachments: PortugeseBendParkingCommentsCAC.pdf Dear Mr. Cox, Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item regarding Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use ofthe parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Chris Cox [mailto:caccox@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:37 AM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments for RPV City council meeting regarding proposed parking changes at gel Cera park 1 I Please find attached my comments regarding the proposed parking changes near Portugeese Bend Nature preserve. I would like these comments read as part of the city council meeting on 10/20/20 and made a part of the record on this issue. Please let me know if you need any additional information from me (contact info, etc). Thank you. Sincerely, Christopher Cox Torrance, CA 310-616-1790 2 From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:00 PM 'Mike Fricano' Cc: Subject: CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: Del Cerro Park and Parking concerns Dear Mr. Fricano: Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item regarding Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Mike Fricano [mailto:mikefricano@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:44 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Del Cerro Park and Parking concerns Dear City Council, 1 Though I am not a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I am a proud adopted Southern Califonian who was immediately taken in by all that Los Angeles County has to offer those of us lucky enough to live here. From mountains to museums and beaches to music and forests to architecture, there's genuinely something for all of us. That's why I am so troubled, in fact offended, by the proposal to increase parking fees around Del Cerro Park. This smacks of people who voluntarily CHOSE TO LIVE NEXT TO A PARK keeping others, who aren't so privileged, away from a gorgeous and invaluable natural resource. Please reconsider this move in the name of equity and fairness. Mike Fricano 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Poon: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:58 AM 'Victor Poon' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: regarding street parking near Del Cerro and Portugese Bend Reserve Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item regarding Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Qlck here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov msttw@.JJ2Y..ca,.a9..Y-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Victor Poon [mailto:vpoonS@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:47 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: regarding street parking near Del Cerro and Portugese Bend Reserve Hello, I am writing in support of public access to trails in Filiorum, Portuguese Cyn, etc. These are beautiful trails for hiking, biking, or just being outside with friends and family. I grew up in PV, near Ridgecrest Elementary, and though I've moved away, the trail network is a favorite part of returning every few months. I am lucky to visit the trails on foot -they're within running distance from my parents' home. This should not be a requirement for visitation, however. Visiting trails is even more important to all of us during the pandemic, when indoor environments are more conducive to viral spread. I wish for residents and non-residents to be able to meet and safely enjoy the outdoors. 1 I I hope that RPV is open to constructive solutions to the usage patterns at Del Cerro and Portugese Bend Reserve. I know they've changed, but they won't go back to the way it was. Solutions should show openness to visitors, including design changes to accommodate the new normal; this is the balance required to maintain a healthy environment and achieve the purpose of providing access to all. Thanks for reading, Victor Poon [he/him/his] (m) 310.872.0058 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Florez: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:57 AM 'James Florez' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Daniel Trautner RE: Portuguese Bend Public Street Parking Thank you for your email regarding tonight's City Council item regarding Preserve parking and access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and the quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. Your email will be included as late correspondence. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov .Qlattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: James Florez [mailto:jamesflorez11@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:49 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Portuguese Bend Public Street Parking Hello, 1 I As a longtime LA resident I am concerned about the proposal to remove street parking by the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Removing public parking and charging exorbitant fees limits public access to a public space. I am strongly against this and urge you to reject this proposal. Thank You, James Florez 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. and Ms. Brooks, Katie Lozano Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:11 PM xcskiers@earthlink.net CC; CityCierk PVNP parking question Thank you for your email. It will be entered into the public record for tonight's City Council agenda item. There is currently no permit parking program in place for the Preserve with the exception of Park Place, near the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Rancho Palos Verdes residents may obtain a parking permit, regardless of age, through the Public Works Department. Please contact Public Works staff at publicworks@rpvca.gov or 310-544-5252 for additional information on obtaining the permit. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 hatiel@ rpvca .gov City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Dorie and Brooks [mailto:xcskiers@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:42 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: PVNP parking question Can RPV residents over 75 years of age obtain special parking permits to enable us to park closer to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve entrances? 1 I From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:30 AM CityCierk FW: City Council Agenda Item #1 -PV Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues From: Miriam Varend <mir3var@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:47 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda Item #1-PV Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I am providing these comments as a homeowner and resident of Del Cerro since 2001, before the PV Nature Preserve/Portuguese Bend Reserve (PBR) was acquired. I supported acquisition of the Preserve and value the Preserve and PBR. I understand the draw for visitors who want to enjoy the PBR beauty and hiking trails; and I welcome all those who visit and respect the pastoral PBR and the tranquility of the surrounding neighborhoods. The issue of traffic and crowding in the Del Cerro PBR area has been an ongoing dialogue with the City for many years-way too long. While the City has taken incremental measures that helped to diminish some of the traffic/parking issues experienced by the Del Cerro neighborhoods, traffic, parking and noise issues have increased to the point of being intolerable. The Crenshaw traffic and noise has become a 24/7 problem disrupting quiet enjoyment of my home, not to mention creating noise and traffic safety issues along Crenshaw south of Crest Road for the Del Cerro, Burrell Lane, Park Place, Island View and Countryside neighborhoods. Visitors to the PBR have choices in where they want to hike, what time they arrive and park, their conduct and behaviors when walking towards and inside the PBR. My only choice to avoid the barrage of noise and traffic is to sell my home and move. Without the City taking appropriate actions to provide its residents relief, an untenable situation is created. Without immediate actions, the issues that I am confronted with virtually every day, from 5am, sometimes earlier, through the night, will continue unabated. I am seeking relief from the constant barrage of early morning and late night noise, as well as control over traffic/parking/noise issues confronted all day long along Crenshaw south of Crest. Consequently, I offer the following basic principles to the Council as you deliberate next steps in resolving the problems at PBR: 1. I believe it is imperative that the City Council seek a shared solution that distributes parking and visitors to multiple major PBR entrances away from residential homes. This results in a "win-win" solution that benefits residents now experiencing the noise and traffic issues and PBR visitors who today must compete for limited parking and access around a single gateway in the Del Cerro area. It is indefensible that the 256 homes, south of Crest along Crenshaw, bear the sole brunt of traffic, noise and visitors coming to PBR day and night. The trailhead at Burma Road, the single major entry into PBR, has by far the most visitors and traffic of any other Reserves across the Peninsula. 2. Installation of gates at the Burma Road and Rattlesnake Trailheads is a significant step in the right direction. These gates should be opened to visitors no earlier than ?am and be closed at sunset, while allowing visitors an additional hour to exit the PBR. Any parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road should be consistent with these gate and PBR hours. Virtually every day, I am woken up as cars start arriving by Sam -door slams, loud talking, music, yelling, horn/car locking honks. There is no respite. Also, cars arrive to park along Crenshaw, well into the night, with the same attendant noise, yelling, door slams, music, horns. This is outside of the posted parking hours; yet illegal parking continues with 1 / impunity. There is no consequence for visitors who flout parking rules and PBR visiting hours, yet there is tremendous consequence for all the homeowners adjacent to Crenshaw and Burma Road; I have lost the tranquil enjoyment of my home with Sam wake-up calls and late night noise day in and day out. 3. Enforcement of illegal parking violations for those who arrive before the PBR is open at 7am or who linger past the closure (or arrive after the PBR is closed) is essential to cut down on the noise, traffic and before/after hour activities inside and outside of the Preserve. This is especially critical once the trailhead gates are erected and visitors have to learn a new parking/hours regime. It is unfathomable to me why brazen illegal parking and PBR access is tolerated by the City. I appreciate that Sheriff Deputies don't want to spend their time writing parking tickets. I look to the City Council to establish enforcement as a priority action for some City entity whether it be Sheriff, Rangers or others to be able to ticket 7 days a week for before and after hour illegal parking. There is absolutely no valid reason for cars to be parked along Crenshaw after the PBR is closed or before it opens at 7am .. 4. At this point in time, with no definitive information on a potential Parking Reservation System, I respectfully withhold comment until there is a proposed solution to consider. However, I believe that the following requirements should be the foundation of any proposed System: (i) the System is in effect 7 days a week; (ii) no more than 120 cars per day parking on Crenshaw south of Crest; (iii) the System is within the same hours as the PBR hours; and (iv) there is enforcement 7 days a week, including before and after PBR hours (note item 3 above). 5. The City Council reversed course on relocating parking off of Crenshaw south of Crest to alternate existing parking locations at its September 1, 2020 Council meeting. This option should remain under your consideration. The current parking spots on Crenshaw south of Crest can be relocated to Crest Road east of Crenshaw and the west side of Crenshaw north of Crest. Additionally, improved delineated parking on the east side of Crenshaw would improve safety as visitors to PBR currently park there today. The PBR visitors are coming to hike, this is a relatively modest distance from the trailheads and these spots are not directly adjacent to homes. This relocation of parking away from Crenshaw south of Crest is an immediate and inexpensive solution to the noise and traffic safety issues that barrage the 256 homes south of Crest, along with minimizing enforcement costs as people understand what a red curb means. Specific to the published Staff Report on this issue: A. Council Directive #1 -Social Media campaign I appreciate and am encouraged by this innovative approach that allows the City to take control of visitor information. I recommend that the social media campaign also include proper behavior expected of visitors to the Reserve (i.e., no smoking, quiet and respectful when adjacent to homes, no public urination, etc.). Please note that PBR Trail Maps available on the RPV and PVPLC websites continue to direct visitors to a single parking area at the end of Crenshaw, these need to be updated as soon as possible. B. Council Directive #2 -Holistic Parking Analysis for Entire Preserve I commit to continue working with City Staff in providing feedback and engaging collaboratively to develop a shared distributed solution for PBR and across the entirety of the Preserve. The principles identified above, including opening up alternate parking and trailhead locations away from the Burma Road trailhead are imperative. There is no reason to have only one entrance to PBR, the largest within the PV Reserve, embedded within residential neighborhoods. C. Council Directive #3-Gates at Burma Road and and Rattlesnake Trailheads The 256 households around these trail heads have been waiting for these gates since they were approved in June of 2018. The advertised completion date for thee gates continues to slip out and I hope that this action is completed by the latest advertised date of "by November 2020". D. Council Directive #4-Alternative for Parking Enforcement 2 I disagree withthe Staff Report recommendation for Parking Enforcement only on weekends and holidays only. The noise, traffic, late night partying, late night forays into the PBR and Del Cerro Park occur 7 days a week. The visitors choosing to violate Preserve and Park rules by arriving well before opening and staying late at night, illegally parking outside of posted hours, and other dangerous driving behaviors occurring all day long do not only operate on weekends and holidays. This happens most every day. Since 90-95% of the visitors to the Preserve and PBR come from outside the Peninsula, is there a way for the City to seek monies for traffic enforcement from other communities? E. Council Directive #5 -Analyze a Parking Reservation System As stated in Item 4, above, I suggest some basic requirements serve as a foundation for a Parking Reservation System. I respectfully reserve the right to provide comment on such a System once the City has requested comment or released a proposal for consideration. F. Council Directive #6-Parking specific to Crenshaw Relative to additional parking proposed for creation by Rancho del Mar, with shuttles for visitors, I have many concerns. Primarily: (a) It is bringing more traffic and noise to an already overloaded area by bring more people to the single entry point at Burma Road without reducing parking capacity on Crenshaw. I do not view this as part of a shared, distributed solution mentioned in Item A above for creating alternate parking and entry points into PBR away from the Burma Road trailhead-it is more crowding at the same single strung location; (b) This spot is directly below Del Cerro homes on Coveview; by introducing parking and shuttles directly below these homes, noise, yelling and traffic is now added to another part of the Del Cerro neighborhood. This action expands the number of homes within Del Cerro where quiet enjoyment of resident's backyards and properties are taken away; (c) Visitors who don't want to use the proposed Shuttle will make shortcuts, like water finding the path of least resistance, through Pollywog Bog Trail, disturbing residents on Valley View and in the Del Cerro neighborhood. This will also lead visitors to take further shortcuts between homes on Valley View and Del Cerro. already observe visitors taking shortcuts between homes, on private property, in the areas around PBR. This adds to the existing daily chaos and noise. Rather than looking to add more traffic and cars to the Burma Road Trailhead and Crenshaw area, the City's focus must be on relocating parking to alternate existing locations and opening other PBR trailheads, in lieu of one entry in the Del Cerro area, off of PV Drive South and/or via City Hall, for example. Thank you for consideration of these items, Miriam Varend Del Cerro Resident mir3var@icloud.com 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Matt Waters Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:17 PM CityCierk FW: Access to Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve Please use revised version in place of earlier correspondence per request of Guri Otterlei Matt Waters From: Guri Otterlei [mailto:guri.otterlei@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:10 PM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca .gov> Subject: Access to Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve Dear RPV City Council Members, We live on Portuguese Bend and frequently access and use the PV Nature Preserve trails surrounding the west side of our community. We (individual members, the Portuguese Bend Community Association and the Portuguese Bend Riding Club) have been in contact with the city in recent months after a main trail access was blocked. It was recommended to provide our input and concerns for tonight's meeting. The trail in question starts with the community easement at 33 Cinnamon Lane, crosses over the east side of the "Plumtree Property" (owned by Jim York), and accesses the Filiorum Reserve at the Ford Trail. This trail is the ONLY remaining access point to the Filiorum Reserve from our community since all private property has been fenced off and gated in recent years. This local trail to the remote, horse friendly, and less populous Filiorum Preserve has been used daily by horse riders and walkers in our community for generations and is clearly visible on maps and aerial photos. It meets all the criteria required to be considered a Prescriptive Easement, however has been blocked off since July with no end in sight. We believe that a solution for access through the Plumtree Property can and will be worked out with the owner. We urge the city to help enable a solution and preserve this last remaining access point to the Filiorum Preserve for future generations, and to include the trail/ access point in future plans as needed. Kind regards, Guri Otterlei 38 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Sent from my iPhone 1 /. From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:12 AM CityCierk Subject: FW: 10/20/2020 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #1, Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues Late carr From: Miriam Varend <mir3var@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:11 AM To: AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Amy Wang <pinkkie@gmail.com>; Dian Hatch <dion@digiscope.com>; Gregory MacDonald <gregory@arboristgm.com>; Jeff Wang <jeffwangmd@gmail.com>; Mark Kernen <markkernen@hotmail.com>; bharathi singh <nisharjun2003@yahoo.com>; Peter Varend <Pete.varend@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 10/20/2020 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #1, Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues Thanks Kathy-I was scrolling through the late correspondence and observe (1) Portuguese Bend Club community now weighing in to object to alternate parking and (2) the hiking/biking community also large presence. Shd be a lively meeting tonight. I'm signing up to speak tonight-we need voices! M Miriam Varend On Oct 19, 2020, at 4:11 PM, AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> wrote: Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Attached please find letter and related map regarding the subject Council meeting agenda item from the Del Cerro HOA. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Edgerton President Del Cerro HOA <10-19-2020 Ltr to City Council. pdf> <Rancho del Mar Parking Areas.jpg> 1 I From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:36 AM CityCierk FW: Del Cerro Parking DCP From: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:34AM To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Del Cerro Parking DCP Please include in late correspondence. THANKS, CORY From: Gerard Melling <pvmellings@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:09 PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Cc: gpmelling@yahoo.com Subject: Del Cerro Parking DCP If you wish to submit written comments, please provide them to Cory Linder, the Director of Recreation and Parks, at trails@rpvca.gov by noon Tuesday, October 20, 2020. Dear Cory Please bring this to the attention of the meeting tomorrow for DCP. We have four outdoorsy people in our house as almost 20 years in RPV and paying lots of property tax. I am happy to let the council run its elected business but for the first time we have got very wound up over an issue: the DCP. The city has behaved egregiously, sneaking in over-the-top restrictions on our parking on Crenshaw and seeming caving in to loud locals in Oceanaire (who already have their area "residents only" ) and Valley view: none of this put in the newsletter we get, and going under the radar. Red lining and proposing ridiculous parking charges is not the way to go (CA state parks is $15 at Will Rogers) and no consistency with the whale watch (free) or abalone cove ($5?) : particularly as Rpv is the steward of the preserve which has been funded by millions from other parties. We feel quite embarrassed at our city. Despite representations at the last meeting (and unanswered emails to councilors), things only seem to have got worse -red kerbs still up and decisions deferred: the city should consult with Coastal Conservancy, county supervisors, Representatives and Senators and find an equitable solution: pending which the red kerbs should go. There is little point in having a preserve you don't want people to come to. Thank you Cory Gerard and Mary Melling 26600 Menominee Pl TPV 1 / Sent from my iPhone 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Origina I Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:31 AM CityCierk FW: 10/20 meeting 7pm From: Deb Seal <debrasealpt@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 10/20 meeting 7pm Good evening, I am sharing my grave concerns for safety during the high traffic, peak times of visitors to del cerro park. I feel the access to the trails should be granted via permits On weekends and holidays (the peak times I've noticed). Especially given the social distancing needs And the traffic issues, people cross the street from every angle, people are overflowing from the trails, there is a tremendous amount of noise during peak times, and people are not parking in a safe manner. This has become an increasingly bigger concern to me over the past 5 years. Please consider a permit only process or some type of limited entry, reservation system to mitigate this high volume issue. Limiting local parking will help one issue, but it will likely create an issue of people jay walking from even further distances to get to the trails. Deb 1 /. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:30 AM CityCierk FW: Parking restrictions near Portuguese Bend From: Jill Klausen <jillwklausen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:25 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking restrictions near Portuguese Bend To the city council and all who may be concerned, I live in South Redondo Beach and am a frequent hiker of trails in the Rancho Palos Verdes area, and I'm writing to appeal to you not to further restrict or charge exorbitant fees for parking near the Portuguese Bend trailhead in the Del Cerro neighborhood. I live fewer than three blocks from the beach, and there are always people from outside the area who park in front of our house or nearby. It can't be helped, and they are no nuisance. Complaints of car doors closing and people talking? Come on. Those residents need to stop this. They chose to live near a public-access trailhead. I don't feel sorry for them, and neither should you. As for attempting to use price gouging as a means to discourage people from hiking where they please, when they please, on public land that was paid for with federal, state, and county funds, that's simply obnoxious. Do you know what else people do when they come to RPV to hike? Stop for a drink or a bite to eat. Maybe shop in some local stores. I'm sure the nearby businesses will be glad to know you're trying to divert business away from them. Don't do this. It's really elitist snobbery at its worst. Thank you, Jill Klausen Redondo Beach, CA 90277 1 I From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1 :07 PM CityCierk FW: Preserve Parking in Del Cerro From: Kim Lindsey <kimlindseyphd@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:05 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: delcerro_hoa@hotmail.com Subject: Preserve Parking in Del Cerro Dear City Council, Opening up parking for the trails at the School Board Maintenance Yard would be problematic for those of us living right above it on Coveview Dr. as the topography amplifies the sound and acts like a "perfect" amphitheater. We already contend with the noise from cars arriving and departing, including the PV Transit vehicles, very early in the mornings. Even normal voices at the School Board Maintenance Yard can be heard distinctly (sometimes starting as early as 5:30 in the morning). Years ago when we tried to fight the PV Transit plan to park there, we were assured there would be no activity before ?am, but that has not been respected. The proponents said that their environmental review indicated there would not be a significant impact on residents. I countered that those who conducted the environmental review obviously did not sleep on Coveview Dr. The current noise level from the School Board Maintenance Yard activity including the sometimes seemingly incessant back-up beeps from their vehicles is already disturbing. It feels as though we are living directly above a construction site that never ends ... Probably most of us originally moved to our Del Cerro neighborhood hoping for peace and tranquility. Unfortunately the only respite from the School Board Maintenance Yard din is on Holidays and Sundays. The plan to use the School Board parking lot for hikers on weekends and Holidays would mean there is NEVER a day with quiet in the morning to look forward to. Those are the only days I've been able to sleep with the windows open without being awakened by the early morning activity in the last 37 years. I know many of the residents on Oceana ire, Skypark and Amber Sky have had their quality of life affected by the increased traffic and hiker noise, which thankfully is at least partially being addressed. Using the School Board property as an "alternative" parking lot for hikers only extends the negative impact for more Del Cerro residents. If hikers find they are not able to easily park, they might be encouraged to use the alternative entrances to the preserve. The original plan to block all parking on Crenshaw south of Crest would alleviate a great deal of the congestion. I missed the memo on why that enlightened plan was changed, if indeed it was ever a plan and not just an error on the electronic sign on Crenshaw. 1 /. I'm glad people in Los Angeles county are able to enjoy the beauty of our preserve, but that enjoyment should not come at a high environmental cost for the residents of Del Cerro, particularly since there are alternative entrances to the preserve. Respectfully, Kim Lindsey Del Cerro Resident Sent from my iPad 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:46 PM CityCierk FW: Restore street parking & remove fees at Portuguese Bend Reserve From: Lucy Melling <lucyoliviamelling@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Restore street parking & remove fees at Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear RPV City Council, I'm writing to share my concerns about the city's recent removal of street parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd. near a popular trailhead for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, and its proposal to charge $30-$50 for a 4-hr block of parking. In addition to habitat preservation, the Portuguese Bend Reserve and Filiorum Reserve provide trails and recreation for hikers from wealthy communities on the peninsula and nearby communities like Harbor City, Lomita, Carson, and Wilmington which have lower-income populations, higher air pollution burdens, and limited access to green space. These trails and open space are even more important during the pandemic, as hiking and outdoor recreation have been endorsed by public health officials to support physical and mental health while minimizing risk of coronavirus transmission. The vision for the preserve was always to be inclusive of people across the region, not just nearby homeowners. It's a major reason the state contributed at least $17 million for conservation of the two parcels. The city of RPV has been entrusted with this important open space as a benefit for people across the Los Angeles region. Because RPV residents retain access to a 16-car parking lot at Del Cerro Park, the city's decisions on street parking and fees have the biggest impact on non-residents more likely to have limited access to green space and to have suffered greater economic burdens during the coronavirus pandemic. The city should consider restoring the ~20 parking spaces it removed by painting curbs red last month and if it does install parking fees, which are common at other urban open spaces, the rates should be reasonable, more like $1-2/hr than the $7.5-12.5/hr it has proposed. The city should also not add punitive parking tickets which create an additional burden for non-residents impacted by our recent economic crisis. Looking forward, the city should consider ways to proactively include non-resident viewpoints in any decisions on parking restrictions and new fees. Thank you for your consideration, Lucy 1 (. From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:02 PM CityCierk Subject: FW: City Council Meeting-Oct. 20,2020 -Agenda Item # 1 -----Original Message----- From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:53 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Subject: Re: City Council Meeting-Oct. 20,2020-Agenda Item# 1 Dear City Council Members Volumes have been written and hours spent considering the crowding and disruption being caused by visitors to our city in many neighborhoods. Our residents are fortunate to have the amenities of spectacular views, a nature preserve, and an extensive park and recreation system. That is why most of us moved here. The Recreation and Parks Department of the city continues to brainstorm solutions to allow Rancho Palos Verdes to be the recreation center of the region. Why are we continuing to seek ways to allow the current visitor load to not impact the residents? Shouldn't we be trying to find out how many visitors we can accommodate before they impact the residents? Shouldn't we instead be exploring ways to reduce the visitor count? It is about time that the expenditures made in existing infrastructure and staff be analyzed to identify how much catering to visitors is costing the city. And how the costs of current proposals will be used to benefit visitors compared to our residents. Buildings, businesses, and an increasing number of public spaces have determined that they have capacity limits. What is the visitor capacity for Rancho Palos Verdes? We have a problem now because our capacity is being exceeded! Why is it not appropriate for the Council to direct R&P to initiate a reservation system for the Preserve after our capacity limits are established? I feel R&P is way off base by spending time and effort to find ways to mitigate or increase visitor traffic to the city. We have too much already that needs to be reduced! Among the many valid reasons Gateway Park was rejected previously, I do not recall the simple fact that it is not needed if we can control the number of visitors! If it is appropriate for Rancho Palos Verdes to continue to explore ways to allow increased use of the Preserve at Burma Road, what is wrong with asking for ability to use the parking at Rancho Del Mar? And why is is not appropriate for Rancho Palos Verdes to ask Rolling Hills for assistance by opening a connection to Firehouse Trail when the costs of , I maintaining Palos Verdes Drive South is partially exacerbated by the water that reaches the slide from the septic and landscape water of Rolling Hills Residents that contribute to the movement of the slide? Respectfully, Don Bell 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Katie Lozano Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:46 PM CityCierk Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Matt Waters FW: No Subject May we please have your help verifying it is in the record? From: thorockl@aol.com <thorockl@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:45 PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Cc: nchambers77@yahoo.com Subject: Fwd: No Subject I sent this a week ago, and just wanted to make sure it was entered into the record since I did not receive a response. Thank you. Jeff Mock From: thorockl <thorock1@aol.com> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 Subject: Fwd: No Subject To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov> From: thorock1 <thorockl@aol.com> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 Subject: Fwd: No Subject To: nchambers77 <ncham_bers77@.Y.ahoo.com> Hi, Noreen! I'm not sure that reached you, or the RPV city council. Please let me know that you received it, and also that it has been forwarded to the council. Also, Don and Ariel. From: thorockl <thorockl@aol.corn> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 Subject: Fwd: No Subject To: nchambers77 <nchambers77@yahoo.com> 1 I From: Janet Mock <ianetlmock@aol.com> Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 Subject: No Subject To: Jeff <thorock1@aol.com> Honorable mayor of RPV, and city council: I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion regarding the management of parking to the Crenshaw Boulevard access to the trails of the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. It has been reported that this trailhead is the most highly accessed of all entrances to this beautiful area. We appreciate the desire of the public to experience and enjoy native land, but also need to point-out that the visiting must be respectful of the surrounding privately-owned communities, and also their responsibilities to leave no trash or minimum traces of their visit. Unfortunately, it has been my experiences that open parking along Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Road have resulted in traffic congestion, pollution, and trespassing along this short corridor. 1) Traffic congestion such as U-TURNS and double-park waiting has created a very hazardous and burdensome problem for local homeowners. 2) Pollution has become a SERIOUS problem. We have walked our dogs for 20+ years along Crenshaw to Del Cerro Park, and, until the Conservancy trail-head opened-up, we rarely encountered trash or pollution. Trash is now a daily (even hourly) occurrence. We do pick-up much of the debris that we see, but much is blown or thrown into the brush and canyon; out of reach. This pollution not only impacts the quality of life on the homeowners, but, more importantly, on.the ecology of the area that the Conservancy is pledged to restore and protect. 3) Trespassing. Disrespectful and irresponsible persons are ignoring the rights of property owners, HOA's, and the county by ignoring, disregarding, or disobeying the laws. Examples include trespassing on private property; leaving trash and animal feces waste, and destruction and erosion of both public and private properties. As a long time resident of RPV (please read "resident, VOTER, and TAX payer"), I request that the Mayor and Council take the following actions: 1) Eliminate ALL parking on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd. 2) Require the Conservancy to patrol/monitor the trailhead and issue reminders to the hikers regarding locations of trail access, private property, trash ordinances, and legal parking locations. 3) Remind visitors that this is a conservancy dedicated to restoring and protecting the native habitat. 4) Employ rangers and empower them to enforce regulations and issue tickets for violations. Respectfully, Jeffrey L. Mock 35 Santa Barbara Drive RPV, CA 90275 2 Sent from my iPhone 3 From: Sent: To: Kathy Campbell <kc111 @cox.net> Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:07 PM CityCierk Subject: Fwd: Utility Pole Relocation 3867 Crest Road October 20 Agenda and Staff Report 10-18-20-3 Attachments: Utility Pole Relocation 3867 Crest Road October 20 Agenda and Staff Report 1 0-18-20-3.docx Can you please confirm this letter was included in late correspondence and include it, if not? Thank you for your assistance- Kathy Campbell Begin forwarded message: From: Kathy Campbell <kclll@cox.net> Date: October 18, 2020 at 4:54:42 PM PDT To: kclll@cox.net Subject: Utility Pole Relocation 3867 Crest Road October 20 Agenda and Staff Report 10-18-20-3 1 3 Dear Councilmember: The October 20 Staff Report is incomplete and fails to address the objections of the HOA, while capitulating to all of Mr. Funiciellos unreasonable demands. Simply put, the Council should not use its discretion to allow a private party to transfer the burden from his property onto other private property or City land in order to complete a private beautification project. He has no legal right to do so. It is morally, ethically and legally wrong and the Council should just say NO. 1. Issuance of the permit is discretionary, and the City is immune from any liability associated with its denial. Gov. Code 818-4. Mr. Wynder is on record in an exchange with Councilmember Bradley on July 21 at approximately 2:16 into the meeting. This is confirmed in Mr. Lewellyn's letter, Staff Report p. 18. 2. Constitutional Limits on Municipal Authority. Exercise of the police power must be reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose, with a reasonable basis in fact. Enabling a private beautification project does not qualify. 3. The City does not own the property. The HOA succeeded to the Developers interest and owns the property in Fee. The City does not own the property. The City has an easement. There is no RPV, California, or Federal law that permits anyone to enter or use private property without the owners' consent. 4. The City has a limited right to use its easement. The City has an easement. By definition, an easement is a limited right to use private property. Here, that use is limited to the City, for use by "public utilities." Moreover, the easement may not be substantially altered without the consent of the owner of the servient estate (here, the HOA). s. Edison does not have its own Easement. Edison admits that is not acting as a public utility, but is merely acting as a private contractor for this private beautification project. The CPUC agrees. There is no argument that any easement of "necessity" exists, because everyone agrees this project was undertaken to shift the visual blight from one property to another in order to vacate an easement. 6. The Easement for Public Utilities cannot be expanded to either Edison or the Funiciellos. The City cannot grant use of its Easement to Edison, who is merely a private contractor for this private beautification project, nor can it grant use of its easement for public utilities to the Funiciellos, because they are not public utilities, and by law, private citizens are not permitted to use public utility easements. 7· Misuse of Public Resources. Public right of ways exists to serve the public. It is a misuse of public resources and a violation of public trust to permit a private party to use the public right of way or public land for a private beautification project that benefits solely one party. 8. Impermissible Use of Public Right of Way. There are standards governing the permissible use of a public right of way: a. The use must serve or be incidental to transportation of people or goods, or serve public safety; [not present here for this private beautification project]; b. Serve either a public interest or the private interest of the underlying landowner that does not interfere with the public's use; [not present here, the HOA objects]; and c. Not unduly danger or interfere with use of the abutting property [not present here; in fact, the proposed use CREATES a public safety hazard]. 9. Intentional Creation of Public Safety Hazard. If granted, this will be an unprecedented use of a public right of way to CREATE, rather than mitigate, a public safety hazard by intentionally locating high voltage wires in proximity to a grove of mature pine trees, with actual knowledge of two electrical fires in this area. 10. Promotion of Conflict and Detrimental to Public Welfare. If this permit is granted, it will promote conflict between property owners in RPV. Anyone objecting to utility poles will be able to move them into a public right of way, and the party with the most money will prevail. 11. Inconsiderate Lack of Notice. If granted, this City will be making a massive infrastructure change with potential adverse consequences to the City of Rolling Hills, the FAA, and the County of Los Angeles and its related critical emergency communications infrastructure, without notice to any of them. 12. Denial of Consideration of the HOA. The HOA has had no input into this process and Mr. Funiciello has refused to provide cost information to either the City staff or the HOA. 13. Encroachment permit does not grant anyone the legal right to use HOA private property. If the permit is granted, the encroachment permit is limited to construction on City streets; here, Crest Road. The Encroachment Permit is not a grant of a right to use the City's easement for public utilities, nor is it a grant to enter or use private HOA property without the landowner's consent. 14. No Legal Right Acquired/ Detrimental Reliance by alleged expenditure of funds or delay in process. Mr. Funiciello has refused to substantiate the actual cost of the various iterations of this private beautification project and does not have the right to remove the burden from his property, purchased with full knowledge, and transfer that burden to the HOA private property in a nontransparent, piecemealed project, designed to conceal the scope of the project. 15. Notice. If the permit is granted, the HOA intends to put up a fence, call the police, and pursue legal action for trespass and all other remedies. Mr. Wynder's legal opinion referenced on Page 4 of the Staff Report is simply wrong. In Schmidt v. Bank of America, 223 Cal. App. 4th 1489 (2014), the trespassing party argued that a "public right of way" was created over an easement. The Court stated that an easement is a restricted right to specific, limited definable use or activity upon another's property, which right must be less than the right of full ownership. "It is fundamental that the language of a grant of an easement determines the scope of the easement." The court explicitly rejected the argument that the phrase "and incidental purposes" should be broadly interpreted to include any use incidental to the limited and restricted use. "Incidental purposes" are necessarily dependent and subordinate to the main purpose of the easement" [here, public utilities]. Mr Wynder's opinion that the incidental use of the City easement for public utilities should be broadly construed to permit a private party to complete a private beautification project is simply wrong and has been explicitly rejected. Conclusion and Recommendation: Mr. Funiciello does not have the legal right to transfer the burden from his private property onto HOA private property or onto City land. The Encroachment Permit should be denied and can be denied without any liability to the City. Nevertheless, the HOA is willing to consider allowing the utilities to be relocated onto the HOA private property IF, AND ONLY IF, the Funiciellos and the City agree that the entire project be undergrounded. Very truly yours, Katherine A. Campbell TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK OCTOBER 19, 2020 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 20, 2020 City Council meeting: Item No. D G 1 Description of Material Email from Dale Hanks Updated Attachment A w/ tracked changes (Guidelines to Underground Utilities) Email exchanges between Recreation and Parks Director Linder and: Makoto Mizutani; Christine Sparks; Daniela Gorny; Nate Federman; Alden Hawkins; Marissa Gluck; Jon Buckell Email exchanges between Senior Analyst Waters and: Portuguese Bend Beach Club; Herb Stark; Steve Boyer; Donna Hulbert; Maryann Low; Jessica Landeros; Robin Rome; Oliver Hazard; Bryce Lowe- White; Luciana Molinari; Michael Barth; David Hannum; Alan Rudy; Andrew Ely; Email exchange between Senior Analyst Lozano and Sheri Hastings Emails from: Lisa Gladstone; Romas Jarasunas; Dottie Hashizumi; Anne Hazard; Kathy Edgerton; Bryan Bergsteinsson 3 Emails from: Betty Attenello; Deborah Sedlachek; Alex Pop Re~mitted, Emily Colborn L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2020 Cover Sheets\20201020 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx From: Sent: To: Jaehee Yoon Monday, October 19, 2020 12:56 PM CityCierk Subject: Fwd: Noncommercial Antenna_Draft Ord._City Council Meeting Draft5Antenna0rd.pdf Attachments: Hi, Please include as late correspondence for the noncommercial antenna ordinance tomorrow night. Thank you. Jaehee From: dalehanks <dalehanks@pvstk.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:05:07 PM To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> Subject: Noncommercial Antenna_Draft Ord._City Council Meeting Yahee Yoon; Please submit the attachment for City Council meeting October 20. Thanks. Dale Hanks On October 14, 2020 11:04 AM Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear all, As an interested party regarding the proposed noncommercial amateur radio antenna code amendment, please find attached the Oct. 22nd City Council staff report for the 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance. If you wish to participate in the virtual zoom meeting to speak, please fill out the following link: http ://rpvca .gov /Form Center/City-Service-Reg uests-3/P ubI ic-Pa rtici patio n-and-Comment-Reg uest -82 Should you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. 1 ]). Sincerely, Jaehee Yoon Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (31 0) 544-5224 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. 2 Problems with the Draft Antenna ordinance. By Dale Hanks., October 19., 2020 C 2 e. A noncommercial amateur radio antenna assembly shall not include oil derrick style structures and no structures with guy wires shall be used or constructed, except as provided for in this Section. Problem: The only "except"s are in D 3 e, which would imply that Planning Commission approval is required for these exceptions. Solution: Move D 3 e to subsection C 2. C 2 i. All antennas capable of being retracted and extended shall be retracted to its minimum size and height when not in use or retracted as required in any conditions of approval issued by the City. Problem: "When not in use" is unclear. Is it when not in use for one hour, or when on vacation? Note that when the antenna is retracted it advertises that no one is home. Solution: Delete C 2 i. c 2 k. Upon the sale or transfer of the subject property any permit issued under this section shall not be transferable to any other person including a new property owner. Problem: "Transfer" could be misinterpreted. It could be changing title from dual ownership to a single survivor, to a trust, to a child survivor, or even a re-finance with a bank. Solution: Delete C 2 k. C 4 b ii. A typed mailing list of all property owners within a five hundred-foot radius to the subject property, using the last equalized tax roll of the county assessor and any affected homeowners associations, and a vicinity map identifying all properties included on the mailing list. Problem: A computer readable mailing list would be more suitable for all parties. Solution: Rewrite C 4 b ii and D 2. C 4 b v. The applicant shall certify that the proposed antennas and installation, comply with FCC regulations related to interference and in the event the interference occurs, the applicant will take all steps necessary to resolve the same. Problem: FCC specifies the level of interference that equipment must tolerate and specifies that equipment sold in the USA be type tested. Solution: Add "as required by FCC regulations" after "necessary". End. (Draft5.odt) GUIDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING (CPUC RULE 208) CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY lHE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 17, 2005 AMENDED BY lHE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 20, 2020 01203 .0006/675607.2 -- A-1 Table of Contents Item Page No. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Procedures First Phase Phase 1: Building Neighborhood Consensus .......................................................... .4 Second PhasePhase 2 : Project Design and Cost Estimate ......................................................... 6 Third PhasePhase 3: District Formation-Engineer's Report and Assessment Calculations ... 8 Fourth PhasePhase 4 : Assessment District and Bond Sale ..................................................... .! 0 Fifth PhasePhase 5: Construction of Underground Utility Improvements .............................. 11 Frequently Asked Questions ....................................................................................................... 12 Exhibits Letter of Intent ............................................................................................................. Exhibit A Petition (for the City to advance funding for engineering services) ............................ Exhibit B Letter of Support (for the City to advance funds for engineering services) ................ Exhibit C Explanation ofNon-Support or Opposition ................................................................. Exhibit D Petition (for the City to form an Assessment District) ................................................ Exhibit E Letter of Support (for the City to form an Assessment District) .................................. Exhibit F Explanation ofNon-Support or Opposition ................................................................. Exhibit G (Draft) Notice of Assessment. ...................................................................................... Exhibit H Ballot (for formation of an Assessment District) .......................................................... Exhibit I (Final) Notice of Assessment and Invoice .................................................................... Exhibit J Consent for Construction of Home Service Connection .............................................. Exhibit K 01203 .0006/675607 .2 A-2 G UIDELI NES TO RE SIDENTI AL UTILIT Y UNDER GROUND IN G Introduction These purpose of these guidelines were created by the Cityis to provide residents who are interested in undergrounding overhead utility lines (power lines, telephone wires, television/internet cables and associated poles and infrastructure) in their neighborhood with the necessmy information, which is commonly referred to as "undergrounding." Undergrounding is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPU C) under Electric Tariff Rule 20, which allows cities and counties to identify areas for undergrounding projects. Depending on the project characteristics and eligibility under pre-established criteria, a utility may fund some, all , or none of the costs of an overhead conversion. Rule 20 provides three levels, A, B, and C, of progressively diminishing ratepayer funding for the projects (and a sub-program D which is specific to undergrounding in San Diego G~&E lectric 's Fire Threat District). For the Rule 20 program , cities identify overhead lines that they wish te convert to underground, and in consultation with their investor:-owned utility determine if the conversion project qualifies for any of the Rule 20 A, B, CorD programs. For more information on the CPUC, and Tariff Rule 20 , please visit www.cpuc .ca .gov , Although few projects gather as much initial public support as undergrounding projects, when the costs and complexity arets better understood, support wains significantly. Although limited Rule 20 funding is available to the City for undergrounding projects along major arterial roadways, such funding is NOT available for these projects in residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the cost of such projects are the full financial responsibility of the affected property owners. Undergrounding often positively addresses a number of neighborhood concerns, including • Unsightly above-ground utilities • View obstructions • tindividual concerns regarding health and safety However, the process of undergrounding in residential neighborhoods is costly and complex, and presents a number of challenges and concerns , such as: • Scale and scope of an undergrounding project • Sharingetl costs amongst the affected property owners • Rights and responsibilities of affected property owners, including those who support or do not support undergrounding • Financing options including payment plans • Utility connection between the new underground lines and the structures, including associated costs and the physical impacts on landscaping and the connections to homes • Potential financial hardship on one or more affected property owners • Impacts to roadways, sidewalks and other infrastructure in the public right-of-way -Once an individual, small group, or neighborhood endeavors to underground utilities in their neighborhood , they may either fund the process themselves utilizing Rule 20C , or nw-st-seek to establish an undergrounding aAssessment d df)istrict through Rule 20B . 9 1?93 99961§7569 7 z PAGE1 A-3 GU IDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING The process described in these guidelines are based upon the best information available to the City at the time, and is intended to be a step-by-step approach for residential neighborhoods considering to pursue undergrounding forming an aAssessment d d9istrict through Rule 20B . In forming an undergrounding aAssessment d d.Q.istrict, there is no set requirement of neighborhood support (i.e. what percentage of property owners need to support the project), but funding of the full project costs must be provided by the neighborhoodat least 50%. Generally , if the petition to underground is supported by at least two thirds (66%) of property owners within the proposed district must be in support a the formation of the proposed district in order for the City to consider forming the aAssessment d.Q.istrict. However, even in a case where 50% of the property owners support formation, the City Council has the final decision on whether the aAssessment d.Q.istrict is formed. , it will be recommended that the City advance funding. In brief, _• _At this time , the best estimates available to the City for undergrounding at the planning stage is approximately $50 ,000 per property , although the final cost will vary. _• _Costs to underground are borne by individual property owners. Although full paym ent by property ovmers at the time of the project is ideal , financing project costs will likely be a necessity for many property owners. The Assessment District funds the project tlu·ough the sale of bonds and the imp osesimposition of ana semi-annual property tax assessment , which is paid bienniall y with pro p erty taxes , to pay off thesethe bonds. •-Property Owners must also consider the cost efto connect the underground utilities to their home. This cost is not consideredcovered by as p art of the Assessment District. The most likely sources of available financing would be : Individually obtained financing (i.e. Home Equity Line of Credit, credit card or personal loan) _• _City financing assistance (resulting in liens on individual properties , which would be repaid biennially '.vith property taxes) 0 J?Q 3 00061§?56 Q7 2 PAGE2 A -4 9 J?9 3 999§167569 7 2 GU IDELI NES TO RES IDEN TIAL UT ILI TY UNDERGROUNDING PROCEDURES PAGE3 A-5 GU IDELINES TO RES IDENT IAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING First Phase: Phase 1: Neighborhood Interest and Organization Step 1: Determine the Llevel of i!nterest within your nN eighborhood Speak with your neighbors and discuss the contents of this Guideline brochure. Mit-is highly likely that most property owners and individuals will-are likely to be in favor of relocating overhead utilities (power lines, telephone and cable television) underground, but l:IHffiJ'-may be reluctant or unwilling to pay for such relocation . Although interested neighbors can propose the boundaries of the district area for undergrounding based on neighborhood support for the project, the district must also be feasible to the affected utility companies and will likely be based on the layout of the affected portion of the utilities infrastructure. Step 2: Form a Neighborhood Committee and/or Select a Neighborhood Representative Interested neighbors should form a committee to represent the neighborhood and appoint a lead neighborhood representative to serve as the primary point of communication with City staff, and-representatives of Southern California Edison (SCE},_ and other utilitiesthe applicable utilities (~i-:&.-Cox Communications , Verizon, AT&T, etc.) The committee can be formed by a Homeowner's Association (HOA) Board of Directors or any group of property owners interested in undergrounding. If the proposed district is governed by (or partially governed by) a HOA , a letter of support from the HOA's Board of Directors is required. Step 3: Provide City with Letter of Interest The neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative submits a Letter of Interest to the City (See Exhibit A as a sample letter). This letter is addressed to the City Council and delivered to the Public Works Department. The purpose of the letter is to notify the City of the neighborhood's interest and intention to form an undergrounding assessment district. The letter should identify the area contemplated for undergrounding (a map depicting the area should be attached to the letter) and indicate to what degree the neighborhood has discussed undergrounding. The letter should also give the name and contact information of the neighborhood representative. 9 JZ 03 00961fi7560 7 2 PA GE 4 A-6 Step 4: City will lwst-Host a Community Meeting GU IDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UT ILITY UNDERGROUNDING Upon receipt of a Letter of Interest, which indicates significant outreach and a significant level of support amongst property owners in the proposed district area, City staff will begin the process of scheduling a community meeting to discuss the details of the proposed project and the potential impacts on the properties , property owners ~ and occupants. As part of that process , the receipt of the Letter of Intent Interest will be reported in the City Manager's Weekly Administrative Report. The Community mMeeting will be scheduled so that representatives from the following are in attendance: • City Manager (or a designee) • Public Works Staff • Neighborhood representative and neighborhood committee members • Representatives of impacted utility companies , includingsuch as : • Southern California Edison • Cox Communications • Verizon • AT&T Notice of the community meeting will be sent to all property owners within the proposed district area at least 15 days in advance of the meeting. OJ?Q 3 OOQ61fi756 0Z 2 PAGES A-7 GUIDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGRO UNDIN G Second Phase: Phase 2: Petition the City to adyance Advance funding Funding for Engineering Step 5: Petition and Letters of Support I Explanations for Eexamples of Lack of Support After a Community Meeting is held , the neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative may petition for the City to advance funding for engineering for the project. (See Exhibit B for the form to be used) The neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative are to reach out to all of the owners of properties in the proposed district area, and obtain one of the following for each property: • Letter of Support~ signed by the property owner~ that is accompanied by a check for $500 for each property , made payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (See Exhibit C for the form to be used), or • Letter of Opposition , with si gnatures not requir ed , explaining why the property owner(s) oppose(s) the project or does not support it (See Exhibit D for the form to be usedJ A signature is not required . Checks accompanying Letters of Support will be deposited by the City into a Trust Deposit account and held until expenses begin to be incurred for engineering services to design the project. Deposits will be refundable up until a purchase order is opened by the City for engineering services"-, or until the project is canc e led , 'Nhichever occurs fi..rs.t.:. Refunds will not be subject to interest accrued in the Trust Deposit, nor potential lost interest by the property ownerfs:). It is unlikely that support for the undergrounding project will be unanimous, even if only due to individual financial reasons . Thus, when the ownerfs:) of a property do es not support, or simply opposes , the proposed project, the neighborhood representative and/or neighborhood committee member must document the reason for the opposition or lack of support on the Letter of Opposition form. (See Exhibit D) Step 6: City staff-Staff verifieatien Verification Upon receipt of the Petition and supporting documents, City staff will begin to verify that at least one Letter of Support or Letter of Opposition have been submitted for each property within the proposed district area. Staff will also verify that the name on the petitions match the current assessment relesrolls . Upon verification, the proposed project will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council at one of its regularly scheduled meetings (typically the first or third Tuesday of each month). OJ 203 00061§756Q 7 2 PAGE6 A-8 Step 7: Step 8: City Council Ceonsideration GUIDELIN ES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERG ROU NDIN G As a Regular Business Agenda item, the City Council will consider the following actions in response to the neighborhood's petition: • To support Support the neighborhood's efforts to create an undergroundingassessment district in their neighborhood; • Establish an assessment district for that purpose; • Assume the role of lbead ~Agency for the project, or defer to one of the utility companies (such as Southern California Edison); • Advance funding for engineering services to prepare plans and specifications for the project (Staff will only recommend to the City Council that the City advance such funding ifthe Petition is accompanied by Letters of Support from at least two-thirds (66.6%) of property owners within the proposed project area); • Alternatively, elect te-not 1Q_support the neighborhood's efforts ; and • Take any other action deemed appropriate by the City Council! When considering the neighborhood's petition, including whether or not to advance funds for a particular project, the City Council will consider many factors, including but not limited to the following : • Project costs; • Availability of funding ; • Level of neighborhood support; and • How the neighborhood intends to address impacted property owners who have expressed a financial concern over the project.,. Funding of Engineering Costs In the event that the City Council elects to advance funding for engineering, the Finance Department will help determine the appropriate means and methods necessary for providing necessary funds. This may require the issuing of bonds and assessment of liffis on proposed benefitting properties to ensure such funds are reimbursed to the City, regardless of whethertf the undergrounding project is completed or not. OJ?Q3 QOQ§Ifi?S§Q? 2 PAGE? A-9 GUIDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTI LITY UNDERGROUNDING Third Phase: Phase 3: Engineering and Apportionment of Project Costs Step 9: Selection of Engineering ,Efi rm Like all other public projects impacting infrastructure facilities in the public right-of- way, Plans, Specifications,_ and an Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs must be prepared prior to obtaining public bids from potential contractors. If the City Council elects to serve as the lead agency on the project, the City Council will award a contract to an engineering firm to prepare the needed documents for the project. If the City Council elects to defer to one of the utility companies (i.e. Southern California Edison) as the lead agency for the project, that utility company will assume the responsibility for hiring an engineering firm for that purpose, or choQse to prepare the documents using internal staff. All costs for the preparation of the documents shall be the financial responsibility of the owners of the properties in the proposed assessment district, or as proposed in the petition to address potential financial hardships of individual property owners. Step 10: Preparing Plans, Specifications and an Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs w It is important to note that the Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs will be an estimate of the total construction cost for undergrounding the overhead utility facilities in the public right-of-way areas only, and will not include the cost for individual properties to connect to relocated facilities, nor define costs on a property-by-property basis. Step 11: Proposed Aa-pportionment of pr_roject eCosts Once E_plans, .S.specifications,_ and the Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs have been prepared, the Engineer will assess each property's benefit from the project and prepare a report that includes: • A map of the project area • The methodology used to determine the benefits to each property from the project • A recommended property-by-property apportioned cost of the project Th~at report will be provided to the neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative to share with all of the impacted property owners, and a meeting will be scheduled for the neighborhood to discuss the allocation of financial responsibility. Q J203 QQQ6/6756QZ 2 PAGES A-10 GUIDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UT ILITY UNDERGROUNDING Step 12: Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting will be scheduled to discuss the recommended distributionproposed apportiomnent of project costs and either agree with the recommendation proposed apportionment or propose an alternative distribution . The meeting will be scheduled so that representatives from the following are in attendance: • City Manager (or a designee) • Public Works Staff • All owners of properties in the proposed Assessment District • Representatives from impacted utility companies, which may includesuch as : • Southern California Edison • Cox Communications • Verizon • AT&T Notice of the community meeting will be sent to all property owners within the proposed district area at least 15 days in advance of the meeting. Ql ZQJ QQQfi!fi?jfi OZ 2 PAGE9 A-11 G UIDELIN ES TO RES IDENTIAL UT ILITY UNDERGROUNDING Fourth Phase: Phase 4: Petition to Establish an Assessment District Step 13: Petition to eEstablish an Assessment District After the Neighborhood Meeting is held, the neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative must submit a Petition to Establish an Assessment District (See Exhibit E for the form to be used) to the City, accompanied by the following: • Letters of Support (and accompanying checksfees) for each property for which the owner(s) are in support of the project • Letters of Opposition for each property for which the ownerfsj do es not support, or oppose , the project • A proposal to address the financial share of property owners for which the project would pose a financial hardship (A possible proposal would be for the neighborhood to agree to collectively share the financial responsibility of property owners for which the project would present a financial hardship) The neighborhood committee and/or neighborhood representative must submit a Petition to Establish an Assessment District (See E)chibit E for the form to be used) to the City , accompanied by the following: Step 14: Council Meeting to Ceonsider a Resolution of Intent to Form an Assessment District As a Regular Business Agenda item, the City Council will consider the Engineer's report (see Step 11). Ifthe report is accepted, the City Council will adopt a Resolution oflntent, which sets a Public Hearing date (at least 45 days lateffollowing the adoption of the Resolution of Intent), at which time the City Council will hear testimony and decide whether or not to form an Assessment District. QPQ3 QOQ61fi Z5 fiQ Z z PAGE 10 A-12 GUIDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING Fifth Phase: Phase 5: Voting and Public Hearing to establish Establish an Assessment District Step 15: Notice of Assessment and Ballots Mm-ailed The City Council can only form an Assessment District if a simple majority of the assessed property ownershipies (weighted by assessment amounts) agree to the assessment. To determine if this .S.state:-mandated maJonty is met, ballots and Notices of Assessment are mailed 45 days prior to the Public Hearing. The results of the ballot election are tabulated at the Public Hearing. If a simple majority of assessed properties (weighted by assessment amounts) does NOT support the formation of the proposed ~Assessment .QD istrict, then the ~Assessment .QDistrict will not be formed. In such an event, the project will not move forward and property owners will be required to reimburse the City for the Engineering costs incurred, in accordance with the neighborhood's petition to advance funding. Step 16: City Council conducts a Public Hearing A Public Hearing is conducted by the City Council to review ballot results and to receive comments or protests from the property owners and the results . If a simple majority of the weighted assessment (The term "w e ighted ass essment" means that the vote of a property owner with a $20 ,000 assessment counts twice as much as the property O'vmer with a $10 ,000 assessment) value property owner2.s vote in favor of the project, the City Council may adopt the resolution forming the Assessment District. The term "weighted assessment value " means that the vote of a property owner with a $20 ,000 assessment counts twice as much as the property owner with a $10 ,000 assessment. The City Council has the discretion to refuse to form an Assessment District, notwithstanding successful vote in support. The ballot result is not the only factor that will be considered by the City Council. Other factors that may be considered by the City Council include: • How the neighborhood intends to address impacted property owners who have expressed a financial concern over the project • Level of neighborhood support • City benefit from the project Step 17: Notice of Assessment If the Assessment District is formed, a Notice of Assessment and .Efi nancing Oeptions will be mailed to each affected property owner. A property owner may pay the assessment within the 30-day cash collection period and receive a discount for bond QJ2 Q3 00061§756Q7 2 PAGE 11 A-13 GU IDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UT ILI TY UNDERGROUNDING financing costs. Property owners not paying within the 30-day period will have an assessment placed against their property in accordance with the Engineer's Report and will pay off the assessment in semi-annual_Rayments with their property tax bills. Q I ?Q3 QQQ§!fi?j§QZ 2 PAGE12 A-14 GUIDELI NES TO RES IDENTIAL UT ILITY UNDERGROUNDING ~S-Hixtt:tflh-:tP:"-::hHaH!sree-;-:f S!!e~c~o~nl!:!d~P[lh!!.!a~s~e~: __ Co nstru ctio n of U n dergro un d Utility Improvements Step 18: Construction Southern California EdisonThe applicable e lectrical uti lity must complete the portions of the work related to placing their facilities within conduits , however, much of the work may be advertised for competitive bids . The City will either enter into a contract with Southern Ca lifornia Edis.Ql}the applicable electrical utility to construct the improvements or advertise a contract for the construction . If the latter approach is utilized , bids will be sought in accordance with the City 's public project policies and procedures. When all properties are connected to the underground system, the utilities will convert to the underground sy stem and utility wires and poles are removed. 012 03 00061§75607 2 PAGE 13 A-15 ppm 00061§7560 7 z GU IDELINES TO UNDER GROU ND UTILITI ES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FAOs (FREOUENTL Y ASKED QUESTIONS) PAGE14 A -16 UNDERGROUND UTILI TIES IN RESIDENTI AL NEIGHBORHOODS FA Os (FRE OUENTL Y Asi<E D QuES TI ONS) 1. What are the typical costs? The cost of undergrounding overhead utilities lines varies greatly from project to project; however, it is estimated to cost $50,000 per property. However, the cost ¥afiescan also vary significantly from property to property. This amount is typically paid through an assessment. In addition to the construction within the street, the service connection to the individual homes must also be reconstructed. Under /\ssessment DistrictState law, the cost for these private connections is the responsibility of property owners . However, the law also provides that property owners can fill out a consent form requesting the City construct the connection to the individual homes ervice as well and in such cases , the cost is included in the assessment and paid by the property owner over time. The cost to reconstruct individual service connections will vary greatly depending upon distance from the street to the connection point, as well as the type improvements that are impacted by the construction. An get*kstimate for a 40-foot connection in lawn, or standard concrete or asphalt is $5 ,000. 2. Will everyone pay the same amount? Generally , no. The assessment process will determine the amount paid by various property owners and will vary depending on the benefit the property receives from the project. For example, properties with views greatly improved by the project will pay a higher assessment than a property with little or no improvement to view. 3. How is the area of the aAssessment district determined? The area of the assessment district is determined by the neighborhood, in conjunction with Southern California Edisonthe applicable electrical utility , to make sure the district boundaries works well with the electrical grid. 4. Will all the wires and poles be removed? The undergrounding project will generally remove all wires and poles. There are some exceptions. Poles that support streetlights will not be removed. In addition , poles that support cellular (wireless) communications may only be removed if an alternate location can be found. 5. How long should the process take? The length of the process will vary greatly from project_-to _-project, depending on size, complexity , and availability of City funding and neighborhood support. It will take approximately 12 months to design the improvements and six months to form the Assessment District. A good estimate of time for the entire process is three four3 to 4 years. op m QOQ§Ifi?56 0? z PAGE 15 A-17 UN DER GROUN D UT ILI TIES IN RES IDENTI AL NEIGHBORHOO DS FAQs (FREOUENTL Y ASK ED Q UES TI ONS) 6. Why can't the City pay for undergrounding utilities? Although the City is supportive of neighborhood undergrounding projects, adequate funding is not available. The undergrounding program requires the City to advance the cost of engineering services to design the plans and to prepare the Engineer's Report of Assessments. These costs, however, will be added to the cost of construction and included in assessments to be paid by the property owners within the assessment district. 7. Does the City receive funding for undergrounding from Southern California Edison? Yes, the City is allocated a certain amount of "work credits" annually for undergrounding , however, these credits must be accumulated over many years to funds undergrounding projects , and those projects are generally alongmay only be utilized for projects which benefit a large number of citizens , such as arterial roadways. Rule 20A projects are constructed in areas of communities that are used most often by the general public. Because ratepayers contribute the bulk of the costs of Rule 20A programs through utility rates , the projects must be in the public interest by meeting one or more of the following public interest criteria: • Eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines; • Involve a street or road with a high volume of public traffic • Benefit a civic or recreation area or area of unusual scenic interest; • Be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defmed in the Governor 's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines 8. Why can't Southern California Edison pay for utility undergrounding? Unfortunately, undergrounding is expensive and there is no legal requirement for Southern California Edison to underground their facilities. 9. What equipment will still be visible above ground? Will I get a chance to review proposed equipment locations before they are finalized? Transformers will be located in sub-surface vaults covered by typical manhole covers . Telephone systems also require above ground terminals. In addition, many underground facilities will require air vents, which will be visible from the street. 10. What is an !!_A ssessment !!District? An ~A ssessment g.Q istrict is a financing tool used to fund the cost of a construction project over a period of time. With an ~A ssessment g-9istrict, costs are apportioned to each parcel within the project boundary based upon the value of the special benefit conferred on that parcel. The amount each parcel pays is determined in the Engineer's Report of Assessment. Q J?93 QQQ 61fi756Q Z 2 PAGE 16 A-18 UNDERGROUND UT ILI TIES IN RESIDENT IAL NE IGHBORHOODS FAOs (FREOUENT L Y Asi<ED QuESTIONS) 11. How will I pay for the assessment? Assessments can be paid one of two ways , either the amount of the assessment can be paid in cash or it can be financed in,_ which case it will be paid over a time period typically 20 years as part of the property tax bill. Property owners wishing to pay the entire amount up front will save the cost of interest. 12. What is the term of bond financing? Bonds are usually financed over 15 to 20 year terms. 13. Can assessments be deferred for hardship cases? Individuals should consult with a tax advisor to determine if they qualify for the State of California Property Tax Postponement Program. If qualified , the utility undergrounding assessment may be deferred until the property is sold or the estate is settled. Information regarding the State of California Property Tax Postponement Program can be found at the California State Controller 's Office website: 9 J?93 QQQ 61fi756Q7 2 PAGE 17 A-19 OJ ?Q3 0006!fi? j§Q? 2 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR HOODS PROCESS OVERVIEW • Determine neighbor interest • Form a committee and select representative • Provide City with Letter of Intent • City will host a Community Meeting with neighborhood representative(s) and Utility Company representatives • Petition (and accompanying Letters of Support) the City to advance funding for Engineering • City staff verification • City Council consideration • (potential) Funding of Engineering costs • Selection of Engineering firm • Preparing Plans, Specifications and an Engineering Estimate of Construction Costs • Proposed apportionment of project costs • Neighborhood Meeting to discuss Engineering and apportionment of costs • Petition to establish an Assessment District (and accompanying Letters of Support) • City Council consideration of a Resolution of Intent to form an Assessment District and set a Public Hearing date • Voting • City Council conducts a Public Hearing to consider the formation of an Assessment District • Notices of Assessment (identifying financing options) • Construction PA GE 18 A-20 Ql ?Q3 QQQ 61fi 75 fiQ 7 2 G UID ELINES TO UNDERGRO UND UTILI TIES IN RES IDENTI AL NEIGHBORHOODS EXHIBITS PAGE 19 A-21 EXHIBIT A GU IDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING LE I I ER OF INTEREST (FROM NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE) A-22 Letter of Interest to underground utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 I/We, as owner(s) ofproperty(ies) within the neighborhood (depicted on the attached map) of the City ofRancho Palos Verdes ("City") with existing overhead electrical and communication utility lines and poles, wish to pursue a project to have those utilities relocated underground in my/our neighborhood. As such, Ilwe have reviewed the latest version of the City's "Guidelines to Underground Utilities in Residential Neighborhoods and discussed its contents with owners of_[#]_ of the _[#]_ properties in the proposed area of the project. Of the owners that Ilwe have spoken to,_[#]_ have expressed their willingness to support a project for undergrounding the overhead utility facilities, including indicating that they are willing to bear their fair portion of the financial responsibility for associated project costs. Therefore, Ilwe hereby request that the City schedule a meeting with owners of properties from the area depicted on the attached map and representatives of the City and companies owning overhead utility facilities in our neighborhood. Respectfully , (signature) (signature) (full name, printed) (full name, printed) Owner of the property at: Owner of the property at: (only address number and street name are needed) (only address number and street name are needed) (signature) (signature) (full name, printed) (full name, printed) Owner of the property at: Owner of the property at: (only address number and street name are needed) (only address number and street name are needed) 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-23 EXHIBIT B G UIDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UT ILITY UNDERGR OU NDING PETITION FOR THE CITY TO AD\/1\NGE ADVANCE FUNDING FUNDING FOR ENGINEERING ENGINEERING (FORM) 01203.0006/675607 .2 A-24 Petition of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to ad".,ranee Advance funding Funding for engineering Engineering serviees Services for a "(}P roposed u-U ndergrounding pProject To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 1/We, being owners of property within an area of the City that we wish to pursue residential utility undergrounding, hereby request the City Council advance funding for engineering services to: • determine the full scope of the proposed undergrounding; • develop plans , specifications, and an engineering estimate of construction costs • Assess each property's benefit from the project • Prepare a report that includes: • A map of the project area • The methodology used to determine the benefits to each property from the project • A recommended property-by-property apportioned cost of the project In support of this petition, Letters of Support from the owner( s) of each property that supports this petition is attached, and an accompanying check for $500 has been provided to the City as a down payment and sign of our financial commitment to this effort. We understand: A. That the cost of the improvements will be assessed to the land which benefits from the improvements including our land; B. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land, and that a public hearing will be conducted on the report; C. That the cost of engineering, legal, and other incidental expenses will be included in the project cost; D. The initial estimated cost of improvements for each property $50,000; E. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest, or in installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years; F. If the parcel's private property service connection to the utilities is not underground, then the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner 01203 .0006/675607 .2 A-25 Petition of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to advance Advance funding Funding for engineering Engineering services Services for a pP roposed u-U ndergrounding pProject expense , after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5 ,000. This expense may be added to the assessment. This petition is filed with you under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The petition may be filed in counterpart or may be joined with other petitions for similar work. 01203 .0006/67560 7.2 A-26 EXHIBITC GUIDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER LEI I ER OF SUPPORT 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-27 Letter of Support of the Neighborhood's Petition to Uunderground uUtilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 I/We , the undersigned , being owners of the property at ______________ _ hereby support my neighborhood's efforts to underground utilities within the City ofRancho Palos Verdes, and the Petition for the City to advance funds for engineering services to develop plans, specifications and an engineering estimate of construction cost for the project. In signing this Letter of Support, Ilwe attest to having read the City 's Guidelines to Undergrounding Utilities in Residential Neighborhoods, and understand that: 1. tihe apportioned share , as determined by the City Council , of the project costs will be assessed to the land which benefits from the improvements, including my/our land, unless that share is paid at the conclusion of the project; 2. Ithe apportioned share for my property must be paid, even if the project is not completed and the undergrounding of utilities is not performed (i .e. there is insufficient support for construction of the project after engineering work has begun); 3. A Public Hearing will be conducted by the City Council to establish an Assessment District after engineering services work is completed; 4 . The costs of engineering, legal and other incidental expenses will be included in the project cost; 5. The estimated cost of improvements to be financed from the Assessment District for each parcel is $40 ,000-60,000; 6. Each property owner may pay their assessment in cash without interest, or in installments with interest over a period of 15 -20 years; and 7. If-Ithe parcel's private property service connection either projects costsplans , specifications and costs that all costs associated with the project are the financial responsibility ofthe owners of the properties directly benefitting from the project, not the City's, and that an appropriate allocation of the costs will be determined including me/us , and as unless alternative arrand that payment of my/our apportioned share of the project costs will either be paid at the conclusion of the project or be assessed to the property and paid biennial semi-annuall y with the property taxes. The improvements, which we hereby request to be acquired for the benefit of the property within the above-mentions proposed assessment district , are the conversion of existing overhead electrical and communications facilities to underground locations and the removal of poles. We understand: A. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land , and that a public hearing will be conducted on the report; 01203 .0006/67560 7.2 A-28 Letter of Support of the Neighborhood's Petition to Uunderground u-U tilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes B. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest, or in installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years; C. If the parcel's private property service connection to the utilities is not underground, then the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner expense, after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5,000. This expense may be added to the assessment. Respectfully, (signature) (signature) (full name, printed) (full name, printed) (email address) (email address) (home phone number) (home phone number) (cell /mobile phone number) (cell/mobile phone number) 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-29 EXHIBITD GU IDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER LEI I ER OF GPPOSITION / EXPL/\NATION OF NON-SUPPORT 01203 .0006/675607 .2 A-30 Explanation of Non Support I Letter of OppositionNon-Support to Utt nderground u-U tilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 I/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at [property address] DO NOT SUPPORT the efforts to underground utilities within my neighborhood in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the following reasons: (check all that apply) 0 Personal expenses would be a financial burden 0 Do not wish to incur personal expenses related to the project 0 Do not believe that property owners should pay for the project 0 The overhead utilities do not bother me and/or I like them 0 Do not want to disrupt landscape and/or hardscape on my property to underground utility connections to my home that are currently overhead 0 Other (please specify) 0 Do not wish to specify Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s) Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address) Alternatively, if the property owner does not wish to complete this form, a representative of the Neighborhood Committee or the Neighborhood Representative can complete the form to document a verbal conversation with the property owner, as long as it is so noted. Committee Representative (please print name) Committee Representative Signature 01203.0006/675607.2 A-31 EXHIBIT E PETITION GU IDE LIN ES TO RES IDENTIAL UT ILI TY UNDERGROUNDING FOR THE CITY TO FORM AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01203 .0006/675607 .2 A-32 Petition to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to form an Assessment District To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council I/We , the undersigned, being owners of property within the area of a proposed assessment district to be establi shed under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , Division 12 (Sections 10000 , et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act"), do hereby petition the City Council of the City ofRancho Palos Verdes (the "City") to forthwith commence and carry through to completion under the provisions of said Act, all proceedings for the formation of an Assessment District as hereinafter described and for the acquisition of the hereinafter mentioned improvements within the City ofRancho Palos Verdes, County ofLos Angeles, State ofCalifomia. The area within the City , which we hereby request the City Council to form as an Assessment District, as hereinabove mentioned, is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A entitled "Map of Proposed Undergounding Asses sment Di strict for the neighborhood." The improvements, which we hereby request to be acquired for the benefit of the property within the above-mentions proposed assessment district, are the conversion of existing overhead electrical and communications facilities to underground locations and the removal of poles. We understand: G. That the cost of the improvements will be assessed to the land which benefits from the improvements including our land ; H. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed cost estimate , and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land , and that a public hearing will be conducted on the report ; I. That the cost of engineering, legal , and other incidental expenses will be included in the project cost; J. The estimated cost of improvements to be financed from Assessment District for each parcel is $40 ,000 -$60 ,000 ; K. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest , or in installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years ; L. Ifthe parcel 's private property service connection to the utilities is not underground , then the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner expense , after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5 ,000. This expense may be added to the assessment. This petition is filed with you under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The petition may be filed in counterpart or may be joined with other petitions for similar work . 01 203 .0006/675607.2 A-33 EXHIBIT F GU IDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING LE I I ER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PETITION FOR THE CITY TO FORM AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01203 .0006/675607 .2 A-34 Letter of Support of the---------Neighborhood's Petition to form an Assessment District Petition of Interest to underground utilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council I/We , the undersigned , being owners of property within the area of a proposed assessment district to be established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , Division 12 (Sections 10000, et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act"), do hereby petition the City Council ofthe City ofRancho Palos Verdes (the "City ") to forthwith commence and carry through to completion under the provisions of said Act , all proceedings for the formation of an As sessment District as hereinafter described and for the acquisition of the hereinafter mentioned improvements within the City ofRancho Palos Verdes , County ofLos Angeles , State ofCalifornia. The area within the City , which we hereby request the City Council to form as an Assessment District, as hereinabove mentioned , is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A entitled "Map of Proposed Undergounding Assessment District for the neighborhood." The improvements , which we hereby request to be acquired for the benefit of the property within the above-mentions proposed as sessment district , are the conversion of existing overhead electrical and communications facilities to underground locations and the removal of poles. We understand: A. That the cost of the improvements will be assessed to the land which benefits from the improvements including our land ; B. That a report will be prepared on the project, including plans and specifications a detailed cost estimate, and a division of the costs among the benefited parcels of land, and that a public hearing will be conducted on the report; C. That the cost of engineering , legal , and other incidental expenses will be included in the project cost; D. The estimated cost of improvements to be financed from Assessment District for each parcel is $40 ,000 -$60 ,000; E. That each property owner may pay their assessment either in cash without interest , or in installments with interest over a period of 15-20 years ; F. If the parcel's private property service connection to the utilities is not underground , then the property owner will be required to convert the service connection, at their owner expense , after the utility undergounding has been completed. The typical cost is $5,000. This expense may be added to the assessment. 01203.0006/675607.2 A-35 Letter of Support of the---------Neighborhood's Petition to form an Assessment District This petition is filed with you under and pursuant to the provisions of Section 2804 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The petition may be filed in counterpart or may be joined with other petitions for similar work. Property Information Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address) Assessor Parcel Number (APN): Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s) 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-36 GUIDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING EXHIBITG EXPLANATION OF NON-SUPPORT GR LE I I ER OF GPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR THE CITY TO FORM AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01203.0006/675607.2 A-37 Explanation of Non-Support I Letter of Opposition to u-U nderground u-U tilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 1/We, the undersigned, being owners of the property at [property address] DO NOT SUPPORT the efforts to underground utilities within my neighborhood in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the following reasons: (check all that apply) D Personal expenses would be a financial burden D Do not wish to incur personal expenses related to the project D Do not believe that property owners should pay for the project D The overhead utilities do not bother me and/or I like them D Do not want to disrupt landscape and/or hardscape on my property to underground utility connections to my home that are currently overhead D Other (please specify) D Do not wish to specify Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s) Property Address Mailing Address (if different from th e Property Address) Alternatively, if the property owner does not wish to complete this form, a representative of the Neighborhood Committee or the Neighborhood Representative can complete the form to document a verbal conversation with the property owner, as long as it is so noted. Committee Representative (please print name) Committee Representative Signature 01203 .0006/675607 .2 A-38 EXHIBIT H G UIDELIN ES TO RE SIDENTIAL UTILI TY UNDERGROUNDIN G (DRAFT) NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT 01203 .0006/67560 7.2 A-39 To: [Property Owner] [Mailing Address] CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (DRAFT) NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT [City], [State] [Zip Code] Re: Assessment of liability to the property at _______ _ (Assessor Parcel Number (APN): ______ __, To the owners of the above referenced property, An assessment is being levied against the above referenced property as part of the Assessment District established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 (Sections 10000, et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act") on __ for improvements within the City ofRancho Palos Verdes, County ofLos Angeles, State of California. The liability assigned to the above referenced property is$ .00, and is your financial responsibility. If you have any questions regarding this assessment, please contact: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-40 01203.0006/675607.2 G UIDELI NES TO RESIDENTIAL UTILI TY UNDERGROUNDIN G EXHIBIT I BALLOT FOR THE FORMATION OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A-41 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES BALLOT FOR FORMATION OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes , California 90275-5391 I/We , the undersigned, being owners of the property at [property address] have received a Draft Notice of Assessment for my/our property and 0 Support I Vote FOR 0 Opposed I Vote AGAINST The formation of an Assessment District (as described and defined in the City 's Guidelines to Underground Utilities in Residential Neighborhoods) Please provide comments to explain your vote, if you wish. (Not required) Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s) Property Address Mailing Address (if di fferent from the Property Address ) 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-42 01203.0006/675607.2 EXHIBIT J GUIDE LI NES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING (FINAL) NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT A-43 To: [Property Owner] [Mailing Address] CllY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (DRAFT) NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT [City], [State] [Zip Code] Re: Assessment of liability to the property at _______ _ (Assessor Parcel Number (APN): -------' To the owners of the above referenced property , An assessment is being levied against the above referenced property as part of the Assessment District established under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , Division 12 (Sections 10000 , et seq.) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act") on __ for improvements within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes , County of Los Angeles, State of California. The liability assigned to the above referenced property is$ .00, and is your financial responsibility . If you have any questions regarding this assessment, please contact: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes , California 90275 0 1203.0006/675607.2 A-44 EXHIBIT I( GU IDELINES TO RESIDENTIAL UTILI TY UNDERGROUNDING CONSENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOME SERVICE CONNECTION 01203 .0006/675607.2 A-45 GUIDELINES TO RES IDENTIAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING To: Honorable Mayor and members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Director of Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 1/We , the undersigned, being owners of the property at [property address] hereby acknowledge that a new service connection to our home will be necessary when overhead utilities are relocated underground in our neighborhood , and that costs associated with establishing this new connection is my/our financial responsibility . 1/We hereby request that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes , Southern California Edison and /or third party contractors hired, construct the necessary service connections as part of the undergrounding project. 1/We acknowledge that such construction may require trenching from the street to the main structure of the home, and will likely damage or otherwise disturb existing vegetation. 1/We further acknowledge that the connection will be constructed in the most cost effective way possible , and is likely to not be the most aesthetically pleasing manner possible. This includes , but is not limited to replacing decorative vegetation such as flowers and bushes , hardscape such as rock or mulch , or replacement of driveways or sidewalks that are cut for required trenching. Property Information Property Address Mailing Address (if different from the Property Address) Assessor Parcel Number (APN): Property Owner(s) (please print name) Property Owner Signature(s) 01203.0006 /675607.2 A-46 From: Sent: To: Cc: Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 9:08 AM Makoto Mizutani CityCierk; Trails Subject: RE: Parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve City Council meeting 10/20/20 Regular Item #1 Dear Makoto Mizutani, Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trail heads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit our website and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. 1 / Sincerely, CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Makoto Mizutani <makotom2k@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 11:03 AM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve City Council meeting 10/20/20 Regular Item #1 Dear Mr Linder, I am writing to you as an RPV adjacent resident in San Pedro, and as somebody who was born and raised in Torrance. The hikes by RPV were an integral part of my childhood, allowing me access to nature that wasn't available to me "down the hill". I commend the RPV City Council and the Department of Recreation and Parks in taking action to address concerns from nearby residents. I do believe that common sense mitigation measures can help alleviate some of the stress of traffic and parking. However, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of$30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. RPV has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Sincerely, Makoto Mizutani San Pedro Resident, frequent hiker at RPV Makoto Mizutani makotom2k@gmail.com [ m] 213 .44 7.1721 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Sparks, Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 9:04 AM Christine Sparks CityCierk; Trails RE: Council Directive 5-Attn: Cory Linder Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trail heads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit our website and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again foryour interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, 1 (. CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. -----Original Message----- From: Christine Sparks <christine_sparks@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 1:26PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Council Directive 5-Attn: Cory Linder Dear Mr Linder, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of $30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. RPV has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Sincerely, Christine Sparks Sent from my iPhone 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Gorny, Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 9:03 AM daniela.gorny@gmail.com CityCierk; Trails RE: Attn: Cory Linder-Director of Recreation and Parks Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit our website and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, 1 /. CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Daniela Gorny <daniela.gorny@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 1:31PM To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: Attn: Cory Linder-Director of Recreation and Parks ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Daniela Gorny <daniela.gorny@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 1:20PM Subject: Attn: Cory Linder-Director of Recreation and Parks To: coryl@rpvca.go <coryl@rpvca.go>, trails@rpvca.gov <trails@rpvca.gov> Dear Mr. Linder, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of $30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. RPV has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Thank you, Daniela Daniela Gorny t: 352.222.3120 www. danie/agornv. com Daniela Gorny t: 352.222.3120 www. danielagornv. com 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Federman, Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 9:02 AM Nate Federman CityCierk; Trails RE: Council Directive #5 Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit our website and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, 1 ;. CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. -----Original Message----- From: Nate Federman <natefederman@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 1:41PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Council Directive #5 Dear Mr Linder, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of $30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. RPV has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Sincerely, Nate Federman 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Alden Hawkins, Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 9:00 AM Alden Hawkins CityCierk; Trails RE: attn: CORY UNDER/Director of Recreation and Parks Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit our website and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, 1 j_ CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. -----Original Message----- From: Alden Hawkins <aldenjohnhawkins@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 1:53PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: attn: CORY UNDER/Director of Recreation and Parks Dear Mr Linder, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of $30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. While the assumption is 'who doesn't have a smart phone these days' the truth is many don'tt, and just a few communities this would disenfranchise are the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. RPV has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Best, Alden Hawkind 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Gluck, Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 8:57 AM Marissa Gluck CityCierk; Trails RE: Parking reservation proposal Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately Xi mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit our website and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, 1 /. CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular busfness hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. -----Origin a I Message----- From: Marissa Gluck <marissa.gluck@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 2:25PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking reservation proposal To Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks Dear Mr Linder, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of $30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. RPV has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Thank you, Marissa Gluck Sent from my iPhone 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Buckell, Cory Linder Monday, October 19, 2020 8:55 AM Jon Buckell CityCierk; Trails RE: ATTN: CORY LINDER, Director of Parks & Rec, RE: Council Directive #5 Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. While a parking App has not yet been approved, there are ample parking opportunities for visitors who are not used to using Apps. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please visit ourwebsite and click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. The October 20 City Council Agenda can also be found on our website at www.rpvca.gov. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, 1 / CORY A. LINDER, Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Recreation and Parks 310-544-5260 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. -----Origina I Message----- From: Jon Buckel! <jon.buckell@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 8:49PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: ATIN: CORY LINDER, Director of Parks & Rec, RE: Council Directive #5 Dear Mr. Linder, I urge you to please reconsider Council Directive #5 to enact an app-based parking reservation system. This app based system, along with the recommended fee of $30-$50 for 4 hours of parking along Crenshaw and Crest Road, is absolutely unacceptable. The idea of an app already disenfranchises people who aren't savvy with smartphones, but the cost for parking is absolutely absurd. Rancho Palos Verdes has a long history of trying to limit access to minorities and outsiders and this is just a continuation of that policy. This is one of the most egregious policies to limit access to these spaces. I strongly oppose the app-based reservation system and proposed parking fees. Best regards, Jon Buckel! 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matt Waters Monday, October 19, 2020 12:26 PM 'office@ pbcbeachclu b.com' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes; Daniel Trautner RE: Regarding Gateway Park revisitation To the Portuguese Bend Beach Club: Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and the specific issue of alternate parking lot locations on Palos Verdes Dr. South. and your opinions on red-curbing on Crenshaw south of Crest and alternate parking locations. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living adjacent to Preserves continues to be a challenge and the City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway Park and other potential parking locations was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in the October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future. The concerns in your email will be considered if Council directs Staff to move forward with an analysis of Gateway Park or other potential alternative locations. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notif}(me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. _(lick here to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca . .9..QY-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: PB Club <office@pbcbeachclub.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:18 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Regarding Gateway Park revisitation Dear RPV City Council, 1 /. It has come to our attention that the city of RPV is re-visiting the same parking options that were considered and denied several years ago as options to mitigate parking issues in the Palos Verdes Preserve. The Portuguese Bend Beach Club and its residents are not in favor of Directive #2 and the possible use of any additional parking along Palos Verdes Dr. South to help fix parking issues at the top of Crest for Del Cerro Park. Additional parking will create a major safety hazards for our Residents and visitors, increasing the risk of traffic congestion, and pedestrian injuries along a stretch of PV Dr. South. The Road along PV Dr. South that moves through Portuguese Bend already has landslide issues. And frequent congestion delays when the road needs to be repaved-more often that not. Attached are the emails from some of our residents and they have been communicated to the city via the cc@rpvca.gov email address. Respectfully, Portuguese Bend Beach Club 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310.377.3667 fax: 310.541.2426 office@pbcbeachclu b.com 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Herb, Matt Waters Monday, October 19, 2020 12:07 PM 'Herb Stark' Karina Banales; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano; CC RE: October 20th City Council Meeting Hope you're doing well and thanks for your email about tomorrow's City Council item on Preserve Parking. I understand your concerns about parking, noise and traffic conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest. As you know, this section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County-wide. The City continues to do all it can to improve the quality of life for our residents who live near the Preserve while allowing for reasonable public access. You mentioned Gateway Park. This was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum is Gateway Park where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long- term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. You also raised the idea of limiting the number of people who can legally enter the Preserve through the use of a reservation system. This idea has been looked at before and it certainly has been used in State and National parks. Applying this approach in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve would be challenging due to its size and especially its over 50 access points. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. The City is not recommending connecting to the Fire Station Trail due to private property and easement issues. Red curbing has also been implemented on portions of Forrestal Drive. The use of shuttle busses is one of the many options in the Staff report for Council's consideration. While not a generally popular choice with Del Cerro residents, it would potentially help with the current traffic and noise conditions by the Burma Gate. You also questioned the proposed use of Recreation Staff for parking enforcement, as opposed to using Sheriff personnel. The proposed parking measures, while tentative, will only be effective with designated parking enforcement personnel. The proposal is for designated parking staff, not Park Rangers, whose core mission is monitoring and 1 /. enforcement within the Preserve and open space areas. The hiring of designated part-time staff to perform this role is the most cost-effective method while allowing for maximum control and flexibility. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest and involvement in this important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov [118ttw@~QVCa.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 10:12 AM To: CityCierk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: October 20th City Council Meeting Regular Business Item 1 Consideration and possible action regarding the City Council-adopted directives to address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. I would like to speak against Recreation and Parks recommendations • Item (5). Direct Staff to initiate the process to hire part-time parking enforcement; • Item (6) Direct Staff to proceed with a request for proposals (RFP) to establish a parking app system for the Del Cerro area along Crenshaw Boulevard, and other areas as deemed appropriate. I would also like to speak against Recreation and Parks recommendation under Consideration and possible action to implement measures mitigating impacts. Item (2) Direct Staff to pursue the following long-term solutions: a. Establish a parking reservation program on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road b. Establish a trailhead with parking at the toe of the Portuguese Bend Reserve (formerly known as Gateway Park). 2 I am in favor of item (7) of the recommendations to Direct Staff to enter into an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District to allow the use of a parking lot at the Rancho Del Mar School for Preserve parking on weekends and holidays by December 15, 2020 but would like the City Council to direct staff to explore the idea of making the Del Mar School trail an approved trailhead connecting the parking lot to the Fire Station Trail. I would also be against the City providing a shuttle service from the school parking lot to the trailhead. People are already walking from as far as the Art Center to the trailhead with no problem. Also at Ladera Linda there are people parking half way down Forrestal and walking to MainSail Drive, the trailhead to the preserve. If the City insists on providing a shuttle service I would suggest that they contact PV Transit and not expand Recreation and Parks. It should come as no surprise that the Recreation and Parks mission is in conflict with the residents living around the preserves and parks. Recreation and Parks priority as stated is to accommodate more visitors, whereas the resident's priority is about the quality of life, preserving open space and the preservation of the habitat. By direction from the council, Recreation and Parks is required to hold working group meetings with the residents. Recreation and Parks then reports the results, but unfortunately defaults back to their mission of accommodating more visitors. A classic example of this is the conflict with the residents over the Ladera Linda Park Project. These 'above solutions' as usual expand Parks and Rec scope, favor visitors over residents and are financially irresponsible. Item 6; Hire part-time parking enforcement Street parking violations are the responsibility of the Sheriff. Isn't this what we are paying the Sheriff. Are we trying to turn the Recreation and Parks into a law enforcement organization? They already have their own rangers. Item (6) of Recommendations and Item (2)(a) of Mitigating Impacts, Establish a parking app system. The real cause of the problem is too many visitors to the parks and the preserves at the same time. What the parking system is doing is trying to address the effects and not the cause. What is needed is a preserve and parks reservation system to limit the number of visitors at any one time. Recreation and Parks proposes to set the rate for parking so high as to discourage people from coming. All this will do is to push the visitors into parking in other areas, including the surrounding residential areas. Item 2 (b) under Mitigating Impacts, Gateway Park Here again Recreation and Parks is trying to bring back an issue that was dropped years ago because of safety and resident issues. Gateway Park was rejected in the past because of neighborhood noise, safety issues of people crossing PV Drive South to get to the beach and the increased traffic on PV Drive South. Gateway Park is in the area with the highest land movement. The City is already paying between $700,000 and $1,000,000 a year to repair the road. This cost will only increase if you have to relevel the parking lot and access road every month. PV Drive South, in that area, is a single lane road in each direction. Cars backing up on PV Drive South trying to get into the parking lot would stop traffic. I also believe that the proposed area for the parking lot will be a key staging area in the plan for the stabilization of the slide. 3 Recreation and Parks is under the false premise that opening Gateway Park would divert Del Cerro visitors to Gateway. Why would someone want to drive all around the hill to get to Gateway when they can go directly up Crenshaw to get to the preserve trailhead. All Gateway will do is attract more visitors from the San Pedro area and from people coming off the Harbor Freeway. Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes 310-541-6646 4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matt Waters Monday, October 19, 2020 12:00 PM 'Steve Boyer' CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano RE: parking fees and council directive 5 Thanks you for the kind words and for your suggestion about use of the PVPTA by remote lots. Thanks again for your interest and involvement. Matt Waters From: Steve Boyer [mailto:steve.boyer@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 11:27 AM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: parking fees and council directive 5 Thank you for this highly informative and thoughtful response. The city certainly faces immense planning challenges and I'm glad to hear that the council is approaching them holistically. Balancing so many conflicting constraints demands such an approach. Another solution to consider is to encourage visitors to use the PVPT A and identify low cost remote parking at sites accessible to the bus stops. I treasure the beauty of the Peninsula and appreciate your commitment to accessibility and will follow the continuing discussion. -steve boyer- On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 8:46AM Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Professor Boyer, Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, 1 /. use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting ofthe orders has been seen County-wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately Y4 mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue and I encourage you to continue visiting the Preserve. Sincerely, 2 Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Steve Boyer [mailto:steve.boyer@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 4:18PM To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov> Subject: parking fees and council directive 5 The state of California and the Coastal Commission have made clear that our coastlines belong to the people of California. ALL of the people. While it may be necessary to manage limited resources a fee based system is the wrong approach and limits access based on income violating the core principles of the state of California and the United States as a whole. Investing in more accessible parking and making it available for free (or suggested donation) fulfills the mission of the state to keep access to our precious coastline available to all. As a South Bay resident I make regular use of these trails but as an educator with a limited income these fees will keep me away. They will also keep me away from the businesses I visit after my hikes. 3 Thank you for your consideration. Steve Boyer Assistant Professor California State University, Long Beach Please vote no on excessive fees -steve- -steve- 4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Hulbert, Matt Waters Monday, October 19, 2020 11:34 AM 'donna@thehulberts.com' CC; CityCierk; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes RE: Agenda item 1 Regular business October 20 Thank you for your email expressing your concerns about overcrowding at Del Cerro and your suggestions for addressing this important issue. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. I understand your frustration about parking, noise and traffic conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest and your concerns about the proposed parking location at Rancho Del Mar. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County-wide. Below is information about the steps the City has taken and continues to pursue. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately y,; mile walk to the nearest of the two trail heads. As you noted, recommendation #7 covers use of an existing parking lot at the Rancho Del Mar School site. The concept is not to concentrate parking in any one particular location, but to spread usage out and inform the public about other options including the existing free and paid lots in the City, including the lot at the Civic Center which is immediately adjacent to the Alta Vicente Preserve. The safety and security of residents is of paramount importance; your concerns about sightlines and access will be taken into account. I understand the progress of the gates at Burma and Rattesnake has been a source of frustration. While this has taken longer than anticipated, the Burma Road gate should be complete soon, with the Rattlesnake Trail gate expected to be done soon after. While not a solution for all Preserve parking challenges, the gates will help control undesirable access outside of posted hours. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. 1 /. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. As you know, a holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Your email will be included as late correspondence to the October 20 1h meeing. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue and I encourage you to continue visiting the Preserve. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattyv_@[:Qyca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Megan Barnes Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:02AM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Agenda item 1 Regular business October 20 Megan Barnes Senior Administrative Analyst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5226 mba rnes@ rpvca .gov From: donna thehulberts.com <donna.@th~m> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:31AM To: CC <~.mvca.gov> Subject: Agenda item 1 Regular business October 20 To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am writing with respect to item 1 on the regular business agenda: "Consideration and possible action regarding the City Council-adopted directives to address parking and access issues for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve," and most specifically with respect to the "Recommended Council Action" number 7 to "[d]irect Staff to enter into an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District to allow the use of a parking lot at the Rancho Del Mar School for Preserve parking on weekends and holidays by December 15, 2020." That is the proposal to add 85-90 parking spaces below my property (and the properties of other Del Cerro homeowners) for Preserve users and, in essence, shift the 2 problems associated with the current situation to further negatively affect a different group of property owners than those already negatively affected. I live in Del Cerro and currently navigate the challenges posed by the pursuit of a "close" parking for those Preserve users who intend to spend hours hiking the trail: the people blocking traffic waiting at the end of the marked spaces hoping for a potential space to open up, the people making unexpected and unsafe U-turns in front of me, and the people stopping or slowing unexpectedly because they believe a space may open up. I am also aware of the disturbance to residents caused in the early morning hours when people arrive early to the trail and car fobs sound and hiking congregants talk loudly while waiting for the trail to open. I understand the annoyance with trash left in the area. Now the City seeks not to solve those problems, but rather to merely move them. Such a move would affect me and many of my neighbors who live above the proposed parking areas, since sound travels most easily up. The noise would now be transferred to our neighborhood. Moreover, rather than the current situation with cars spread out over 2-3 tenths of a mile along Crenshaw in single file street parking, the City wants to concentrate the noise and disturbance in the parking lots below my property, and other properties within the Del Cerro neighborhood. The City is being encouraged by staff to adopt recommendation 7, a mere 50 days after the solution was proposed by "members of the public" at the September 1, 2020 meeting. This encouragement comes, despite the fact that, recommendation 7 was NOT one of the 6 action items the Council directed be investigated at the September 1, 2020 meeting. This encouragement comes, despite the fact that, with respect to other directed action items the staff has recommended more time be given to analyze them due to their complexity. For example, Directive 2 (the holistic parking approach- an approach one would expect to encompass proposed recommendation 7) resulted in the staff's request to continue the action item for an additional 60 days, in part due to staff's belief they should watch for "unintended consequences that may result around Preserve access points as a result of new parking restrictions and implemented changes" (Page 7 of report); and Directive 6 the temporary parking prohibition which the report of staff at page 10 notes "[s]taff concluded that a more thorough and comprehensive analysis is needed to assure that all options are fully considered and properly vetted for any unintended consequences." I find it odd and more than a little disturbing that staff is so willing to act on an idea (not a directive) that has had no vetting or public comment. I find it even more disturbing that at page 11 it is represented by staff that it "spoke to the adjacent neighbors in the Del Cerro area and they support parking at this location." I think you can see from the response of individual Del Cerro homeowners and the Del Cerro HOA that there is no such support. This representation by staff is inaccurate and irresponsible I want to turn to a very brief historical summary of the Preserve parking debacle. As the staff report states the area in question is considered the "front door" to the preserve. However, it was never intended to be so. At the outset in order to garner support from neighbors in this area, it was represented that the primary entrance to the preserve would be at the bottom of the trail and it would be serviced by an adequate parking lot. However, because of expressed concerns by residents in that area regarding traffic and increased crime, that parking lot was never constructed and by default the front door to the Preserve moved to the Del Cerro/Park Place/Valley View Island View area-that was never intended nor equipped to handle the volume of activity. Residents in this neighborhood have been very patient with the significant inconveniences resulting. Before residential street parking was prohibited in Del Cerro, we endured not just bottles and cans left by visitors but things such as dirty diapers in front of our homes. We were able to watch the occasional albeit infrequent "tail-gater" with small open flame grills enjoy lunches in our streets, while leaving behind coals from their barbecues. Since the parking prohibition, those problems have at least left the immediate neighborhood. However, the noise in the early morning hours and evening hours has not. Those Del Cerro residents on Ambersky have endured people walking behind their homes outside the established Preserve hours and the accompanying noise (and trash thrown into their yards). To ameliorate this the City promised a gated entry making the Preserve inaccessible outside the established hours. After more than two years Ambersky residents are still waiting for the gate-but at least Directive 3 seems to offer some hope to them. Parenthetically, the whole gate project appeared to have been shelved when no contractors bid on the proposal, and it took further demand by the Del Cerro homeowners to finally see some action to construct the promised gate. More than two years ago the Del Cerro homeowners decided to forego decisions regarding parking meters and 3 Preserve reservations to see if the gate ameliorated the more serious problems. This decision was to not only give the City time to develop plans, but to also try to allow Preserve access with as few restrictions as possible. In contrast to the patience demonstrated in Del Cerro, the staff seems determined not to solve the problems, but just move them to another location still negatively affecting Del Cerro residents. I think it very important to comment that the location of the proposed Recommendation 7 parking lots is outside the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The staff report indicates at page 11 that the parking lots are located in Rolling Hills. Perhaps we can have an explanation of why it is a good idea for problems affecting Rancho Palos Verdes residents in Del Cerro to be ceded to the jurisdiction of Rolling Hills-a jurisdiction which has no obligation to the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes? I want to now turn to specific, significant safety related concerns I have. This proposed parking will direct thousands of people over time to the area below my home. A much more secluded area that, given the absence of parking by hikers to date, is currently unknown to them. This secluded area is below my property along the back of my property. Many properties along this area (mine included) have been planted and landscaped to block the "view" of the transit district. This also results in blocking the view of traffic and people below. The City, if recommendation 7 is followed, is now going to allow thousands of people to see the access to my property from below which will make it more likely to attract an additional criminal element to our neighborhood, an element that is blocked from view. Although you may initially respond that this is an over-reaction, you should be advised that within the last two weeks there has been a burglary next door to me and a package theft at another house. This was accomplished by someone walking on the street side of the property in full view of neighbors that could have at least potentially seen the illegal activity. It seems to me that if the crime concerns of residents at the bottom of the trail were taken into account so as to shift the volume burden of the trail to our neighborhood, we in Del Cerro deserve the same consideration in taking into account our very real concerns regarding safety of our homes. I am aware that there is provision for staffing the parking locations to assure people are shepherded into the shuttle or along some established route to the trail head. I don't know how many people the City intends to employ in this regard. There are two distinct lots and the ability to see just where the hikers are going at any given time would be impossible for a single individual. Certainly, we can agree that hikers like open spaces and may be resistant to shuttles or an established path down a relatively narrow street that must accommodate two-way vehicular traffic (also a potential safety concern). There are plenty of open spaces hikers can disburse to from the Recommendation 7 lots without being noticed-and even if they are noticed what kind of authority or ability will a city employee have to get those free spirits back to the right path, especially when that employee is not on city grounds but rather those in Rolling Hills. By the most generous evaluation, enforcement of the rules regarding trail hours, traffic and parking has been lax over the last several years. It has long been claimed that there will be increased presence by law enforcement, conservancy personnel, and city employees especially during busy holiday weekends, and that presence has either not materialized or been so woefully inadequate that the problems along the Crenshaw parking area South of Crest have continued unabated for years. I don't think we can reasonably expect enough supervision of these Recommendation 7 parking lots to even moderately address the potential problems. You are aware that the Preserve attracts hundreds and perhaps thousands of visitors on a weekend. You are aware that this volume of visitations has caused issues with noise and trash and traffic safety in the area on Crenshaw, South of Crest. It appears the response of the City is not to attempt to solve the problems through enforcement of currently existing traffic rules and Preserve hours limitations, but rather to move the problem to another area and "promise" some form of city employee presence. Why has it taken so long to think of hiring additional employees to address the potential problems? What happens with the next round of budget cuts? It is fair to say that Council members have come and gone, but the Preserve issues persist. Who will remember or honor commitments for staffing made today that become too expensive or inconvenient in later years? Staff proposes this re-location without even investigating the concerns of the neighbors and the extent of city employee participation needed to address those concerns. Recommendation 7 charges forward without the same concern for "unintended consequences" the Council's articulated directives received from staff. 4 Currently, it appears that the Preserve visitors have found parking on Crenshaw, North of Crest, and in fact signs have been erected to indicated public parking begins there. It is not clear why this present solution is not adequate until the "holistic approach" can be completed. In addition to directing parking down Crenshaw, North of Crest, there has been some effort to direct visitors to other trails and there was at least at some point consideration of a shuttle running from City Hall. To that point, the staff report indicates that they do not recommend the City Hall shuttle following their research in 2018 "due to the high costs of the program, the challenges of operating a shuttle service under L.A. County Department of Public Health COVID-19 guidelines for public transportation, its general lack of popularity with users, and its likely modest effectiveness in reducing parking impacts in the Del Cerro neighborhood." It is unclear to me how a shuttle from the proposed Recommendation 7 parking lots is going to be less challenging to operate and more popular with potential users. The cost per vehicle cited for the proposed Recommendation 7 shuttle is the same as the cost cited for a City Hall shuttle which was thought to be too expensive. The proposed solution is to either somehow keep hundreds of hikers along the established path to the trail and keep them out of unauthorized areas requiring who knows how many "part-time" employees; or to use a shuttle at this location that has been found to be impractical and too expensive if it originates at City Hall. This proposed recommendation 7 is so fraught with uncertainties without solving any existing concerns, it is almost laughable--if I weren't living in the affected area. Given the staff recommendation that these parking lots be put into service by December 15, the new date set for the results of a holistic parking approach; it appears to me that the plan is to move the problem to a new area, out of sight from the Preserve and out of the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and forget about finding any other solutions holistic or otherwise. If, however, this recommendation is only a temporary solution until the holistic plan can be finalized, I see no reason this unvetted possibility need be advanced just 2 months before the holistic approach deadline. If a temporary solution is the goal, keep the current Crenshaw, North of Crest parking and consider using the lot at City Hall, an area welcoming to the public (with bathrooms) and have the shuttle located there. If visitors do not want to use a shuttle or take the trails located around City Hall, perhaps an Uber/Lyft location could be designated both at City Hall and at 5-10 designated parking spaces on Crenshaw, South of Crest, with all other parking prohibited there. A part time employee at the Crenshaw location could direct a driver to these spaces as rideshare cars leave to return people to City Hall. People routinely take shuttles or trams to places they want to visit, and such a requirement should pose no insurmountable obstacle to hikers. This temporary solution could provide economic benefit to rideshare drivers, provide direct, nearly on-demand transportation to the trail, and eliminate the parking issues on Crenshaw, South of Crest, all at what would seem to be a lower cost to the City than the proposed recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Donna Hulbert 5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Low, Matt Waters Monday, October 19, 2020 8:56 AM 'Maryann Low' CC; Megan Barnes; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; CityCierk; Daniel Trautner RE: Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Ro Thank you for your follow-up email and I'm sorry my initial response was no satisfactory. I'm happy to provide additional information about this challenging situation. I understand your frustration about parking, noise and traffic conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County-wide. The City continues to do all it can to improve the quality of life for our residents who live near the Preserve while allowing for reasonable public access. Below is information about the steps the City has taken and continues to pursue. You mentioned alternative parking locations. One potential location that was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum is Gateway Park where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately X mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario, one whose hourly rate ranges from $7.50 to $12 an hour. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. 1 (. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notify Me to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to access the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue and I encourage you to continue visiting the Preserve. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov rnattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Maryann Low [mailto:mmlow1@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 11:08 AM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano < KatieL@ rpvca .gov> Subject: Re: Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Ro Your response is unsatisfactory. Our previously quiet residential area has been inundated with strangers from who knows where. The only solution that would be appropriate would be to find another area where they could access these trails without disturbing our neighborhood. I have also mentioned in my previous email that I am deeply concerned about the number of people coming here in the present day negative cultural climate. Please seriously address these issues and in the not so distant future. Thank you for your consideration. Maryann Low 5465 valley view rd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca From: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:09:30 PM To: 'mmlow1@msn.com' <mmlowl@msn.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano < l<atiel@ rpvca .gov> Subject: RE: Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Ro 2 From: Maryann Low <mmlow1@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:07 PM To: CC <CC@rgvca.gov> Subject: Fw: Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Ro Dear Ms. Low, Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your concerns about noise and trash. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge, so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notifyme to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Maryann Low Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:51 PM To: CC@rpv.gov <CC@rgv.gov> Subject: Parking on Crenshaw South of Crest Ro My name is Maryann Low and I own the home at 5465 Valley View Rd. I have lived here since 1984. I am greatly concerned about the number of people parking right next to my home. Some of my complaints include the noise (which sometimes starts as early as 5 am), not wearing masks and not picking up after themselves and their dogs. I am also concerned about the fact that these people come from all over the Los Angeles area. Under the current climate of what is happening in this country, I can't dismiss the possibility ofthere being danger in our community. What used to be a quiet residential area is no longer the case. As a tax paying resident of RPV, I am requesting that you do something to alleviate this annoying situation. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 3 Sincerely, Maryann Low 4 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. Landeros, Matt Waters Friday, October 16, 2020 4:02 PM 'jessicatrujillo56@yahoo.com' CC; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes; CityCierk RE: Del Cerro Park Statement Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, particularly the question of potential parking fees on Crenshaw Boulevard. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address this issue. Parking conditions on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest are not functional at this time. This section of road dead ends in a residential area that has arguably become the most popular entry point to the City's trail system when it's not the only entry point. It was not designed for the level of use it gets. Moreover, over the past ten years, use has increased substantially largely due to word spread through social media, and more recently use has increased even more after the County lifted health orders to close trails. This increase in use following the lifting of the orders has been seen County- wide. The City provides public access to beaches and trails along its coast through five public parking lots, four of which provide free parking. Additionally, since the creation of the Preserve in 2008, it was and has always been the City's intent to provide access to all. No one is prohibited or restricting from visiting. Despite the permanent red curbing, and the temporary red curbing closest to Del Cerro Park, there are still approximately 45 free public parking spaces on Crenshaw Blvd south of Crest Rd., and more than 100 spaces north of Crest Rd., which is an approximately% mile walk to the nearest of the two trailheads. The staff report also shared that the City is looking into opening up additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve such as at the Rancho Del Mar School site. Staff is recommending City Council direct staff to engage a consultant to explore parking solutions, and at a later time bring back a recommended fee for City Council consideration. The October 20 staff report notes that "A possible approach is a $30-$50 total charge for a 4-hour block of time on Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest Road." This is only a potential scenario. The City is also exploring use of the parking by Rancho Del Mar School, possibly at a rate to be determined, but one that would be significantly lower that more "prime" parking on Crenshaw on Boulevard. The intent is to look at the solutions under consideration holistically not individually. The city is trying to strike a balance between preserving the quality of life and providing public access. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20 1h City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notifyme to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. 1 /. Thank again for your interest in the important community issue. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Jessica Trujillo <j£:ssicatruiillo56@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 10:18 AM To: CC <£:Jdfll.J:J::>.~>; Trails <trails@rpvcji,gQY> Subject: Del Cerro Park Statement To whom this may concern, Hello my name is Jessica Landeros, I am a 2nd year medical school student that lives in Torrance. I just recently found out about the restrictions that are being made to order to access Del Cerro Park to the public. Del Cerro Park should be a place for anybody to have access too and not put restrictions. Del Cerro Park is a PUBLIC park, so I'm not understanding why these restrictions are even happening. Proposing a $30 to $50 for four hours of parking is incredibly ridiculous, people come here to exercise and be with nature. Anybody that is taking the effort to drive all the way to Del Cerro Park should not be turned down. If these fees were to occur it would only allow access to those that can pay for the parking which would be the upper class. This would not allow minorities that have a low socioeconomic status to access this park. This would definently be a form of Socioeconomic Discrimination. Not everyone will be able to afford the parking fee of $30 to $50. This would lead to a lack of opportunity for everyone. When the citizens that live near Del Cerro Park, agreed to purchase a home there, they knew what they were getting themselves into. Del Cerro Park is a PUBLIC place, and that's how it should stay. It should be accessibile to the entire PUBLIC, and not be restricted to ANYONE. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Jessica Landeros 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Robin Rome: Matt Waters Friday, October 16, 2020 3:24 PM 'rr90275@gmail.com' CC; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes; CityCierk RE: Parking on Crenshaw Blvd Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues, your concerns about overcrowding at De! Cerro and your suggestion about using the ma!l parking lot as a paid shuttle location. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges .. An update on a variety of measures to address these issues is scheduled for the October 20th City Council meeting next week. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on ,Notifyme to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. ~.ll.(;J:U:Ltl[~ to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and a link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov !J}gl.!_tW@IJ2Y.Q.@...cQOV-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Robin Rome <rr90275@gmai!.com> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:49 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking on Crenshaw Blvd City Council, I am a homeowner in Island View and an very concerned about the parking on Crenshaw Boulevard for the hiking trails. It is overly crowded on Crenshaw on the weekends and looks like an accident waiting to happen. 1 (. Please consider the use of the parking lot at the top of the mall. Maybe prepaid $1.00pp shuttles that would be easy to take, could bring in revenue for RPV and would be good for business in the mall after or before hiking. Thank you, Robin Rome Island View homeowner 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Hazard, Matt Waters Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:53 PM 'Perryhappy@hotmail.com' CC; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes; CityCierk RE: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Mitigation Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your opinion on the use of Gateway Park as a potential parking location for access the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click https:ljca-ranchoQalosverdes2.civicplus.com/list.aspx?UstiD=262/ to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click https:L[rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=S&event id=1675 to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Oliver Hazard <Perryhappy@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 9:59 PM To: cc <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Mitigation Dear city council, Putting a parking lot in the land slide is a bad idea for many reasons. Hear are a few. -It will only add to the already over crowed trails, taking away more nature to add more pavement. 1 I -most people will walk down though the archery range to the caves where many people have lost there lives and has no lifeguards.(some died when the temporary parking lot was put up a few years back) this would only exacerbate this situation. -putting an intersection in the part of the fasted part of the landslide is dangerous. There are already a lot of accidents along this road and to add this would only make it worse. -there are other places to park like by Ladera Linda. -this has been voted down before. There are more reasons then these, please don't allow this parking lot to be builtThank you for your time. Oliver Hazard RPV resident 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Lowe-White: Matt Waters Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:45 PM 'brycelw@ mac.com' CC; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes; CityCierk RE: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Mitigation Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your opinion on the use of Gateway Park as a potential parking location for access the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. Rest assured that safety of residents and visitors is of the utmost concern to the City. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click https:// ca-ra nchopa losverdes2 .civicplus.com/list.aspx?Listl D=262/ to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1675 to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Bryce Lowe-White <brycelw@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 10:22 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Mitigation Hello City Council Members, 1 (. I want to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed Gateway Park plan to help mitigate parking and access issues into Portuguese Bend reserve. I think it is irresponsible to think that a parking lot in this area is a good idea. It will not help relieve Del Cerro traffic, it will be primarily used as overflow parking from Abalone Cove and people looking to access the ocean. This will create an unmanageable situation in an already hard to patrol area. The city cannot willingly welcome excess vehicle and pedestrian traffic at a junction point of an active landslide where there is no way to safely integrate appropriate infrastructure such as safe roads, walkways, crosswalks, trails or beach access. Its already a dangerous situation in its current state with unsafe road conditions and blind curves ... now imagine having a situation where 100-200 people are running across the cross the street on any given day. It would be similar to having Abalone Cove parking across the street from the ocean with no infrastructure to allow for safe crossing. In the proposed area pedestrians will literally be traversing into the most active section of the Portuguese Bend landslide, the same area that I believe moved around 8 feet or more in previous years and is unmaintained and wild. Abalone Cove and Trump Golf Course are the only appropriate, safe parking areas that sit adjacent to the preserve and allow access. We do not need to put a parking lot in the landslide to provide more direct access. This will only result in more problems and put more strain on the already critically weak resources we have to actively manage this area responsibly. Thank you for your consideration. Bryce Lowe-White 1 Los Angeles, CA 1310.874.0607 1 www.brvcelowewhite.com 2 From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:41 PM 'lucianna@cox.net' Cc: Subject: CC; Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Megan Barnes; CityCierk RE: Gateway Park Proposed parking Dear Ms. Molinari: Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your opinion on the use of alternate parking locations, including Gateway Park as a potential parking location for access to the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway Park or other parking locations was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park or alternate locations on PV Drive South. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. A holistic analysis of Preserve- wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click https:l I ca-ra nchopa losverdes2 .civicplus.comllist.aspx?Listl D=262l to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click https :I I rpv .gran icus.co miGe ne rated Agenda Viewer. ph p ?view _id=5&eve nt_id= 167 5 to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca .gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f -----Original Message----- From: Lucianna <lucianna@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:05 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Gateway Park Proposed parking 1 I have lived for 33 years in the Portuguese Bend Club. Over the years (with parking at abalone cove and trump only) the number of hikers has increased dramatically. These individuals are coming from outside our community. While I love to see others enjoy the beauty our our peninsula, it puts a gigantic strain on this fragile ecosystem. I believe if you add any more parking spaces close to the landslide area, you will exacerbate the issue. Right now, it is difficult to get to the fragile area of Sacred Cove. I believe we should keep it that way. It is not the obligation of this city to provide an entertainment destination with parking and facilities that will attract a vast number of visitors. I believe it is the obligation of this city to protect and preserve the fragile ecosystems that surround us. I beg you to reconsider the gateway park development. Please work to keep our beautiful peninsula pristine. Thank you for your consideration. Lucianna Molinari 49 Seawall Road RPV Sent from my iPad 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Barth, Matt Waters Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:35 PM 'michael.barth@barthlaw.com' CC; Cory Linder; Megan Barnes; CityCierk; Katie Lozano RE: Gateway Park Parking area Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your opinion on the use of Gateway Park as a potential parking location for access the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The issue of Gateway was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future, including the concerns you've raised. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click https:ffca-ranchopalosverdes2.civicplus.com/list.aspx?ListiD=262/ to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&event id=1675 to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov rnattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Michael Barth <michael.barth@barthlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:46 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.ggy> Cc: office@pbcbeachclub.com; Eric Johnson <Erici@Victory-Group.com>; Steve Cummins 1 / <SCummins@dcacivileng.com>; bigsrf@aol.com; kathy Iabarbera <kathy.labarbera@gmail.com> Subject: Gateway Park Parking area Dear Council Members My name is Michael Barth. I live at 48 Seawall Road, RPV, in the Portuguese Bend Club. I appreciate the problem of the parking in the area near St. Francis Church. But adding parking Gateway park will not only fail to solve the current problem but it will create really bad negative consequences for the City, its residents and the users of the parking area. For the following reasons I object to the construction of a parking area in Gateway Park: • This issue was raised in 2014 during the discussions concerning the adoption of the updated Master Plan. The parking area was rejected due to high maintenance costs and potential liability to the City arising out of its construction • The land in the area is unstable due to landslide activity • The City will need to maintain the parking area to be sure it does not accumulate trash, the landscaping is not damaged, and the movement from the landslide is corrected • Traffic from West to East may try to access the parking area causing potential traffic obstruction and damage to life and limb • Users of the parking area will not limit themselves to accessing the Coastal Conservancy but will use the area to access the coast. There are blind spots at that area from oncoming traffic. Pedestrian injuries will be the result of foot traffic • What studies have been made by Staff looking at the risks of this potential parking area? • If the City rejected the idea in 2014 the City should quantify why the objections raised then are no longer a concern today. To do otherwise is to proceed at the risk of many. Respectfully, Michael A. Barth Attorney At Law 310.892.3591 Cell This Outbound email scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service for barthlaw.com 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Matt Waters Matt Waters Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:53 PM CityCierk FW: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Comment Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:57 PM To: 'dhannum@gmail.com' <dhannum@gmail.com> Cc: Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@ rpvca .gov> Subject: RE: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Comment Dear Mr. Hannum, Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your concerns about potential parking fees. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The parking fees referenced in the Staff Report are examples of potential fees for 3-4 hour blocks of parking, not proposed rates. Any parking fees would need to be approved by the City Council before going into effect. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues, including potential parking fees, is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notifyme to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: David Hannum <dhannum@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:21AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Portuguese Bend Reserve/Crenshaw Boulevard Parking Comment 1 / I live in Torrance and occasionally make use of the trails and parks in RPV. A $30-$50 charge for parking is outrageous and will encourage vandalism of the homes near Del Cerro park and the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Please see https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/jb3xfw/rancho palos verdes considering charging 50 to/ for the vitriol this proposal engenders. Do not charge beyond standard parking meter rates. David Hannum 3470 Garnet St Torrance, CA 90503 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Matt Waters Matt Waters Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:52 PM CityCierk FW: Regarding the parking mitigation meeting Oct 20th Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Regarding the parking mitigation meeting Oct 20th From: Matt Waters Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:52 PM To: 'alanrudy74@gmail.com' <919.n.rugy_?._1_@g_rJ1.?kqm> Cc: Megan Barnes <m[?_arng_ill..CRVt;:SJ_,g_Q.y:>; Katie Lozano <l<a!J~L@IQVC£.gov>; Cory Linder <CQ.!Y!:._@mvca_,.gov> Subject: RE: Regarding the parking mitigation meeting Oct 20th Dear Mr. Rudy, Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your concerns about potential parking fees. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The parking fees referenced in the staff report are examples of potential fees for 3-4 hour blocks of parking, not proposed rates. Any parking fees would need to be approved by the City Council before going into effect. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notifyme to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f 1 / From: Alan Rudy <alanrudy74@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 5:52 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Regarding the parking mitigation meeting Oct 20th Hello, I just wanted to add my voice to this meeting. Reading council directive 5, considering charging $50 to park and go hiking for 4 hours is very troubling. I think the council should have a duty to not just listen to the nearby residents and wealthy HOA's who already knew what they were getting when purchasing/renting near there. And to listen to the county at large and pay attention to the impact this would have. There are very few places already in LA to enjoy a beautiful scenic hike without driving hours to Angeles Forest, San Bernardino, etc. There's a laundry list of nature and hiking benefits to a society ... Veterans, kids, families, etc. that can't afford to live here would all be affected. I've personally found peace, happiness, relaxation, and adventure from many hikes. This "solution" seems so wrong, there should be numerous ways to solve this parking "problem" without a $50 fee to park for a hike. It's all just to solve a "problem" that residents there should have known when purchasing property/renting there. To be fair, there are those that didn't know it was going to be a nature reserve and then the reserve becoming popular, those people do have a point. I'd only say that if you factor in ones that left already, that the average homeowner buys/sells every 7 years, the amount of people that were innocent victims of this probably pale in comparison to the much greater effect such restrictive parking will have. It would be sad to see demanding empty streets and $50 parking to reduce interest in the nature reserve. There should be easy and cheap access to enjoy the beauty of nature. Sincerely, Alan Rudy 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Matt Waters Matt Waters Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:52 PM CityCierk FW: Ely comments for Oct 20th Preserve Public Forum Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:21 PM To: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Ely comments for Oct 20th Preserve Public Forum Dear Mr. Ely, Thank you for your email regarding Preserve Parking issues and your opinions on red-curbing on Crenshaw south of Crest and alternate parking locations. Striking the correct balance between access to the Preserve and quality of life for residents living near to popular Preserve entry points has been a long-standing challenge so I appreciate your comments. The City is looking at a wide range of approaches to address these challenges. The City Council will be discussing the 60 day moratorium on parking on designated areas of Crenshaw and whether to extend the moratorium to give Staff an opportunity to better gauge its effectiveness. The issue of Gateway Park and other potential parking locations was discussed at the October 13, 2020 Preserve Public Forum where a number of residents from the Del Cerro area spoke in favor of this option. Gateway is mentioned as a possible long-term Preserve parking solution in a October 20, 2020 City Council staff report, one of many approaches outlined in that report. The Staff Report does not contain any recommendation related to Gateway Park. The City Council in 2015 opted not to pursue this option so it will be up to the current City Council if they wish to direct Staff to analyze this in the future. A holistic analysis of Preserve-wide access issues is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in December. Please click on Notifyme to sign up for official City notifications about this issue and upcoming meetings. Click here to see the October 20 City Council Agenda and link to the staff report. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov nlattw@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Andrew Ely <_andrew@el'Lusa.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 8:34PM 1 ( ' To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ely comments for Oct 20th Preserve Public Forum RPV Staff- Please submit my comments for the Oct 20th Preserve Public Forum. Thank You! Andrew Andrew Ely 310-729-2002 M 2 10/13/20 Andrew Ely For submission to City Council Questions: 1. Why does the RPV feel they need to create additional parking for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve? • I am a 30 year resident of RPV and I have used the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve for recreation (biking etc) for the past three decades. I am no longer able to enjoy this area on the weekend as it is severely overcrowded. Several years ago, people parked at Del Cerro park and they parked along portions of the Crenshaw adjacent to the park. If parking was not available people would go elsewhere. The Preserve was not overcrowded, and residents could enjoy the Preserve on both the weekdays and the weekends. • Today people are parking down Crenshaw (after the corner of St. John Fisher Church and Crest Rd). This has never been marked as a no-parking area however no one ever parked there as it is very unsafe. Why the city has not taken action sooner on this is unclear to me. • Directive #6 of the RPV notice dated October 81h from Cory Linder (Director of Recreation & Parks) presents a simple, and logical, solution to both the parking and the overcrowding issue-simply paint the curb red down Crenshaw (after the corner of St. John Fisher Church and Crest Rd). This will stop people from parking there again and will vastly reduce the overcrowding issue that exists today in the Nature Preserve. Again, I am in favor of directive #6. 2. Why is RPV staff re-presenting the same parking options that were considered and denied several years ago as options for additional parking in the Palos Verdes Preserves? • Directive #2 of the RPV notice dated October 81h from Cory Linder (Director of Recreation & Parks) suggests revisiting parking in areas of Forrestal, Abalone Cove, and Gateway Park as options to re-consider. As mentioned above the Palos Verdes Preserves are overcrowded already. We need to be reducing parking not increasing it. Parking options in the areas of Forrestal, Abalone Cove, and Gateway Park were vetted, voted on by city council, and denied. • As a resident that expects city council to stand by their decisions and honor the decisions that involved the community it is frustrating to have this issue be brought back under suggestion via a different proposal. I am not in favor of directive #2. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Hastings, Katie Lozano Monday, October 19, 2020 5:42 AM Sheri Hastings CC; CityCierk Urgent. A way to vote for RPV City Council. Do it this weekend. The email below has quite a bit on inaccuracy in it, and I can see why it would be concerning. The item on the October 20th agenda is looking to address parking and access concerns where they exist for the City's trail system (mostly focused in the Preserve). It is not an effort to reduce access or promote a pure habitat approach to open space management. In fact, while the October 20th staff report proposes to contract with a parking solutions firm to implement solutions such as parking permits or paid parking to specifically address the traffic issues on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Rd., the staff report also recommends pursuing additional parking for the Portuguese Bend Reserve at the Rancho Del Mar School site. While the Preserve is the City's habitat mitigation for the NCCP/HCP permit, and it is not required that the City allow public access to it, City Council heard overwhelming support from residents and the general public to keep it open to the public for passive recreational use. So the City made sure that public access to the Preserve is an integral part of the NCCP/HCP permit. The City's intent to pursue an NCCP/HCP permit many years ago is what made approximately $30 million in state, federal and local funding available to the City to purchase the Preserve land. Before the purchase of the land, most of the trails within it were labeled as conceptual in the Trails Network Plan/Conceptual Trails Plan, and desired by the City. However, the City could not guarantee access to them because they were on private property. The NCCP/HCP requires that public access to the Preserve be managed in a way that protects habitat and natural resources. And so the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) lays out how passive recreational use should take place in a way that protects natural resources. The City and PVPLC have been successfully managing public use of the Preserve per the PUMP for over 12 years now, and the City has only had to restrict use for the purposes of habitat protection (and public safety) when we chose to close an area of the Portuguese Bend Reserve after a large fire. So as long as the City and PVPLC are actively working together, per City Council direction, to successfully manage public use in the Preserve, the trails (along with the land) are preserved in perpetuity. The City is reaching out to Preserve neighbors to understand impacts of their adjacency to the Preserve, and the concerns vary and are not all traffic concerns. We are hearing concerns with loss of trails, trespassing, litter, fuel modification, need for better way finding sign age, and more. So staff will be looking to address the different impacts to different areas and not apply traffic solutions where they are not needed. I hope this info helped clarify some of the misinformation in the original email below. Please feel free to reach out for anything. 1 I Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation, Parks, and Open Space City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Sheri Hastings <sherihastings@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 3:29 PM To: CC; CityCierk Cc: Katie Lozano Subject: Fw: Urgent. A way to vote for RPV City Council. Do it this weekend. I got email the email below today. For what it is worth, I prefer TNP over PUMP plan -if PUMP means "NO ACCESS" as stated below. I want to be able to hike and ride my horse in the preserve as I have done for a few decades now. But I also do not want graffiti and homeless encampments and so forth back there. Is it not possible to have both access and a patrol that reduces the problem aspect? Thanks Sheri Hastings -----Forwarded Message-----. Hello neighbors and open space visitors, In relation to the future of Rancho Palos Verdes your vote is as important as Trump or Biden choice. Although our City Council Members will remain the same for the next two years, they need a clear preference from their constituents because we have reached a "fork in the road". Both extremes are perfectly valid objectives. What our City Council Members need to know, soonest, is which you prefer. At this point we should all prefer a way to have our voices heard. Send an email to the RPV Council and copy the City Clerk, cc@rpvca.gov and cityclerk@rpvca.gov, which states your name and a request that the Council assign a Citizen Advisory body to hold a few Public Hearings which address this particular decision before any more Staff time is spent on producing any more lengthy, pointless and obscured Recommendations to waste our money. Subject: October 20, 2020 Council Agenda Item 1. The opposing extremes are a ways down the road, however how our money is spent, now, needs to lean in one direction or the other. We can't have both. Should our infrastructure (roadways, trails, storm drains, wildfire management, landslide mitigation) be designed and maintained to facilitate a "tread lightly" human occupation of the whole Peninsula? (Trails Network Plan, TNP.) 2 OR ... Should an ever-expanding Nature Preserve become "no tread at all" i.e. "pure habitat? (Public Use Master Plan, PUMP.) The urgency is represented in the Council's October 20, 2020 REGULAR BUSINESS Agenda Item 1. The Staff Report is 302 pages. Focused on just the trailhead parking problems, the Report reads like a proposed Amendment to our Parks Master Plan. What is not analyzed is how much Staff's recommendations to mitigate specific negative impacts will reduce future maintenance of our public amenities and spend our money on enforcing ways to keep people (that means you, not just the rif raf), out. If you are inclined to figure out how the City expects you to keep informed about what they are doing, following is the usual notice. If you want to see just the "access issues" Report, type all this into your browser's address bar and tap Enter. Send an email and then have a lovely weekend .... S 310-377- 8761 https://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&event_id=1675 The next City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:00p.m. for the Regular Meeting. The meeting will be conducted through a hybrid (in-person/virtual) combination, using the Zoom video conference platform and significantly limited public seating in the City Council Chambers at Fred Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Note -Closed Session and Study Session have been canceled due to a lack of items. Click the following link to access the live meeting, agenda, and staff reports on the city website at http://www. rpvca .gov /agendas. To participate and provide public comment, complete a form at https://www.rpvca.gov/participate to receive an email with further instructions. If you require a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in a meeting, please contact the City at least 48 hours prior to the meeting via email at adarequests@rpvca.gov. If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 310-544-5217 or at CityCierk@rpvca.gov. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv category you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is an unmonitored email address. You can make changes to your subscription by visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor Agency and Improvement Authority Agendas on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lisa Gladstone <golisapv@gmail.com> Monday, October 19, 2020 12:21 PM CC; CityCierk Trail Access/ Use-RPV Concerned Citizens Letter to City Council from RPV Residents (2).pdf 1 (. October 19, 2020 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: As hikers, equestrians and homeowners in the Portuguese Bend community, we are grateful to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for its responsiveness to local citizens. Encircled as we are by the nature preserves and the public trail systems on all sides, the Portuguese Bend Community has necessarily relied upon the Council's support to address concerns as they have arisen. We express gratitude to the city council, city staff, and to Katie Lozano, in particular. Working together, we've solved problems by striking a delicate balance between what (at first) can seem like opposing interests. For example, we accomplished the clearance of non native, flammable brush like acacia to make our community more fire-safe, which also allowed understory native plants to reemerge, providing expanding wildlife habitat and natural beauty on the preserves. As a team, we also made sure that fire trails that allow vehicle access were maintained, while simultaneously ensuring the protection of native habitat and wildlife. It is in the spirit of cooperation that led to the resolution of those problems, we request your help with the following safety concerns: 1. The prickly pear cactus paddles that are encroaching on the trail above the York property should be cut back so that horses can safely pass without being impaled. These present a serious threat to riders. 2. Consider an alternative to the metal fence stakes in the ground near Eagles Nest. Weeds camouflage these, presenting the very real danger of impalement for horses and riders. 3. In the event of a more serious injury on the trail, consider allowing ATV access for retrieval of the injured person(s). 4. The ongoing closure of trails and trail access points accompanied with increased public use is leading to crowding on the trails, which is hazardous at multiple levels, and forces horse riders onto city streets. i. restore direct access from the Portuguese Bend Community to the Filiorum Reserve ii. restore access to the trail that connects Narcissa Drive to Vanderlip iii. restore access access to the trail off of Cinnamon near the Portuguese Bend Riding Club iv. restore the Portuguese Bend Loop trail v. expand the network, rather than shrinking it vi. repair the trails that were damaged by the water main break at Burma 5. Consider posting regulatory sign age regarding the use of audio devices on the trails, and issue citations accordingly: i. playing audible music on trail disrupts others' enjoyment of nature ii. earbuds that eliminate outside sound are dangerous on trails shared by riders, bikers, and hikers 6. Increased use of the trails has led to increased amounts of trash, including things like used condoms and needles. Consider increasing the frequency of trail trash clean-up during the pandemic, when it is unsafe for our community members to do so. We ask you to consider the ramifications of not addressing these issues, and offer our community's assistance where we can be of service. Sincerely, Milt Owens Kim Richardson Joanna Sroka-Scholz Sharon Yarber Tim Richardson Esther Altman Ann Lineberger Brittany Richardson Logan Altman Debbie Denise Amanda Richardson Peggy Silvert Zask Katie Warschefsky Kelly Teddy Derek Smith Jean Shriver Hendrik Rouwenhorst Penny Bunnell Andy Matarazzo Alba Rouwenhorst Dewey Bunnell Pauline Matarazzo Lisa Downhill Lawson Joan Kelly Sophie Matarazzo Monika Bauer Sheri Hastings Kristin Klug Russell Bauer Pippa Davies Darlene Johnson Kent Attridge Jeremy Davies Jean Muller Debra Attridge Sandra Veleri Tony Cappello William Sheridan Roger Valeri Laura Feldman Lyn Petak Susan Dean Jeff Feldman William Petak Laura Feldman Grace Yung Ella Petak Jeff Feldman Juan Starkmann Gordon Leon Lisa Gladstone Dina Adham Claire Leon Corinne Gerrard, Manar Madhyastha Ardys Burt P.B.C.A President Lindsey Woolridge John Bacon Lisa Wolf Marilyn Bacon Carolyn Recknor Esther Zask Scott Recknor Ben Zask From: Sent: To: Subject: Late carr -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 19, 2020 9:12AM Nathan Zweizig FW: Preserve Support From: Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:05AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Romas Jarasunas <jarasunas@cox.net> Subject: Preserve Support Greetings City Council, As president of the Park Place/Burrell HOA, we thank you for your support. I am glad two of our residents were able to join you Saturday on the walk-through. The greatest benefit that we have noticed was the NEW REDSTRIPING at the narrowest part of Crenshaw near the park-that's a BIG IMPROVEMENT that we hope will not be temporary. It already minimized some of the safety and u-turn concerns. In summary, we agree with the eight recommendations from the staff report, except have concerns that #7 (high school parking) still is not in line with the holistic approach of entering the preserve from multiple trailheads-it still supports the bottleneck entrance to the Preserve. Thank you for listening to all perspectives. Sincerely, Romas Jarasunas Park Place/Burrell HOA President Sent from my iPhone 1 I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Daniel Trautner Monday, October 19, 2020 8:45 AM CityCierk Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Matt Waters FW: Did you see ..... Late correspondence for Del Cerro Parking Item. Daniel Trautner Deputy Director Recreation and Parks b · City of Rancho Palos Verdes danielt@rpvca.gov-Off (310) 544*5264-Fax (310) 544*5379 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City lJall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions dming your visit. Walk-ups arc limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of dcpmiment phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: DOTIIE HASHIZUMI <dottiehash@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 4:35 PM To: Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Did you see ..... Hello Mr. Trautner, I do not know if you saw the suggestion I had sent in, but since I came upon your past email, I thought I'd share it directly with you now. When driving home to Del Cerro southbound on Crenshaw, it dawned on me that our two lanes on Crenshaw from the Art Center then turn into 4 lanes near the stop sign at Crest; one (1) left hand turn lane towards Rolling Hills entrance gate, one (1) straight only, one (1) to either go straight or turn right onto Crest and one (1) right only turn lane. Why not change it to having only one (1) lane going straight (continuing on Crenshaw) and change the one allowing either straight or right turn, into a right turn only (eliminating option to go straight) and make the right turn only lane into a parking area for Preserve visitors just as the northbound Crenshaw side is currently? Of course, this will irritate all those using both lanes to turn right ...... it's impossible to make everyone happy. 1 /. Another thing, for the first time ever, yesterday a car was making aU-turn at the stop sign at northbound Crenshaw & Crest. Since they had bikes on the back of car, I will assume they decided to go back southbound on Crenshaw re-seeking a parking spot. This is a dangerous spot to makw a u-turn and suggest a 11 no U turn sign .. installed at the 4 way stop. Looking forward to hearing what will be presented at Tuesday's meeting. Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi 22 Coveview Drive 310-210-4269 On September 4, 2020 at 8:48AM Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov> wrote: Ms. Lancaster Hashizumi, Thank you for contacting the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City Council is in receipt of your email expressing concerns with the resolution adopted at the September 1 meeting regarding the temporary parking prohibition along Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Road. At the August 18th and September 1st meetings, the City Council considered public testimony on issues related to traffic and parking in order to access the Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserves. At both meetings, the City Council heard different points of view on the issues related to traffic and parking congestion, and they absolutely understand the impacts the adjacent neighbors are experiencing (many Council members have observed the impacts firsthand). To that point, the City Council seeks to strike a balance between public access and quality of life for your neighborhood. On August 18t11 , the motion adopted by the City Council to, among other things, temporarily prohibit parking on Crenshaw Blvd. south of Crest Road for 60 days while the City explores potential holistic solutions, reflects their desire to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. On September 1'\ the City Council's adopted resolution establishes a 60-day prohibition on parking but in limited areas along Crenshaw Blvd. while accommodating parking in less impactful areas along the same stretch of roadway. The adopted resolution also creates a drop off zone near Rattlesnake 2 Trailhead to minimize vehicular congestion at the Sea Crest intersection. This action reinforces the City Council's intent to minimize the impacts neighbors have reported of dangerous turning movements in this area where the road narrows, while continuing to provide public access to the Preserve. City Staff is working to find long-term solutions to the parking and access situation, and staff will be providing the City Council with recommendations at the October 20111 City Council meeting. Such potential solutions being explored at this time include, permit parking, paid parking, and alternative parking locations to help redirect the public to other areas of the Preserve. Please be assured that the City Council understands the issues at hand and are working to provide relief to neighbors of this area. Please feel free to contact me directly if I can provide any additional information. Thank you, Daniel Trautner Deputy Director Recreation and Parks L. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca.gov danielt@rpvca.gov-Off (310) 544~5264-Fax (310) 544~5379 3 City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: DOTIIE HASHIZUMI <dottiehash@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 5:55AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: DISASTER It is 5:22 AM Thursday 9/3/2020 Hello City Co unci I, It's not a good morning. I'm an age seventies senior sitting in bed with my laptop & Kleenex while tears are streaming down my face. I have lived in my home since before there was a City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am horrified that you stopped the 60 day plan to red curb Crenshaw. I was so happy to not take my life in my hands for the next 60 days every time I left or came home or have my what's in the back seat/trunk crash onto the back floor board or be toppled over due to having to brake suddenly (no, I am not speeding) due to an irresponsible visitor's driving to visit the Preserve & then just suddenly slam their brakes on to wait & get that spot ! I am tired of being flipped off when one asks people to not smoke or to please pick of the garbage they just threw out the car as they were slowly loading up or that I honked when they stopped in the middle of the street 4 waiting for a spot to park and I cannot pass because of oncoming cars. I'm not expecting you to do anything about folks poor behavior, but I do expect you to think about all of the residents that reside south of St. John Fisher to the Preserve, not succumb to others. Residents & visitors being upset is a poor excuse for you to rescind your decision to ban parking on Crenshaw for a lousy 60 day period. How about all of us ? 60 days is not the end of the world. Yes, I read all the Next Door posts. It's terrible that folks have such an entitlement attitude. I've been called many names by several Next Door members because I tried to explain in my posts what's happening is another effort to provide a solution for all. Example: me: "please use sidewalks instead of walking in middle of street11 and the reply was "you need to trim the hedges so I can". Hello people---there is a sidewalk on the other side. I laughed when those posts were removed when others stuck up for me and said their reply posts to me were rude, disgusting, terrible etc. I also read the publication accusing RPV residents of being racist and not wanting visitors . I responded there too. The thing that rings in my head constantly is my loved one in heaven telling me "YOU WILL REGRET THIS" .......... when I donated and was a 100<yo supporter of the future Preserve. Of course I did not want York or anyone else to build there and destroy the beauty that existed. I wanted to share how wonderful this area was. But it became true, I now deeply regret it. The City has made all kinds of promises thru the years and tried many things since social media came about & turned us into a zoo. But not many promises have come true. Right now, I am sorry, but I wish you folks were on an election ballot so I could vote for a new City Council ...... I'm sure you can tell how disappointed I am that you could not make the decision to choose a middle ground. How about 30 days ???? How about shuttle service from empty Promenade parking structure? How about being fair to all? Did someone or thing scare the Council from being fair to all? I hope you have a nice day, but you have destroyed mine plus my faith in you folks. 5 But respectfully, Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi 22 Coveview Drive 310-210-4269 6 From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:15AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: Parking lot Late carr -----Origi na I Message----- From: Anne Hazard <hazard44@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 9:56 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Parking lot Dear City Council, Please do not put a parking lot at the bottom of the trails. It is a very dangerous idea and I think it will cause more problems than solve. Sincerely, Anne Hazard Sent from my iPhone 1 / From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late carr Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 19,2020 4:12PM CityCierk FW: 10/20/2020 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #1, Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues 10-19-2020 Ltr to City Council.pdf; Rancho del Mar Parking Areas.jpg From: AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:11PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Amy Wang <pinkkie@gmail.com>; Dian Hatch <dion@digiscope.com>; Gregory MacDonald <gregory@arboristgm.com>; Jeff Wang <jeffwangmd@gmail.com>; Mark Kernen <markkernen@hotmail.com>; Miriam Varend <mir3var@icloud.com>; bharathi singh <nisharjun2003@yahoo.com>; Peter Varend <pete.varend@gmail.com> Subject: 10/20/2020 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #1, Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Attached please find letter and related map regarding the subject Council meeting agenda item from the Del Cerro HOA. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Edgerton President Del Cerro HOA 1 10/19/2020 To: RPV City Council Subject: 10/20/2020 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #1, Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Parking and Access Issues Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Below are comments from the Del Cerro HOA regarding each ofthe City Staff's recommendations to Council regarding the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve parking and access issues. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this topic. • Opening and Closing Times for Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail Gates We recommend that the gates at Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail be opened at 7am and locked at sunset, while allowing preserve visitors to remain in the preserve until one hour after sunset to enjoy the sunset and twilight time. These hours would apply daily, including weekends and holidays. Currently, visitors regularly arrive on Crenshaw by Sam (a full two hours before today's sunrise) and often stay well past the park's closing time (currently also almost 2 hours after sunset). The continuous noise from visitors activating their horn-honk car alarms, slamming doors, talking loudly, and playing loud music before dawn and late at night disturbs residents whose homes abut Crenshaw and Burma Rd. Because of the large number of people who arrive so early that residents are consistently awakened before dawn, we are requesting the opening time be delayed to 7am year-round. In essence, our request for locking the gate at sunset is not a change in the preserve closing time. It just prevents people from entering after sunset when complete darkness sets in within 30 minutes oftheir arrival. Visitors could access the preserve at other locations according to the normal hours. The hours would apply only to the gates at these two trailheads and are not intended to change the overall preserve hours. There are already many other exceptions to the City's general rule of opening parks and the preserve at one hour before sunrise and closing at one hour after sunset, so the requested change would only add another exception. For example, according the City's website: -Abalone Cove park grounds are open from 9am to dusk; the parking lot is open from 9am to 4pm. 1 10/19/2020 Hesse Park is open from 9am to dusk Monday through Friday and from lOam to dusk on Saturdays and Sundays. -Grandview Park is open from dawn to dusk. PVIC grounds are open until dusk. -Robert Ryan Park is open from 9am to dusk. In conjunction with these hours, we also ask that the parking hours on Crenshaw be modified to correlate with the gates' opening and closing times, i.e., allowing parking from 7am to one hour after sunset. The current posted parking hours are one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. These hours were approved and implemented in January 2019 when the Council approved opening the trailhead gates at sunrise and locking them at sunset. The intent was to allow people to park on Crenshaw until one hour after sunset so they could enjoy the sunset and then have time to return to their cars. We are hopeful that the later gate opening time of 7am will effectively eliminate visitors' motivation to arrive well before sunrise. However, it is imperative to have effective enforcement in the hours after the preserve is closed as a means to assure that visitors actually leave the preserve by the time it closes. Since there will be a panic bar to allow people to exit the preserve after the gates are locked, the only way to ensure that they actually leave in a timely manner is to enforce it through the parking restrictions. In addition, visitors often arrive after midnight and park on Crenshaw for a lengthy period of time. We expect that they are entering the preserve at that hour since there are currently no gates to keep them out. In that case, the locked gate should dis- incentivize them to arrive at those late hours. However, if they continue to arrive to spend time in Del Cerro Park, then enforcement of the parking hours for an extended period of time at night will be necessary to control the late-night noise. • Parking Reservation System for the Del Cerro along Crenshaw Blvd. We support Staff's recommendation to initiate a process to purchase a parking app system for the Del Cerro along Crenshaw Blvd. We recommend that visitor parking reservations be required for all days of the week and for all hours that the trailhead 2 10/19/2020 gates are opened (i.e., when parking is not prohibited}. The system should be flexible enough to modify parameters as needed. Again, effective enforcement will be paramount. • Parking Spaces at Rancho del Mar We recommend that the City defer entering into an agreement with the PVP Unified School District to use parking space on their property on weekends and holidays. This should be considered in conjunction with the overall holistic assessment of parking for the entire preserve in December, not carved out for implementation prior to completion of the overall analysis. In the initial discussions of this option with Staff, the HOA board was clear that providing a pathway from parking at Rancho del Mar to the Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail trailheads via the Polliwog Bog Trail to Crenshaw would not be welcomed by Del Cerro residents. That trail is located between Valley View homes and Crestwind homes and would bring the same noise disturbances to those residents that are now experienced by residents in Lower Oceanaire and Amber Sky. However, the HOA board members indicated that they would initiate a survey of residents to see whether the shuttle approach would be an acceptable alternative. In the process of preparing the survey, we realized that the map that the City Staff was using to illustrate the shuttle option did not adequately show the impacts of the preferred parking lots on Coveview residents who live immediately above the larger parking lot under consideration. The Coveview homes were not shown in the map being used to obtain the HOA board's feedback. We recognize that it was totally unintentional on the part of Staff but incomplete nonetheless. We provided a map with a more complete view of the area to our residents to help in the survey process. A copy of the more complete map is attached to this letter. The map clearly shows that the impacts of the Rancho del Mar parking plan would fall most heavily on Coveview residents. While we all want the City to move as quickly as possible to mitigate the impacts residents are experiencing, this occurrence serves to emphasize the importance of taking enough time to fully vet each option being reviewed. This illustrates the importance of completing the holistic analysis of all parking alternatives and allowing sufficient time for residents to evaluate them before making decisions on a single alternative. 3 10/19/2020 Our residents do have serious concerns about allowing weekend parking at Rancho del Mar in that it creates the likelihood that the noise disturbances that our residents along Crenshaw and Burma Rd. currently experience will be duplicated for residents on Coveview, Crestwind and even upper Oceanaire. These residents currently experience the noise of loud voices and trucks backing up most weekdays, and adding weekend and holiday parking behind their homes will cause further disturbances on the few days they enjoy peace and quiet. In addition, residents have expressed concerns that residents might become aware of the trails that run behind the Crestwind, Coveview and Upper and Lower Oceana ire homes and begin to use them to find shortcuts to the preserve. These concerns would need to be thoroughly addressed before residents would accept this proposal. • Delay Holistic Parking Analysis for the Entire Preserve We support a delay in reviewing a holistic parking analysis for the entire preserve until December. However, we feel identifying locations for multiple major trailheads other than Burma Rd. and Rattlesnake Trail throughout the preserve with appropriate amenities should be considered the highest priority related to the management of preserve access and parking. The assessment should be accomplished as soon as possible. We appreciate the wonderful resource that we have in the preserve and the many educational and recreational opportunities that it provides to all visitors. We are not looking to limit access to the preserve. The area is certainly large enough to accommodate all who desire to enjoy our natural resource. We welcome all visitors. In fact, over 60% of our residents contributed substantial funds to the acquisition of the preserve in 2005. We continue to support a shared solution for parking and access that distributes visitors throughout the preserve and away from residential homes, but not one that continues and increases the concentration of people and cars on Crenshaw Blvd., a dead-end two- lane street that provides access to 256 homes and was not built to handle the 8,000 vehicles that arrive per week (16,000 when you consider that all vehicles must exit the way they entered) and up to 2,000 cars per day on weekends (derived from the analysis previously provided to Council and Staff). Unlike the parking on Crenshaw, all other open space areas of equivalent size and use in LA County have significant off-street parking. Over 70% of our current residents moved here before the preserve was acquired to raise their families in a quiet peaceful environment that has been significantly 4 10/19/2020 diminished over the last several years. By distributing access throughout the preserve, perhaps that environment can be restored. In particular, a trailhead off PV Drive South, originally planned to be the main gateway into the preserve, must be a part of the overall solution. It can provide access to many beautiful vistas and has the advantage of allowing visitors to travel uphill when they are strong and rested and then return downhill to their vehicles at the end of a hike. The trailhead can be located away from homes and can provide off-street access to parking so that PV Drive South does not become congested. In addition, the trailhead at City Hall with appropriate amenities and the trails leading from there should continue to be promoted as alternate destination points and improved to entice more visitors to take advantage of the excellent views that can be enjoyed there. • 60-Day Extension for Parking Prohibition along Crenshaw The parking prohibition along Crenshaw that was approved on September 1st has greatly improved traffic conditions at the southern end of Crenshaw, and we are very grateful to the City Council for their support of this request. Traffic congestion in that area has been significantly reduced and traffic safety greatly improved. Our residents are able to enter and exit the community without taking extreme measures such as pulling into the opposing lane of traffic to pass vehicles that are stopped in the traffic lane waiting for a place to park. However, unsafe U-turns continue to be a problem on Crenshaw-both from the parking places on the southbound side of Crenshaw as visitors travel north to exit the area as well as from the northbound side as visitors wait to find a parking place on the southbound side. We support the City Staff's desire to hire a traffic consultant to assist them in finding solutions to prevent the many unsafe U-turns that residents encounter in entering and exiting the neighborhood. The U-turns have caused at least one injury accident that required hospitalization of a resident's 90-year-old mother as well as constant near misses where residents must brake quickly to avoid collisions. In addition, there continues to be significant traffic congestion on Crenshaw adjacent to St. John Fisher Church. When vehicles are parked along the curb (which is all day most days), drivers will often stop in the single available traffic lane waiting for parking places. 5 10/19/2020 When that happens, traffic behind them cannot pass through the area and is forced to wait for the person to find a parking place. A driver cannot even attempt to safely pass in the opposing traffic lane because the raised median prevents that option. Further, drivers trying to exit the church's driveway onto Crenshaw have limited visibility of oncoming traffic due to the cars that are parked very close to the driveway, blocking their view. We ask that the parking restrictions along Crenshaw be extended until a parking reservation system is implemented and a plan and schedule to open other major trailheads (with commitment to implement} are developed. In addition, we ask that the Council approve additional red curbing along Crenshaw adjacent to St. John Fisher until the parking reservation system is implemented. • Social Media Campaign We greatly appreciate Staff's efforts to direct visitors to other parking areas, utilize search engine optimization techniques to improve the City's website ranking with regard to PV hikes, and monitor other webpages with information about the City's open space to improve the accuracy of the information provided online. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Edgerton President Del Cerro HOA 6 From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 19, 2020 4:27 PM CityCierk FW: Nature preserve parking From: bryan bergsteinsson <bryan_bergsteinsson@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:26 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Nature preserve parking I am a 20+ year resident of the Island View. I have sadly witnessed the popularity of the preserve grow over the last few years. I understand the appeal of the preserve and believe the public should have access to the space. That however has to be balanced against quality of life issues for the residents that are impacted. In that context I suggest three actions; Create significant parking at the bottom of the preserve along PV drive South. There certainly is space and it is away from any residential areas. Limit parking on Crenshaw. I realize that is counter productive, but there will never be enough parking on Crenshaw to satisfy demand. Parking should be restricted between Crest Rd and Del Cerro. Promote access to the preserve from points beyond the Burma Rd. This will be an ongoing challenge requiring both immediate mitigation as well as long term strategies to address the problem. Thanks for listening. Bryan Bergsteinsson 55 Santa Barbara Dr (310) 541-2872 1 (. From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:25 PM To: CityCierk; Ken Rukavina; Ramzi Awwad; Ron Dragoo; wwynder@awattorneys.com Subject: FW: "WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED 3867 UTILITY POLE RELOCATION PROJECT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR THE JULY 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING"" FYI Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager CIT'v'OF l<t\.NCIIO PALOS \!Ef~DES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e ma:l contains infonmtion belonging to the of Rancho Palos Verdes, vvhich may be privileged, confidentidi and/or protected frorn disck6ure. The is intended only for use of the or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyin9 i.s strictly prohi!Jited. rr ym l'':•ceived thi~; email in error, or are nut an ;ntenclcd reopient, please notify the sender imrncdiatcly. Thank you for your assistance iH'ICI cooperation, From: Betty A <bma2252@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:23 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro < barbara. fe rra ro@ rpvca .gov> Subject: Fwd: "WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED 3867 UTILITY POLE RELOCATION PROJECT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR THE JULY 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING"" ----------Forwarded message--------- From: Betty A <bma2252@gmail.com> Date: Mon., Oct. 19, 2020 Subject: "WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED 3867 CREST ROAD UTILITY POLE RELOCATION PROJECT ON OCTOBER 20 AGENDA 1 3. AND STAFF REPORT" To: <cc@rpvca.gov> Dear members of the RPV CITY COUNCIL, I'm writing to you as a concern homeowner that lives in the gated community of RPV Estates. I want it known that I strongly "OPPOSE" the relocation of the 3867 Crest utility poles and high voltage equipment into the grove of trees on the South side of Crest. My brother Frank J. Attenello is also a resident in this community and agrees with me on opposing the utility pole relocation project. Mr. Funiciello purchased this property at 3867 Crest Road in 2013, with full knowledge of the placement of the utility poles. Interesting, that two years after he purchased the property he initiated this pole relocation, behind "CLOSED DOORS"! Mr. Funiciello confirmed he had been working on this project five years prior. The five years this has been going on, there has not been any public records or notification of the project to the neighboring community. The information I have gathered on this situation, with the non transparency of the activities and the blatant disregard for the state and cities rules and regulations, has me questioning Mr. Funiciello's integrity! The biggest concern I have is the safety issues not only for my community, but the surrounding communities as well. Fire danger is an imminent threat to our communities and this project if approved would increase our risk to catastrophic proportions. I have faith in the members of the RPV CITY COUNCIL to make the best decision, for the entire community of RPV. Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter. BETIY ATIENELLO 8 AVENIDA DE CAMELIA, RPV, CA. 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Late corr Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 19, 2020 12:20 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: 3867 Crest Road agenda item RPVE 3867 Crest Rd utility poles.docx From: sedlachek <sedlachek@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 3867 Crest Road agenda item Please see attached Deborah Sedlachek 1 g . Mi el . Deborah Sedlachek October 19, 2020 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Council members Re: 3867 Crest Road, Rancho Palos Verdes Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes Councilmembers: My husband and I have resided in Rancho Palos Verdes Estates for almost 20 years and my Mother-in Law moved here in 1985. We are very familiar with our community and have seen the entrance trees mature and appreciated the beauty of our community. We became very alarmed when four trees were cut on a Sunday several years ago without a permit. We had no idea the City had been communicating with the Funicello's regarding moving of the power lines for quite some time. We recall all the power polls on their property prior to its construction. We are of the opinion relocation of the poles to the south side of Crest onto our association's property is an imminent fire danger to our community and illegal. To move these power poles only for the beautification of their property and onto our HOA property is shocking and will encroach on 76 other homes. We object for these and the reasons outlined in Katherine Camp bells letter to the council. Sincerely, Deborah Sedlachek From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 19, 2020 8:35AM Nathan Zweizig Subject: FW: 3867 Crest Utility Poles relocation -Item 3 on October 20, 2020 Regular Business Agenda Late corr From: Alex Pop <alexpop45@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 11:02 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Kathy Campbell <kc111@cox.net>; Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com> Subject: 3867 Crest Utility Poles relocation -Item 3 on October 20, 2020 Regular Business Agenda October 18, 2020 To Honorable Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, During the July 21st 2020 hearings related to RPV Public Works approval of a private landowner request to transfer the burden of existing utility poles from his property to Rancho Palos Verdes Estate (RPVE) private property, our legal representatives asked for: 1. An independent assessment of the project safety risk. 2. An official statement from LA Assessors office on the ownership of the land where the electrical poles would be moved. Allegedly, Public Works staff promised to the Project Applicant the requested approval if some conditions were met. Few months later, the Public Works Director realized that RPVE would challenge their decision, and instead of withdrawing their unauthorized promise, they tried to buy the RPVE silence with a coffee and cookies meeting. I heard the Project Applicant, Mr. Funiciello, stating that RPVE is an older people community, but I did not know that the Public Works Director thought we are completely senile. During the July 21, 2020 hearing he came up with a map marked with self-made unsupported property lines. Our legal team challenged the accuracy of that map and showed a text message from the LA Assessor's office confirming our argument. Responding to RPVE deposition, the City Attorney, arrogantly and with a patronizing demeanor, informed the City Council that: 1. Legally they do not have any financial or legal exposure for approving an unsafe project. 2. The debate over the land ownership is irrelevant because the City Council can impose easements independent of the project request source (utilities or private). In conclusion of the hearing, the City Council had a public discussion and after a short debate the Pro Tempore Mayor decided to "move for a vote to continue the project implementation". After discussing with Edison representative, City Council Bradley had persuaded the Pro Tempore Mayor and Ms. Ferraro to withdraw their initial votes and explore other alternatives. Reading the subsequent HOA's legal team correspondence with Mr. Ara Mihranian, I realized that despite City Council Bradley suggestion, the Public Works and City Attorney decided to come up with a new proposal that ignores RPVE's fire safety concerns, and include a hearing into 201h of October full agenda, discouraging a proper discussion. 1 3 RPVE property owners did not vote for the RPV City staff. We voted for you, trusting you to monitor and guide the city affairs and protect RPV constituents from implementations of erroneous or unfair decisions. In protest of July 21st Mayor Pro Tempore, Eric Alegria, rush attempt to vote and authorize a private homeowner to transfer the burden of existing utility poles from his property to our private property and also the October 20, 2020 unacceptable solution and discussion framework, I just submitted to RPVE community, my exploratory proposal to get organized for collecting signatures from Rancho Palos Verdes City constituents' for Mayor Pro Tempore, Eric Alegria recall. Respectfully, Alex Pop -Resident of RPVE. 2