20210406 Late CorrespondenceTO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 6, 2021
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
_____________________________________________________________________
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight’s meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
B Amendments to draft Minutes March 2, 2021 Reg Mtg page 8
F Additional Comment added to Legislative Letter SB809
Q Additional Comment added to Legislative Letter 1295
1 Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Jim Knight
Emails from: Meghan Moore; Margaret and Russell Moilov; James
Hevener; Don and Patty Ott; Freddy Carbajal; Caren Becht; Carolynn
Petru; Walt and Carol Goede; Marina Merli; Charlene O’Niel; Craig
German; Martin Vlaco; Jessica Vlaco; Patrice and Michelle Mallano;
Stephanie Fleck; Jeffrey Gilker; Lena Gilker; Ann Weinland; Joe
Tetherow; Melinda Tetherow; Wendy Ard; Beverly Provine; Jim and
Lisa Lehman; Irene and Paul Henrikson; Lane and Wendi Gilchrist;
Attila and Mary Tóth; Jean and Keith Mueller; Nancy Ohara; David
Shirley; Xin Wang; Bill Schurmer; Marty Foster; Sharon Yarber; Bill
Foster; Herb Stark; Gene and Lynne Dewey; CJ Ruona; Bob Greve;
Edward Dietz; Martin Dodell; Colleen Teles; George Patton; Shizuye
Elaine Knipe; Ann Muscat and John Baldelli; Herb Stark; Samantha
Pack; Jose Aguilar; Michael Casares; A.M. Asmi; Bev Provine; Barbara
Scherba; Meghan Moore; Yvette D’Elia; Baldomero Fernandez;
Anthony and Lety Todora; Erin Levy; Joe Cruz; Paul Funk; Hans and
Dianne Bozler; Doug Foster; Responses from City Manager Mihranian
to Mickey Rodich; Colleen Stanovich; Diane Mills
2 Attachment A for Table of Contents Line Item 9
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through
Monday, April 5, 2021**.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________
Teresa Takaoka
NOES: None
4. Consideration and possible action to discuss and provide input on fees
associated with City service costs. (Brown)
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that there were no requests to speak.
Trang Nguyen, Director of Finance, Chu Thai, Vice President, and Eric Johnson,
President of Revenue Cost Specialists, LLC presented a staff report and PowerPoint
presentation.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and Staff.
Mayor Pro Tern Bradley moved, seconded by Councilmember Ferraro, to: 1)
Receive and file the Cost of Services Study dated April 30, 2019, prepared by
Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC; 2) Review the Revenue and Cost Specialists,
LLC, and the Finance Advisory Committee's (FAC) recommendations on the Cost of
Services Study (by roll call vote as noted below); and, 3) Based on
recommendations made by Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC and the Finance
Advisory Committee, provided direction on the following:
• Recovering 1 00% cost of Community Development Department fees,
excluding Viev1 Restoration fees
• Recovering 100% cost of Public 'Narks Department fees
• Reducing certain Recreation and Parks Film Permit fees
• Reducing Business License Processing fees
• Return at a future meeting with an amended fee schedule based on
discussion points noted which include creating tiers or categories for property
owners with appropriate fees; to include fees that do not disincentivize people
to do the right thing; and, noting that the fees should not factor staff time
spent providing information or responding to the public.
4) Continue the discussion to a duly noticed public hearing on April 20, 2021.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Cruikshank, Dyda, Ferraro, Bradley, and Mayor Alegria
None
Mayor Alegria called for a brief recess at 9:19P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:30
P.M.
5. Consideration and possible action to receive a status report on the Palos
Verdes Drive South Realignment Project. (Razepoor)
Deputy City Clerk Takaoka noted that there were no requests to speak.
DRAFT City Council Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 8 of 11 8
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
McKenzie Bright
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:44PM
cc
Jesse Villalpando
Additions to Legislation Letters on Consent Calendar 4/6/21 -AB 1295 and SB 809
AB 1295 Comment Letter (Amended).docx; SB 809 Letter of Support (Amended).docx
Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
For the Council meeting tonight, changes have been made to two of the legislation letters on the Consent Calendar. The
letters with track changes are attached and will be distributed as late correspondence, and a brief summary of the
changes are detailed below:
• For AB 1295, regarding development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), language has been
added urging CAL Fire to reassess VHFHSZ designation with a case-by-case property analysis. This is ltem__Q, on
the Consent Calendar.
• For SB 809, regarding jurisdictional agreements related to regional housing need allocation, language was added
to request the state not be involved in these agreements. This is item..£ on the Consent Calendar.
Thank you,
McKenzie
McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
City Manager's Office
mbright@rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5305
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
inforrnation bPlonqinq to the CAy of Rancho Palos \/c(des, vvt·iich !lli.1y be priv!k:g<:d 1 confidcnt!a! ;:-Hvljor pHA:t::c.tcd froro
Trw ;nform:ition is intuv:lf:d oniy for use of the individual or entity r<l!ncd. Um;uthorb::d disscrninatkm, distribution, copyinq is strictly prohibiL>(L If
yqu received onall in error{ or .arc not an ~ntcndcd rcdplcnt, please notify tr1c sender l!nrncdUtely, Thank you t<w your ass!stdnce: i:!nd cooperation,
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 .
..... GETITOO
....-Google Play
1
April 6, 2021
The Honorable AI Muratsuchi
California State Assembly
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2179
Sacramento, CA 94249 -0066
Via Email
SUBJECT: Rancho Palos Verdes' Comments Regarding AB 1295
Dear Assemblymember Muratsuchi :
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes thanks you for introducing legislation that aims to
reduce the risk of loss of life and property in areas that are high risk for wildfire. Wildfire
events have long been a concern for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes . In April
2019, a series of news stories on wildfire preparedness in California highlighted Rancho
Palos Verdes as the most populated city in the state with 90% or more of residents
living in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
With projections of extreme weather and housing growth potentially exacerbating the
threat of wildfire to homes and property, effective fire-risk reduction policies are needed
as part of a comprehensive wildfire management plan .
We understand AB 1295 is currently a spot bill and that more substance is to be added.
The City would therefore like to share comments on the bill in its current form for your
consideration as you make amendments.
As currently written, AB 1295 would effectively prohibit any new residential development
in our City, almost all of which falls within a VHFHSZ. This would mean property owners
could not add onto their homes or build housing on vacant lots. Additionally, the bill
would prevent residential development along Western Avenue, which is the primary
focus of a potential mixed-use overlay zone to help the City reach its Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. Furthermore , the City strongly urges CAL Fire to
conduct a reassessment of the City's VHFHSZ designation, which should be based on a
case -by -case analysis of a property's fire risk, rather than a broad classification .
Assemblymember Muratsuchi
April 6, 2021
Page 2
While we support the aims of this bill, we ask that you keep in mind the wide-reaching
implications of its current form and consider an approach that is less restrictive to
property owners. Perhaps the bill could include language relaxing RHNA requirements
for cities located in fire-prone areas rather than implementing a blanket ban on new
residential development in VHFHSZs. Additionally, the City seeks clarity on the
definition of key terms such as "residential development" and "development agreement"
presented in the bill in its current form.
The City appreciates your work on the issue of mitigating the impact of wildfire hazards
on local communities. We are eager to see the forthcoming amendments to AB 1295 to
gain a better understanding of how this bill would impact residents. Thank you for
considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Baiiales, Deputy City Manager
Rolling Hills Estates City Council and City Manager
Palos Verdes Estates City Council and City Manager
Rolling Hills City Council and City Manager
April 6, 2021
The Honorable Ben Allen
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 4076
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Support of 58 809
Dear Senator Allen:
Via Email
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports SB 809, which would provide a measure of
local control in the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) process.
In local land use planning and zoning, there are many factors that must be considered.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, almost
entirely within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). As such, it is vital that
the City maintain its local land use authority to ensure that all developments meet all
safety standards and that related traffic changes do not have undue influence on egress
paths especially during an evacuation.
As drafted, this bill will allow for flexibility for cities that may not have land suitable or
available to meet RHNA allocations to enter into multijurisdictional agreements to
exchange available land for financial compensation to develop that land . To maintain
local control, the bill should be clarified to indicate that these agreements are solely
between jurisdictions and not subject to state oversight or involvement.
As California continues to look to the future in housing development, this bill would allow
cities to assess their capability and have increased local control to meet RHNA shares.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports SB 809.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
Senator Allen
April 6, 2021
Page 2
cc: AI Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Banales, Deputy City Manager
Teresa Takaoka
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 12:45 PM
To: Jim Knight <knigh~im33@gmail.com>; CC
Cc: Ken Rukavina; Octavia Silva; Ramzi Awwad; Matt Waters; Karina Banales; Trang Nguyen;
Cory Linder
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Project
Hi Jim.
The City is in receipt of your email and suggested comments.
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable input on the conditions and the project.
Solar is part of the project, but the details have yet to be finalized as we proceed through the entitlement process.
I will make sure we engage you when it comes to EV charging stations at any of the City Facilities.
Have a GREAT weekend,
Ara
From: Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April1, 2021 5:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
April 1, 2021
RE: April 6, 2021 Hearing on the Ladera Linda Project
Mayor and Council members,
Below are my comments on the upcoming April6, 2021 hearing you will be having on the Ladera
Linda project.
1) Under operational conditions, condition #41 states the parking lot will close at dusk 7
days a week. Yet the Community Center hours will go until 9pm or later under a rental
schedule. The conditions in this section are inconsistent and either one or the other
condition will be unenforceable. The City could install a one way tire spike exit lane and
close the entrance at dusk. But if a rental wants entrance and exit after dusk, one of these
conditions needs to be modified.
2) Under Parking Conditions, Condition #48 specifies one electric vehicle space and three
clean air vehicle spaces. Clean air vehicles have a very broad definition as any combination
of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles qualifies.
1 /.
Under the 2019 California Green Building Code, based on 54 new spaces, the City is
required to provide 4 electrical vehicle charging stations. One EV cannot use 4 electrical
stations. It appears that 4 EV charging spaces will have to be provided.
I have a number of suggestions on charging installation and software coordination with City
Hall in my comments on the Hess Park Project, but here are a few for this project:
-Staff has indicated to me that the City plans to use the ChargePoint C-1400 series charge
stations. If so, I highly recommend the CT-14021 which has two J-1772 Level2 charge plugs
per station. That way you only need two CT-14021 stations to supply the required 4 EV
spaces.
-Each J -1772 plug on the charging station should be wired with a 40 amp circuit so that each
plug gets the full 7.2kWh of output per vehicle.
-Have ChargePoint provide the needed software so that a discounted kWh rate can be
provided to RPV residents. This can be programmed into the station software so when the
vehicle is plugged in the station software automatically recognizes the individual vehicle of
the RPV resident.
3) Site Lighting Conditions
As a general comment, please do not make the same mistake with lighting that occurred at
the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Make sure all bollard and pole lights only light the
parking lot and not the residents above or the dark night sky.
Condition #56 sounds like a Las Vegas lighting plan. I don't know if you need "landscape
ambiance" lighting and please just keep sign lighting to the very essential.
#58 Mock ups and re-evaluation of the lighting plan are good ideas. There is a vast selection
these days of color temperature, directional LEDs, etc. that can mitigate any ambient
impacts.
#62 Bollards were the big mistake at the PVIC. Make sure they are pointed onto the parking
lot only.
4) Utility Conditions
#64 I highly recommend oversized conduit to accommodate a higher powered circuit wire
in the event the City wants to upgrade the charging stations to DC fast charging in the
future. The marginal cost of larger conduit during installation is far cheaper than retrofitting
later as pulling wire through an existing conduit is far easier than digging up sidewalks and
parking lots.
5) Solar system
I do not see any mention of a solar system as a part of this project. It was my understanding
that Council had directed that the project include solar energy. The time to plan for solar is
during construction. You have the option of installing a solar roof (cutting cost of a roof+
solar panels); leasing options, remote control management software and coordination with
SCE to offset other municipal sites, etc. The orientation of the 6, 790 sq. ft. of buildings
2
(and 137 sq. ft. covered patio) should have one roof shed facing S/SW to optimize year
round solar gain. A SCE smart meter at the facility elec. panel can coordinate supplying solar
energy to the EV charging stations as well. All of this is better in the planning stage rather
than a costly retrofit.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ladera Linda Project.
Jim Knight
3
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello all,
Meghan Moore <megtheteacher@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 11:36 PM
cc
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; CityCierk
Ladera Linda Project
My hope with this email is to continue to encourage you to maintain your dedication to the integrity of a quality Ladera
Linda project. This facility is of priceless importance to our community, and I am in strong support of the project. As the
demand for new housing increases all over the US, we are seeing that creating a sense of community within those new
housing developments are also something many are preferring, and it increases the value of these new housing projects.
Therefore, keeping and expanding the Ladera Linda Park as a community-used facility will only continue to add value to
our beloved community.
Just recently, my brother and I were discussing his move to the family-friendly community of Thousand Oaks/Camarillo
Area, of course in his eyes the more family-friendly community. He mentioned all the new benefits and amenities he and
his children have been enjoying: horse trails, bike trails, hiking trails, community classes, and community facilities, all
within close proximity of his beautiful new residence. He was indeed bragging about his new amenities, until I
mentioned our Peninsula Community has all those same community amenities. He was unaware of Ladera Linda Park
and its asset to our community. He was thinking he was only able to get his family-friendly community environment in
Ventura County. Please continue to grow the Ladera Linda Park Project as a larger community facility. It is one of the few
priceless benefits of our area (that we are actually able to expand), and truly one of the few family-friendly bonuses of
our area.
I am a resident of the historic Miraleste district. I actually grew up in the Miraleste area, (as did my brother .. .funny he
neglected Ladera Linda as something special when bragging about his new community). I spent over a decade living in
Santa Clara County before deciding to return to the beloved Miraleste area of RPV where I spent my childhood years. My
husband and I are now raising our family here. We have four children, our eldest is just 8 years of age. We were able to
use the Ladera Linda facility a couple of years ago when my son's Cub Scout event was held there. Our family very much
enjoyed it, and we were happy to hear about its expansion plans. This project will allow us more opportunities to share
our community with others, many who are unaware of our hidden gem of a community; and the additional recreational
furnishings will be invaluable to our community. I hope you vote to continue the approved project. Ladera Linda Park is,
and will be a beautiful display of our community.
Thank you, and all the best,
Meghan Moore
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margaret Moilov < lafree13@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 10:22 PM
CC; PC
Ladera Linda Pocket Park-Doing the Right Thing
Thank you, City Council, for being our elected officials representing the will of the people and overseeing our public funds
for the betterment of Rancho Palos Verdes. With this in mind I am grateful that you see the importance of Appealing the
current CUP and proposed building on the Forrestal Site for the Ladera Linda Park. We need to step back and engage
the community we all love and listen to one another and build for future generations a site that will bring us together not
tear us apart. As City Council you are in charge not the Planning Commission or City Staff. Together the community and
City Council must forge a partnership where we support one another and allow disagreements for the improvement of our
lives and the community we live in. We are Rancho Palos Verdes and together we are stronger. Please consider a Park
Advisory Board to assist in the development of plans and for that matter a General Plan Committee of community
volunteers that works with City Council, Planning Commission, and staff to jointly work on projects so that everyone has a
voice in the process. This re-evaluation will bring about mindful spending, joint thought, and a project more in-line with our
local needs.
Respectfully submitted
Margaret and Russell Moilov
Seaview
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 9:13PM
CC; CityCierk
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Don't Let Ladera Linda Opponents Move the Goalposts !
Exhibit To City Council E-Mail 04-05-21 final.pdf
Mayor and City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
I have been involved as a representative of the Mediterrania HOA with the planning/design
process for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project for close to six years and
write in support of the Project.
While minor changes were contemplated and are understandable (e.g., security screens,
bathrooms, possible enclosure of office), sending the matter back into the design phase
would be an explicit repudiation of the Council's approval of the final design in October
2019. This would be wrong and also set a horrible precedent for future City projects of any
type.
It also would be a slap in the face to those of us who have participated in good faith for six
plus years and have agreed to numerous compromises over the years of designs and
redesigns.
How in the world would you expect any of us to support a Civic Center project (of any size) or
any other public park project in another part of the City, if Council kowtows to a small but very
loud group of NIMBY residents in our area? These are the very same residents who put
forward a compromise proposal of a Community Center of 7000 square feet with no new
amenities in 2018 which formed the basis for the current design, but are now trying to move
the goalposts by demanding Council turn what has been a Community Center for more than
30 years into a Neighborhood Clubhouse and by demanding the elimination of the Discovery
Room which is a priceless resource for our youth (and adults). The City must be able to
move forward with projects that span more than 4 years and cannot allow residents to game
new Council Members.
Absent a truly compelling reason, which doesn't exist, the current Council should defer to the
October 2019 approval and move forward. No doubt any one Council Member or any one
resident or group of residents could come up with a "better" design. By "better" I mean one
which would be more to their individual liking. Given I am the father of three boys and the
Community Center is the only City facility in the Southeast side of the City, I personally would
design a facility of at least 13,000 SQFT (at least the same size as the current facility) plus I
would include reasonable public amenities for families with kids such as tennis courts, a
gymnasium and a public swimming pool. I also would expand and not reduce the Discovery
1
\.
Room so we can help get our kids off the video screens and outside. Back in 2014-2015
when public outreach began, all of these amenities were supported by a significant
percentage of residents. [Exhibit P1] If Council decides a redesign is needed, expect every
resident with kids in the area to once again demand these amenities which we did not get,
especially those who are now paying close to $2 million or more for a home in our area of the
City.
But that is not the way representative democracy is supposed to work. All of us are expected
to make compromises for the greater good for the sake of being reasonable neighbors to one
another. Those of us who supported a more robust Community Center agreed to the
compromise proposal which did not include any additional amenities and down sized the
building not once but three times (from 13,000 to 9,000 in 2017-to 8,000 in 2018-and then
to 7,000 in 2019). In 2019 Council struck the final compromise, and we reasonably expect to
the current Council to honor that compromise. The failure of the City to move the Project
forward since October 2019 already has created the space for opponents to fill the vacuum
and create divisions in the community, and anything less than approval of the CUP now would
be a dereliction of duty by the current City Council.
1. The Planning Commission Vote Was Unanimous. Seven Commissioners, all of
whom are leading residents of our City, considered this Project and all seven supported
the current Project and CUP, including the finding that the Community Center and Park
would not result in a substantial negative impact on adjacent residents. As the Willdan
Traffic Study concludes, traffic from a Community Center of less than 7000 SQFT
(multi-purpose room, 2 classrooms and a hybrid meeting/discovery room) will not have
a dramatic impact on the Community. AYSO, Trump Golf Course and the Preserve are
real issues and the City does need to properly coordinate use of the Community Center
to mitigate these other impacts, but they do not justify withholding a community
resource from the rest of the community.
2. Sending the Project Back to Re-Design Would Expose the City to Potential
Liability. These buildings received a "F" grade nearly ten years ago-complete with
asbestos, lead paint, defective heating and overgrown shrubbery. [Exhibit P2.] God
forbid if someone got hurt or was attacked or robbed by someone lurking in what is now
an obvious attractive nuisance. The City has been on notice for nearly ten years and
there is no doubt the liability would greatly exceed the entire price tag for the
Project. This is not an exaggeration.
3. The LLHOA Opposition Got Their Slice of Cake and Now Wants More. The current
design from Johnson Favaro was a direct response to the LLHOA survey and proposal
in 2018. The attached [Exhibit P. 3] is an excerpt from that proposal. As you can
see, 100% of the Ladera Linda residents agreed that a facility of 7000 SQFT was
acceptable (and nearly 30% supported an even larger facility). They also asked that
the basketball courts be relocated away from Ladera Linda, for red-stripping on
Forrestal, and for enhanced security including cameras. The problem with relocating
the basketball courts based on the original more traditional Richard Fisher design was
that it would have required moving the building or the BB courts closer to Seaview,
which they of course opposed. JF put forward from the very first interview the
2
innovative design of a single long rectangular building that would reduce the total
footprint and allow the both the building and the BB courts to be placed away from both
Ladera Linda and Seaview. The LLHOA representative who participated in the
interview joined all the other HOA representatives in unanimously recommending the
selection of J F. J F and the City Staff also delivered on all the other major demands of
the LLHOA, including red striping and adding security features, while also retaining the
Discovery Room by making it a Hybrid Meeting and Discovery Room. While not ideal
for those of us who wanted something more family-oriented, it was a reasonable
compromise.
4. Changes Requested by Opponents Would Lead to More Controversy. There is no
way to make everyone happy. Both LL and Seaview wanted the building and the active
play areas as far away from their neighborhoods as possible. That is what the JF
design accomplished. Of course the building could be squared off, but that would
mean that the building would end up closer to LL and/or to Seaview. No doubt LL
would want it closer to Seaview and Seaview would want it closer to LL. The building
could also be two stories -it would be a smaller footprint but no doubt both sets of
neighbors would complain. A more squared off design also would impact the
placement of the BB Courts and play areas. A simple, back of the envelope design by
the LLHOA might sound appealing at first, but as with every design proposed over the
past six years every change creates a new set of complaints. And, as noted above, if
Council re-opens the process you should expect everyone else who didn't get what
they wanted to renew their demands. I assure you that I and many other parents with
kids will lobby Staff and Council for what we want (and all of us vote too). This is bad
policy and bad process.
5. This is a Community Center and Not A Neighborhood Clubhouse. The Ladera
Linda site has been a Community Center and Community Park for over 30
years. Opponents have resorted to a whole series of misrepresentations and
exaggerations during the past year or so to scare residents into opposing this Project.
For example, a recent LLHOA "Study" included a photoshopped photo of the sign which
has been in place for decades-changing it from "Community Center" to
"Neighborhood Park." [Exhibit P 4] It never has been just for the LL neighborhood and
those of us with kids deserve a facility that will meet our needs and the needs of this
community for the next 40 years. That is exactly what the current opponents demanded
30-40 years ago when the site was a loud boisterous school and then a vibrant
community center with square dances, classes and meetings! Even now, the attached
list of proposed uses which support the current proposal [Exhibit P 5] was created by
Staff in 2019 based entirely on the internal LLHOA survey-this is what their own
residents actually want!
6. There is no Amphitheatre and the Opponents Grossly Exaggerate the Size of the
Building. As the new renderings show, there is no amphitheater. [Exhibit P 6]. Yes,
there would be some sit steps where someone like me as a Cub Master could talk to
my Scouts. But there will be no rock concerts at this Park. And this is not going to be a
wedding destination, or a major attraction for outsiders, as there will be no outdoor
amplified music and only 8 special events maximum per year including several City
3
events such as the Easter Egg hunt and Parks Day. People are not going to drive from
Torrance or San Pedro to use one of three classrooms or even the small park. Of
course there is and will be some impact (as has been the case for most of the past 40
plus years until the current facility became decrepit) but the current proposal actually
reduces the impact on the adjacent residents. The interior size is only 40% of the
current size and even the total size of the roof is about 13000 SQFT, which is less than
25% of the size of a football field (57.6k SQFT). In truth it is the current exterior
footprint that is over 50,000 square feet, and the current footprint is also much closer to
Seaview and LL. [Exhibit P7 show current and P8 shows current vs. 2018 size and
design.]
7. Reducing the Square Footage by 10-20% will Not Cut Costs Substantially. It is
true that this project will be expensive, but that is true of all public construction,
especially now. My estimate based on information from local developers is that if the
City had moved forward in 2014 when the Park Plan was first approved the cost would
have been only 50% of the current cost. Instead the City has spent 6 years and about
a $1 Million in planning and design costs, while the cost of construction has
skyrocketed. That is water under the bridge, but terminating JF and sending this
Project to a new design firm will only increase costs and will not result in significant
savings. A large amount of the project costs are fixed and reducing the size by 1 0-20%
will significantly impact the future utility of the structure while only saving around 3-5%
of the cost. As the Staff report points out, the George F Canyon Nature Center project
in RHE is actually comparable in cost per assignable SQFT. Yes, the cost is less but
that is because the entire facility is only a Nature Center and not even a modest
Community Center.
Enough is enough. While no design is perfect and no one will ever be fully satisfied,
this is the right design for this location and it is time to move forward.
Jim Hevener, RPV resident, father of three, MHOA Representative in Design
Phase, and Cubmaster Pack 955 Mira Catalina
4
70
"'
50
30 I I 20
10 I 11 .1 11 11
N ew Fitness Statio ns Gymna siu m Addtl Paddle Ten ni s Court(s) Bo cce Ba ll
Community on W a l king Tenni s Cou rts
Center Paths
• Support Don'tSupport • No Opinion
60
so
30
20
10 I l l I I I
Expanded Nature Athletic Fields Indoor Pool Outdoor Poo l Tricycle Parks
Ce nt er
• Support Don'tSupport • No Opin ion
Page 1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Infrastructure Report Card
Buildings Data Sheets
Facility No.:
F•clllty N•me:
Location:
Condition ·
Background Info
YearBullt
last RenovaUonllmprovement
2 Any Recent Work
3 Any Scheduled Future Work
4 Identified Pro blems /Issues
Capacity
1 Area (square fool)
2 Typ eofUse
3 Parking
Ope ration & Ma intenance
88
Community Building
Lad era llnda Community Ce nter
Prefabricated, assembled on-site, lnlerlocklng metallic panel constructed school
classroom typ e units.
1960's
The city is considering the rehabilitation of the of community center (CIP Plan for
FY17118)
LADERA LINDA PARK & COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS REPLACEMENT
The initial stage of this project, for which a budget is appropriated is to create a
master plan which will lay the groundwork for the site's long-term redevelopment
and phased Implementation. This stage involves a study of community needs
through public outreach along with contemplating the City's needs for public
service facilities. This work will be followed by programming, quantifying the
needs, planning and preparing a feasibility report to create a master plan which
can be phased for design and construelion.
The cost calculation for ladera Unda Buildings Replacement project is based on
an eslimated need for 12,000 square-feet of buildings to replace the existing
18,000 square-feet. The anticipated square footage can cover park restrooms, a
staff building, multipurpose room, activity rooms, discovery room and a Park
Ranger/Deputy Sheriff drop-in office. Other improvements include park grounds
landscaping & Irrigation, picnic tables, benches and an emergency generator. The
project can be divided In three phases. The first phase will include Hazmat
abatement, removal of all buildings, Installation of all utility Infrastructures, the
construclion of 6,000 SF of new building, park grounds, landscaping &
improvements. The second and third phase wUI Include 3,000 SF of new buildings
each.
For Phase 1:$1.4 MIsestimated for the park Improvements and Infrastructure
(20% of the $7 .2 M), and $2.6M for buildings. Phase 2 ($3.2M) buildings only.
Total for buildings Is $5.8. Not considered In Investment needs.
Old buildings. Maintenance no longer effective. No ventilation. No operating
heating/cooling system.
5,182
Multi purpose room
Adequate parking available
1 Maintenance Program
(1) Building declared an energy hog by California IR. (2) Parking lot In fair
condition and will need resurfacing In the near future. (3) Forced air heating
f--t-----------jequlpment are Inefficient aoclare not worth replacing. (4) Temporary electric
2 $/yearFuture
Secu rity & Safety
1 Safety Incidents/Accidents
heaters are too small and do not provide comfort and should be removed as a
safety measure.
(1) Structures seems seismically questionable (2) Temporary electric healers
should be removed as a safety measure. (3) No Sprinkler System (4) Nol ADA
f--t-----------1=~~~-a~::ds~:~~t~:~~!~ au~~~~~~~~ ~n~~::.o f \lability the defects
2 Any Injuries/law Suits
Gra din g Grading Criteria
A 90-100%
(1) Prefabricated buildings since 1960's (2) Structures seems seismically
questionable. (3) Building systems are too old and are not operating properly. (4)
f--+-----------jNo ventilation (5) Liability due to defects in the electrical and plumbing systems.
B 80-B9% (6) Peeling paint lead based . (7) Floor and ceiling tiles and other building mate rials
f--+-----------j ~~~~~~~:s:u~l~t::~~~:8r~~:~::~::.To~ic Substances Control Act considers
Recornmend•tlon: (1) Given the potential costs associates with renovation, the
f--+-----------jcosl of maintenance, and the fact that the building is an energy hog, a new facility
might be a better Investment. (2) The remediation of the building is unreasonable
for the overall Return On Investment (2) For the lime being, at a minimum, seismic
f--+-----------Jretrofitting should be considered.
c 70-79%
D 41-69%
F 40%orla.ver
Fred Hesse Community Bwldmg Plans, The Reynolds Envtronmental Group, Jan 5, 1982
2 Fred Hesse Community Building Floor Plan and Plumbing and Mechanical Plan, Black & O'Dowd & Associates Inc., Oct. 8,
1985
1 ladera Unda Facility Inspection Report, 6.'2912011, Willden
3 Ladera Unda AtchltecturaiiMEP/Landscape Plans, 1966-1967, Kistner, Wright & Wright Architects and Engineers
4 California IR Ceriifled Thermography Report
Page 8 of 17
Page 2
Ladera Linda Park Survey Results
1.0 Bu il ding S ize
S,'lS7 $q./{.,
'l5pe~.
16;000 $-q . f.t .,
S?I>'Jl<inl, ..
7,00G~g. IL,
$0p11rl011li ···
2 .0 Re locate Basketba ll Courts
.Antnhtt optlcn
woutet ,be t o.4.
0'1\ 10% 20% 30% 44Wi 50% 60% 7011> •!Y.m 90~ 100%
3 .0 E li minate Park ing on Forrestal
Staffpropooed
!IOthO City.,.
Ano~ion
v;vutd be 'lht.~
Oil< l OV. 2Dll>
4 .0 Park Security
$tatldid<>Ot I
~ntany .. ,
!
Add 41.11'1!$
.came"*• at ...
L
O% 10% 20%
30% 40'11 SO% 60*
3 0% 4011> 50!1> 6010
?O'Il> IY.m -100!(1
1M~> SO Ill 9010 1001b Page 3
C-24
Actual Sign for Ladera Linda "Community Center"
Photoshopped Sign from purported LLHOA "Study"
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8 next
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patty Ott <pattyo@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 8:35 PM
CC; citycleark@rpv.com
Leaders Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello city council members and city clerk:
We would like to lend our support for the current Ladera Linda project and let you all know we are in favor of building a
wonderful recreational center as presented. If minor tweaks are necessary please amend. But we feel it's time this side
of the hill has a place to enjoy gatherings, children activities and some potential areas to hold Homeowners, groups and
community meetings. It would be a very welcomed addition to this area. We don't think traffic, noise or other
distractions will occur with the proper conditions.
Please consider supporting this much needed project.
Please know we thank you for your time and effort in making our city the best place ever !
Don and Patty Ott
3450 Hightide Dr
RPV
Sent from my iPad
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Freddy Carbajal < Freddy@dottafoods.com >
Monday, April 5, 2021 8:13PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park project
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Council Members,
I just buy the house in Sea Revean Dr. less than 2 months ago.
I hereby express my concerns with Ladera Linda's new Community Center development. I have recently moved to Sea
Raven Drive; my residence is 5 minutes walking distance from Ladera Linda Park. This park, as is today, was one of the
key reasons I decided to move to this private neighborhood. However, the New Community Center development has
raised several concerns, as listed below.
1) The park is unique because of its low-key feel, where you see locals and surrounding neighbors primarily. The new
development seems exceptionally sophisticated -which could be greatly appreciated somewhere else-but not in the
neighborhood, where everyone is happy with the current look and semirural environment.
2) The removal of all vegetation and the new building will invite large crowds and destroy our park's current character.
3) The new design will bring different crowds outside the community (Ladera Linda, Seaview, Portuguese Bend Club, and
upper Portuguese Bend). We worry about the safety of our community.
4) The majority of the residents want improvements, but want it scaled to meet the local residents' needs and not
become a park to attend all of the South Bay area. Again, we worry about our neighborhood's safety and the type of
crowds that the new design will attract.
I hope that you will consider my concerns and arguments. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Freddy Carbajal
Get Outlook for iOS
1
\.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Caren Becht <carenbecht@yahoo.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 7:56 PM
cc@rpaca.gov; CityCierk; David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara
Ferraro
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park-IN SUPPORT OF!
Added note to original e-mail -
I know the vote re: this project takes place tomorrow, 4/6.
Have been seeing many social media posts from those opposed to the project stating that the
majority of residents do not want this project built here.
I don't believe this is necessarily the case.
Rather, I think these threads/posts are from a set of residents vehemently opposing the project who
are simply more vocal than those who support it.
I suspect that those who support the Ladera Linda project find it difficult to vocalize such on those
sites because doing so would feel like going to a sports arena and sitting in a section and cheering for
the opposing team.
Not sure how the meeting will go tomorrow and I will attend, if possible.
My hope is that this project is not completely turned down before there is a chance for another true
poll from residents, not what's being vocalized on Nextdoor.
Many of us are in support!!!
Thank-You.
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Caren Becht <carenbecht@yahoo.com>
To: CC@rpvca.gov <cc@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021, 12:56:01 PM PDT
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park-IN SUPPORT OF!
Dear City Council Members,
A Seaview resident here; feeling compelled to express my opinion regarding the new proposed
facility.
I'm very familiar with the current Ladera Linda Community Center, having often climbed the steps at
the top of Dauntless Drive to access the hiking trails.
The buildings that exist now are dilapidated and mostly unused. It's time for a change. For this
reason, I'm 100% in support of a new, nice community center that will offer it's residents something of
value to bring the community together.
1 \ .
While I do understand that everyone has an opinion and a right to express such, I've thought that
certain social media sites (Nextdoor, in particular) have featured posts/comments that are extremely
negative and inflammatory. I do not agree with those posts and know of others in the neighborhood
who feel the same way. However, in efforts to minimize attention or prolongation to those threads,
I've chosen not to engage and suspect that others "in favor" might have resisted engaging as well.
Having said this, I do respect those opposing opinions (as that's their right) and think that it's vital that
the Council continue to address legitimate concerns that neighbors may have regarding: traffic, safety
and cost.
Speaking of "safety", I will share this one last thing.
As a female, I personally do not always feel comfortable walking around or using the women's
bathroom at the current LL community center because the area feels gloomy, depressing and "very
isolated" to me.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer or expand on any of my comments.
Warm Regards,
Caren Becht
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Catzilla <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 7:49 PM
cc
Subject:
CityCierk; Ken Rukavina; Cory Linder; Matt Waters; Octavia Silva
Ladera Linds Community Center Project
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members-
I have been on record for many years as being strongly in favor of rebuilding the dilapidated Ladera Linda Community
Center and improving its park grounds. I'm also aware that City Council has been inundated with correspondence
regarding this project, so I will keep my comments to the point.
• This is NOT a new "green field" project. It is the replacement of a sorely dilapidated facility which has
exceeded its useful lifespan many times over and is no longer serving the needs of the residents, as it once did.
• The City is NOT ramming down a project oblivious to the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. Instead, the
City has actively engaged, listened and responded to them for 7 long years. Unfortunately, project opponents
keep moving the goalposts further and further down the field.
• The proposed building and related improvements are NOT out-sized for the property. In actual fact, the
building square footage and the amount of hardscape, parking and circulation are all 60% smaller than what
exists on the site today.
• This project is being conflated with issues related to Nature Preserve parking, AYSO soccer use, and traffic
on PVDS. These are important issues, but they require their own solutions. Killing the Ladera Linda project will
do NOTHING to resolve them.
• When RPV incorporated in 1973, we had only one park-Ryan Park. What would the quality of life be like
today for all residents if past Councils said NO to the other parks that have been improved and cherished since
that time? What about the legacy of taking AWAY a public amenity?
• The role of the City Council is to act on behalf of the ENTIRE community. Decisions on major capital
projects should not be a popularity contest based on who sends in the most emails and makes the most
unfounded doomsday claims.
I urge Council to see past the smoke screen of nay-sayers, consider the genuine merits of the project, and above all,
approve the Ladera Linda Community Center project.
Thank you for considering my comments and, especially, for your time and effort serving our City.
Sincerely,
Carolynn Petru
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 \.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Walt Goede <waltgoede@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 7:00PM
CC; CityCierk
Walt Goede
Re: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
PS.
I just saw several posts on next-door neighbor complaining about how hard it is to make a left turn from Forrestal unto
PV Drive South. Can this be harder than turning left off PV Drive East to PV South. Heck NO. I make this turn all week
long and yes sometime it can take a little while but it is no worse than many other streets. This is just another smoke
screen to try to come up with lame excuses to stop this worthwhile project. If traffic becomes really bad in the future a
roundabout, stoplight or stop sign can be added.
Thanks for listening
Walt Goede
>On Apr 5, 2021, at 3:09PM, Walt Goede <waltgoede@cox.net> wrote:
>
>To RPV City
>
> I wish to strongly support the Ladera Linda project. Over the past many months I have attended all the planning
meetings held at the Ladera Linda facility to develop an informed opinion on this topic. I have been very distressed by
the people in the immediate Ladera Linda local area as they have not tried to see the big picture and how the facility
benefits the entire community and have instead continually raised opposition with red-herring type arguments to try to
stop this project. This community center can serve as a vital resource for all of RPV by providing a place for its residents
to enjoy our area as well as providing a meeting place for local residents.
>
> 1 have been a resident of RPV since 1976 and live in the Mediterranean area. Over the many years I have watched my
children play soccer at the fields and have attended many community meetings at this facility. Since the area closed as a
school the buildings and facility have been allowed to run down and become outdated. The current new design appears
to be excellent even though it has been significantly compromised to satisfy the nay-sayers in this area. We also
frequently walk the trails in this area and do not see evidence of all the issues the people in this area continually
complain about. These are classic attempts associated with the "Not In My Area" arguments that that they continually
put forward. When this was an active school site there was much higher usage but now all of a sudden the people in
this area would prefer to put up gates and have it a totally closed community. If any changes are needed it should be to
accommodate additional parking.
>
> I believe the plans for this facility have already beed downsized more than is reasonable and further delays trying to
make the facility less useful are unwarranted. I urge the city leaders to move forward without any additional delays.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Walt & Carol Goede
> 31051 Hawksmoor Dr
> RPV
1 \.
>
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Mariana Merli <mamerli@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 5:17PM
cc
Ladera Linda over-development
By far the most valuable resource on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is the beauty of nature. We who are lucky enough to
live in this area get to leave the hustle and bustle of the built environment behind when we come home from work each
day. The respite found in the natural environment of the Peninsula is invaluable and the appreciation for it is not lost on
me.
As a lifelong resident of the Peninsula, I have many family members and friends come to Ladera Linda to enjoy the hiking
trails, soccer fields, parks, and open space. They don't come here to go inside of a building, they come to get
outside. Never did I hear anyone lament that there aren't enough local community centers to host events at.
What makes our Peninsula, and particularly the Ladera Linda area so special, is the peace and quiet of the open space. It
is our greatest resource and a large project like this takes it for granted. Traffic would be an unfortunate side effect on
an area that is already adding more development on the other side of PV Drive. It doesn't make much sense to spend
$15 million+ when we already have everything we need.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mariana Merli
3578 Heroic Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
\ .
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
MColbert < melcolbert888@gmail.com >
Monday, April 5, 2021 4:58PM
cc
Ladera Linda Project
LaderalindaAp2021.pdf
Attached please find correspondence from the PVPHA regarding Ladera Linda project.
1
\.
April 5, 2021
To: Mayor and Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Subject: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project
Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the Council,
Access to the Preserve by the equestrian community has been hampered severely in recent years as a
result of both an insufficient number of trails that are designated equestrian/pedestrian (without bicycles)
and lack of an area to park horse trailers for those whose horses are not housed in close enough proximity
to ride to it. There is clearly no place for parking horse trailers at Del Cerro, particularly in light of the
recent further reduction of parking on Crenshaw. The Ladera Linda site is an ideal opportunity to provide
equal and fair access to equestrians in conjunction with the proposed development of the site. The dirt lot
at the rear of the property now designated "additional parking area" is an ideal spot for trailers. The size
of the area is sufficient to allow adequate room to enter and exit without having to maneuver the rig back
and forth. At the moment the storage containers located on the site would impede that ease, but those can
be relocated and provide excellent turn room.
At the moment any equestrian who wants to park beyond the locked gate can call in advance and have the
gate unlocked by staff, but we understand that the plans now call for the gate at the end of Forrestal to be
kept open during park hours so that visitors to the Preserve can park closer to the trailheads. Once that
area is overrun by visitors, as Del Cerro now is, there will not be any opportunity for trailer parking there
whatsoever. Even our now limited access will be completely lost.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association requests that more consideration be given to
equestrians and that fair and equal access be provided. If you will not allow trailer parking on the dirt lot,
then surely the paved area off of Forrestal at the end of the road should be limited, at least in part, to horse
trailers. The curb could be painted a special color with signage noting the area is limited to horse trailers.
Alternatively, perhaps certain days of the week (or certain weekend days) could also be limited to trailer
parking.
We would appreciate an opportunity to work with the staff in coming up with some solutions that will be
fair and reasonable and are confident that a plan can be negotiated that will not result in even further
diminishment of access to the Preserve by the equestrian community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
YtJ!Ia.rlel/{1 r{) 9JQ
Charlene O'Neil
President
Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear RPV City Council-
Craig German <craig_german@hotmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 4:57PM
CC; Eric Alegria; David Bradley; John Cruikshank; Barbara Ferraro; ken.dyda@rpvca.goc
Ladera Linda Project
I am writing regarding the Ladera Linda Project.
In general, I am very concerned this project could and will have a negative impact on the Ladera Linda
community as it is drawn up currently. I live in extreme close proximity to this project-probably one of a few
that could be greatly impacted by this project given my proximity and speak as one of the few that potentially
may feel the brunt of this impact the most in the years to come. Once it is built there is no stopping the
changes. I have no qualms about updating the building and providing a small area park for the community. I
do have issues with building a park and a structure for the greater RPV or for that matter the Greater Los
Angeles area to flock to for their outdoor activities. This park is located at a dead-end community-there is
only one way in and one way out. The traffic potentially will be horrendous. It is already really bad at times
and prior to the pandemic with AYSO events it became extremely bad during those events. Getting out at
Forrestal is bad at times now, with AYSO it became almost impossible and continues to only become
worse. Adding further influx of people to the area is not a good idea. The City Council/City Managers seem to
ignore the first-hand experiences that the residence have voiced about this and defer to "traffic studies" that
seem to not reflect the true accuracy of the issue. Once again, if you draw more people to the area with a
park that is meant to do this, it will only get worse and there is nothing that will be able to be done about it
later. We have examples of this already-Del Cerro. There are many issues with drawing more individuals to
the area-crowds, trash, crime, property damage, noise, etc. We have trash deposited along our property as
it is-just the other day I found a folding table placed in the bushes along our property. This will only get
worse with more traffic. People park in front of our house all the time despite a sign saying no preserve
parking and signs directing people to the public parking-people just ignore the signs and when my wife has
politely pointed this out-these individuals just verbally attacked her. It should not be on the
community/residence to be pointing this out or "policing" this issue-this will only get worse by providing a
draw to the area and potentially increase risks to local residence. People just ignore the signs and do what
they want. Not to mention the excessive signs causing sign pollution around the park and our house
destroying the beautiful views we have from our properties, just to try to inform people of things that they are
suppose do or not do-we would need so many signs if we did not draw people to the area-this is another
beef that could be discussed at future dates.
Also would like to mention that in the time I have been in the area there has never been any homeless people
in the area but in the last 1-2 month they have been seen up at the entrance to the park-again this is a dead
end community-we have no resources here for them, there are no business that they would be hanging out
at or getting supplies at-this is not a place for this group of people to be-but they are coming -I suspect to
use the basic resources that we do have which are the water fountains and possibly the open {during the day)
bathrooms. The homeless person I witness, spent the whole day at the entrance to the park where there is
1 \.
shade and a water fountain that they were using. A neighbor of mine witnessed an individual passed out on a
lawn on Forrestal whom was homeless and passed out because he was drunk. My house was broken into
approximately 4 years ago and was ransacked -I do not want to experience that again-it was traumatizing to
go through that. I have young children and they were traumatized by this violation even though they did not
see the state of the house but the idea that individuals entered our house continues with them to this day. Of
course, this can happen anywhere, but when you bring in extra crowds, have a draw, you are increasing the
possibility of increased crime. We moved to the area because of the quiet, distant feel of the community-it
seems not within the city-but with the crowds we are losing this feeling-it is becoming overpopulated
especially on the weekends and this is ruining the life we sought. I see no benefit to advertising and bring in
crowds to the area-there is no financial benefit, local social benefit, etc-it will only cost the city more
money to maintain the crowds, and it will only ruin the low-key social, quiet atmosphere of the community
that most seek in the area.
The other issue is the cost ofthis structure/landscaping is exorbitant-at $15+ million estimated to build and
redo the park-this is a crazy number. Should we expect a much lower cost-$3 million, $6 million, $8 million
-come on this is out of control that the city is going to spend this kind of money on a "community" park!! I
really think the city should address the cost of this and scale it down as this seems outrageous. Given the cost
-there will be no revenue generated by this park to make up this. Plus, there will need to be further expenses
with the increased volumes of people to deal with those volumes of people and trash they bring to the
area. This does not seem like a wise thing.
I really hope the City Council listens to the community and seeks to downsize the current structure and size of
the project, reduce the advertising of the local preserve to reduce the crowd sizes, eliminate the free (but not
really free as the local residence are paying for this) shuttle service as this also promotes crowd sizes at the
expense of the residence. I know this has been an ongoing saga for years now-please listen to the local
community members-the residence of the Ladera Linda and Seaview communities as these are the
communities impacted the most by your decisions and this project.
Sincerely,
Craig German
Pirate Drive
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Mr Marty Vlaco <mvlaco@yahoo.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 4:01 PM
cc
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I respectfully would like to share my deep concerns over the current proposal for replacing the existing
Ladera Linda Community Center with such an opulent endeavor that lacks the required research, study,
short term and long term budget planning, for both the Council and residents, to clearly understand and
fully appreciate the impact such a project can have on the local surrounding neighborhoods, as well as
the Rancho Palos Verdes community at large. I strongly urge you to halt moving forward with the current
plans and to reconsider what is best for our community backed by proper analysis.
While I fully support the construction of a new community center and improved park facilities, the
grandiose nature of the building seems to far overreach the needs of our community, and implies much
greater intended use than is understood. This project will draw in unprecedented crowds far and wide,
not only to take advantage of the services being offered, but to view the architectural marvel on its
own ..
I can envision a much smaller facility, albeit state of the art design and construction, that better serves the
needs of the community with fine accommodations for local youth group meetings, association meetings,
dance and other like classes.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Martin Vlaco
32205 Searaven Dr
RPV
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
vlaco5@cox.net
Monday, April 5, 2021 3:58PM
cc
Ladera Linda Project-April 6 city council meeting
I am a 23-year resident of Ladera Linda and a 45-year resident of RPV. I am writing to you in opposition to the proposed
Ladera Linda park project in its current form.
By now, you have received many letters from our neighborhood in opposition to the Ladera Linda project. I have read
many of their letters and found them to be thoughtful and well researched. They have laid out the concerns we all have
regarding this project and its potential impact on our community. For the past five years, I have served on the HOA
board-approved Ladera Linda Park subcommittee. Our mission has been to closely monitor this project and to immerse
ourselves in the details so that we can inform our community about its progress and represent them at meetings and
workshops. It is extremely hard for me to continue to come to these meetings and speak about this project because I
feel that my voice, and that of my fellow committee members, have been given much less weight than the
neighborhoods that are farther away from the park and which will not be negatively impacted by anything that is built
here. We show up. We speak. We write letters on behalf of the neighborhood. The result is always the same. Council
approves staff's recommendation in spite of our concerns. It is like Groundhog Day.
Planning Commission Appeal. I know that purpose of the meeting tomorrow (April 6) is to hear the appeal of the
Planning Commission approval of the CUP, grading permit and height variance that took place at their February
meeting. I hope you all had a chance to attend the meetings as I did or at least watched the videos. While the Planning
Commission ultimately approved what staff requested, their comments about this project were not all favorable. There
were universal concerns about traffic. The Planning Commission clearly wants the city to be proactive on the traffic
issues at Ladera Linda and not reactive as they have been with Del Cerro. They also feel that both AYSO and preserve
traffic must be factored into the equation. And they call for the city to takes steps now to actively address these very
real traffic concerns. They don't necessarily believe that this increase in traffic is due to COVID and will simply go away
when everyone resumes their normal lives. Social media is going to continue to bring more and more people into RPV in
the future.
It should be noted that the traffic summary presented by the city's consultant at the second Planning Commission
meeting was outdated. It made no reference to any preserve traffic impacting our area. The memo mentioned traffic
impacts from only three sources: AYSO, Ladera Linda residents and the Ladera Linda Park. Obviously, this report cannot
be relied upon in any way.
In addition to the universal comments about traffic, here were some of the other comments made by Planning
Commission Members during their deliberations.
If it were half-sized, it would be right-sized.
If 1 were the sole person that got to decide this this project, I would virtually put the entire project on hold
until the city took care of some of these problems.
if this new park only contributes 5% more to some of these existing problems then that is too much.
1
\.
This building is grandiose for its intended use.
Design. The proposed design is not aligned with the 2015 Parks Master Plan goals of 1) less is more approach to park
development 2) maintaining the character of the park and surrounding neighborhoods and 3) being sensitive to park
adjacent neighborhoods. In numerous staff reports and meetings held with public, we were promised that this project
with keep the low-key neighborhood park feel.
Hess Park is that type of low-key neighborhood park. The building, while maybe larger than the one being proposed for
Ladera Linda, is very inconspicuous. It is built below the grade of the parking lot. You can't even tell how tall the
building is. The entrance is modest in appearance and a lot of the square footage is built behind the entrance and out of
view. It is impossible to tell just how big the building is. And it is kept out mostly out of sight by the trees and other
foliage that surround it. From many areas of Hesse Park, you can't see the building at all. And by design, this building
has only partial ocean views. The focus of Hesse Park is on open space. The building plays only a supporting role.
Contrast this with what is being planned for Ladera Linda. The full expanse of this linear design and massive roof will
smack you in the face the second you enter the parking lot. This building, even if it is ultimately built to the same size as
Hesse Park will seem massive by comparison. Nothing inconspicuous about this design. Instead of the building playing a
supporting role like that of Hesse Park, this building is clearly intended to be the STAR of Ladera Park.
The question is why? Why should the building be the focal point of any park? The only logical answer when you look at
the placement of the building and its design, including completely unobstructed views of the ocean, is that staff and the
city view this site as more of an entertainment center than a park.
Programming. As noted above, it is apparent to me that the facility is likely to be in demand (and used) for large scale
events like weddings and receptions. In one of Johnson Favarro's renderings, they demonstrate how easily Classroom 1
can be used as a "before and after event lobby". While it may seem appealing to be able to host some city events at this
new facility, I believe that the most significant demand for its use will be for weddings and receptions. One only has to
check the historical usage at PVIC's Sunset Room and Amphitheater to see that it is in strong demand for weddings and
receptions year-round. Staff has proposed only limiting nighttime private parties/events at the new facility. However,
there is no limit to the number of events with amplified music that can be scheduled during the daytime, potentially
every weekend and during hours where preserve visitation and AYSO games may be the greatest.
Speaking of wedding receptions, several years ago, I made council aware of the fact that wedding receptions were taking
place at Ladera Linda. They were surprised and not supportive of that idea. Susan Brooks told staff at the same meeting
that this was not appropriate programming for this site. And yet, I don't see this activity being prohibited at Ladera
Linda. I have expressed my concern about this to the architects and staff many times and their replay has been "Jessica,
how is this any different than a 50th wedding anniversary or an 85th birthday party?" The obvious difference in that
there will be little demand for the 85th birthdays or 50th wedding anniversaries. But have no doubt that there will be
steady and strong demand for wedding receptions.
Cost. I can't believe the city is contemplating spending this amount of money at Ladera Linda. This is only an 11-acre
park. Up until 2010, this site was occupied by the Montessori school. In 2010, the city identified some safety issues at
the park that were going to cost around $200k to repair. The city wanted the school to absorb those costs. Because the
two parties couldn't come to an agreement about who was going to absorb the cost of these repairs, the city opted not
to renew the lease with the Montessori School. So .. .for an investment of only around $200k, the city could have enjoyed
the steady rental income from the Montessori School for the past decade. Instead, the city is now contemplating
spending $15M on the remodel of the park.
Traffic. This has been one of my major concerns from the very beginning. Obviously, this concern is shared by many
people, including your entire Planning Commission. As I mentioned earlier in this letter, the traffic summary recently
presented to the Planning Commission is outdated. There is no mention of any preserve traffic. I continue to hope that
you will engage the people of Ladera Linda that are most knowledgeable about the traffic patterns and park usage to
assist in looking for solutions.
2
Discovery Room and Hybrid meeting room. This proposed room has no projected programming. It is considered a
"bonus" room. It will likely be closed most of the time. Why are we going to house important artifacts in this meeting
room where they will only be seen by the people who reserve the meeting room or by kids who are part of a class
tour? If these artifacts are so valuable, why wouldn't the docents and the city want them to be on display in a more
public area so that they can be viewed by the general public whenever they visit the park? If you decide to enclose the
lobby and hallways, I urge you to eliminate this bonus room and place the artifacts on permanent display in the lobby
area.
Process and neighborhood collaboration. I am sad and disappointed by the way our Ladera Linda neighborhood is
being treated. Our valid concerns are almost all just ignored or dismissed. Let us contrast this process with the one that
Lower Hesse Park went through a few years ago. Almost two years after City Council approved the conceptual design
for Lower Hesse Park, the council opted to alter its plans for that park. They wanted to reduce the cost and scale of the
project as they embraced the notion of "less is more" when it comes to park development. They then took an
unprecedented step and instructed staff to work exclusively with the Pacific View HOA to collaborate on the park's
design. A committee of four members of the Pacific View HOA worked with staff to develop a scaled back design for the
park. No other HOAs were included in that process even though some of them are directly across the street from the
park or within a 1-mile radius. Only the Pacific View HOA was singled out to actively participate in the design
process. They even had a say in the plants that were chosen for the park. And to recognize their efforts on behalf of
their community, the city dedicated this plaque to those individuals.
I have asked staff and council to grant our community the same opportunity to participate and collaborate on the Ladera
Linda project as it did to the Pacific View HOA for Lower Hesse Park. My requests have gone unanswered. I am asking
again. Please direct staff to actively work and collaborate with our Ladera Linda community to scale back this plan and
design a building and park that are in line with the 2015 Parks Master Plan which calls for identifies as its goals a (1) less
is more approach (2) maintain existing character of the park and {3) be sensitive to park adjacent
neighborhoods. Throughout this process we have been promised by the designers, architects and staff that they will
"maintain the low-key neighborhood feel of the park and address adjacent neighbors' concerns." They even include
language to this affect in the RPV quarterly newsletter. I am asking you to honor these statements.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for your service to this great city.
Sincerely,
Jessica Vlaco
Searaven Drive
3
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mmallano@cox.net
Monday, April 5, 2021 3:55 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Community Center
To Mr. Linder, the Planning Commission, and the City Council,
We totally disagree with the plans for Ladera Linda Park and Center.
This is a neighborhood community, totally unable to support the crowd, the noise issue, parking, trash, and the traffic
that will ensue, not to mention the stability of the land around that area.
We have lived for 58 years in this neighborhood, and know for a fact that Ladera Linda School was built as a semi-
portable set of buildings in the 1960's. The soccer field and Lacross fields, were originally meant to be additional housing
tracks, however, due to the fact that the area has land movement, it became unadvisable to place homes there.
We would like to know whether or not geological surveys have been performed in order to establish how Ladera Linda
would be affected by the weight of such a glass building? And how that would effect the homes surrounding it?
We would also like to know if those same geologists have looked at the cliffs surrounding the area to see how they
reverberate the sound from such a glass building facing the ocean?
Having lived here 58 years, we can attest to the fact that we can hear seals barking from PBC Beach because of the
reverberation of the ocean, and the surrounding hills. What level of noise would we possibly experience, from a glass
building, with events like weddings going on?
Would we ever be able to get out of our neighborhood to accesses P.V. Drive South and turn left off of Forrestal Drive
in timely manner? It's already an issue with Trump"s National Golf Course to turn left off of Forrestal.
We don't want to become another Del Cerro, and the problems surrounding their neighborhood.
Why not build a small Senior Citizen Center there, and not such a grand monstrosity? What is best for our community,
and not what is financially best Rancho Palos Verdes.
Sincerely,
Patrice and Michelle Mallano
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
STEPHANIE FLECK <rsjfle@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 3:26 PM
cc
Ladera Linda
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
I am a 20-year resident of RPV and a 20-year resident of Ladera Linda Homeowners Association. My husband and I
chose this area because it is small and quaint. We have one child at Pen and another at MIS and every time we drive to
Pen, we are so very happy that we chose Ladera Linda, (every time). I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda
park because stripping out all foliage and opening views will attract crowds. Massive 251' long building incompatible
with the community (this would be the largest park building in the entire city, second largest city owned structure in the
city, if built). No need for 5 rooms .... 3 would be more than adequate for HOA meetings and other LOCAL needs. I have
used these meeting rooms over the years for Girl Scouts and Cub Scouts and more rooms are not needed in this small
area. No need for a terraced seating area clearly designed to encourage speakers, performers, weddings, unless of
course that is what you are hoping for. Unsecure, open bathroom concept are unsafe for kids. Increased use means
increased traffic, crime, trash etc. in our community, where we live.
I am in support of changing the center at the park for the better and safety but not if it means that we may have to think
about moving because no one listens to the people that actually live here and build what they want and not what is best
for this small neighborhood. Since soccer has started back up, there is more traffic and what is proposed here will only
increase that more.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to residents to develop a more
suitable plan for this park.
Thank you,
Stephanie Fleck
32308 Sea Raven Dr
1 \
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jeff Gilker <jgilker@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 2:27PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing
To the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I live in Ladera Linda, I don't like the current proposal for the Ladera Linda Park facility.
We have attended meetings, seen the model, plan designs and picture drawings of the proposed design.
First off, let it be recognized that residents of our community agree it is clear a new building is necessary, however it
should not be a building that will be the second largest in the city. We need a new facility that is scaled to meet the
needs of a semi rural environment, and ensure the preservation of the Forestal Trails. Not only will this affect the
community of Ladera Linda, but Seaview, and the Portuguese Bend Club too.
Access:
There is only one way in and out of Ladera Linda. I encourage all of you to attempt to make a left turn from Forestal
Drive to Palos Verdes South. Currently it can take 20 minutes on a weekend This proposed design will increase the
traffic immensely, it is important to mention that there is no stop sign at Forestal Dr. and Pirate. Speeding, and safety for
pedestrians are constant traffic is a big concern.
Safety:
The proposed design includes a communal bathroom concept, with the increasing homeless population (some with
mental issues), and the recent hate crimes and dog kidnapping. I cannot imagine having such a concept and feel safe in
our community. The Ladera Linda Park facility is part of our community, we use the trails, playground, basketball courts
and paddle court. And we need to feel good about letting our children play and use the bathrooms.
The Forestal Preserve:
I deeply care about our beautiful trails and the work the open space and conservatory has done to keep our
environment restored to its natural state. Currently I no longer explore the trails on the weekends due to large crowds
on very narrow trails, too much traffic, loose dogs and people basically having no respect for nature. The
current proposed design encourages more crowds, high noise levels and plant life eroding as people step wherever they
want for the perfect selfie.
2 years ago I attended the last meeting at Ladera Linda to discuss the proposed design, and I mentioned everything I
have expressed in this e-mail. Sadly, all of my concerns are now in full display at Del Cerro.
Please do not turn our community into the "new Del Cerro". Rebuild to fit the size, protect nature and her beauty.
-Jeffrey Gilker
1 \
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lena Gilker <lenamontessori@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 2:12PM
cc
Proposed design of the Ladera Linda Park facility
To the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes,
As a resident of Ladera Linda, I am greatly concerned for the current proposal for the Ladera Linda Park facility. I have
attended meetings, seen the model, plan designs and picture drawings of the proposed design.
Firstly, let it be recognized that residents of our community agree it is clear a new building is necessary, however it
should not be a building that will be the second largest in the city. We need a new facility that is scaled to meet the
needs of a semi rural environment, and ensure the preservation of the Forestal Trails. I would like to present a few key
points and how the proposed design will negatively affect the communities of Ladera Linda, Seaview, and the
Portuguese Bend Club.
Access-
There is only one way in and out of Ladera Linda. I encourage all of you to attempt to make a left turn from Forestal
Drive to Palos Verdes South. Currently it can take 20 minutes on a weekend. This proposed design will increase the
traffic immensely, it is important to mention that there is no stop sign at Forestal Dr. and Pirate. Speeding, and safety for
pedestrians areconstant traffic is a big concern.
Safety-
The proposed design includes a communal bathroom concept, with the increasing homeless population (some with
mental issues), and the recent hate crimes and dog kidnapping. I cannot imagine having such a concept and feel safe in
our community. The Ladera Linda Park facility is part of our community, we use the trails, playground, basketball courts
and paddle court. And we need to feel good about letting our children play and use the bathrooms.
The Forestal Perserve
I deeply care about our beautiful trails and the work the open space and conservatory has done to keep our
environment restored to its natural state. Currently I no longer explore the trails on the weekends due to large crowds
on very narrow trails, too much traffic, loose dogs and people basically having no respect for nature. The
current proposed design encourages more crowds, high noise levels and plant life eroding as people step wherever they
want for the perfect selfie.
2 years ago I attended the last meeting at Ladera Linda to discuss the proposed design, and I mentioned everything I
have expressed in this e-mail. Sadly, all of my concerns are now in full display at Del Cerro. Please do not turn our
community into the "new Del Cerro". Rebuild to fit the size of our community, keep our neighborhood as it is quiet,safe
and serene and lastly protect nature and her beauty.
Sincerely, Lena Gilker
1 \
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ann Weinland <annweinland@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1:52 PM
cc
Ken Weinland II
Ladera Linda Opposition to current plans ... Piease Forward Accordingly
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am a 5 year resident of RPV and a 5 year resident of Ladera Linda's Homeowners Association. I strongly oppose the
current plans for Ladera Linda park because we are concerned about the following:
1. Exorbitant cost (latest estimate, just released this week by City Staff, is $15.7M!!!!!!! !)
2. Stripping out all foliage and opening up views will attract crowds
3. Massive 251' long building incompatible with the community (this would be the largest park building in the entire
city, second largest city owned structure in the city, if built)
4. No need for 5 rooms .... 3 would be more than adequate for HOA meetings and other LOCAL needs
5. No need or desire for a "Discovery Room" (have any of you ever even seen it???? Do any of you know what is
inside it?????? Have your kids ever visited it?????? Believe me, it is not a big deal, only is used currently at most 12
times per year, and could easily be incorporated into the PVIC museum)
6. No need for a terraced seating area clearly designed to encourage speakers, performers, weddings, etc ..... i.e.
attract more users
7. Unsecure, transgender, open bathroom concept with common washing trough-unsafe for kids and encourages
homeless
8. Increased use means increased traffic, crime, trash etc in our community
Best Regards,
Ann Weinland & Ken Weinland
Residents of Ladera Linda
Best Regards,
Ann L. Weinland
cell:
1
\.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joseph Tetherow <j.tetherow@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1:48 PM
cc
Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
$15 million dollars. Really? You are considering spending that kind of money to destroy the Ladera Linda neighborhood
and the lifestyle of its tax-paying residents, when you bent over backwards to resolve the crowd and traffic concerns of
Del Cera residents. We demand the same consideration from you.
Do the city parks/recreation and planning departments work for you or do you work for them? As proposed, the current
park plan is way to big for our neighborhood and you know it.
Please keep these concerns in mind at tomorrow night's city council meeting.
Joe Tetherow
Pirate Drive
Sent from my iPhone
1 \.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melinda Tetherow <mtetherow@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1:29 PM
cc
Leaders Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda Park.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a
more suitable plan for this park.
How can you justify spending $15.7 million to destroy the Ladera Linda neighborhood and the lifestyle of it's residents!
Melinda Tetherow
3801 Pirate Dr
Sent from my iPhone
1 \.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wendy Ard <wenken2@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1:23 PM
cc
Ladera Linda
We are opposed to a large facility. We prefer the small community center instead. Please consider the traffic,
environmental and crime impact of the larger "destination" facility.
1 \ "
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Beverly Provine < bprovine@comcast.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1:14PM
cc
Ladera Linda Expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Just realized in my letter to you I wrote PVDrive East when I meant PV drive South. Sorry for my error.
Bev Provine
Sent from my iPhone
1 \ '
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Beverly Provine < bprovine@comcast.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 12:54 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I am opposed to this expansion for the reasons in my previous letter to the council, but I also have one additional
concern.
This past Saturday afternoon I tried to make a left turn from Forrestal onto PV Drive East. It took 10 minutes due to the
amount of traffic. With the expansion of the park and thereby its increased usage that intersection of PV Drive &
Forrestal will be more treacherous. Have you all forgotten P V Drive East is a two lane road down here?
Please take into consideration the concerns we residents of Ladera Linda have about this expansion.
Thank you,
Bev Provine
Sent from my iPhone
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 12:51 PM
James Lehman
cc
Re: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Great letter. I sent one also.
Irene
>On Apr 5, 2021, at 11:45 AM, James Lehman <jimlehman@me.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear City Council members,
>
>You distinguished members of the RPV City Council are our last hope for the RPV residents who chose to take up
residence on the bucolic south side of the Palos Verdes Peninsula (some as far back as 1963, long before the city of RPV
was even a glimmer of a possibility). We desperately hope that you will prevent another Del Cerro situation from
developing at Ladera Linda.
>
>All of us south side residents could have chosen to live in one of the crowded Beach Cities, Torrance, or even Long
Beach, but there was something about the relatively uninhabited and peaceful south side of "the Hill" that drew us here.
We were all seeking the seclusion, solitude, and restful escape from the overcrowded and noisy environs of the other
nearby cities. If one is seeking a busier, noisier, and more "lit-up" suburb, then the Hermosa Strand or Belmont Shore is
perfect for those folks. But the PVDS portion of RPV suited us just fine and that is why we located here decades ago.
>
> Unfortunately we now seem to have a city staff who no longer thinks that their mission is to protect our city from the
onslaught of rampant urbanization and overcrowding which was the primary reason that RPV was originally created.
Instead, the staff seems to think that their mission now is to "fundamentally transform" our peaceful city from a quiet
bedroom community into a destination city for about 20 million SoCal residents.
>
>It makes us very sad how our quiet, rustic community has become transformed (especially on Friday afternoons until
Sunday evenings) into a bustling recreation mecca for residents of other SoCal cities. What makes it especially bad is
that every time some new city "attraction" is created, within 24 hours (through social media) hundreds of thousands of
non-RPV residents become aware of it. How does this benefit the desires of our own residents to be swamped with ever
more visitors who degrade the quality of life and spoil the peace and solitude of the place we chose to live?
>
> It seems clear to me that you, the City Council members, must regain control of the city staff and give them new
"marching orders" to protect the way of life or RPV's residents instead of promoting our city to the world as a
"destination" where thousands of non-residents can come and recreate, sometimes almost literally in the backyards of
some residents. Every weekend this happens without any regard for the wishes of those who make RPV their home.
>
> Most of us do not seek any more increase in traffic, noise, crime, trash, crowds, or loss of privacy in our peaceful
communities. This must be made crystal clear to the city staff. You must make a stand to protect us residents from our
1 \.
own city staff members and make the staff completely re-think what impact upon the lives of us south-side residents the
current Ladera Linda project will have. If that means some staff members will leave then so be it. We need staff
members whose number one priority is the protection of the way of life of our city's residents, not building a personal
resume to enhance their future career aspirations.
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful help in this matter.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim and Lisa Lehman
>Vigilance Dr.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Irene Henrikson <irene.henrikson@cox.net>
Friday, March 19, 2021 3:32 PM
cc
Ladera Linda park
Please scale down the proposed park design. We need a new structure but not that large nor all glass. Please no
communal restrooms. Listen to our voice!
Irene and Paul Henrikson
32404 Searaven dr.
RPV
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Michael Gilchrist <cagirlsdadanddog@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 12:38 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Community Center Concerns
LaderalindaConcerns.pdf
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
We are residents of the Ladera Linda community.
Please see attached letter with our concerns on current plans for the Ladera Linda Community
Center.
We very much value our community and city and would like a resulting community center that
benefits residents and visitors to our area alike.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Lane and Wendi Gilchrist
3519 Heroic Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1 \
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
We are nine-year residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and six-year residents and
members of Ladera Linda Homeowners Association. We strongly oppose the current
plans for Ladera Linda Community Center because of the negative impact it will have on
our community. Our reasons include the following:
-Exorbitant cost since latest estimate from City Staff is $15.7 million. Coming out of the
current pandemic, these funds could be better used to support local small businesses
and address infrastructure (road and trail) repairs.
-Tearing down foliage and opening up views will further attract crowds. We already
experience large crowds at the intersection of PV Drive and Forrestal Drive on
weekends that create extreme driving hazards for those exiting our community due to
extreme traffic and confusion at the intersection by those visiting our area.
-The massive 251-foot long building is not in line with the character of our
neighborhood or region. Existing structures "blend in" with the area and match to the
character of the surrounding preserve. This large structure takes away from that
existing character. Additionally, it is an unneeded structure at that size given the large
number of other existing park and recreation buildings in the region.
-There is no need for a terraced seating area that would become a draw for speakers,
weddings, etc. As a routine surfers at Malaga Cove, we've seen first-hand the
"unauthorized" weddings and other events that take over portions of the trails and
gazebo in that area. We do not want or need similar activities.
-Increased traffic will lead to further congestion, trash and misuse of our area. We've
already witnessed many abuses (trash and even dirty diapers in the road, public
urination, etc.) at the entrance areas to the community center and preserve.
Additionally, visitors routinely park and create congestion on our local streets despite
signs posted regarding no parking in the neighborhood. We do not want to see our area
be overrun on weekends similar to what has happened at Del Cerro Park.
As a military retiree family, we chose to stay and live in Rancho Palos Verdes for the
beauty and solitude that the area offers. We bought a l1ome in Ladera Linda with an
expectation of quality living and preservation of our investment. Please do not remove
this quality for current and future homeowners. It is one of the highly valued things that
makes this community so desirable.
We respectfully ask that you please do not allow the current plan to move forward and
require city staff to listen to local residents to develop a more suitable plan for this park
that benefits all residents and visitors to our wonderful community.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
Lane and v\?;n._~li Gilchrist
3519 Heroic Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
mary toth < mmacetv@gmail.com >
Monday, April 5, 2021 11:24 AM
To: dianebmills@gmail.com; smills300@gmail.com; ecarloshum@gmail.com;
y.aelony@cox.net; Judbabe@aol.com; llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com;
swilcox@pvplc.org; CC
Subject: Fwd: Rebuilding the Ladera Linda Community Center
~~~-·~~-~
cAUTION: r11is enl~il9rigin~~~~.frt>fl1.out$id~of the ·ci~y'&ffia~~l:lo t;>alos''i~rf:Jes/•; '\s .. · ... · • ;· .. ·:~\ i•'i\·
·~~~.-~--"--·~---~
I am re-sending this letter to include an important aspect regarding
building new structures on the Ladera Linda park grounds.
When we moved here in 1971, we were told that there is an earthquake
fault behind the soccer fields. If there will be a large building somewhere
there, and earth will be moved to lay foundation, will this be safe for the
community homes already existing??? Or will there be the danger that
we might suffer the fate of the Portuguese Bend homes with the
continuous landslides.
Please take this fact into consideration when you decide what to build
and how to move the land to build the structures for our benefit.
Thank you,
Mary T6th (Ladera Linda resident)
----------Forwarded message---------
From: mary toth <mmacetv@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:02 PM
Subject: Rebuilding the Ladera Linda Community Center
To: <dianebmills@gmail.com>
To the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes, to the Board Members of the
Ladera Linda Homeowners association, and to the Director of Parks and
Recreation of RPV,
1
We, the T6th family, have lived in the Ladera Linda community
since 1971. We chose this quiet neighborhood for its beauty, fresh clean
air and tranquility. After SO years here we still appreciate its quiet,
peaceful environment and its considerate, friendly neighbors.
We do agree that the community center needs upgrading, renovating.
We do want the new facility to meet the needs of the local residents.
We do not want a large recreation center that will draw crowds, traffic,
noise, parking problems and trash on the streets and potentially cars
being stolen and more break-ins.
We, the community of Ladera Linda, have the right to be listened to by
the leaders we elected and have them respect our needs and wants in
order to maintain our quiet, peaceful, beautiful, natural environment at
a reasonable cost.
Thanks to our Board Members, thanks to the City Council and
and thanks to everyone who will work and has worked for our
community.
Sincerely,
Attila and Mary T6th
32316 Phantom Dr. RPV
310 377 5012
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
April 5, 2021
Dear Council Members,
fivemuellers <fivemuellers@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 11:06 AM
cc
Proposed Ladera Linda Community Center
My son and I, both long-time residents of the SeaView tract below Ladera Linda, are completely opposed to
the Community Center as currently planned. It is much too large, will introduce parking problems and noise
pollution to our serene neighborhood, not to mention a decrease in property value.
In the past, neighborhood children from SeaView and Ladera Linda used the field for kite flying, throwing
frisbees, and kicking soccer balls, etc, all worthwhile activities. The AYSO soccer games on Saturday or Sunday
mornings produced noise, reverberating off of the bowl-shaped cliffs which act as a sound amplifier. We didn't
complain about the noise that reached our house because it was infrequent and for a worthy cause. We won't
feel the same about party noise and auto noise from this proposed Community Center.
We don't understand the supposed need for a party site in this beautiful natural area. Is Rancho Palos Verdes
so poor that it needs income from weddings, bar mitzvahs, quinceaneras, birthdays, etc. bringing in outsiders
to the area? Would the city allow commercial developers to do the same thing here?
We truly do not need or want this development in our backyard. This large expenditure of funds will not bring
an improvement to the area.
We value the work the Nature Conservancy has done but feel they don't need this building at this site for their
work. There are rooms in buildings at Point Vicente that could fill their needs.
1
\.
Respectfully yours,
Jean and Keith Mueller
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy Ohara < nanceo33@gmail.com >
Sunday, April4, 2021 10:38 AM
cc
Ladera Linda proposal
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I've lived in Ladera Linda since 2013. In that time, I've seen an erosion in the quality of life in what was once a quiet,
peaceful neighborhood. Even before the pandemic, social media had made this area popular with thousands of people
from around Los Angeles County, but, of course, Covid-19 brought even more people into residential neighborhoods
that were never meant to be tourist destinations.
Traffic, noise, motorcycles and car racing, trash, hundreds of cigarette butts at lookout points, graffiti, Preserve visitors
parking in neighborhoods, dog feces, trail degradation and most notably, more homeless people, These have all become
noticeably worse in recent months.
We're a small community with the Preserve being a BIG draw and the last thing we need is a nearly 16 million dollar
"community" center which will quickly become a tourist destination for millions of people seeking a spectacular event
space with unobstructed ocean views. OF COURSE the community would like an amazing facility, but in these times and
at this exorbitant cost, our City and particularly, our neighborhoods of Ladera Linda and Seaview, can't afford it. What
my husband and I moved here for and what made RPV so special is quickly disappearing and I hope each of you listens to
the MANY residents who're against the size and cost of this project. You LIVE in the City .... surely you've seen the
changes for the worse recently.
Please "pause" this current design and direct staff to reduce the cost and size of this project so it becomes a
COMMUNITY center. ... not an architectural view destination for all of Southern California.
I would appreciate the consideration for the folks who live in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Nancy Ohara
1 I
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
dshirley550@gmail.com
Saturday, April 3, 2021 11:40 AM
cc
Ladera Linda Project
"''-~':i< <;!:;(::·/ :.':<.'{( '
"'''··<·:·;·.~,····\ '.\,:\''x';'-.'
I'm writing this email to express my opposition to the proposed Ladera Linda Park expansion, at least in it's current
proposed format. In reviewing the current proposal, I am of the opinion the size and scope of the project is not in
keeping with surrounding neighborhood. The new project will result in adverse impacts to surrounding neighborhood in
terms of traffic, congestion, noise and more. It is not reasonable to ask the surrounding neighbors to absorb the
downside in order to facilitate the proposed benefit to outside neighbors.
The proposed benefit does not offset the downside in terms of impact on surrounding homes/community. I have been a
resident of RPV for 24 years, have raised a family here. One of the many benefits of RPV is the parks and access to
schools for sports, other activity. I have never had the opinion our community is lacking in terms of a facility consistent
with Ladera Linda proposal.
The current facility is old, needs updating to be sure. We have used the facility to our benefit. I believe it's more a
question of updating to bring the facility current versus significant change in scope which would have adverse impact on
local residents to solve a problem or add a benefit local residents are not asking for.
Thanks in advance you for your consideration.
Best regards
David Shirley
I
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Xin Wang <xin.wang.usc@gmail.com>
Saturday, April 3, 2021 9:48 AM
cc
Strong opposition to the current plans for Ladera Linda Park
,-. .... ,-~_,,,~ .. ,~~ ... ,~ ... -~ ... -~-.. ~·~,~~--·~·,·---~""_, __ , __ .. _____ ,~~--~~---.. --~-~·---·----·
AUTlON~ This email originat~d from'outside oft\le City c)(~aQt!J9:~aiQ~;Ver~~~; , ': ,
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
My wife and I are 16 year residents of RPV and own the first house on Forrestal Drive when turning towards the Park
from PV Drive South. We strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda park because the plans will definitely
increase use of the park which means increased traffic, crime, trash etc in our community. Just in the last few years, our
house had been broken in once, our cars had been smashed a couple of times. The exorbitant cost ($15.7M!!!!!!! !????)
for improving the park, according to City Staff, is just way too much and can be well spent on other things like
supporting our local policy force to make our community more secure and our residents feel safe living in RPV.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a
more suitable plan for this park. Thank you
Sincerely,
--Xin Wang
1 !
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
William Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>
Saturday, April 3, 2021 8:23AM
cc
Ladera Linda park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council Members,
I am planning to speak next Tuesday evening, but due to the 3 minute limit, I would like to add several thoughts ....... I
AM WORRIED. I'm worried you will accept Recreation and Parks staff recommendation to proceed with their park plan
as presented. I'm worried that you will view our local residents, well documented concerns as insignificant. Lastly, and
of most importance, I'm worried that your decisions moving forward will be to the detriment ofthe park's surrounding
neighborhoods.
I have yet to witness a concern of this magnitude in my 50 years residing in the Ladera Linda community. Over the last 5
years, I have seen my neighbors rally to the point of the formulation of a speciai"Park Committee ", and for good
reason. Throughout this lengthy period, this committee, through countless hours of in-depth analysis, has been
consistent and on target, with the ongoing theme of .... too expensive and too big.
What else can I say, I hope that these worries are unfounded.
Bill Schurmer.
Ladera Linda.
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
martha foster < martycrna@gmail.com >
Friday, April 2, 2021 12:39 PM
CC; Ara Mihranian
LL Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The heartfelt desire of residents near LL park is for a simple, secure building. Hesse Park represents such a building.
Hesse is a proven and very successful park and building. It can serve as your model easily and at far less cost than the
projected $15 million for the architectural anomaly currently planned for LL.
Please leave all foliage in place and add more if you can. Californians' parched eyes long for all the greenery and shade
we can get.
Lastly, safe conventional bathrooms please.
Thank you Mayor, CC members and RPV staff for your service.
Sincerely,
Marty Foster
LLHOA resident
Sent from my iPad
1
I
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Thursday, April 1, 2021 4:30 PM
cc
Ara Mihranian; sharon
George Gascon
Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the Council,
I am writing to request that the Council consider placing on an upcoming agenda consideration of taking a Vote of No
Confidence with respect to our new Los Angeles County District Attorney. As I trust you are all aware, his policies are
already significantly increasing crime in the County and since the Council's first and foremost goal is safety of its
residents, I ask you to join Beverly Hills and other cities that have already taken Votes of No Confidence. Even Sheriff
Alex Villanueva has gone on record stating "he cannot work with Gascon."
Mr. Gascon's "social justice" reforms are the most extreme measures we have ever seen. As you probably also know, his
main financial backing came from George Soros, the notorious Marxist billionaire.
I will be working diligently in the coming months to have Gascon recalled, once the Petition for Recall has been approved
by the County (expected to happen within the next couple of weeks). I hope that you will all join me in the effort to
unseat this man who should be a public defender instead of the County's Chief Prosecutor. He is far more concerned
with the rights of defendants than he is with the rights of victims, their families and the general law abiding public.
If you are not familiar with some of his exreme measures, please let me know and I will be happy to provide additional,
valuable information.
Thank you for your consideration of this extremely important matter.
Sharon Yarber
1 \,
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill Foster <billfost541@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 9:47AM
cc
edmundo hummel; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Diane Mills
Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council.
Again, we are confronting the Ladera Linda park expansion.! am worried that the complaints of a majority of residents,
those who live close to Ladera Linda and over 58% of those who live more than 2 miles away, oppose the proposed
building that unfortunately ,the RPV staff is convinced that everyone wants. Look closely at the polls that have been
taken and are available to everyone, and I am sure you will see that RPV residents do not approve of the plan.
The staff just confirmed that the project will cost over 15 million dollars. This is quite unbelievable.
My question is why has this project become such a priority for the city? Presently, distrust for all governments from
Federal to local municipalities is at an all time high. For our city staff to contradict proven polls with true desires of the
citizens and try to tell us not to worry and they know what's best is starting to resemble some very scary science fiction
novels.
Please consider rejecting the plan and demand staff to come up with one that reflects the desires of the majority of RPV
residents. Building bigger is not better.
Bill Foster
32451 Searaven Dr
RPV
Sent from my iPad
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 7:29AM
CityCierk
cc
City Council Meeting April 6, 2021 Item 1 Public Hearing
Ladera Linda Park Report Attachments.pdf
CAUTION: This email origina(ed from outside 'QhhE1>(;itV
Ladera Linda Park Development
On April 61h the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will make the final decision on the long awaited renovation of
the Ladera Linda Park. With over five years in planning and numerous meetings city staff has still not been able
to resolve the outstanding fundamental issues with local residents over the park design.
Initially Parks and Recreation offered to turn the park into a regional facility with an indoor gymnasium, swimming
pool, dog park and skateboard facility. Staff and the contractor invited everyone with any interest to be a
stakeholder in the design.
The result was a grossly over designed building with a dry bed creek and bridge at the entrance. This was totally
rejected by the City Council and the residents. Parks and Recreation was sent back with clear directions to work
with the local residents to resolve their concerns and to develop a facility based upon "need and not want". In
addition staff was directed to work with the Ladera Linda residents as the ones most impacted by the park.
The design under consideration is the results of this second iteration. Unfortunately, Staff did not follow council
direction, they did not work with the Ladera Linda residents in good faith and used the flawed usage of the
previous design based upon "want and not need".
The proposed facility is designed more to attract more usage and traffic as a view destination and event facility,
making it a politically correct architectural showplace rather than a functional and secure facility for the use of
the local residents. Security seems to be an afterthought in the design with tack on measures such as cameras
and breaking glass sensors. Steel security shutters as used at Hesse Park and the PVIC are not financially
practical with this proposed design. Line of sight inspection is totally inadequate from the gate because of the
large overhangs and the breezeways. See attachment 1.
What makes Ladera Linda Park unique is that it is embedded in a residential area serviced by a single residential
road shared with the park, residential area, ASYO soccer fields and the Forrestal Reserve. This has created
traffic and parking problems and the residents are rightfully concerned that the present design will only worsen
an already out of control situation.
The overly high cost estimate of $15.7 million for the total project seems to be out of line for a community park. It
seems that the cost is more driven by making it an architectural showplace. The open design and unisex
restrooms make it more susceptible to crime and the homeless, driving up the cost.
We are all aware of the nightmare that is presently going on at Del Cerro with the traffic and parking problems
associated with the preserve. What the residents do not want is for the park to create another Del
Cerro. Unfortunately, the present design incorporates a natural history museum, that in the present park facility,
is only used at best 8 times a year and even with the bloated staff usage estimates, 12 times a year. What the
1
residents are concerned about is that the real reason for the museum is to make the park the de facto information
center for the preserve bringing in hundreds of visitors to the area not only clogging up Forrestal but PV Drive
South which is already heavily traveled and a single lane road. This would also force the city to open up Forrestal
to preserve parking which was closed because of the dumping of trash in the canyon and nightly parties and
campfires at the end of the road.
Throughout the design process staff has purposely been supplying misleading information that biases public
opinion and causes irreparable harm to the fairness of the proceedings.
You can understand why staff is supplying misleading information as the building will be the second largest city
building in the city at just over 13,720 sq. ft., according to staff documents. The building is so large that the
contractor is proposing a grass roof to mask the size of the building preventing it from becoming an eye sore.
You would think that such a large building would have a lot of usable space but the contractor is only advertising
6,790 sq. ft. That is a 50% utilization. The city will be paying for a lot of air. The present old facility is at
77%. See attachment 2
The majority of the residents want a new facility that meets the needs of the local residents and not with the
unintended consequences of out of control traffic and crime.
What the residents have proposed is a scaled down design similar to Hesse Park with a single entry point for
security and limited parking for both the park and the preserve.
The building would contain three rooms with a large community room that can be divided into two rooms and an
additional conference room for a total usable square footage of just over 4,900 sq. ft. The overall building square
footage would be approximately 6,500 sq. ft. with an overall utilization of 76%. See attachment 3
Unfortunately, a lot of city residents are so frustrated with the time that has taken to get to this point they are
willing to accept anything. The problem with this is that they will be deciding on not only the quality of life of the
local residents but of the city. What Staff is proposing is a structure that will rival the Wayfarers Chapel as a
destination venue, but is out of character with the surrounding area. The impact will be felt all over the peninsula
with increased traffic on an already overburdened infrastructure.
The following charts try to put into perspective the size of the proposed facility in relation to other city
facilities. See attachment 4. The building is so long that it is longer than the city hall. See attachment 5.
In summary the present proposed design does not meet the resident requirements, nor is it compatible with a
neighborhood park and should be rejected by the City Council.
In addition the responsibility for the project should be given to Public Works with a target cost and directions to
develop a facility that is compatible with the neighborhood and the city.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda
2
Apprehension vs Prevention
Apprehension, The Present Approach to Securing the Facility
Drive-by Inspections, Glass Sensors, Fencing, and Cameras
Apprehension rates are low in todays environment and measures that support
this approach gives a false sense of security.
Crime Prevention comprises strategies and measures that seek to reduce the
risk of crimes occurring in the first place.
Steel Security Shutters have proven to prevent crime at both the PVIC and at
Hesse Park, but are financially prohibitive when 51% of the building is glass.
Sturdy aluminum fencing, steel, and iron fencing appear to be the more
secure fencing options but will significantly drive up costs.
A complex and expensive restroom security solution versus two simple door
locks if it was conventional.
Sheriff will have limited view of
the front of the facility from the
car, if at all.
Nothing from the back or under
the open areas.
The rear of the park has a
stairway access from Dauntless
that is invisible from the front.
Attachment 1
Glass Breakage Senors
Response times are at best 20
minutes, long enough to do
damage.
Chain link Fencing Can
Easily Be Cut
Chain link fencing, a
common choice does
not provide a high-level
of security. Criminals
have the ability to easily
jump or climb this type
of fencing.
Cameras
The criminal
element have
learned to hid
their features to
avoid
detection.
§torage
140 SQ.
FT.
T
liiC I •
Kitchen
162
SQ. FT.
Glass Doors ~ ~ ----....
Multi-Purpose 1
905 SQ. FT.
r·l .. -).
·-T-
1
I
I
I
I
rei
3:' I
(lj -I .Ql e,
ltl I
01
M ulti·J:lti!P{)~~ g
905 SQ. FL
OWes
{Staff)
1 40 s<:u::T _
Stor.
lT+1-to
Office
(Staff)
190 SQ. FT.
.....,.........
I
I
I
I
..-
A ~ 4
~ ..
I
l
l + 1 Storage I
+
Reception
•I + Storage 1 Display J
Case ,j ~
• ~
Chussroonl 1
773 SQ. FT.
Yi l
L
+ I
•
,.,,,
,;
..
,.
M
~
~
Entrances
RcvB
Ladera Linda HOA Recommended
Park Layout 4,900 SQ. FT.
Attachment 3
Docent Storage
275 SQ. FT ..
.. I J . ,
,-
Olsplay Cas~
Steel Security
Shutters on Glass
Doors and Windows
Ladera Linda Park Facility
Muhi-Pu r1>osc 1 905
l\'htlti-Puqwsc 2 905
Kitchen 162
1\'lP Storage 140
Office 140
Docent Stontge 275
Staff Area 190
Restrooms 6.a.2
Classroom 773
Lobb~-& Galler~· 803
Total 4~935
>-co
"C
Q) >
0
0) c
"'0
::::J
a:!
co
"'0 c
::J
co ,_
Q)
"'0 co
_j
"'0
Q) en
0
Q_ e
0...
..c.
~
~ ,_
co
0...
Q) en en
Q)
I
-c
Q)
E ..c.
(.) co
~
The Proposed Ladera Linda Building is Longer Than the RPV City Hall
and Would be the Second Largest City Building in the City
RPV City Hall
I· 171.7 ft
Proposed Ladea Linda Building
1-.-----------251 ft
Attachment 5
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Members of the City Council
R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Monday, March 22, 2021 2:41 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park Project
We want to be on record with our agreement to the points Herb Stark makes regarding the scope and design of the
proposed Ladera Linda Park complex. We appreciate all the effort the P & R Department has taken over the years
planning and scoping this project, we just don't think the size and architecture of the proposed structure is compatible
with our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Gene & Lynne Dewey
Vigilance Drive.
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cjruona@cox.net
Monday, March 22, 2021 11:33 AM
cc
Ladera Linda
I hope the members of the city council take time to reflect on the letter of Herb Stark, which is
featured in the PVP Watch newsletter published last week. Stark raises important points that
hopefully lead to a compromise, meeting the needs & desires of both sides of this issue. A
smaller, more economical building at Ladera Linda Park with sufficient space for perceived
activities will bring this civic issue to as good a conclusion as possible.
C. J. Ruona
Rancho Palos Verdes
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
bob greve <bobandruth@live.com>
Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:10AM
cc
please stop this stupid plan of this monster design of the ladera linda facility. please do not ruin our beautiful
neighborhood
1 \.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Edward Dietz <eds.public.mail@mac.com>
Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:51 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park
We don't need any building at the park.
eliminate the building from your plans, and avoid the cost of construction, maintenance, security, landscaping and
utilities.
and we certainly don't need one that has exposed glass, multiple exterior doors and more "classrooms" than are likely
to be used.
and stop spending money trying to accommodate people that want to use our trails and parks. Palos Verdes is our
home, it should not become a destination for those from other towns.
Ed Dietz
310/377-4257
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marty Dodell <mdodell@verizon.net>
Friday, March 19, 2021 6:44PM
cc
Ladera Linda Development Plans
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
I write in support of the residents of the Ladera Linda neighborhood and urge you to reject the current Community Facility
site plans as too grandiose for a local community/neighborhood facility.
I've read Mr. Herb Stark's letter to PV WATCH and agree with him completely.
I'm a long time resident of RPV having lived in the Silver Spur neighborhood for the past 48 years. I've been involved in
local governance having served two terms on the School Board, served twice on the Peninsula Education Foundation,
been a gubernatorial appointee twice, a member of local service clubs and generally follow the actions of our four cities.
I believe the Council has a duty to make use of it's resources in a frugal and thoughtful manner and reflect the wishes of
the citizens of RPV and the neighboring residents. Approving this development in its current form would be a mistake
especially when comparing costs of construction to those of Mr. Stark's comparisons.
From what I've observed, it is not too late to reject the current staff design and direct them to make a plan for a simpler,
smaller and more acceptable design for Ladera Linda Community Park.
Sincerely,
Martin Dodell
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Colleen Teles <imcat58@gmail.com>
Friday, March 19, 2021 4:15 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Site Plan
Dear City Council, I am in strong disagreement with the current plan to construct a large building that for the most part,
will remain unused. The size of the roof alone is enormous and will provide privacy for all kinds of illegal nighttime
activity, including providing a place for the homeless to take up residency. Is this why you have decided to include a
shower? I don't understand why you'd put in a shower for some classroom buildings.
To encumber this location with a building that will be largely not used, provide a place for homeless to hide, and that
costs the city a lot of money for basically nothing that is needed is a poor choice by the city council.
Colleen Teles
5433 Whitefox Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
George Patton <unclegeorgepatton@gmail.com>
Friday, March 19, 2021 2:02 PM
cc
George Patton
As a nearly 52 resident of Ladera Linda, I strongly object to the grandiose plans for the construction of the propose
community center
Sent from my iPad
1
( '
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Council persons,
Elaine Knipe <eknipe.9817@gmail.com>
Friday, March 19, 2021 1:04 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Community Center
I object to the current proposed renovation of the Ladera Linda Community Center. How many years have this been
discussed by the Council? You are NOT listening to the neighborhood residents and property taxpayers. I
purchased my home in 1992 because of the safe serene and quiet neighborhood.
Each time the project is redesigned, it seems like the project keeps getting larger and the redesign
costs increase, i.e. prior architect cost, studies, and other miscellaneous costs. I would like to receive a
breakdown summary of all the costs that have already been paid.
Instead of incurring these costs, why not spend the funds to keeping Rancho Palos Verdes a safe place to
live.
Also, with the increased traffic that will occur, are there plans to install a traffic light at Palos Verdes
Drive South and Forrestal? I look forward to receiving your response and breakdown of costs that has
already been paid by this project.
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE EXISTING LADERA LINDA RESIDENCES CHOICE OF LIVING IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Respectfully,
Shizuye Elaine Knipe
3737 Vigilance Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members:
Ann Muscat <amuscat@cox.net>
Thursday, March 18, 2021 2:49PM
cc
Ladera Linda Community Center
Your meeting coming up on April 6 is an important one and it has prompted me to write a second email to all of you.
This from someone who has never written emails to elected officials before.
I am very disappointed and concerned that the voices of the local community are not being heard in the design of the
new Ladera Linda Community Center. Many of us through our HOAs have been expressing for years our concern that
the designs being proposed are too large for a neighborhood community center. My husband and I moved to Ladera
Linda over 20 years ago because we wanted to live in a quiet neighborhood next to the ocean with excellent outdoor
recreational opportunities. We did NOT want to live in a beach community with lots of traffic, large crowds and noise.
We are concerned that the size of the design being proposed and the potential for scheduling numerous events will lead
to all of these things at the community center.
We are not against progress and updating the facilities. I was surprised to learn that the building as proposed would be
the second largest in the city. This seems excessive for the needs of a neighborhood center. In my previous email I
asked you to consider reducing the number of classrooms from 2 to 1 and rather than a dedicated interpretive space
disperse interpretation throughout the building. Also, there has to be a good security and traffic plan in place, along
with an understanding of how the center will be used for events. The amount of activity in the nature preserve and
traffic around the existing buildings has increased significantly over the past year and will only continue to do so if these
new facilities are not carefully planned.
I don't think it is just a small number of residents who oppose the design. I know of many people who are frustrated and
feel their voices are not being taken seriously. I hope that you will reverse that perception and respond to community
input in the decisions you take on April 6.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ann Muscat
John Baldelli
1 \ ..
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:41 AM
cc
Ladera Linda Park Development
Unintended Consequences.pdf
For five year the residents have been trying to work with Parks and Recreation to come up with a design that would be
compatible with the surrounding community to no avail.
The majority of the residents do want a new facility so we are in agreement on that point.
Our requirements are simple. A facility that is scaled to meet the community's needs. A secure facility based upon the
times that we are living in and the recognition that it cannot be designed in a vacuum and must consider the residents,
AYSO, and the Preserve.
What we do not want is an architectural show place at the expense of the above.
Please see the attached.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda
1 \ '
Unintended Consequences
Creating Another Del Cerro
Architectural show place creates a destination venue
Bigger than Hesse Park which serves a higher concentration of residents
Establishes the Park as the de facto information center for the Preserve
Creates a traffic and parking issue in a residential area
Infrastructure cannot handle the traffic on PV Drive South and Forrestal
Building designed more for rentals, incorporating ocean views, amphitheater and museum
Does not take into consideration the combined traffic impact of the Park, Preserve or A YSO
A typical weekend day of Preserve parking
resulting in 375 to 500 cars on Forrestal with
an average between 38 to 46 cars per hour.
What will happen during a A YSO event and
when the park opens? A YSO could add
another 1 00 to 200 cars. Bigger than Hesse Park with
five rooms versus four in
Hesse park
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 17,2021 12:41 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Facility Enclosed Space
Enclosed Space Usage.pdf
When you start to think about facility usage and open space, weather becomes important.
We just went through a few days of rain and wind.
Under these conditions only enclosed areas could be used.
In a traditionally designed building this would not be a problem.
Unfortunately the proposed design, over half of the building is open to the elements.
see attached.
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda
310-541-6646
Enclosed Space Usage
The enclosed area, of the present Ladera Linda buildings, is 13,553 square feet with a roof area
of 17,500 square feet and not 19,000 as published in the staff and contractor's reports
The equivalent in the proposed design is 6, 790 square feet of enclosed space and 13,720
square feet of roof area
Therefore the reduction in size fron old to new is only 20% but the square foot of usable
enclosed space ratio went from 77% down to 49%
In comparision Hesse Park has an enclosed space of 7,300 square feet and a roof area
of 9,400 square feet for a usable enclosed space ratio of 77%
ladera Unda Park Buildings
RoofArea (SF} lEnctosedArea
2.700 l 1914
ommunitv Room
c·cr rt£"\-!T'l 1
2
13,553
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
samantha pack <sammiegirlpink@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:23AM
cc
New Ladera Linda Support!!!
I am in favor of supporting the new Master Plan for the New Ladera Linda Community Center and Playgrounds!
Best,
Samantha Pack
1
I
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
samantha pack <sammiegirlpink@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:24 AM
CityCierk
SUPPORT Master Plan Ladera Linda
I am in favor of supporting the new Master Plan for the New Ladera Linda Community Center and
Playgrounds!
Best,
Samantha Pack
1
I.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jose Aguilar <aguilarjose47@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:19AM
CityCierk; CityCierk
Ladera Linda project support
~-~--~---~~---~~--~·----·---~~-·~·--~-~· em~i!~riglnated fr(>m outside'(>f}~e titvo(a~ri~~~if>iilos \i~rd~jM·i . ; ,.. ' ... ··•······· ''' · ..... ····· '
My name is Jose Aguilar and I am an RPV resident. I wanted to reach out and share my support for the Ladera Linda
community center and park project.
Please do not down size the current building or plans. It has already been scaled back to accommodate residents that
are in opposition.
This is a needed and wanted update! I appreciate the time and effort the City has spent on this.
We need a nice community center and park grounds that we can celebrate and come together with family and friends
for years to come. Thank you for taking the time to listen to ALL RPV residents perspectives.
Myself and my family are in full support! We look forward to the project completion.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
I~
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
M Casares <michael_casares@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:05AM
CityCierk; CC; David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Ladera Linda Project
I am writing in support of the Ladera Linda Project. I currently live in the Mediterrania neighborhood and have toddler
twins. I would love to have a center where I can take my kids in my community. I think it is a shame to have a facility that I
could see from my backyard and not be able to fully use it. The concern over the project seems ridiculous to me. I work in
DTLA and trust me, no one has any desire to make the journey all the way to the end of the 110 and up a hill. We are not
that special. So this idea that people from all over will come and use an obscure park off the path seems like a stretch.
This center should be for the community like it was intended. The project should be completed. Thank you for your time.
Michael Casares
1 I'
,
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
generic201 O@gmail.com
Tuesday/ April 6/ 2021 9:04 AM
cc
Support for Proceeding With the Project: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center
Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hi/
I am writing to express my support for proceeding with the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project as
suggested and designed by the staff. I am NOT IN SUPPORT of delaying or modifying the current the design.
Please let me know how i can participate in the public hearing today online.
A. M.Azmi
4214 Stalwart Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90732
1
I~
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Beverly Provine < bprovine@comcast.net>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 10:23 AM
cc
Ladera Linda Park Expansion
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To the City Council:
I am opposed to the Ladera Linda Park expansion. This past Sunday afternoon it took me 10 minutes to make a left turn
from Forrestal onto PV Drive South. The expansion of the
park will result in increased traffic at that intersection. Have you forgotten this is a two lane road down here?
Please take into consideration the concerns of the residents who live in Ladera Linda.
Thanks,
Bev Provine
1
/.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barbara Scherba <bscherba@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 7:31 PM
CityCierk
Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear sirs,
There may not be a big issue to many people regarding the already approved Ladera Linda remodeling project. But to
us residents who have used the facility in the past or in the present, we value the plans that have been approved prior to
the lockdown. Many of us have worked hard to compromise and keep the facility to a minimum impact and size, while
retaining the space for multiple uses by the residents of our area. Please keep the plans already agreed upon and move
forward with this valuable and useful project.
Respectfully,
Barbara Scherba
3716 Coolheights Drive, RPV
1 l~
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello all,
Meg han Moore < megtheteacher@gmail.com >
Monday, April 5, 2021 11:36 PM
cc
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; CityCierk
Ladera Linda Project
My hope with this email is to continue to encourage you to maintain your dedication to the integrity of a quality Ladera
Linda project. This facility is of priceless importance to our community, and I am in strong support of the project. As the
demand for new housing increases all over the US, we are seeing that creating a sense of community within those new
housing developments are also something many are preferring, and it increases the value of these new housing projects.
Therefore, keeping and expanding the Ladera Linda Park as a community-used facility will only continue to add value to
our beloved community.
Just recently, my brother and I were discussing his move to the family-friendly community of Thousand Oaks/Camarillo
Area, of course in his eyes the more family-friendly community. He mentioned all the new benefits and amenities he and
his children have been enjoying: horse trails, bike trails, hiking trails, community classes, and community facilities, all
within close proximity of his beautiful new residence. He was indeed bragging about his new amenities, until I
mentioned our Peninsula Community has all those same community amenities. He was unaware of Ladera Linda Park
and its asset to our community. He was thinking he was only able to get his family-friendly community environment in
Ventura County. Please continue to grow the Ladera Linda Park Project as a larger community facility. It is one of the few
priceless benefits of our area (that we are actually able to expand), and truly one of the few family-friendly bonuses of
our area.
I am a resident of the historic Miraleste district. I actually grew up in the Miraleste area, (as did my brother .. .funny he
neglected Ladera Linda as something special when bragging about his new community). I spent over a decade living in
Santa Clara County before deciding to return to the beloved Miraleste area of RPV where I spent my childhood years. My
husband and 1 are now raising our family here. We have four children, our eldest is just 8 years of age. We were able to
use the Ladera Linda facility a couple of years ago when my son's Cub Scout event was held there. Our family very much
enjoyed it, and we were happy to hear about its expansion plans. This project will allow us more opportunities to share
our community with others, many who are unaware of our hidden gem of a community; and the additional recreational
furnishings will be invaluable to our community. I hope you vote to continue the approved project. Ladera Linda Park is,
and will be a beautiful display of our community.
Thank you, and all the best,
Meghan Moore
1 f.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom it may concern,
Yvette D'Eiia <ygdelia@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:59 PM
CC; CityCierk
IN SUPPORT OF THE LADERA LINDA CENTER
I am writing in support of the Ladera Linda Community Center. I am aware of an online attempt begun by neighbors who
are afraid of any progress of any sort in our community, who regularly share racist posts filled with microagressions on
the Nextdoor app in an attempt to scare the residents but am hopeful that the council will move forward with the
project. I've shared screenshots from the insane, absured posts over the last two years and am happy to share. Progress
is a good thing. Please consider my vote to move forward.
Yvette D'Eiia
1
I
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Baldomero Fernandez <b@baldomero.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:56 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park Project
My name is Baldomero Fernandez, I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates, father of two young boys 6 and 13 and a
volunteer at AYSO and Assistant Scout Master at Troop 276 in Palos Verdes, Estates. I moved to this area in 2015 looking
for a beautiful place with good schools and great community to raise my family. I've come to love the Ladera Linda Park
as I've spent much time there with AYSO and also frequent the trails the local trails very often. It is vital for a thriving
community to have a community center where people can meet, where kids can play safely, where the community can
in fact be a community. We need this park to be healthy and well kept, with out it the things that make a community
great start to erode they start to decay and eventually we are living in places and not communities. We are not
neighbors just people that live near each other. I sincerely hope the commission will do the right thing here and keep the
park and the center thriving and not kill it off.
Baldomero Fernandez f www.BALDOMERO.com I 212.974.8981
1
/.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
City Council, and Staff,
Anthony Todora <atodora1 @yahoo.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 1:23 PM
CC; CityCierk; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; David Bradley; Ken Dyda
Item #1 -the Ladera Linda Community Center Project **In Favor**
We support the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center project's current plan, including the current design.
As a life-long resident of the Mira Catalina and Miraleste Hills neighborhoods, it's time for a park and
community center on the hill's south side. The Ladera Linda Park will be the only source of outdoor
entertainment and educational enhancement on the east and south sides of the hill for all its surrounding
neighborhoods to enjoy. A center like this one can contribute to the community in many ways. The center can
bring people together and form a sense of "community," host scout programs, art and music programs,
educational programs, host occasional city council meetings, paddle tennis tournaments, outdoor activities, and
social events.
All would appreciate the diverse offering that the center could host.
The project should move forward and not regress and redesign the plan. Unfortunately, there will never be
1 00% consensus of any plan, and what has been present should prevail.
The building's size seems modest enough and not a burden to the neighborhood but at a size to develop
community interaction and serve the community for decades to come.
After a 7-0 decision in favor of the plan by the planning commission, it appears this is the right plan. Let's move
forward with it and start redeveloping the dilapidated Ladera Linda site for one that the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and its residents can be proud to call one of their treasured sites.
Anthony and Lety Todora
Miraleste Hills, RPV
1 /.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
erin levy <erinelevy@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:45 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Park
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
I am writing you to let you know that I oppose the current plans for the new Ladera Linda Park. Many members of our
community have already expressed their concerns about the negative side effects that would come along with the
"proposed benefits" ofthe new building and property upgrades and I agree with all of them.
My family has lived in Ladera Linda for the past 2 years after 14 years of living in both NYC and Hollywood. Needless to
say, we moved here because of its seemingly remote setting despite such close proximity to LA's metropolitan sprawl.
We have 2 young daughters, one is enrolled at Mira Catalina and the other at MELA. It was been such an idyllic
transition from city life to this beautiful, quiet seaside community and we have no intention of ever leaving.
We were also delighted (but not surprised) to see that RPV was listed as the 4th safest city in California this year by
Safe wise! It would be such a shame if adding such another lnstagram-worthy destination to our hillside were to strip our
city of this well-deserved accolade.
In addition to all ofthe already listed reasons our community and HOA members have sent in opposition to the new
plans, I would like to specifically mentioned that we can hear the soccer games from our house and we are all the way
up on the top of Vigilance. I don't mind the soccer game sounds, I think they are a nice reminder of the wholesome and
local recreation our nearby park provides. I would NOT be happy, however, if I were to start hearing wedding parties and
performances from the quiet sanctuary of my backyard. I moved here so I could listen to the birds! And, assuming that
the increase in traffic and events in the park increased a police presence, would that also increase the helicopter noise?
After living in Hollywood and NYC, I can tell you that it would be heartbreaking to have finally settled into this peaceful
community, only to have it soured by the very noise pollution we were so desperate to escape.
Please do the right thing and do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local
residents to develop a more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you,
Erin Levy
3566 Vigilance Drive
1
/.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greetings.
Joe C. <jocruz1 @hotmail.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:30AM
cc
CityCierk; David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
4/6/2021 Council Agenda Item Input-Support for Ladera Linda Community Center &
Parking Consideration
I'm writing today in support of the Ladera Linda Community Center project. Planning for this project has been
underway for years, many compromises have been made, and it is time to move forward. The building is
significantly smaller than what was originally proposed, and in fact the play structures and facilities are
significantly fewer than most families with kids in the area would like.
As a Seaview resident, my family and I use the park frequently. We use the basketball courts, play soccer, and
use the pickleball courts. We also enjoy the discovery room. It's important that we all have access to a space
where kids can learn about their local environment and be free to touch and experience the collection in a
way that is not available elsewhere in the area.
In reviewing the current agenda report, I support the actions taken by the planning commission. However,
RPV staff analysis of the parking issue as part of the agenda, comparing it to parking at Hesse Park, is gravely
misleading. The Ladera Linda Community Center's parking assessment should be considered more akin to that
of the Del Cerro Park and related preserve access issues. Since the first community meetings in 2015
regarding the Ladera Linda redevelopment, nearby community members have asked for controlled parking at
the location with priority access for city residents. City staff have repeatedly skirted this issue and continued
to push for open parking in support of access for the preserve. Six years into discussing traffic and parking at
Ladera Linda, it is clear that this is a significant issue, and it is unacceptable to move forward with out
establishing priority parking for residents, especially given issues at Del Cerro over the past year. I want the
Ladera Linda Community Center constructed as designed, but I want it to be available first and foremost for
the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. Failure by the RPV City Council to recognize this as a significant issue
and address it by establishing priority access for its residents would, in my opinion, be a great consideration in
the next city council's election cycle.
Please move forward with the Ladera Linda park construction as designed and do not hold it up
further. However, please ensure that parking at the center will be prioritized for city residents. We deserve to
have a nice community center.
Thanks,
Joe Cruz
Seaview resident
1 /.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I have a release.
Paul Funk <pfunky@dslextreme.com>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:16 AM
Teresa Takaoka
Re: PowerPoint presentation for PAUL FUNK public comments at City Council Meeting
4/6/2021
From: 11 Teresa Takaoka 11 <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
To: 11 Paul Funk 11 <Pfunky@dslextreme.com>
Cc: 11 octavioS 11 <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>, 11 CityCierk 11 <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 202110:28:31 AM
Subject: RE: PowerPoint presentation for PAUL FUNK public comments at City
Council Meeting 4/6/2021
Hello Mr. Funk,
One more follow up question.
Will you be blurring out the children's faces or do you have a release to show the minors photos?
Teri
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 202110:26 AM
To: Paul Funk <pfunky@dslextreme.com>
Cc: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: PowerPoint presentation for PAUL FUNK public comments at City Council Meeting 4/6/2021
Hello,
I believe we spoke yesterday, as we discussed, we will be asking that you share your screen tomorrow evening during
your 3 minute presentation.
We will include print copies of the Powerpoint in the Late Correspondence packet.
Thank you.
Teri Takaoka
Deputy City Clerk
From: Paul Funk <pfunky@ds!extreme.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 202110:33 PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PowerPoint presentation for PAUL FUNK public comments at City Council Meeting 4/6/2021
1 I.
Hello ...
Octavio Silva said to forward this presentation to you and ask you to have it
available during the Public Comment part of the City Council meeting.
I have already filled out the Participation Request Form online. This presentation
is just a little less than 3 minutes.
Thank you.
PAUL FUNK -
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APRIL 6, 2021
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
B
F
Q
1
2
Description of Material
Amendments to draft Minutes March 2, 2021 Reg Mtg page 8
Additional Comment added to Legislative Letter 88809
Additional Comment added to Legislative Letter 1295
Emails from: Samantha Pack; Jose Aguilar; Michael Casares; A.M.
Asmi; Bev Provine; Barbara Scherba; Meghan Moore; Yvette
D'Eiia; Baldomero Fernandez; Anthony and Lety Todora; Erin Levy;
Joe Cruz; Paul Funk
Attachment A for Table of Contents Line Item 9
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, April 5, 2021**.
Respectfully submitted,
Teresa Takaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20210406 additions revisions to agenda No. 3.docx
Teresa Takaoka
From: Hans M Bozler <hbozler@usc.edu>
Tuesday/ April 6 1 2021 3:30 PM Sent:
To:
Cc:
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Dianne Bozler; CC; CC
Subject: Today's City Council meeting
r""'"~~"'"""'""""""'"'"'"'''"''C~"'""""'~~--~~··"'""-·-·~""~""""""'"'-"'-"'""'"-' """~~-·-""-"'"'"'~"--"' ""~"-~----·~~
CAUllON:Jhls erriailbrlgina*e(l fr;Qrr1<>lltsid~pft~~~i!y'~f'~~f1ch_~ Paiil~Vefije~~\:~.;_}~,~-\~::0:>; C ,;,;·•·•'• ~-· ''' · · · ··· · · •• ;;~/·~•::• '·· ·
''''""'"'"''"~~-"""'~'~«««'<="'-<"'"-='~"""=•«•=·~~-~-~-~·--"'-==~·~-.-... ......... ~"~·--"""""~·"''~-~~--·-<•-·~ ... ~-««««·'«-~"-"'~----~··•·««-~-"~""~-~--"~"'~"~
Dear Council members:
We am writing to you about the Ladera Linda Park Project. We sent an email last week, but
this was not included in the staff report. More importantly we would like to make a few
additional comments.
1.) The opposition to the project seems to come from a very narrow group of residents as
opposed to the RPV constituents broadly.
2.) The current state of Ladera Linda Park is unsustainable with decaying buildings and
facilities. Without a major rebuilding the only viable alternative is a leveling and clearing
the site. However such a move creates a massive attractive nuisance that is a security
threat to the entire east side of RPV.
3.) RPV has been fortunate to have the land and space for a truly useful recreational facility
that improves the quality of life for all of the residents--not just a few. It would be a
major mistake to let this opportunity slip away after the major amount of planning and
outreach that has brought us to this place.
In conclusion, I do not think that the residents {voters) will forget the eventual damage to
our community by the failure to proceed with the current design.
Thank you.
Hans and Dianne Bozler
1 I
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
April 6, 2021
Dear City Council,
Douglas Foster <biohm@verizon.net>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:30 PM
cc
Ladder Linda Community Center
I know much time, energy and expense has gone into the creation of a plan for a new Ladera Linda Community Center
. However, the residents closest to the community center, who might be expected to benefit the most, seem to be the
ones most opposed to the renovation in its present form.
Respectfully,
Doug Foster
Sea View Resident
1 l
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Mickey,
Ara Mihranian
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:22 PM
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Don Bell; Gary Randall; Herb Stark; Jessica Vlaco <vlacoS@cox.net>; Marty Foster;
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; CC
RE: Staff Report for Tuesday CC Meeting
My apologies for the delayed response, but I had to get responses for staff.
See below.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
c·n1<1ii ~-rwss?qc contains h;forrnaUG!l bc!onqinq to the or Ri:HKho Pdu; Verde~;~ vvhich nny bP prlvHegc(t conhdcntla! <Jnd/or protected frorn
T:1c infonnation intended on'y for usc of tlk or 11arncd. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, o;-copyinq is strictly prol!it!itcd. li
urnil in error, or we not an intended rccipierlt, please the sender imrned'atcly. Tl1ank you for your ass:svmce anci cuoperiltion.
lilllr.. GETIT~
~,... Google Play
1 I
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 3:13PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>; Jessica Vlaco
<vlacoS@cox.net> <vlacoS@cox.net>; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Mickey Radich
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Subject: Staff Report for Tuesday CC Meeting
Ara, I am very disappointed in the cost estimates furnished in this staff report. You said that you would
have a true estimate available for this Council meeting, but it is incomplete and very confusing. I think the
estimates of $15.69 million for the total project is vague and doesn't provide enough detail. There should be
much more detail on the cost breakdowns. The report discusses security, lighting, fencing, landscaping, etc.
but does not really say that they are even included in this estimate and if so, what will they cost. The cost per
square foot should be per usable square foot, but sometime it is and sometimes it isn't. I see that many topics
are discussed in this report, but are not sure if they are included in the overall estimate.
What exactly is included in the $5.7 million cost for the community center?
$5.7 million is an estimate of all costs expected to construct to the community center. The cost was
prepared by a cost estimator and is based on the drawings currently under consideration. In other words,
based on the notations on the plans, costs were provided.
1. Is security in the estimate and a breakdown of what's included?
Security is included in the estimate. At this stage, the cost estimate is not developed in
a way that makes specific line items easy to understand. The estimate can be modified
for that purpose; but that would take some time.
2. Is fencing in the estimate and a breakdown of what's included?
Fencing is included in the estimate. At this stage, the cost estimate is not developed in
a way that makes specific line items easy to understand. The estimate can be modified
for that purpose; but that would take some time.
3. Is the fencing around the whole perimeter and what type? Chain link or rod iron?
Fencing is included around the whole perimeter-either existing fencing to remain, new chain
link fencing downslope from the site where it wou!d be concealed either by existing or
proposed landscape material, and new ornamental fencing (i.e. wrought iron or other more
decorative material) at the pedestrian and vehicular entrance gates, as well as other visible site
areas.
4. What about the lighting? Same questions?
Lighting is included in the estimate;. At this stage, the cost estimate is not developed in
a way that makes specific line items easy to understand. The estimate can be modified
for that purpose; but that would take some time.
What about solar panels? Same questions?
Solar panels are not included. Research of solar panel procurement strategies shows that there
are opportunities to procure solar panels at no net cost to the City by selling back energy to
the grid and this is likely the path the City would pursue. However, the cost does cover prep
work required by state law.
2
5. What about the money spent to date?
Costs to date are detailed in the Staff Report.
What about landscaping?
1. Is the cost for all landscaping and the drip sprinkler systems included?
landscaping as well as drip and spray irrigation are included, as noted on the project plans.
2. What are the breakdowns?
At this stage, the cost estimate is not developed per specific line item. The estimate can
be modified for that purpose; but that would take some time.
3. How many acres of landscaping is included?
Approximately 6 acres
What about the other costs?
1. Should not the Soft Costs associated with the building be added to the building cost?
Something does not sound right about the sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep etc.). At $6.7
million it is more than the building costs.
Soft Costs associated with the building have been included in the building costs.
1. Demolition should be included in the cost of the building.
Demolition is include in the cost of the sitework.
What about the $3.23 million for project modifications. These should have been included in
the original design in the first place. This will be added to the cost based on Council direction.
At this time, the cost estimator provided costs for the current project plans.
In any event even if the $15.69 million is a correct total estimated number, it is way too expensive for a
neighborhood park and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Please provide me with some answers.
3
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council:
Colleen Stanovich <colleenmatty@cox.net>
Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:13 PM
cc
Ladera Linda Remodel
I sincerely hope you do not go through with the proposed plan for the Ladera Linda former school
site.
I do not understand the need to bring more people to this neighborhood, which would creat more
traffic, trash, & pollution, not to
mention never being able to walk around the area as it exists.
Please leave well enough alone.
Thank you.
Colleen Stanovich
3949 Admirable Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-541-3246
1 /.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 9:28 PM
cc
Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Members,
I have just read the staff report for the April 6 City Council meeting. While I appreciate the thoroughness of the report,
there are many staff conclusions that I do not agree with. The traffic study indicated was done in 2018 and is not
current. Traffic volume has increased tremendously during that past year as people have come to hike in the Preserve.
As life gets back to normal post pandemic, we will see an increase in traffic as AYSO is able to resume games. I know the
soccer traffic and preserve traffic are not being considered for the Ladera Linda Community Center traffic, but Forrestal
Drive is used for all three, as well as for our neighborhood. We have to consider these effects on our quality of life.
I am also concerned with the quantity of classrooms. I think that five rooms is too many for the needs of the
community. I appreciate the multi-purposing of the proposed rooms, but I believe that four rooms would be sufficient.
Finally, I was amazed to see the proposed amount for demolishing the current buildings and grading of the site would be
more than the cost of the building. I do not recall seeing any landscaping costs, or is that included in the site work?
Dear members, I know you have a lot of reading to do so I will keep this brief. Please listen to the neighbors of the park
and try to reduce the size and the cost!
Sincerely,
Diane Mills
President LLHOA
310-714-1167
dianebmills@gmail.com
1 /.
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 1
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into on , 2020, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, a California municipal corporation ("City") and , a [form of company]
("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as "Party" or
"Parties."
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals, the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services", as stated in the Proposal, attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein
as the "services" or "work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this
Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and
facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required
hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG
intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean
those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work
under similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant's Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's Proposal which shall be incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency
between the terms of such Proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall
govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and
any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any "public work" or "maintenance work," as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a "public work" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1 720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR")
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 2
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
(d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty ( 60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of
its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty ( 40) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of
eight (8) hours per day, and forty ( 40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and one-half (11h) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers' Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract."
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 3
Consultant's Authorized Initials ----
(i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract
with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all
actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectifY any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnifY, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 4
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written Change Order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to fifteen percent (15%)
ofthe Contract Sum; or, in the time to perform of up to ninety (90) days, may be approved by the
Contract Officer through a written Change Order. Any greater increases, taken either separately
or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant
that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of
Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided
pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant
anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City
may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims
for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures
established in this Section are followed.
If in the performance of the contract scope, the Consultant becomes aware of material defects in
the scope, duration or span of the contract or the Consultant becomes aware of extenuating
circumstance that will or could prevent the completion of the contract, on time or on budget, the
Consultant shall inform the Contracting Officer of an anticipated Change Order. This proposed
change order will stipulate, the facts surrounding the issue, proposed solutions, proposed costs
and proposed schedule impacts.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 5
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed $XXX ( Dollars) (the "Contract Sum"),
unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9.
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services; (iii)
payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in the Schedule of
Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks,
and (b) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the
Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template,
or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the
preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for
payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the
Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 6
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time ofEssence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer through a Change
Order, but not exceeding ninety (90) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within ten (1 0) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 7
[INSERT PERFORMANCE PERIOD] from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the
Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "D"). The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by
[INSERT NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS IF APPLICABLE] additional [INSERT DURATION
OF EXTENSIONS IF APPLICABLE]-year terms.
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
(Name) (Title)
(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only the personnel included in the Proposal to perform services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this
Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors,
if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any
such performance. City shall have the right to approve or reject any proposed replacement
personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 8
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be or such person as may be
designated by the Public Works Director. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that
the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the
Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless
otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of
the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City
Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of
this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode
or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein,
except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge,
supervision or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing
their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required
herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly
independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are
agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed
to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any
joint enterprise with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City; all subcontractors included
in the Proposal are deemed approved. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein
may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation
of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of
City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons
acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control
of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such
unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No
approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability
hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 9
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1 ,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B".
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 10
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination
of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or
be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City's own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City's rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain and continuously maintain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City
may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City's Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 11
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits
of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
G) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(1) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency's right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
( o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 12
( q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein "claims
or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or
indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors'
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 13
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost
of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant
agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that
may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein
or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant
shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials")
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any
use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 14
uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the
City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties
shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such
documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.
All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared
by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify
City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents
and materials that may qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S. C. § 1 01, such
documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 15
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is fifteen ( 15) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if
circumstances warrant. During the period oftime that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold
all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the
alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding
invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take
necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City
to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City's
legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 16
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. Upon receipt of any notice of
termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be
specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for
all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services
authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation
or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the
event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the City need not provide the
Consultant with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.8 Termination for Default of Party.
If termination is due to the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement:
(a) City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
(b) Consultant may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7 .2, terminate the
Agreement upon written notice to the City's Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to
payment for all work performed up to the date of termination.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 17
7.9 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the
terms of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 18
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national ongm, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this
Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of
unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such
liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees,
incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either
party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and
either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City
Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in
the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of
this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship
of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 19
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
"financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
"remote" or "noninterests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration,
or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant's Authorized Initials ---
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Eric Alegria, Mayor
CONSULTANT:
By: _____________ _
Name:
Title:
By: ____________ _
Name:
Title:
Address:
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOT ARIZ ED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG 21
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2021 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAP A CITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
D
D
D
D
D
D
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) D LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER~----------------------
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2021 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature( s) on the instrument the person( s ), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
0 INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
0
0
0
0
0
0
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER ______________________ __
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[ATTACH SCOPE OF SERVICES FROM PROPOSAL]
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG A-1
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
B-1
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
[INSERT COMPENSATION FROM PROPOSAL]
C-1
EXHIBIT "D
[INSERT SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE FROM PROPOSAL]
01203.0006/695867.1 EQG D-1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
APRIL 5, 2021
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 6, 2021 City Council meeting:
Item No.
M
1
Description of Material
Update on attachment A
Email exchange between: Deputy Director of Community Development
Silvia and: Donald Bell
Emails from: Edward & Barbara Stevens; April Sandell; Jay Fodor; Bill,
Melinda, & Lindsey Costley; Elaine Conovaloff; Yvetta Williams; Caren
Becht; Corinee Cortes; Diane Mills; Alice Gunderson; Donald Bell; Gary
Randall; Madeline Ryan; Aj; Barbara Meskin; Donald & Louella Bricker;
Mark DeHaan; Chris; Sharon Schurmer; Suzie Wolfrum; Judy
Hildebrand; Nancy Ohara; Mickey Radich; Sharon Yarber; Malia
Carlsen; Sharon Yarber; Colleen Moon; Alice Parker; Gary Randall;
Attila & Mary Toth; Kim McCarthy; Sunshine; Elliot Levy; Herb Stark;
Caveman; Beth Shirley; Erica Sanchez; Elliot Levy; Jerry & Kinuko
Hashimoto; Enrique Sanchez; Jim Knight; Sharyn Mcllhargey; Steve
Carlsen; Hans & Dianne Bozler; Val English; Laurie Pisano; Charles
Agenew; Barbara Stevens; Thomas Cooper; Carol Mueller; Eilieen
Patton; Nathalia Carbajal; Edmundo Hummel; Thornton Family; Benoit
Hochedez & Kaylee Hong; Rustom Khosravian; Don Ershig & Irene lng;
Patricia Stenehjem; Hubert Mueller; Bob Brink; Maggie Vlaco; Nina
Smith; Dr. Anothony & Lorette Rubino; Felice & Paula Spinosa; Nasreen
Khosravian; Elie Alyeshmerni; Danilo; Anthony Funiciello; Elizabeth Sax;
Bivinetto Family; Alex Hynes; Barbara Stevens; Chris Pisano; Craig
Whited; Dann Cloud; Richard Ishibashi; Pam Andersen; Tony & Mindy B;
Jack Fleming; Walt & Carol Goede; Lois Karp; Mark Karmelich.
Additions/Revisions and Amendments to the Agenda
Monday,April5, 2020
Page 2
Re~mitted,
Emily Colborn
L:ILA TE CORRESPONDENCE\2021 \2021 Coversheets\2021 0406 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021\2021 Coversheets\20210406 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
Teresa Takaoka
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:21 PM
CityCierk
Cc: Jaehee Yoon
Subject: FW: Western Avenue -Redevelopment Consulting Proposal
Attachments: Piasky Solutions Agreement -Western Avenue Redevelopment.pdf
Importance:
Hello Team,
Here is another piece of late corr.
Thank you.
High
From: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:16 PM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Western Avenue-Redevelopment Consulting Proposal
Importance: High
Hi Teri,
Please find attached late correspondence for CC meeting consent calendar item M.
Attachment A of the staff report will need to use this version as it's been updated.
Thank you.
Jaehee
From: Lisa Garrett <LisaG@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Jaehee Yoon <jyoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Western Avenue-Redevelopment Consulting Proposal
Updated and CA approved
Thank you.
Lisa
1 V\ ...
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
TIMOTHY PIASKY, D.B.A. PIASKY SOLUTIONS
01203.0005/704082.2
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
TIMOTHY PIASKY, D.B.A. PIASKY SOLUTIONS
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein "Agreement") is made and
entered into on , 2021, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, a California municipal corporation ("City") and TIMOTHY PIASKY,
D.B.A. PIASKY SOLUTIONS, an individual ("Consultant"). City and Consultant may be
referred to, individually or collectively, as "Party" or "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals, the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 ofthis Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the "Scope of Services", as stated in the Proposal, attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein
as the "services" or "work" hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this
Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and
facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall always faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience, and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder
and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For
0 1203.0005/704082.2
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional standards" shall mean those
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant's Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant's Proposal which shall be incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency
between the terms of such Proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall
govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and
any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any "public work" or "maintenance work," as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a "public work" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR")
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department oflndustrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates ofwages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
01203.0005/704082.2 2
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $200 (two hundred dollars) for each calendar
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
(d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these Sections for all apprentice able
occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City
with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60
(sixty) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant, and each of its
subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that 8 (eight) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $25 (twenty five dollars) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than 8 (eight) hours in any one calendar day and 40 (forty) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of 8
(eight) hours per day, and 40 (forty) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1 Yz
(one and one halt) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers' Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3 700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract."
01203.0005/704082.2 3
Consultant's Authorized Initials ----
(i) Consultant's Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract
with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all
actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant's performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance ofthe services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence.
01203.0005/704082.2 4
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written Change Order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to 15% of the Contract
Sum; or, in the time to perform of up to 90 (ninety) days, may be approved by the Contract
Officer through a written Change Order. Any greater increases, taken either separately or
cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant
that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of
Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided
pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant
anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City
may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims
for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures
established in this Section are followed.
If in the performance of the contract scope, the Consultant becomes aware of material defects in
the scope, duration or span of the contract or the Consultant becomes aware of extenuating
circumstance that will or could prevent the completion of the contract, on time or on budget, the
Consultant shall inform the Contracting Officer of an anticipated Change Order. This proposed
change order will stipulate, the facts surrounding the issue, proposed solutions, proposed costs,
and proposed schedule impacts.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the "Special Requirements" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit "B" and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit "B" shall govern.
01203.0005/704082.2 5
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed $25,000 (Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars) (the "Contract
Sum"), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9.
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services; (iii)
payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in the Schedule of
Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks,
and (b) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the
Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template,
or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the
preceding month in a form approved by City's Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for
payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the
Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed, and expenses incurred follow the provisions of this Agreement.
Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are
disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant
to be paid within 45 (forty-five) days of receipt of Consultant's correct and undisputed invoice;
however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City
01203.0005/704082.2 6
cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or
expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for
correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the
Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any
applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is ofthe essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the "Schedule of Performance" attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time(s) specified in the Schedule
of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer through a Change Order, but
not exceeding 90 (ninety) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within 10 (ten) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer's
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant's sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding June 1,
01203.0005/704082.2 7
2021 from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
"D"). The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by one additional one-year term.
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant ("Principals") are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
Tim Piasky President
(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only the personnel included in the Proposal to perform services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant's staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this
Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant's staff and subcontractors,
if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any
such performance. City shall have the right to approve or reject any proposed replacement
personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant's officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City's employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
01203.0005/704082.2 8
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Ken Rukavina, Community Development Director, or such
person as he may designate. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract
Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant
shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise
specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval ofthe Contract
Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to
sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this
Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode
or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein,
except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge,
supervision or control of Consultant's employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing
their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required
herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly
independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are
agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed
to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any
joint enterprise with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City; all subcontractors included
in the Proposal are deemed approved. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein
may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation
of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of
City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons
acting in concert of more than 25% (twenty five percent) ofthe present ownership and/or control
of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such
unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No
approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability
hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
01203.0005/704082.2 9
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO "insured contract" language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers' compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1 ,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit "B".
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
01203.0005/704082.2 10
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination
of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or
be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City's own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City's rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain and continuously maintain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City
may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A-(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City's Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisiOns (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features, or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
01203.0005/704082.2 11
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits
of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a 30 (thirty) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a 10 (ten) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
U) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(I) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency's right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant 90 (ninety) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
( o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
01203.0005/704082.2 12
( q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution ofthe work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents ("Indemnified Parties") against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein "claims
or liabilities") that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable ("indemnitors"), or arising from Consultant's or
indemnitors' reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant's or indemnitors'
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys'
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City's sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City's negligence,
except that design professionals' indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
01203.0005/704082.2 13
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination ofthis Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the "books and records"), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion ofthe services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant's business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant's successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost
of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant
agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that
may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein
or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant
shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the "documents and materials")
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any
use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of
01203.0005/704082.2 14
uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the
City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant's guarantee and warranties
shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such
documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.
All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared
by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify
City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents
and materials that may qualify as "works made for hire" as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such
documents and materials are hereby deemed "works made for hire" for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance ofthis Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary"
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney's fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
01203.0005/704082.2 15
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is 15 (fifteen) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if
circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold
all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the
alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding
invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take
necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City
to give notice of the Consultant's default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City's
legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant's acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant's
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
01203.0005/704082.2 16
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 (thirty) days' written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. Upon receipt of any notice of
termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be
specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for
all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services
authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation
or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the
event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the City need not provide the
Consultant with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7 .2.
7.8 Termination for Default of Party.
If termination is due to the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement:
(a) City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
(b) Consultant may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, terminate the
Agreement upon written notice to the City's Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to
payment for all work performed up to the date of termination.
01203.0005/704082.2 17
7.9 Attorneys' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees shall include attorney's
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the
terms ofthis Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
01203.0005/704082.2 18
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all ofthe provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this
Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of
unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such
liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees,
incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either
party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and
either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City
Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in
the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of
this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship
of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
01203.0005/704082.2 19
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party ofthe basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
"financial interest" shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
"remote" or "non interests" pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration,
or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant's Authorized Initials ---
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
01203.0005/704082.2 20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Ara M. Mihranian, City Manager
CONSULTANT:
TIMOTHY PIASKY, an individual, D.B.A. Piasky
Solutions
By: _____________ _
Name: Tim Piasky
Title: President
Address: 1575 CasaGrande Street
Pasadena, CA 91104
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT'S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT'S BUSINESS ENTITY.
01203.0005/704082.2 21
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2021 before me, , personally appeared , proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( s) whose names( s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: ______________ _
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAP A CITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
D INDIVIDUAL
0 CORPORATE OFFICER
D
D
D
D
D
D
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) D
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
LIMITED
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER ______________________ _
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
01203.0005/704082.2
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant shall provide the following services ("Services"):
Provide mixed-use (no drive-thru restaurants) development feasibility analysis including a
combination of both market-rate and affordable housing units for each ofthe following
addresses. This will include coordination and input from potential developer(s) identifying
major constraints. Some of these addresses have the same owner and may be combined ifthe
feasibility analysis dictates.
a. 29019 S. Western Avenue
b. 29023 S. Western Avenue
c. 29035 S. Western Avenue
d. 29051 S. Western Avenue
e. 29105 S. Western Avenue
f. 29125 S. Western Avenue
g. 29211 S. Western Avenue
h. 29215 S. Western Avenue
i. 29229 S. Western Avenue
j. 29317 S. Western Avenue
k. 29403 S. Western Avenue
l. 29409 S. Western Avenue
m. 29413 S. Western Avenue
n. 29505 S. Western Avenue
o. 29519 S. Western Avenue
p. 29529 S. Western Avenue
q. 29601 S. Western Avenue
r. 29619 S. Western Avenue
01203.0005/704082.2 A-1
Consultant will complete the following for each of the above addresses:
1: Initial Reconnaissance -Obtain and review existing General Plan, Zoning Code &
Map, related Design Guidelines, and any other necessary information;
2: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges -Based on the initial data collection effort,
identify potential issues, opportunities, and challenges;
3: Opportunity Sites -Identify underutilized sites whose location, size, or surrounding
uses, provide the opportunity for them to be designated as opportunity sites. For each
opportunity site the following shall be prepared: A brief description of the site
characteristics that make an area an opportunity site and text describing the future vision
for the site, including specific preferred and alternative uses along with necessary zoning
and development standards; and
4: Deliverable: Opportunity Site Analysis Report-This report will summarize the results
of Task 2 and Task 3 above.
II. Consultant will utilize the following personnel in completing the Services:
A. Ken Melvin, PE-Subconsultant Pacific Consulting Group, LLC
o1203.ooosno4os2.2 A-2
EXHIBIT "B"
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text indicated in bold italics, deleted text indicated in strikethrough.
I. Section 5.1(d) is hereby amended as follows:
"Worker's Compensation Insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation
Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least
$1,000,000). Should the Consultant be a sole proprietor, the Consultant shall complete and
attach hereto as Exhibit "B-1" a declaration of sole proprietor in lieu of proof of Workers'
Compensation as it is not required for sole proprietors."
01203.0005/704082.2 B-1
EXHIBIT "B-1"
DECLARATION OF SOLE PROPRIETOR
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND MR. TIMOTHY PIASKY
I, Timothy Piasky (hereinafter "Consultant"), hereby declare as follows for the purposes of
inducing the City ofRancho Palos Verdes to enter into this Agreement:
Consultant is a sole proprietor for the purposes of the California Workers' Compensation and
Labor laws. Consultant will hire no employees other than the parents, spouses, or children of the
Consultant for work required under this Agreement. All work required will be performed
personally and solely by the Consultant, Consultant's parents, spouses or children, or persons
who perform voluntary service without pay to the Consultant. If, however, the Consultant shall
ever hire employees to perform any of the services under this Agreement or any portion thereof,
the Consultant shall obtain Workers' Compensation Insurance and provide proof of Workers'
Compensation Insurance coverage to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, as required by Section
5.l(d) ofthe Agreement.
If the Consultant shall ever hire a subcontractor to perform this contract or any portion thereof,
and the subcontractor has employees, then the Consultant shall require its subcontractor to obtain
Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage, or the Consultant shall obtain Workers'
Compensation Coverage for that subcontractor's employees or otherwise ensure the
subcontractor's compliance with the requirements of Section 5.1 (d) of the Agreement. This
document constitutes a declaration by the Consultant against its financial interest, relative to any
claims it should assert under the California Workers' Compensation and/or Labor laws against
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes relating to this Agreement. The Consultant will defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from any and all claims and
liability, including Workers' Compensation claims and liability, that may be asserted or
established by any party in the event the Consultant hires an employee in violation of this
addendum, and the Consultant will further indemnify the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for all
damages the City of Rancho Palos Verdes thereby suffers. I agree that these declarations shall
constitute an addendum to this Agreement.
Date Signature of Consultant
Name of Consultant
01203.0005/704082.2 B-2
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the Services at a rate of $200/hour. Consultant shall not
charge the City for travel to and from hearings.
II. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the
hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. A detailed progress report will be provided with each invoice outlining all work
performed within the guidelines ofthe scope of work.
o1203.ooosno4os2.2 C-1
EXHIBIT "D
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following
schedule:
A. Consultant shall provide a progress report within 30 days from execution of contract
and each month thereafter. The progress will contain information on work completed to
date as well as progress of ongoing and upcoming work.
B. Consultant will provide a final progress report at time of completion.
C. Consultant will provide the City with the full analysis by June 1, 2021.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the Services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
01203.0005/704082.2 D-1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 29, 2021 10:17 AM
Ken Rukavina; Octavia Silva
Cc:
Subject:
Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad; Karina Banales; Trang Nguyen
FW: Ladera Linda
Attachments:
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
RPVCC03021tem3.pdf
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?
lhis mail rnc~;sage contains information belonqincJ to the City of Rancho Palos Vc,nJes, which may lw privilew.~cl, confidential and/or protected from disclosure~.
The information is intended only tor U'it: of the individual or· entity named. Unauthorized clbseminal:ion, clistriiJution, or copyino is strictly prohibited. If you
rcceivc'd t11Ls email in crmr, or are not an intc!nclcd recipient, please notily the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation .
...... G£TITOO
V" Google Play
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 4:51 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
1
\
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda
Hi Octavia
Can you respond to some questions about building size this week? Particularly City Hall.
What is its footprint on the ground? It is clearly not 17,530 sq ft. with a West wall of 171.7' and South wall of 82.9' in a L
shape configuration. Are these City Hall wall dimensions correct as taken from a city drawing previously given in my Late
Correspondence letter to CC for the March 2 Meeting Agenda Item 3?
How close is my now revised estimate of 7775 sg ft for the real footprint?
Are the roof exterior dimensions same as the ground footprint? I can't see any real overhang when I look at the building.
Please confirm the number of 17,530 sq ft in the table is based on the footprint of the two individual floors including the
stairwell core plus some other unknown source of roughly 2000 sq ft? Should the sq ft data for City Hall be revised? I
believe the area of the two floors plus the stairs should be in the range of 15,550 sq ft.
By the way, the existing footprint of the LL Community building is 93.4'x31.1' for 2905 sq ft. measured on 3/14. How do
you get 5182 sq ft? Is that accomplished by adding in the roof overhang and the barn in back?
Is there some factor being used when the City buildings are measured for area?
Can you explain why there has never been a flag silhouette required to demonstrate the outlines of the proposed
New Ladera Linda Building?
Don Bell
On Mar 9, 2021, at 5:20 PM, Don Bell <dwbrpv@gm
ail.com> wrote:
Try City Owned Buildings in the Document Center. Another version by looking up Public buildings and
also try the SA Associates 2013 lnfastructure Report.
Ladera Linda 6 I found out is the Community Building but is misidentified in the SA report.
What would it take to verify the official area of the LL Community Building? I do not believe it is 5182 sq ft.
Even including the shack on the East End it is less than 4000 sq ft.
Don Bell
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 9, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Mr. Bell,
2
Just a couple of follow up questions to your inquiry:
• Do you the source that the table was derived from? Was it in a report, plan or
presentation?
• For your question about building no. 6, do you mean the Sign Maintenance
Building or the building listed as Ladera Linda 6?
Thank you,
Octavia Silva
Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenV Planning Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
octavios@rpvca.gov
(31 0) 544-5234
To limit public contact and help prevent the spread of COVID-19, City Hall is temporarily
closed to the public, but services are available by telephone, email, online and limited
curbside service. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working
remotely. 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: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:08 PM
To: Octavia Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda
Hi Octavia
Can you provide a current version of this table?
We are trying to understand what building is the building 6 in the table.
I am also wishing to verify that the area of the City Hall shown as 17,530 is actually the
total area of only the two floors and not some addition accessory structure. This would
suggest the actual area of its footprint is in the neighborhood of 7550 to 8765 sq ft?
Thanks
Don Bell
<image001.png>
3
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR MEETING *AMENDED AGENDA
MARCH 2, 2021
Agenda Regular Business Item 3
To Honorable Rancho Palos Verdes City. Council Members:
I bring a new point of reference addressing the Johnson Favaro Design for the
Ladera Linda Park Building that the Planning Committee approved.
There has never been an Architect or Staff presentation to the City Council,
Planning Commission or Public that gave fully dimensioned drawings or any
comprehensible point of reference concerning the actual size of the building or
its campus area.
Please review the attached four page study that offers dimensions of a building
that we all understand. Please excuse my rough notes on the drawings for I
only was able to clearly understand the reality of the approved design this
afternoon. Actually, only through the action of our City Manager, has the project
been fortuitously delayed to go to the Planning Committee. And the process
yielding a 7-0 vote to proceed came without any requirement for drawings with
overall dimensions or flagged silhouette to give the public ability to clearly see or
understand the size of the building.
Note that I had a very hard time finding a drawing that gave actual dimensions
of the City Hall Administration Building.
There is a lot for you to learn:
I would like to stress several points when you compare the John Favaro design
to City Hall.
The building is immense-it is longer at 251' than the 171.7' West wall of
City Hall,
it is wider at 53.25' than City Hall North Wing of 32.66',
and possibly higher at 16-6-1 /2' than the existing two story
City Hall Campus Administration building.
The structure might become the largest single public building in the city!
With the proposed amphitheater, the total campus length will be close to
or exceed the 300' length of a football field.
Neighborhood homeowners have never rejected the concept of updating
or replacing the existing school buildings. We simply wish to have a
facility that retains compatibility with the site, is sized to be an Eastside
neighborhood resource and not a Los Angeles County event center, and
limits the draw of traffic to allow local residents to continue with life
undisturbed by rental or Social Media popularity.
I am in support of an Appeal of the Planning Committee decision for I believe
they were not provided with proper reference to what the design actually would
be.
I am also in support of a City Council decision to reject the Johnson Favaro
design due to incompatibility with the city or neighborhood due to excessive
size. How did the prior council decision to reject the Fisher design to develop
something smaller yield the Johnson Favaro plans?
Don Bell
Ladera Linda
,..._
j
N
~
7
'!!---!
) ' '-2 lJ u
l v // ( /
'I u
0
IV) r
..
( .
..
-
j
i
0
0
'/>
\/I r
rj Jl
{I ::;j
2 r1 ") r-,I
J5 -(['_
N
f. ~ ~
p ~ + f ..J.
-1 !: 1 [} r-_)_..
(5
I
~1::
t;;
2
7
I o--
'{
~ -(_,
b 1 -~~
( .. t!
I !:'~ ? ~
~Pi J
(I u \.1
j
-<'7 --i 0
t-,
('-'-'?
..,..,
/
~
CJ
'•
\
\
... j ....
.. ..
I
4
I
I
I I
I
I v;.
I ,,.~
I
I -; ~~~ ( b1J
!·:-~ '\)
f
' l
J 0
I ' : --:____/)
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ;
~-.
,('
<
/''
J
tJ
. ' -I \i
I J ' I
I J
t!
)
(1
\"
cr :l
\1 J
.J
I fV1 (. d ,1\fl·-r-v
'r-:1. ~ rll v .,___
t.1.
~ r
fY-
J
~ -~
f I /'I I
-
-----
0 ,.-
-:r:
(A
/)
f]
,}--
lll
~
\ I
--'
l
1
)-
L'
Q [!__
~1 ....Y,
1-?
j
......--
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 29, 2021 7:48PM
Ken Rukavina; Octavio Silva
Subject: FW: : Ladera Linda Park Project
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
I his t>rnaii mcssagc contains information bclonginq to the City of Ri:lncho Palos Verdes, which may IJc privileqcd, confidential zmd/or protcctc~cl from disclosure.
r11e information is intt"nded only for use of th0 individual or 0ntit.y named. UnaulhoriLed dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohiililed. If you
received this email in error, or are not iln inlC:!nded recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation .
...... Gfi.TITOH
IP,... Google Play
From: Edward Stevens <ezstevens@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 202111:54 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: : Ladera Linda Park Project
1
\.
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project
Members of the City Council
We want to be on record with our agreement to the points Herb Stark makes regarding the scope and design of the
proposed Ladera Linda Park complex. We appreciate all the effort the P & R Department has taken over the years
planning and seeping this project, we just don't think the size and architecture of the proposed structure is compatible
with our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Edward & Barbara Stevens
Seaview-Conqueror
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 6:26AM
CityCierk
Subject: Fw: April 6, 2021 Ladera Linda Park proposal plan
Late carr
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Subject: April6, 2021 Ladera Linda Park proposal plan
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I oppose the the proposed plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
April Sandell
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, March 31,2021 4:12PM
Octavia Silva
Cc: Karina Banales
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Comments for the 4/6/2021 City Council Meeting, Ladera Linda
04_06_2021 City council letter Jay Fodor.pdf
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Available in the App Store and Google Play
....... GETITON
.,. Google Play
lhi'3 c·rncril mr:ssaqc contains infonnation bclon[Jinq to the City of Rancho Palos Vcrcl"s, which may be privile9cc!, confidential andjor protected from disclosure.
The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity narnccl. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyin9 is strictly prohibited. lf you
received this ernail in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the s"mlcr· irnmediately. Thank you for your assistance ancl cooper<JtiorL
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: Jay Fodor <jayfod61@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:12 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Daniel Trautner <DanieiT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments for the 4/6/2021 City Council Meeting, Ladera Linda
Please see the attached comments regarding the Ladera Linda project in support of the upcoming City Council Meeting
Thank you,
Jay Fodor
2nd Vice President
Los Serenos de Point Vicente
1
March 31, 2021
City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Dear Members ofthe City Council:
My name is Jay Fodor and I am the 2"d Vice President on the Board of Directors of the Los Serenos de
Point Vicente organization. I am currently the leader of our hiking program plus I serve as the chairman
of our Grants Oversight Committee. The Los Serenos volunteers are dedicated to serving the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes by doing the best we can to help execute the city's educational outreach goals.
The docents of Los Serenos contribute thousands of hours of our own time every year to help educate
children and adults from the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the Los Angeles area about the wonders of
nature and the importance of protecting the environment for future generations. Our organization only
exists to support the city.
I want to express the strong support myself and the other docents of Los Serenos have for the design
concept for the Ladera Linda Community center approved by the city council in 2019. Ladera Linda's
proximity to the Forrestal Nature Preserve makes it a perfect location to display our local artifacts,
allowing us to give participants in our programs a hands-on experience that has been invaluable as a
teaching tool for tens of thousands of young children over the years. The meeting room with display
cases and storage in the approved design, even though smaller than our current discovery room, can be
made functional with the ability to open up the room to the outside patio area as currently envisioned in
order for us to accommodate the 60-90 children we typically host on our school field trips.
I would also like to address the fact that another class room at Ladera Linda is currently used as a work
room for Los Serenos and to store thousands of historical artifacts owned by or loaned to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. The invaluable items stored are examples of the cultural and natural history of
the Palos Verdes Peninsula, including fossils, whale bones, native American artifacts, early whaling tools,
plus examples of the flora and fauna of the area. I have attached some photos as examples of what is
presently in the area. As a work room, Los Serenos used the space to assemble the Gray Whale
Skeleton currently on display at PVIC for example, and is currently assembling a Sperm Whale jaw
planned for display in the near future. lied a team of docents of Los Serenos in support of the 2019
approved design. We were willing to agree to a downscaled design for the storage area at the time,
even though the size was inadequate, based on assurances by city staff that the issue of storage and a
work space would be addressed prior to demolition of the old building. As of this time no concrete plan
has been proposed, so I ask that council consider increasing the size ofthe proposed storage space and
work room in the new facility, which would solve the long-term storage issue for your city owned
artifacts and allow Los Serenos the space to continue providing meaningful, up to date exhibits for the
city for years to come.
I want to thank the City Council in advance for your support of the City of Rancho Palos Verde's
educational outreach goals by continuing to proceed with the next phases of the Ladera Linda
Community Center project using the design concept approved by the city council in 2019 which includes
a replacement for the Discovery Room. I also ask that consideration by given to addressing our long -
term storage issue by increasing the size of the storage area in the currently approved design.
To aid in your decision process and to give you an appreciation for the valuable assets that the city
presently houses at Ladera Linda, I would like to offer any of you who are interested a guided tour of the
facility at a time of your choosing.
Jay Fodor
2"d Vice President, Los Serenos de Point Vicente
Chairman, Nature Walk and Hiking Program
Chairman, Grants Oversight Committee
Fig 1) Storage room At Ladera Linda, Whale Bone and Marineland Artifacts
Figure 2) Storage Room at Ladera Linda, Fossils
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear RPV City Council,
The Costleys <billmelandlindsey@cox.net>
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 8:01 PM
CityCierk
cc
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park-April 6th Appeal Hearing
We are longtime residents of the Ladera Linda community and are writing again to you let you know that we object to
the proposed design of the Ladera Linda Community Center. We do not believe such a large building is needed for a
local"community" center. We urge you to reject the current design and recommend a smaller and more traditional
facility similar to the one at Hesse Park. Traffic is already bad enough in our neighborhood and we do not want this to
turn into Del Cerro Park, Part 2.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill, Melinda and Lindsey Costley
Phantom Drive
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:29PM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Elaine Conovaloff <econova55@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:20PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I write this is dismay that again we as a city do not have one public pool for our citizens. Looking at your Ladera Linda
site you have not included a pool. Examination of nearby cities have public pools to offer swim classes, lap swimming
for all ages including the elderly and how to swim classes for the young along with aerobic water classes geared for all
ages.
1
Cities such as San Pedro, Torrance, Manhattan beach, Long Beach all have pools for their citizens use. To give you an
idea, places like Torrance plunge have more people than they have spaces for daily and they offer lap swimming daily,
mornings, afternoons, weekends,evenings, rain or shine outdoors monitored by lifeguards. The reservation list fills
within less than 4 minutes weekly. It is very popular with people of all ages. Lunch time classes are filled to capacity for
a minimal cost of $3 for seniors and $4 for the general public since covid began. Prior to covid they had more people
swimming in the pool and had to decrease the numbers per hour so the price went up from $2.00 and $3.00. They have
however increase the number of hours. This is the one activity that was allowed in this pandemic. Swimming is an
excellent activity for increasing the health of our citizens. It provides a way that our citizens who may not be able to
access the trails in town or be fearful by themselves to be hiking and still have meaningful exercise experiences. Instead
we have extremely costly private facilities such as country clubs that are not open to all community members.
I am aware that the high schools have pools. But honestly they are rarely open. Hours are short for about 6 weeks a
year and not daily. They set their hours generally in the morning only primarily for swim classes of the young children.
They do not gear up to the many working people in our community. And in the pandemic they still stayed closed even
though pools in Long Beach and Torrance were open.
I continue to hope that one day you provide space for those of us who love to swim or swim for exercise at one of the
public sites in our community.
Sincerely, Elaine Conovaloff
Sent from my iPad
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 3:06PM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda. Meeting
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Yvetta Williams <yvetta2@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 3:01 PM
To: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda. Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The planners and designers who are building for RPV need to know that there has to be workroom and storage for the
buildings they design. The discovery room design in the Ladera Linda building that is being proposed is totally
inadequate. Put it in another area and not in the main building if they are worried about space. How do you change
1
exhibits if you have no space for storage and no space for working? Ask the people that have experience doing this type
of work. I am sure they will not make the same mistake where there is not enough storage and working space at PVIC.
2
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Yvetta Williams <yvetta2@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:23 PM
CityCierk
cc
Ladera Linda. Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The planners and designers who are building for RPV need to know that there has to be workrooms and storage for the
buildings they design. The discovery room design in the Ladera Linda building that is being proposed for Ladera Linda is
totally inadequate. Put it in another area and not in the main building if they are worried about space. How do you
change exhibits if you have no space for storage and no space for working? Ask the people that have experience doing
this type of work. I am hoping that they will not make the same mistake they made when building PVIC. there is not
enough storage and working space at PVIC. (They were given 2 rooms from Ladera Linda and now they want to take
those away and have not set aside more room at Ladera Linda or anywhere else) HELP!!
Yvetta Williams (docent at PVIC)
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 29, 2021 10:14 AM
Karina Banales; Octavia Silva
Cc:
Subject:
Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Karina Banales; Trang Nguyen; Ramzi Awwad
FW: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park-IN SUPPORT OF!
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY OF
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
31 0-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
J;. Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail rnessaqe contains information bdonging to tho City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileqed, confidential and/or protected from disclosure.
I he information is intended only for use of the individual or entily named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. lf you
rcceivccl this email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immocliatcly. Thank you for your assistance ancl cooperation.
lil!tt.... G£TITON
.,. Google Play
From: Caren Becht <carenbecht@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 202112:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park-IN SUPPORT OF!
1
Dear City Council Members,
A Seaview resident here; feeling compelled to express my opinion regarding the new proposed
facility.
I'm very familiar with the current Ladera Linda Community Center, having often climbed the steps at
the top of Dauntless Drive to access the hiking trails.
The buildings that exist now are dilapidated and mostly unused. It's time for a change. For this
reason, I'm 100% in support of a new, nice community center that will offer it's residents something of
value to bring the community together.
While I do understand that everyone has an opinion and a right to express such, I've thought that
certain social media sites (Nextdoor, in particular) have featured posts/comments that are extremely
negative and inflammatory. I do not agree with those posts and know of others in the neighborhood
who feel the same way. However, in efforts to minimize attention or prolongation to those threads, I've
chosen not to engage and suspect that others "in favor" might have resisted engaging as well.
Having said this, I do respect those opposing opinions (as that's their right) and think that it's vital that
the Council continue to address legitimate concerns that neighbors may have regarding: traffic, safety
and cost.
Speaking of "safety", I will share this one last thing.
As a female, I personally do not always feel comfortable walking around or using the women's
bathroom at the current LL community center because the area feels gloomy, depressing and "very
isolated" to me.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer or expand on any of my comments.
Warm Regards,
Caren Becht
31 0-897-4578
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 2:45 PM
To:
Cc:
Octavio Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Available in the App Store and Google Play
ih... GETITOO
liP"" Google Play
111is e-mail mcssa~JC contains information belonging to tho City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure.
The information is intended only for use of the! individual or entity nc1med. Unauthorized dissemination, distribulion, or copying is strictly prolliilit:ed, If you
received this email in error, or arc not Jn intended recipient, please notify the sencler immediately, !hank you for your as,;istance and cooperation.
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 Directorv on
the City website.
From: Corinne <argentat@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, April1, 20211:49 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
The purpose of this email is to express my disagreement with your proposed plans for the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park.
First, the planned structure is too large and should be reduced significantly in square footage. The structure should be
similar in size to those structures in other city parks such as Hesse and Ryan. Further, the planned structure occupies
land that should be dedicated to the leisure and recreation of Rancho Palos Verdes citizens and other Peninsula
residents. The planned structure is also incompatible with our Peninsula lifestyle. For example, the City of Rolling Hills
Estates has dedicated the majority of land in its parks, e.g., Ernie Howlett Park and Highridge Park, to recreational use.
And Palos Verdes Estates boasts extensive green spaces for neighborhood use and enjoyment. Your planned structure is
1
ostentatious with the only apparent purpose being to increase the prestige of current City Council members and city
decision makers.
Second, the Ladera Linda Community Center as currently planned will increase traffic in an area which is already
congested, mainly due to Rancho Palos Verdes permitting two large commercial resorts, Terranea and Trump, to be built
in that same general area. Peninsula residents do not want to have to confront even more traffic congestion caused by
the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park.
Finally, at near $16 million, the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park plans are far too expensive. Revenue of the
city of Rancho Palos Verdes should be spent on a project destined for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of Rancho
Palos Verdes, not for the gratification of its City Council and city decision makers.
For all these reasons, I request that you significantly reduce the square footage of the planned structure on the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park site.
Sincerely,
Corinne Cortes
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mba rnes@ rpvca .gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 8:31 AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda Community Center
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 8:26 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Members of the City Council,
I would like to voice my concern over the plans being discussed for the Community Center at Ladera Linda. Since
1 \.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:26PM
Octavia Silva
Cc: Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center???
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mba rn es@ rpvca .gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Available in the App Store and Google Play
........ GETITON
~ Google Play
1 his e-mail rnessaqe contains information bclonqing to the City of P.anclro l'alos Verdes, which may IJc privilqjccl, confidential ;mel/or protected frorn disclosure.
Tire' information is lnlcncJt:d only for usc of the individual or entity nilmcd. lJnauthorilt~d dissc:rninal.ion, distribution, or copying is strictly prohiilil.c:d. lf you
n•cciwd this email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you fm your dssistancc and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: Alice Gunderson <agunderson1@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 20211:20 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center???
Dear Council Members ..... How many times do we have to re-visit the Ladera Linda Commuunity Center? We have had
numerous studies, resident surveys and meetings ..... and here we go again!!!
The Community has spoken ...... the more times only makes people more apprehensive of what are the Council's reasons
are to spend more money.
Alice Gunderson
3737 Vigilance Drive.
310-528-4738
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12 :46 PM
CityCierk
FW: Ladera Linda New Building Proposed Design
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 202112:43 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda New Building Proposed Design
CAUTION : This email originated from outside of the CitY. of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members,
Oh it's no so big! I would be happy to have that sitting next to my home! Some in favor of the Proposed
Design keep making these comments.
I suggest you consider this:
Is a Boeing 747-400 big? It is only 232' long nose to tail. The new building is 251'.
How about a historic building that can be seen for miles in Athens Greece? The Parthenon on the Acropolis on
the top step of its base is only 228.14' long. Do we really need a bigger building than that at 251' long sitting at
the end of an already congested street?
Our RPV City Hall closer to home has a West Wall that faces Hawthorne that is only 171. 7' long. And at two
stories high will only be slightly higher than the 16 .5' tall giant planned for Ladera Linda . Can you agree that
251 'long by 16 .5' tall is excessively large for its purpose?
I also want a new Building in a Neighborhood Park. But the JF design is out of place, too costly at $12 million ,
and the last thing we need now is another reason to attract visitors. Please have the courage to approve
another building that is compact, fiscally responsible, neighborhood compatible and not an architectural
exercise.
Oh -By the way! It will be almost as long as the Trump Clubhouse shown here with an overlay of the 251 ' by
53.3 ' roof. That definitely is BIG!
1 ' .
Don Bell
LLHOA
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Project April 6 Decision
From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 202110:10 AM
To: CC <.CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project April 6 Decision
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am scheduled to speak on April 6 yet I am compelled to make this plea.
I directed a question to the JF Team at the first LLHOA input design meeting. At the time the meeting was
scheduled in February 2019, the JF team and R&P had already created a model and design
drawings. Although we had been led to believe we would have initial input, that obviously never
happened. When I asked if anything we offered at that meeting would be considered the answer from JF was
NO! There was never any neighborhood participation in the design! That approach by R&P to neighborhood
design participation was exactly the same as the process that produced the rejected Fisher design.
You must not believe what R&P has said about community participation. Each and every one of our numerous
efforts to participate has been rejected. Our spokesperson was even shut down by Matt Waters at the so called
Community Meeting in February 2018 when he attempted to introduce our LLHOA first Community Usage
Survey. That survey was never included in materials displayed by R&P. And the July 2019 meeting was
adjourned before a public vote on the design was allowed. So the design you are voting on has never been
accepted by the vast majority of local residents.
I spent a career in business management in several high growth organizations with annual revenue over $1
billion dollars. My direct budgets exceeded $100 million dollars. I can share that I never would have been
able nor want to make plans for expenditures on the scale that your Director of Recreation & Parks has
managed to accomplish without an approved cost estimate and value analysis. Prior Council Decisions have
enabled him to cumulatively spend $1 OO's of thousands of dollars with nothing accomplished but a model and
a few preliminary drawings. There is no firm handle on how much this project will actually cost. In fact the
staff report states that: These costs can increase the project totals by at least 30% to 50%, particularly
when projects are in the early planning stages. So you are being asked to approve $15.7 million
dollars that has every chance of becoming much more expensive. And after all this time; why is it
only now, years into the project, that the first staff projected costs surfaced? And they will only tell
you more cost numbers after you approve the project to proceed. This is wrong and you are being
asked to go deeper into this unwanted money pit.
The Ladera Linda Project is clearly being mismanaged in the wrong department. You must reassign the
project to the Public Works Department where it should have been from the beginning. Although the city is not
a profit oriented organization, it has to function in a fiscally responsible manner and insure that taxpayer funds
are being spent with controls and close guidance. I always had a Board of Directors or direct management
above me. I never planned without clear evidence of the feasibility, budgeted costs, and need to insure the
money being spent was properly budgeted and controlled. And it never cost me even a tiny fraction of what
1
the city has already spent to prepare a cost based proposal for approval. This project has been managed
exactly backwards to achieve fiscally responsible results.
Yes, it is tempting for you to continue on the path that has now dragged on for many years. But this is the time
to start over and do the project correctly. You already clearly have the essentials to determine a functional
design. Just go with a PVIC style building, include a multi-purpose room and another flexible classroom similar
to Hesse Park and employ a landscape consultant to upgrade the park and parking areas. Nothing more is
needed! Amazingly, the Park areas being proposed will be more expensive at $9.4 million dollars than
the building and is not being critiqued! Design to end all the grading! Moving the project to Public
Works will be successful and save a serious amount of money. Please refuse to approve the staff
recommendation.
Don Bell
Ladera Linda
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park -more public opinions
From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April1, 202110:07 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park-more public opinions
Dear City Councilmembers:
On March 10, 2021, one of our RPV and Ladera Linda residents, Ed Hummel, posted an article on Nextdoor about the
current plans for Ladera Linda park. He posted to all neighborhoods he could, which I believe is 18 neighborhoods. Areas
as far away as Crest and Eastview, for example, where included (just to give you an idea of how far his message
reached). In his post, Ed showed renderings and information gleaned from the Johnson Favarro website regarding this
project.
His post was heavily comment on. As of March 30, there were 191 comments from 40 different individuals from a wide
range of locations. I went thru those comments and did some analysis. 12 people expressed various opinions that could
not be closely connected to either approval or disapproval of the current plans. That leaves 28 people that commented
very decidedly as being either in favor, or opposed to, the current plans.
Of those 28 people, 9 were in favor of the current proposed plans for Ladera Linda Park, while 19 were against.
That's 68% against.
Reasons cited for being against included high cost, unnecessary large size, security concerns, open bathroom concept,
attracting crowds with expansive views and other amenities, traffic, etc.
Even more interesting is the following. I checked driving distance from each of the 28 people (based on their Nextdoor
area) to the park.
For those living within 2.5 miles driving distance to the park (a total of 12 commenters), 91% were against the
proposed design.
I do realize that opinions expressed on Nextdoor do not represent a scientific polling, but I do believe they provide
another data point that you should be considering. I also believe staff has misrepresented the sentiments of the local
community in the latest official city newsletter, in which they stated "the approved design retained the existing low key
neighborhood feel, maintaining existing popular elements such as the paddle tennis and basketball courts, playground
and lower field, and addressed adjacent neighbors' concerns about view, noise, security, and other quality of life issues."
The comments on Nextdoor, and in the public comment letters in the recent staff report, do not correspond to staff's
statement.
Regards
Gary Randall
1
(P.S. I am happy to provide details of my analysis, if you request those from me).
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: grapecon@cox.net
Sent:
To:
Friday, April 2, 2021 6:34AM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina
Subject: FW: Staff report comment analysis
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello Octavia and Ken:
When do you anticipate publishing the late correspondence package for the April 6th CC meeting? If it is done
sometime Monday, I can try to update my analysis below and send it in on Tuesday.
If you normally don't publish late correspondence until late in the day Tuesday, might you consider publishing an interim
late correspondence package on Monday afternoon, and then a follow up one Tuesday afternoon? I realize this is extra
work, but I believe this statistical information is important for the CC to be aware of as they make their decisions.
Thank you
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 202111:44 AM
To: CC@rpvca.gov; cityclerk@rpvca.gov
Subject: Staff report comment analysis
Dear City Councilmembers:
I am still studying the staff report for the Ladera Linda Park plans in preparation for the April 6th meeting, but I did take
some time to go through the comment letters in detail.
The viewpoints of 26 people are represented by the letters. Of those:
2 are in favor of the current proposal {8%)
24 are against the current proposal for the park {92%).
I will be shocked if you ignore the pleas of the 92%. This is not a "small minority" that opposes the design, as has been
either directly stated or indirectly implied by some in recent months and years. In fact, it is quite the opposite ..... those
in favor represent a very small minority.
If you argue that 26 people is not statistically significant, please consider that these 26 people cared enough to take the
time to express their opinions, before your stated 3/23/ deadline in the public notice, while the remainder of the 41,000
residents of RPV did not. So yes, I believe their voice carries very high weight that you cannot ignore.
1 am also shocked at the latest staff estimated cost of $15.7M for this project (not counting the nearly $1M either spent
or committed to so far) ... this is out of control it would be a complete fiscal irresponsibility to move forward.
1
\ .
I personally wrote a letter, but did not realize the deadline to be included in the staff report was March 23, so it will be
included in the late correspondence package. If a late correspondence package is released in time for me to update this
analysis and include those, I will do so and send you the results.
Thanks
Gary Randall
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing on April 6, 2021
From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing on April6, 2021
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I would support the appeal of this project, in hopes that the City Council would consider
forming a Citizen Advisory Committee, broadly balanced, of course, to assist with public
input on new design, City Staff coordination and support of or mitigation of any issues
brought forth by residents living around the Ladera Linda/Forrestal area.
It appears most letters of objection have to do with the size and design of the proposed
Community Center, but traffic, noise, etc. were other well-founded objections. I believe
that a more scaled-down version of the proposed Community Center could still
accommodate a couple of classrooms, a meeting room, discovery room and more.
I will not speak to the architecture of the proposed building, but I cannot fathom 51 °/o
glass without looking into how to protect it and at what cost. In addition, only 54
parking spaces for approximately a possible 108 attendees in two classrooms, an
additional number of people in the meeting room, hikers, those playing hoops, families
with children and visitors, all at one time! Absurd!
As a former member of the Equestrian Committee, a PV Loop Trail Segment Adopter and
a former member of the Forrestal Committee, I am all too familiar with the Ladera Linda
homeowners and their very vocal opposition to equestrians, limited trail use, absolutely
no tie ups near their Community Center, and no accessing the Forrestal Trails via
Forrestal Drive, thus, resulting in red-painted curbs all the way down to Palos Verdes
Drive South!
The equestrian community needs to be treated like all other residents/visitors to our
public spaces, where allowed, and that designated parking for trucks and trailers and
larger vehicles need to be included in the parking/traffic plan, providing adequate turn-
around space.
Finally, please advocate for equal access for the equestrian community in the new
design. The City failed to develop Gateway Park or provide a parking lot to access the
Preserve from PVDrive South, therefore, leaving the equestrian community without any
1
way to access the open spaces and trails, purchased and developed with public tax
dollars, in our very own community.
Thank you for considering all trail users in future design plans.
Madeline Ryan
RPV Resident
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Karina Banales
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park April 6th
From: aj <aj@grape-ts.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:20AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park April 6th
Hello:
I am writing to you today as a 24 for year resident of LLHOA (my entire life). I grew up walking to and enjoying the
uncrowded playgrounds and fields at the local park with my family and friends.
I am strongly opposed to the current plans before the city to develop Ladera Linda park into an attraction that would
surely bring in many, many visitors if constructed.
The current proposal is far from "low key," as recent city publications have claimed. There is no need to open up ocean
views. There is no need for any more than a simple, low cost, 2 or 3 room community center. There is no need for an
amphitheater (or terraced seating area, as it is now being referred to in an effort to downplay the impact). There is no
need for displaying artifacts from the Discovery room, as any of those that are important (which are few) belong at the
museum at PVIC.
There are already way too many visitors coming to RPV creating traffic, crime, trash, and a whole host of other
problems. Please do not attract more!
And please stop all the other activity you are doing to attract people to the preserves, beaches, and parks. We don't
need shuttle busses. We don't need to add more parking. We don't need electronic signs directing people where to
go. We don't need or want social media advertising of all of this. On the contrary, what we need is to have very limited
parking and increased enforcement so that crowds can be kept down to more manageable levels.
Respectfully
AJ
1 \.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Monday, March 29, 2021 9:44AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda Park design
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
. ~ ..
w"
0"
0 ·>-~·· ...
Available in the App Store and Google Play
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
........ G€TITOO
IJ""" Google Play
1 his c>rnail rnessa\JC: contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, co11fidential amljol' prot:cct:cd from disclosure.
Ti1(; information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. lJnaulhori?crJ disseminiltion, distribution, or copyi119 is strictly prohillited. Jf you
received thi:; email in error, or arc not an intended recipient:, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: Barbara Meskin <barbrpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 9:43 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park design
The building is too large, it will be an attractive nuisance to the community, destroying the quality of life of the residents
living around the park.
As a Ladera Linda resident, I do not approve of the current plane.
You must reconsider!
Thank you,
Barbara Meskin
1
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Monday, March 29, 2021 8:27AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda Park Facility
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Donald Bricker <donbricker32@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 9:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Facility
YguSMy wife and I are original home owners in the Ladera Linda tract since 1963. We have seen many changes in 58
years some good some bad ,but none as inane and out of step with the needs or wants of the residents. There is no
mention of noise pollution which we have been spared from during the past year due to the pandemic there have been
no soccer league games.On holidays and week ends during the season you must keep your windows closed to keep the
noise out not to mention the added traffic and parking problems.To make matters worse there has been added a trail
head across from the drive way leading to the park At one time there was a proposal for horse stables and parking for
horse trailers .There seems to be no end to silliness.
1
\
If this glass monstrosity is approved and built it will be a magnet to the homeless etc. plus the increase in traffic it will
generate.As I recall the neighbor park proposal was sold to us as keeping it a neighborhood park not turning it into a
South Bay Regional Park.Our school tax money was used to purchase and build the current building's it should be kept
for local use .I have seen proposals of cast being as high as thirteen million dollars which means with government
involved it will probably be closer to thirty million. We don't see why the tax payers of RPV should be paying to provide
soccer facilities etc for non residents. Plus the additional traffic on Forrestal which people can't seem to resist speeding
on make a danger to exit the neighborhood when these events are going on. Then when you try to get on to PV dr South
your life is in danger with all the traffic .Plus there is the traffic coming from the golf course most of which appear to be
coming from the park and beach. What we need most at that intersection is a traffic signal not accurate-ration lanes or
roundabouts as was recently suggested.Further is seems Mr Linder more interested in improving his resume than doing
the will of the tax payers of RPV not special .Maybe the council should consider terminating his employment so he is free
to bigger and better things.Aiso if this thing is shoved down our throats maybe some recalls will be in order seems a lot
of that going around lately Donald and Louella Bricker
Sent from my iPad
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 29, 2021 10:16 AM
Ken Rukavina; Octavia Silva
Cc:
Subject:
Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Karina Banales; Trang Nguyen; Ramzi Awwad
FW: Ladera Linda Park proposal
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
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-111ail rncssaoc contnins information belonqin9 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privilcqccl, confidential ancljor protected frorn cli,;closurc.
1 he infornl<Jtion is intendc:cl only for usc of the individual or entity narncd. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prollillitc~d. lf you
received this email in error, ot arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. I hank you for yolll' assistance and cooperation.
lill!r.... GETITON
P"" Google Play
From: mark dehaan <madehaan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 202110:38 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park proposal
1
\
Mayor and City Council members:
It is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of most of the residents of Ladera Linda, that the proposed community center at
Ladera Linda Park is entirely too massive. There is extremely limited access to the proposed facility which will cause a
great deal of auto congestion along the perimeter to our neighborhood. It has come to my attention that the proposed
structure would be 7 times larger than any other facility in the city. Every feature of the current design proposal will only
encourage more and more visitors, homeless, trash, crime and noise to our community.
Please do not allow this project to move forward as it is currently proposed by the Parks and Recreation Department. The
residents of Ladera Linda would prefer a much smaller facility to serve our community rather than attract outside visitors.
Mark DeHaan
LLHOA resident
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Monday, March 29, 2021 8:32AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda Park
Megan Barnes Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Play
.... GETlTOO
I" Google Play
I his e-mail rnessaqe contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, whicllrnay be privilegccl, confidential and/or protected from disclosure.
ll1c inio1 rna\! on is intended only for use of !he individual or enl ily named, Unaulhorizc:d cli1;semination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohillilNL If you
received this email in crmr, or arc not an intended recipient, pk:ase notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and coo1x:ration,
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: scorpion4@cox.net <scorpion4@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:29AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
Dear City Council:
Please do not approve moving forward with the current plans for Ladera Linda Park. I do not want to see even more
crowds and visitors coming to this area. If this facility is built as proposed, it will open up coastal and ocean views
available throughout the park and from every room in the mostly glass building. All we have to do is look at the crowds
in the preserves, at PVIC, at Abalone Cove, at Founder's Park, and at other local places to understand this.
I am 26 years old and have lived in Ladera Linda for 24 years.
1
\.
Thanks
Chris
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Thursday, April1, 2021 10:45 AM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda Park
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: William Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April1, 202110:41 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council members,
Please consider the pleas of those of us that live in Ladera Linda. You have heard them all. I will not repeat. I will say,
however, as you make your decisions going forward, if any staff proposal presents any element of a building plan that
1
even suggests an increase in visitors, please decline and send them back to the drawing boards. For all of our sakes, keep
this a neighborhood park. Keep it small.
Sharon Schurmer.
Sent from Bill's iPhone
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 6:27AM
CityCierk
Fw: Ladera Linda Park
From: Suzie Wolfrum <suziewolfrum@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:41 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
I live in Mira Catalina and my family and I have enjoyed our life here for over 28 years. I have read some of the em ails
that people sent to our city about the new Ladera Linda park, many of which came from people that don't live in that
neighborhood, and many others that probably don't even live in RPV. An example would be the Docent's all sending
em ails and speaking in favor of a larger Discovery Room, when most of them don't even live in our city. Who is the city
really building this new park to serve? It should be built for our residents, but we should be listening to the concerns of
our residents who live closest to the park. Maybe the intent is for it to be a profit center and advertise on social media
for room rentals throughout the Los Angeles area? I hope this is not the plan, because that's a horrible idea.
My children visited the Discovery Room once, but it was never something they wanted to visit regularly. We hiked to
visit the Dean Dana Park Museum, through the El Prado neighborhood, where my children enjoyed the many live
animals and nature exhibits that are there. Dean Dana Museum was a lot more interesting to them than the Discovery
Room because of the live rattlesnakes, spiders, lizards and even an owl. The Native Indian stories and their exhibits,
which are native to our area were also of great interest to my children.
What really caught my attention was a recent article in the PVP Watch newsletter. I sympathize with those people that
live next to that park and have to constantly face all of the noise and traffic. Even if you built a park twice that size it
would not affect me and my family at all, but it sure would be an impossible headache for the residents of Ladera Linda.
The proposed park is too big for that area. My children played AVSO soccer there and I know about the lines of traffic
waiting to make a left turn on PVDS after the soccer games each weekend. I was one of those soccer mom's. The traffic
was a nightmare!
The design of this park shows that it will be very expensive to build and most residents would not want to spend $12
million for such a park. I just recently read in our local newspaper that Rolling Hills Estates was constructing a new
building for the George Canyon park that was a bit smaller for less than $2 million. Why is ours so expensive?
Please reconsider the current plan. It is not what is best for our beautiful Palos Verdes community.
Sincerely,
Suzie Wolfrum
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5202 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www. rpvca .gov
Ara Mihranian
Monday, March 29, 2021 12:23 PM
Ken Rukavina; Octavia Silva
Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Karina Banales; Trang Nguyen; Ramzi Awwad
FW: Ladera Linda Project
111 Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Hildebrand <judbabe7@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 202111:04 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council Members,
Please consider reducing the size of the Ladera Linda building. The LL community does not like the flat roof, rest room
location, all the glass and the size of the building. I am very concerned about the traffic that this project will bring in. It is
very hard getting out of our neighborhood at Forrestal Drive and PVDS now so I can't imagine what it's going to be like
once LL Center is built. I very strongly believe we need a signal at Forrestal and PVDS.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Judy Hildebrand
1
\ '
Safety Chairman on the LL Homeowners Association Board
Sent from my iPhone
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 3:21 PM
To:
Cc:
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda proposed building OPPOSED
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available In the App Store and Google Play
Ill!.... G£T IT ON
IPJIP"' Google Play
illis e-mail messaqc contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or pmtccted frorn disclosure.
ril(c info1rnalion is intended only for use of lh0! individual or ('nlily named, Unauthorized dissemination, dis!rilJulion, or copying is stricl:ly prol1itlite(L If you
rccciv(:d this email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your assistance and coopc;ration.
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.
From: Nancy Ohara <nanceo33@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 3:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda proposed building OPPOSED
I live in the Ladera Linda neighborhood and I am very much opposed to the excessive proposed design for the Ladera
Linda community center. I do not want a large facility built or the existing vegetation ripped out to accommodate
tourists who visit the area.
This is not the first time i have voiced my opposition and I know there are MANY others in the city who feel the same.
Why is the city council not listening to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes?
Do you not see the increase in trash, traffic and noise since March 2020? What is the city doing about this?
Unbelievable.
Nancy Ohara
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Size Comparisons
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 20211:46 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Size Comparisons
I would like to clear up the various misrepresented building and roof size comparisons made between the
present park building and the proposed new park building in various staff reports. First of all Lareda Linda was
a former school site and you cannot compare the footprint of a former K thru 5 grade school site to a city park.
Their size and usages are as different as apples and oranges. Various staff reports have shown different
footprint sizes for both the existing and new parks depending on their narrative. Usable footprint square
footage is constantly interchanged with the roof square footage (because of the roof overhangs) to suit their
narrative of a 64% reduction in building size. Footprint means the portion of a building that touches the
ground. Roof size means the overall dimensions of the roof. Previous staff reports failed to mention that there
even was an overhang on the new park building. Steve Johnson's video presentation at a prior Council meeting
did mention an overhang, but I had to request drawings from our City Manager that were not released to the
public. Even with the drawings the overall dimensions of the building footprint and the total roof overhang
were missing. I had to add up the various separate dimensions to obtain the overall dimensions.
The current version staff report states that the existing 5 building complex has a 19,000 square feet (SF)
footprint even though, as far back as the staff report of the 10/18/16 Council meeting states (on page 4,
paragraph 2) "Staff discovered that Ladera Linda's current five-building footprint is approximately 13,500 SF,
not 18,000 SF as was originally thought".
Our Ladera Linda neighbors physically measured the existing buildings and roof SF. In addition to the 13,500
footprint, there are 6 foot roof overhangs on the front of each building and 4 foot overhangs on the rear of
each building, which were measured for an additional 4,300 SF of overhang on the existing buildings. They
thus verified that the footprints for the 5 buildings do measure 13,500 SF instead of the 19,000 SF as shown in
the staff reports.
The current written notice I received from RPV in the mail dated 03/11/21, for the Council meeting, states that
staff is reducing an existing 19,000 building (in gross area) down to a 6,750 SF for a size reduction of 64% is
pure nonsense. The actual footprint of the new building is also understated. As best I could measure, the
building size is 251 feet long and 33 feet wide or 8,283 SF.
For the issue of the size of the roof plus the huge overhang I had to scale the drawings furnished by the City
Manager. The roof size, including the overhang all the way around the building, is 275 feet long and 53 feet
wide or 14,575 SF. So much so for all ofthe size reductions the staff reports claim.
To further confuse the existing park size, just open up RPV's new "My RPV" app and click on Parks, and then
click on Ladera Linda Community Center. You will find yet another different description and "size" for the
existing Ladera Linda park with a total of 3 equivalent classrooms. In their description of the park they state
"The Community Center offers a classroom and a multipurpose room for rent. The multipurpose room can
accommodate up to 125 guests, has a linoleum floor and use of a full service kitchen is available at an extra
1
charge. The classroom will accommodate up to 40 people, is carpeted and is perfect for meetings and classes.
Tables and chairs are available at no charge with all room rentals". From their description, how much of their
19,000 SF former school site are they really using as a park?
Because of the confusion created with the building and roof overall dimensions, it is difficult to visualize how
large a 14,575 SF roof will look like. I strongly recommend that a flagged silhouette be constructed on the site
in the exact position where the building will be located. After all, any resident building a new home or
remodeling an existing home and exceeding our city 16 foot height limit would have to do the same thing. This
will allow everyone to actually see the true size of the roof. Another thought that came to my mind was with
the very high winds we are experiencing, is having such a large overhang roof a danger? Can this overhang
roof survive these large wind storms?
In summary, I think you can see that the staff reports have distorted the actual old and new building
dimensions to promote their narrative. You, the City Council, should expect and assume that all of the
information included in the staff reports for your Council meetings to be accurate, true and not distorted. As
you can see this is not the case because this practice has been going on for years to satisfy their narratives. I
feel that this practice by staff should be addressed and resolved so that you can be confident that your
meeting staff reports are factual, true and not distorted.
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda: Comparisons of Present Park to Proposed New Park
From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April4, 2021 4:49 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda: Comparisons of Present Park to Proposed New Park
I would like to clear up the various misrepresented building and roof size comparisons made between the
present park building and the proposed new park building in various staff reports. First of all Lareda Linda
was a former school site and you cannot compare the footprint of a former K thru 5 grade school site to a city
park. Their size and usages are as different as apples and oranges. Various staff reports have shown different
footprint sizes for both the existing and new parks depending on their narrative. Usable footprint square
footage is constantly interchanged with the roof square footage (because of the roof overhangs) to suit their
narrative of a 64% reduction in building size. Previous staff reports failed to mention that there even was an
overhang on the new park building. Steve Johnson's video presentation at a prior Council meeting did
mention an overhang, but I had to request drawings from our City Manager that were never released to the
public. Even with the drawings the overall dimensions of the building footprint and the total roof overhang
were missing. I had to add up the various separate dimensions to obtain the overall dimensions.
The current version staff report states that the existing 5 building complex has a 19,000 square feet (SF)
footprint even though, as far back as the staff report of the 10/18/16 Council meeting states (on page 4,
paragraph 2) "Staff discovered that Ladera Linda's current five-building footprint is approximately 13,500 SF,
not 18,000 SF as was originally thought". Also
Our Ladera Linda neighbors, just last week, physically measured the existing building footprint and it is
13,500 SF. They thus verified that the footprints for the 5 buildings do measure 13,500 SF instead of the
19,000 SF as shown in the staff reports.
The current written notice I received from RPV dated 03/11/21, for the Council meeting, states that staff is
reducing an existing 19,000 building (in gross area) down to a 6, 790 SF for a size reduction of 64% is
pure nonsense. The actual footprint of the new building is also understated. As best I could measure, the
building size is 251 feet long and 33 feet wide or 8,283 SF.
For the issue of the size of the roof plus the huge overhang I had to scale the drawings furnished by the City
Manager. The roof size, including the overhang all the way around the building, is 275 feet long and 53 feet
wide or 14,575 SF. So much so for all ofthe size reductions the staff reports claim.
To further confuse the existing park size, just open up RPV's new "My RPV" app and click on Parks, and
then click on Ladera Linda Community Center. You will find yet another different "size" for the existing Ladera
Linda park with a total of 3 equivalent classrooms. In their description of the park they state "The Community
Center offers a classroom and a multipurpose room for rent. The multipurpose room can accommodate up to
125 guests, has a linoleum floor and use of a full service kitchen is available at an extra charge. The classroom
will accommodate up to 40 people, is carpeted and is perfect for meetings and classes. Tables and chairs are
available at no charge with all room rentals". From their description, how much of their 19,000 SF former
1
school site are they really using as a park? Putting square feet in their description would show a building of
around 4,000 sq ft. So take your pick, what is the staff's existing usage size? It differs based on staff narrative.
Because of the confusion created with the building and roof overall dimensions, it is difficult to visualize
how large a 14,575 SF roof will look like. I strongly recommend that a flagged silhouette be constructed on the
site in the exact position where the building will be located. This will allow everyone to actually see the true
size of the roof.
In summary, I think you can see that the staff reports have distorted the actual old and new building
dimensions to foster their narrative. You, the City Council, should expect and assume that all of the
information included in the staff reports for your Council meetings to be accurate and true. As you can see this
is not the case because this practice has been going on for years to satisfy their narrative. I feel that this
practice of staff should be addressed and resolved so that you can be confident that the staff reports are
factual and true.
2
Enyssa Momoli
To:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
RE: Ladera Linda
From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 202111:42 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the City Council,
Ladera Linda is a grammar school site embedded in a residential community. A grammar school generates traffic
Monday through Friday in the mornings, as children are dropped off at school, and in the afternoon as they are picked
up. A few evening events, such as parent-teacher night can be anticipated. School playgrounds can be expected to be
used for sports activities that support our youth. But evening and weekend events such as meetings, weddings, social
events, evening classes, etc. on a seven day a week basis are not expected for such a site. I know, as my home backs up
to a grammar school. Further, all day traffic generated by the type of use contemplated for this site would be overly
burdensome on the surrounding community.
As a result of changing demographics and the graying of the Peninsula, the school was closed for use as a school.
Replacement use should be consistent with that which would be expected in a small residential community.
Use of Ladera Linda as a community center makes sense, so that site does not lie in waste unused; that said, turning it
into a facility with use significantly more intense needs to be looked at with a very discerning eye. We have no need for
a Discovery Center that is designed to draw throngs of people from all over and we certainly do not need to create
another Del Cerro traffic and parking debacle.
The facility is too large, and needs to be scaled down. The uses need to be limited in terms of number of functions, time
and character so that the impact on the surrounding community is no greater than would be expected of a grammar
school.
I understand that the City may consider seeking grants to help fund the project. We do not need or want grants to pay
for what we want; if we cannot afford to do it on our own nickel, then we should not do anything beyond what we can
afford. As we all know, no grant comes without numerous strings attached. I can envision a grant requiring maximizing
public outreach to assure that everyone who is a resident of the agency that provides the grant be encouraged to visit
the site 7 days a week and create traffic congestion far exceeding that which would be generated by a school facility. I
strongly insist that any consideration of a grant first be disclosed to the residents, and the terms and conditions of any
such grant be fully disclosed and commented on by residents. We do not want or need a grant that mandates bus loads
of people be brought to the site to visit a "Discovery Center". And to discover what? Is there anything so important for
us to "Discover" at this site that cannot already be discovered at the natural history museum and other museums in
downtown or at another more suitable location? Please do not authorize staff to submit any applications for grants until
all of the terms, provisions, conditions and restrictions of any such grant are fully disclosed to the residents, with the
residents being given an opportunity to comment.
Thank you for your decision to appeal the Planning Commission's determinations. I hope you will consider my comments
at the upcoming meeting.
1
Sincerely,
Sharon Yarber
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 29, 2021 7:46PM
Ken Rukavina; Octavia Silva
Subject:
Late correspondence.
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
FW: Ladera Linda,
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?
! hie; c·mail message contains information bclonqinq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which rnay be confidential and/or protected from disclosure.
i he information is intended only for use of the indivicludl o1· entity 11il111l!li, UnauthoriLt:d disseminillion, or copying is strictly proili!Jit:ed, JJ you
rQG~ivcd this E~rnail in error, or are not. an intended recipient, please notify the sendr:r inlrnediatRiy. Tl1ank you for your assistance ancl coopc:ratiorL
...... GETITOO
IJ"" Google Play
From: Malia Carlsen <maliawakinekona@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 20214:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda,
1
[
\. ·~
To Whom it may concern,
I am writing to say that I oppose the current plan to build the proposed building in our park. I am
opposed to creating a building that does not use resources wisely or provide proper spaces for use by
the community. I do not want to deal with increased noise, traffic, and trash so near my home. Please
stop and listen to the residents of our neighborhood!
Sincerely,
Malia CArlsen
32257 Sea Raven Drive
RPV, CA 90275
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 3:12PM
Octavia Silva
Cc: Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Play
lih... GET IT ON
P"" Google Play
fhis e-mail messane contains information belonging to tho City of Rancho fJalos Vcr·des, which may be privileged, confidential ancljor protected fmm disclosUI c.
The infonnation is inlenrk:d only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, m copyinn is strictly prohillited. If you
rcccivccl thi'; email in ermr, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooporal:ion.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: Sharon Yarber <SYarber@firstam.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:24PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: sharon <sharon@sharonyarber.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda
Dear Council,
Further to my prior email, I share the same concerns that have been expressed by others about joint restroom facilities. We need a
separate restroom for women, a separate restroom for men, and for those who do not feel comfortable going in either then we should
have a couple of single use facilities where the toilet/urinal and sink are all self contained in one room. Please require adjustments to
be made with respect to the restroom facilities.
Also, I do want to express the importance of making horse trailer parking available and usable as a practical matter, not just
conceptually. There needs to be room for a large truck with attached trailer and turn around space. This is the only entrance into the
Preserve that can and must accommodate parking of horse trailers. To simply make trails available to people who can ride from their
stables into the Preserve is not sufficient. Not every horse owner can ride into the Preserve and must haul their horse if they want to
1
\·
enjoy it. This must be accommodated, otherwise there is overt discrimination against equestrians which would not be in keeping with
the intent of the Preserve being accessible to all users.
Thank you.
Sharon Yarber, Esq.
******************************************************************************************
This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee{s) named
above or may contain information that is legally privileged.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are
hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the
original message and any copies immediately thereafter.
If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let
us know and we will remove you from our distribution list.
Thank you.
******************************************************************************************
FAFLD
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 1:33 PM
To:
Cc:
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
. ""'
"" r~ ""~""" .. , .... ,
0 --~,~-... .,
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Available In the App Store and Google Play
...... GfTITON
P"""' Google Play
i his e-mail message contains information belonging to tile City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential ancl/m protected from disclosure.
Tile information is intended only for use of lhe individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribulizlll, or copying is strictly prohillit:cd. If you
received this email in error, or arc not an intended ;·ccipicnt:, please notify the sene/or immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: sharon <sharon@sharonyarber.com>
Sent: Thursday, April1, 2021 5:51PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: sharon <sharon@sharonyarber.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda
Dear Council,
One final {I hope) thought on this project. As you know, the vast majority of residents do not pay attention to what is
going on in the City. People only seem to start paying attention when there is a construction project near their homes,
which is why the majority of comments on this project have come from residents in the immediate neighborhood who
will most feel the impact of this development.
Since we are clearly not going to pay for this solely out of our own funds, and since staff has opined that a PPP of this
smaller size, relatively speaking, would not be attractive to a private developer, we are left with two funding sources. I
1
\ '
have already written to you about the need to disclose fully to residents any and all conditions that would be imposed
by any grant that is sought. The remaining source of funding would be a bond issue. I suggest that if you pursue the
bond route, you will soon find out whether a super majority of the residents favor this project enough to agree to vote
for a bond. That will separate the real supporters from the rest and you would be able to truly gauge the depth of
support (or not) that the project has in the community. If you pursue any funding please only go the bond route.
Thank you!
Sharon Yarber
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Megan Barnes
Monday, March 29,2021 10:41 AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera. Linda redevelopment proposed project
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
~J "
f"''.
a ~·»··" .... ,
Available in the App Store and Google Play
...... G£TITOO
,.-Google Play
1 his e-mail mcssacJc contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Vcr·des, which may be privileqccl, confidential and/or protcctccl from disclosure.
nrc! information is intendul only for usc of th(' individual or entity t1ill11ed. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is ,,triclly prollillit:ed. If you
received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please noti1Y the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and coopc~ralion.
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: Colleen Moon <colleenrmoon@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 202110:39 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera. Linda redevelopment proposed project
Please read my very sincere concerns.
Colleen R. Moon, President
Complete Cosmetics, Inc.
www.premierecollectionskincare.com
Phone: (310) 233-2731 I (800) 528-1818
Fax: (310) 518-2989
24414 S. Main St. 209
Carson, CA 90745
1
Begin forwarded message:
From: Colleen Moon <colleenrmoon@gmail.com>
Date: March 29, 202110:36:12 AM PDT
To: Colleen R Moon <colleenrmoon@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera. Linda redevelopment proposed project
FYI
Colleen R. Moon, President
Complete Cosmetics, Inc.
www.premierecollectionskincare.com
Phone: (310) 233-2731 I (800) 528-1818
Fax: (310) 518-2989
24414 S. Main St. 209
Carson, CA 90745
Begin forwarded message:
From: Colleen Moon <colleenrmoon@gmail.com>
Date: March 29, 202110:28:18 AM PDT
To: RPV Council <cc@rpvcc.gov>
Subject: Ladera. Linda redevelopment proposed project
RPV City Council. Respect the Safety and Liability issues, Revisit, Not Scrub This Project!
This email comes to you with respect for the task you have had and continue to have
with this project. That being said with sincerity and with no anger, banner waving intent,
I do respectfully ask that you revisit the size of the project and what this project means
to the Safety of residents living in and around Ladera Linda and surrounding
neighborhoods. Spend a portion (1) hour one weekend afternoon, attempting to turn
left or right from Forrestal onto PV Drive South. You will be at that corner a minimum of
15 min as you second guess the danger, risk taking and the endangering of your and
others safety, as you decide if and when to turn.
Not to mention the traffic backing up Forrestal. How many times do you think New
Visitors
Will Continue to Use these Facilities as they face a Huge Inconvenience as they attempt
to exit?What if
there is an accident attempting with their frustration to exit, serious injury and even
death
a strong possibility, a Lawsuit against our great city of RPV is more than a possibility, You
All know it is a strong probability.
The bicycle lane and the many cyclers using the lanes, their lives are at risk! Bicycle
traffic Probably heaviest when tourists, unfamiliar with the area will be using the
facilities.
There is an increase in accidents already occurring at the corner of Forrestal and PV
Drive South as a result of the increase in traffic from tourism now, employee staffing
and visitors to Trump and Terrannea Resort Destinations. That is a fact and that is
without considering bad weather conditions and tourists who are unfamiliar with the
topography of our beautiful coast line along PV Dr. South.
2
I am Not going to even review the increase in crime California and Los Angeles is
currently
experiencing! Do you want to be an active participant in crime increasing here as a
result of your collective decisions in the name of recreation? All of these concerns have
changed over the years that this project has been underway. We cannot continue to be
caught in the Hamster wheel making decisions based on the previous data.
Question????
Is the Revenue more important than Lives of Residents, Tourists, Liability concerns?
I have more faith in each of you, our City Council members integrity.
Be the heroes of the day, Respect these concerns and Revisit, Not scrub, the project.
Sincerely,
Colleen R. Moon
Rancho Palos Verdes Resident
Colleen R. Moon, President
Complete Cosmetics, Inc.
www.premierecollectionskincare.com
Phone: (310) 233-2731 I (800} 528-1818
Fax: (310) 518-2989
24414 S. Main St. 209
Carson, CA 90745
3
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Monday, March 29, 2021 8:03AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda opinions
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Alice Parker <aliceparker@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 202111:20 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: aliceparker@cox.net
Subject: Ladera Linda opinions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I just sent you an email from my USC email but I am an RPV resident. I live on 8 Barkentine Rd., RPV. The opinions
expressed in the letter are my own.
1
\·
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Monday, March 29, 2021 8:04AM
Octavia Silva
Karina Banales
FW: New facility at Ladera Linda
Megan Barnes Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Play
..... GETITON
V' Google Play
i i11s e-mail message contains information belonging to tho City of R.ancho Palos Verdes, wbicll may be privileged, confidential ancljor prott~cted from disclosure.
illr' infornldlion is intended only for usc of lhe individual or ent:it:y named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyii1(J is strictly prollillitcd. If you
received this email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. l1Eil1k you for your ilSsistancc and coopcrution.
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 Oirectorv on
the City website.
From: Alice Parker <parker@usc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 202111:15 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Parker Alice C. <parker@usc.edu>
Subject: New facility at Ladera Linda
Please scale down the planned facility at Ladera Linda.
The roads (and bicyclists) can't support the increased traffic such a facility would cause. The law enforcement coverage
would have to increase. The air pollution would be worse and the traffic would increase. We don't need this facility.
Prof. Alice C Parker
Dean's Professor of Electrical Engineering
Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering
EEB 300C MC 2562
1
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2562
https://viterbi.usc.edu/directory/faculty/Parker/Aiice
http://ceng.usc.edu/~parker/BioRC research.html
parker@usc.edu
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mayor and City Councilmembers:
grapecon@cox.net
Sunday, March 28, 2021 7:24AM
cc
PC; CityCierk
Ladera Linda Park discussion -April 6th CC agenda item
The city is considering to build a community center at Ladera Linda Park that would be the largest city park structure
(roof area), on a site with the smallest usable acreage and with the most restricted and extremely problematic access,
using a design approach clearly aimed at attracting visitors from far outside the city boundaries to maximize visitation
and usage.
I am strongly against the current proposal.
We are being inundated with massive numbers of visitors to the city. According to recent city manager reports, an
average of 4000-6000 people come to Lower Point Vicente Park every weekend. Thousands more come to hike in the
preserves (actual numbers are no longer being reported). Hundreds, if not thousands, come to trample the tidepools
at Abalone Cove and RPV Beach, where (by the way) an alarming increase in the number of ocean rescues and
drownings have occurred in recent years. Viewpoint turnouts along the coast are crammed with illegally and
dangerously parked cars at sunset. Bicyclists flock to the area, causing additional congestion and dangerous traffic
conditions.
And vet the citv continues to encourage more and more visitors. The most recent examples include electronic
billboards at city entrances directing visitors to additional parking opportunities, and a social media blitz (multiple posts)
on Facebook/Twitter/lnstagram announcing "plenty of free parking" at Civic Center. A shuttle bus program is being
implemented by this City Council to provide even more ways for people to come, park at City Hall, and then head out to
multiple "destinations" (term used by our Mayor in a recent RPVtv City Talk interview) for backcountry and sea cave
adventures. In the "City Talk" interview, our mayor "encourages the public to come out" to PVIC and add to the 4000-
6000 visitors already swarming the area every weekend.
Enough is enough I Residents are tired of the traffic, the trash and human waste, graffiti, crime, and noise that come
with all of these visitors.
The latest City newsletter summarized results of a citywide survey, and identified impacts to neighborhoods of visitors
to parks and trails as one of the top 5 concerns of residents. What are you going to do about this? Building more
parking lots, adding shuttle busses, and expanding park facilities is not the answer! If you do these things, it may
provide temporary relief, but ultimately, if you build it, they will come.
I personally have lived in RPV nearly my entire 54 year life, only moving away for a few years after graduating from a
local college. As a resident growing up here, I used to enjoy going to quiet, peaceful places, like Abalone Cove to surf,
and Del Cerro Park to fly radio controlled model sailplanes. I have fond memories going to Ryan Park to play with
friends. Now, I cannot even go to any of these parks on weekends with my family due to massive crowds. If you were to
poll RPV residents, I would venture to guess that an extremely small percentage of the 41,000 residents utilize these
parks on any regular basis ..... the thousands using them every weekend are overwhelmingly NOT residents of RPV.
1
\.
So, in the midst of all this chaos, why is the City pushing to spend -$12M or more on a park and community center at
Ladera Linda that clearly is being designed to attract even more people from outside the city????
Nearly every feature of the current design proposal is aimed not at simple and cost effective functionality and need, but
at extravagant cost and award winning features to attract more people. Consider every key feature in the proposed
design:
1. Removal of existing privacy foliage on all ocean facing bluffs of the park .... there is only one reason to do this, to
open up coastline and coastal views to attract visitors and high usage
2. Linear building parallel to the coastline, with every single room enjoying coastal views through massive glass
panels at extravagant cost ..... to attract more rentals, more classes, more visitors, more activity
3. Terraced seating area (previously referred to as an amphitheater) where speakers/performers /wedding
couples/etc. can be at the base of the steps on the open patio next to the building-clearly designed to attract
various additional functions not currently available at the present site
4. Expansive overhangs and breezeways to encourage visitors and homeless to come and hang out in the shade
{homeless have been visiting the area in greater numbers in recent years)
5. Open bathroom concept with common washing trough, encouraging homeless use and criminal activity
6. Display of "artifacts" from the current, albeit rarely used, Discovery room-clear intention to turn this into the
de facto information center for the preserve to attract even more visitation to the park and adjacent
preserves.
Local residents (i.e. those that live in HOAs directly bordering the park) are overwhelmingly against the proposed
design because we know it has been architected not to fulfill the simple and limited needs of the local community, but
to attract more outside visitors. The majority of the most vocal proponents of the current project do not live close
enough to suffer the adverse effects of increased traffic, noise, and crime that will inevitably come with this project, if
built to the current proposal. Some don't even reside in RPV.
Ladera Linda Park is uniquely situated on a residential street with single ingress/egress. The nearest 41ane highways
are more than 2.5 miles away in either direction along heavily traveled PVDS. Vehicular egress from the site requires
navigating a very dangerous uncontrolled intersection where 4 separate streets converge {PVDS/Forrestai/Trump
National/ Aqua Vista).
The Ladera Linda park site is 11 acres, but due to extreme slopes, only -5.5 acres is usable. On this site, the city is
proposing to put a structure that is 251' long by 53.25' wide {13,366 square feet of roof). How in the world does this
make sense? That is 2,430 square feet of roof per usable acre. For comparison:
Lower Point Vicente/PVIC-28 acre park, all usable, ~10,000 square foot roof structure, major 4 lane divided highway
access from 2 directions; ~357 square feet of roof per usable acre
Ryan Park-11 acre park, nearly all usable, ~1,800 square foot roof structure, major 4 lane divided highway access from
2 directions; ~163 square feet of roof per usable acre
Hesse Park-28 acre park, all usable, ~10,000 square foot structure, major 41ane highway divided highway access from
2 directions; ~357 square feet of roof per usable acre
In short, the Parks and Recreation proposed structure at Ladera Linda is, in terms of square feet of roof per usable
park area, is 7 times larger than the next largest! In order to keep in line with all other parks in RPV, the roof area
should only be 2000 square feet!
2
City Councilmembers, please do not allow this project to move forward as it is currently proposed by the Parks and
Recreation department. Most local residents do want a small, functional community center nestled amongst the trees
and foliage that will serve the local community, but not attract a hoard of outside visitors!
Are you, the elected leaders of the City of RPV, going to stop the efforts of our Parks and Recreation Department from
turning this city into an attraction/destination for all of LA County and beyond?
Do you have the courage to start listening to us, or will you rubber stamp the current proposal simply because "so
much time and effort has been spent on it already?"
Gary Randall
LLHOA resident
3
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 6:26AM
CityCierk
Fw: please protect our serene community
From: cinthia thornton <cinthiathornton@me.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 202111:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: please protect our serene community
I saw this posting and I agree. I am very worried that our beautiful community is being mis managed by our city
council.
Please reconsider before we lose our special setting. I have lived here all my life and the changes are not subtle or
for the better.
Ladera Linda large scale-rebuilding to be a destination is just another example of what is not needed in our
community.
thank you
Gary Randall
•
Seaview
For all of the readers out there, I submit one of the goals from the original RPV General Plan, developed when the city was
first incorporated in 1973: "It shall be the goal of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, through proper land use planning and
regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community." Is this proposed project, and other actions of the
city recently (such as putting up electronic billboards steering visitors to more parking opportunities, a recent media blitz
on Facebook/Twitter/lnstagram advertising a new shuttle service, the Mayor going on RPVtv and encouraging more
visitors to come to PVIC when already 4000-6000 come every weekend), in line with that goal??????? If you are tired of
the hoards of people coming and taking over the city, and leaving behind their trash, it is imperative that you write to our
City Council NOW and let them know in no uncertain terms how you feel.
1 \ •.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11 :46 AM
Octavia Silva
Cc: Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Staff report comment analysis
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: grapecon@cox.net <grapecon@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 202111:44 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Staff report comment analysis
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Councilmembers:
I am still studying the staff report for the Ladera Linda Park plans in preparation for the April 6th meeting, but I did take
some time to go through the comment letters in detail.
1
The viewpoints of 26 people are represented by the letters. Of those:
2 are in favor of the current proposal (8%)
24 are against the current proposal for the park (92%).
I will be shocked if you ignore the pleas of the 92%. This is not a "small minority" that opposes the design, as has been
either directly stated or indirectly implied by some in recent months and years. In fact, it is quite the opposite ..... those
in favor represent a very small minority.
If you argue that 26 people is not statistically significant, please consider that these 26 people cared enough to take the
time to express their opinions, before your stated 3/23/ deadline in the public notice, while the remainder of the 41,000
residents of RPV did not. So yes, I believe their voice carries very high weight that you cannot ignore.
I am also shocked at the latest staff estimated cost of $15. 7M for this project (not counting the nearly $1M either spent
or committed to so far) ... this is out of control it would be a complete fiscal irresponsibility to move forward.
I personally wrote a letter, but did not realize the deadline to be included in the staff report was March 23, so it will be
included in the late correspondence package. If a late correspondence package is released in time for me to update this
analysis and include those, I will do so and send you the results.
Thanks
Gary Randall
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Councilmembers:
grapecon@cox.net
Thursday, April1, 2021 10:07 AM
CC; CityCierk
Ladera Linda Park-more public opinions
On March 10, 2021, one of our RPV and Ladera Linda residents, Ed Hummel, posted an article on Nextdoor about the
current plans for Ladera Linda park. He posted to all neighborhoods he could, which I believe is 18
neighborhoods. Areas as far away as Crest and Eastview, for example, where included {just to give you an idea of how
far his message reached). In his post, Ed showed renderings and information gleaned from the Johnson Favarro website
regarding this project.
His post was heavily comment on. As of March 30, there were 191 comments from 40 different individuals from a wide
range of locations. I went thru those comments and did some analysis. 12 people expressed various opinions that
could not be closely connected to either approval or disapproval of the current plans. That leaves 28 people that
commented very decidedly as being either in favor, or opposed to, the current plans.
Of those 28 people, 9 were in favor of the current proposed plans for Ladera Linda Park, while 19 were against.
That's 68% against.
Reasons cited for being against included high cost, unnecessary large size, security concerns, open bathroom concept,
attracting crowds with expansive views and other amenities, traffic, etc.
Even more interesting is the following. I checked driving distance from each of the 28 people (based on their Nextdoor
area) to the park.
For those living within 2.5 miles driving distance to the park (a total of 12 commenters), 91% were against the
proposed design.
I do realize that opinions expressed on Nextdoor do not represent a scientific polling, but I do believe they provide
another data point that you should be considering. I also believe staff has misrepresented the sentiments of the local
community in the latest official city newsletter, in which they stated "the approved design retained the existing low key
neighborhood feel, maintaining existing popular elements such as the paddle tennis and basketball courts, playground
and lower field, and addressed adjacent neighbors' concerns about view, noise, security, and other quality of life
issues." The comments on Nextdoor, and in the public comment letters in the recent staff report, do not correspond to
staff's statement.
Regards
Gary Randall
(P.S. I am happy to provide details of my analysis, if you request those from me).
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Rebuilding the Ladera Linda Community Center
From: mary toth <mmacetv@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 5:12 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Rebuilding the Ladera Linda Community Center
On Mar 30, 2021, at 3:02 PM, mary toth <mmacetv@gmail.com> wrote:
To the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes, to the Board
Members of the Ladera Linda Homeowners association, and to
the Director of Parks and Recreation of RPV,
We, the T6th family, have lived in the Ladera Linda community
since 1971. We chose this quiet neighborhood for its beauty,
fresh clean air and tranquility. After 50 years here we still
appreciate its quiet, peaceful environment and its considerate,
friendly neighbors.
We do agree that the community center needs upgrading,
renovating.
We do want the new facility to meet the needs of the local
residents.
1
We do not want a large recreation center that will draw
crowds, traffic, noise, parking problems and trash on the
streets and potentially cars being stolen and more break-ins.
We, the community of Ladera Linda, have the right to be
listened to by the leaders we elected and have them respect
our needs and wants in order to maintain our quiet, peaceful,
beautiful, natural environment at a reasonable cost.
Thanks to our Board Members, thanks to the City Council and
and thanks to everyone who will work and has worked for our
community.
Sincerely,
Attila and Mary T6th
32316 Phantom Dr. RPV
310 377 5012
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
kmc5140@aol.com
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 10:44 AM
CC; Octavia Silva
Ladera Linda Community Center@ Park
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed current plan for the Community Center and Park. As a resident on
Seawall I am very concerned that the proposed design will have a negative effect on the community.
I believe that the proposed plan is far too large for the community. It will increase traffic and crowds will spill into the
neighborhood. Currently, we are experiencing increased traffic along PV drive, numerous hikers and trespassers and
litter. If the proposed building is approved I believe that all these problems will only increase.
Sincerely,
Kim McCarthy
1 \·
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Megan Barnes
Thursday, April1, 2021 4:56PM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: April 6, 2021, CC meeting, PUBLIC Hearing Agenda Item 1, Appeal of Ladera Linda
CUP
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310} 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD
'11 ""''-
o -.... -
IJJ "'"""-' . •· 'hl~;t RPV
0 --.. ~-Available in the App Store and Google Ploy
i • • • •
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged , confidential and/or protected from disclosure.
The information is intended on ly for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited . If you
rece ived this ema il in error, or are not an intended recip ient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation .
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours . To help prevent the spread of COV/D -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 schedu le 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 Staf{Directorv on
the City website.
From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 4:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: April 6, 2021, CC meeting, PUBLIC Hearing Agenda Item 1, Appeal of Ladera Linda CUP
A UTI ON: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers and interested parties,
The one big reason to uphold the Appeal, deny the CUP and rewrite the Design Program is because
the Applicant (RPV Recreation & Parks Staff) has misrepresented the Property Owners' (RPV
residents) directions (the RPV General Plan and subsequent testimony).
1 \.
How often does it happen that because of a divorce, a family files an Appeal on their Consultant's,
Planning Commission Approved "Entitlements"? This is the first time that I am aware of. As a member
of "the family", I have no clue as to how to clearly support my "new Parent's" concerns. As one of the
"senior siblings" (former member of two advisory committees), I have provided volumes of input about
my special interests. I am looking forward to the opportunity to help "the family" come up with more
holistic directions to our "hired consultant".
The decision on the table appears to be whether or not to take a little more time to come up
with a more satisfactory, and specific, description of what amenities this new facility is to
provide and then modify the development plans for the whole region to mitigate negative
impacts. That is what had not happened in the creation of the Master Plan which was "blessed" by
our "previous parents" (City Council).
Please move Alternative No. 3. Overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park planning entitlements thereby denying the project. Is "without prejudice"
relevant? All $848,933.00 is not lost.
So sorry you have to sit through another estimated 2 hours and 30 minutes of public testimony and
discussion which will simply respond to Staff's 59 pages of "opinion". COD is doing their due
diligence. It is up to Council to declare the original application to be inadequate. Where is the list of
desired amenities, their square footages and the calculations of support infrastructure for each of
them like restrooms, parking, storage etc? In this case, "less is not more".*
Speaking to the amount of time needed, as a professional Systematic Planning Facilitator, I can get
the job done as quickly as Staff can Agendize Council's authorization for me to have access to the
City's analysis results and other records so I can contact all of the "stakeholders", particularly the
ones who are feeling unheard. Give them a month to respond with more specific details like ... What
features comprise an "ideal": trailhead; Discovery Room; butterfly garden; multi-purpose room; etc. I
will also ask for adjacency preferences. Give me another month to verify that I have documented their
space requirements accurately. Then, get me on some Citizen Advisory Committee's Agenda so that
the "siblings" can hash out any perceived conflicts particularly if I determine that not everything will fit.
Said Committee should then be able to recommend my resulting Design Program to the City Council
for changes in direction.
This way, the process puts minimal demands on scarce Staff Time. Six months to get back to where
we are now with Staff recommending that we proceed with Construction Drawings? About the "glass
building", Councilwoman Brooks never acted upon the following email. Staff didn't either. Give the
"children" a chance to work it out.
2
Best regards,
SUNSHINE
RPV
31 0-377-8761
sunshinerpv@aol.com
Subject: Define "less is more"
Date : 4/7/2019 9:42 :38 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: susan .brooks@rpvca.gov
Cc : cc@rpvca.gov , pc@rpvca .gov , mattw@rpvca .gov , mickeyrodich@gmail.com , peter .vonhagen@daumcommercial.com ,
leneebilski@hotmail.com , EZStevens@cox .net, smhvaleri@cox .net , amohan@pvplc.org , pfunky@dslextreme .com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Councilmember Brooks,
"Less is more" is a quote from one of the designers in the "Bauhaus" circa 1950. He meant that
Architecture, interior design and furniture can be just as functional and aesthetically pleasing without
any superficial decoration. That lead to plain glass skyscrapers and other designs which are now
referred to as "Mid-Century Modern".
What do you mean by "less is more" in relation to the Ladera Linda facilities design? Your Design
Consultant appears to be taking you literally. The Mid-Century Modern "look" is dramatically different
from the "Mediterranean" and "Ranch Style" architecture which is most common here on "The Hill".
Mid-Century Modern is out of place at Ladera Linda.
I suggest that you explain what you really mean and start pointing him in a more ergonomic (form
follows function in relation to the human interaction) and "earthy" direction .... S
3
Historic note. The Methodist Church's proposal for a new sanctuary kept getting rejected by RHE.
Farmer G suggested to them that they propose something that looked more like a big barn. It was
approved essentially, immediately.
*Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (/mi :s/ MEESS ; German: [mi :s]; born Maria Ludwig Michael Mies; March 27 , 1886 -
August 17, 1969) was a German-American architect.w He was commonly referred to as Mies , his surname. Along
with Alvar Aalto , Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and Frank Lloyd Wright , he is regarded as one of the pioneers of
modernist architecture.
He is often associated with his fondness for the aphorisms, "less is more" and "God is in the details"
4
Enyssa Momoli
From: Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>
Friday, April 2, 2021 11:47 AM Sent:
To: cc
Cc: CityCierk; Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder
Subject: Ladera Linda Park--Please vote as though the park was across the street from your
home
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I moved to Ladera Linda with my family two years ago and I'm a proud parent of children enrolled at Mira Catalina and
MELA. While we are relative newcomers, we were drawn to RPV because of its reputation for being quiet and isolated
while convenient to LA. If those qualities are maintained, I hope this will be the last home we ever buy.
I also hope we are among the families you have in mind when you talk about building for the future of our city. Certainly
the quiet, safe neighborhood and access to the uncrowded playgrounds at Ladera Linda Park were important factors to
us when we decided to buy our home in the neighborhood.
You've already heard from many of my neighbors about our concerns with the proposed design for the new park. Some
residents of neighborhoods farther from the park complain that this process has dragged on for too long. What seems
clear to me is that the delay has been caused by the Recreation Department's refusal to address the concerns of the
neighbors whom this neighborhood park is intended to primarily serve. This failure, combined with the City's failure to
manage the current facility and adequately address the overwhelming crowds, leaves us very concerned about this
department's capacity to manage what would become the second largest public structure in the City, not to mention the
years of construction our neighborhood will be subjected to.
The sensible reaction to these concerns cannot be to speed ahead with a flawed design for an unnecessarily large
building that the majority of citizens oppose. Instead, I plead with you to carefully consider all of the concerns you've
heard from us, as well as the flaws in the Recreation and Planning departments' processes and leadership that have
allowed this problematic proposal to advance to this point.
To reiterate some of our outstanding concerns with the project's design:
• We're not looking for a facility that will win architecture design awards or attract the attention of the press.
What we want is a small, quiet facility with a couple of classrooms where local HOAs, Boy Scout troops and
community organizations can host meetings a few times per month, surrounded by a playground and ballcourts
for RPV residents to exercise and enjoy time outdoors with their families and neighbors. The Hesse Park building
design provides a simple, proven option that would better meet the community's needs versus the Ladera Linda
proposal.
• In addition to a simplified building design, we don't need sweeping ocean views that will attract photographers,
wedding parties and social media influencers from all over LA--those views are already available down the hill
at Founders Park and up above at Del Cerro, with the associated crowds that seek them out.
• We don't want a visitors center for the Preserve and we believe the docents' artifacts could be better displayed
at a more accessible facility like PVIC, but are open to some display cases in the entryway if others feel this is
important. But a room full of artifact display cases and tiered outdoor seating to present to school groups simply
are not needed or desired here to meet the needs of residents at the end of our quiet residential street.
• We also want secure doors, gates and bathrooms to keep our community and neighbors safe.
1
With those modifications, we would also like assurances that the City will manage the facility carefully and with more
attentiveness to the needs of our quiet neighborhood. This means much stricter limits on the number of events and
amplified music, limiting rentals to RPV residents, and keeping parking limited to the park's lot--out of neighboring
streets and not above the Forrestal gate.
It also means taking immediate action to address the concerns our neighbors have already reported about people
urinating on their properties, littering and stealing, and addressing the serious parking and traffic challenges we are
already experiencing on Forrestal and Trump National Drive before any new plans are approved or construction begins.
As conditions of approval, we would like to see guarantees around adequate staffing of the facility and the number of
hours those staffers will spend on patrol of the park versus sitting in the office, given the current inadequacies in
controlling bad behavior by some park visitors.
Thank you for your service to the city and for ensuring our concerns are promptly addressed. While you have a
responsibility to all city residents, I hope you will consider this decision as though the new facility was being built across
the street from your homes. Our neighbors on Forrestal and Pirate Drive deserve your full support for their safety, quiet
and quality of life.
Best regards,
Elliot Levy
Ladera Linda homeowner
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: April 6th City Council Meeting
From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 202110:31 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: April 6th City Council Meeting
The time has come for the council to realize that the Parks and Recreation staff has been manipulating the
data to fit their narrative and their vision for the Ladera Linda Park, from the outlandish Fisher and Associates
dry creek bed and bridge to the fishbowl design of Johnson Favor.
For five years the residents of Ladera Linda and Seaview have been trying to work with Parks and Recreation
Staff to no avail.
Frustrated, the residents who the majority wanted to see a new facility that would support their quality of life
are now moving towards, do nothing or teardown all the buildings and return the park to a passive park.
Council has to expect staff to provide unbiased information in order for the council to make decisions. When
this does not happen we have the Ladera Linda five year debacle, spending close to one million dollars and
still debating the same issues. Please see attachment for details.
Now you have before the council a $15.7 million facility that would create the second largest government
building in the city, embedded in a residential area served by a single lane residential street. Before it is done
the project could end up costing the city close to $20 million. Is this the best use of city funds? What about the
Portuguese Bend slide that is costing the city close to $1 million a year?
The residents of the city do not want another Del Cerro or a Green hills disaster. They deserve better from their
representatives on the council.
At the April 61h Council Meeting you will have the opportunity to end this and put the project back on track to a
successful and more reasonable cost conclusion by taking the following action.
1. Move the responsibility of the project to Public Works
2. Establish a reasonable target cost for the project
3. Require that the size of the facility based on need not want
4. Direct Public Works to consider the park in conjunction with the preserve, A YSO and the residential
areas.
5. Incorporate the present successful parking strategy into the final design
6. Direct Public Works to work with the Ladera Linda HOA to mitigate their concerns
7. Design a building that uses prevention over apprehension in the approach to crime. Use Hesse Park
and the PVIC as the baseline.
8. Establish a target date for the design approval and start of construction
1
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda
2
The Issues and Facts Surrounding the Development of the Ladera Linda Park
Parks & Recreation Facts
Established the Fisher Associates design, based on P & R did not follow City Council direction that the
want, as baseline, plus or minus 10%. contractor, Johnson Favor, should start from zero and
develop the desiQn on need not want.
When asked at a workshop whether any of the City council directed that the contractor, Johnson Favor,
concerns of the Ladera Linda residents would impact should work with the local HOA's to resolve their
their design the contractor responded No concerns, especially Ladera Linda the most affected
Staff developed a usage program that justified the The credibility of the usage chart was challenged by the
large number of rooms in the design city council. An extensive survey by the Ladera Linda
HOA, where over 50% of the households responded,
showed more interest in outside park activities with little
interest in the programs presented by staff. The only
interest was for a large community room to hold HOA
activities and some senior programs
The proposed design expanded the Discovery Room Council's direction was to reduce the size of the
including an outside amphitheater. Staff's position is Descovery Room. Past usage of the Discovery Room
that the park should not be connected to the was at best 8 times a year with staffs projected use at
preserve. the most 12 times a year. The only reason for the
Discovery Room is to support the docent led tours of
the preserve.
Incorporated into the new design is the use of all The residents consider this a security risk to women
gender restrooms in an open format. and children and an attraction for the homeless
Staff and the contractor claimed they made a First you cannot compare a school to a park, the design
significant reduction in the size of the facility from the criteria is different. Second the usable space in the
old school buildings. Claiming a reduction from school is not 19,000 sq. ft. but 13,553 sq. ft. Third the
19,000 sq. ft, to 6,790 sq. ft. 6, 790 sq. ft is only the enclosed rooms and not the size
of the building. The size of the building is 13,720 sq. ft.
making it the second largest government building in the
city.
Parks & Recreation Facts
Staff is committed to making all rooms multiple use This means that the building would have 5 rooms as
and therefore designated the Discovery room as a compared to Hesse Park, which servers a higher
meeting room concentration of residents, with 4 rooms.
The open format of the design with the extensive use The fastest response from the sheriff is 20 minutes,
of glass. Security issues would be addressed by the long enough to break into the facility and do damage.
use of glass breaking sensors, cameras and fencing The recommended approach of using security shutters
as well as line of sight sheriff patrol from the entrance as used at the PVIC and Hesse Park are not financially
gate. feasible when over 50% of the building is glass. Visual
inspection from the front gate is not feasable because of
the breezeways, overhang and a back entrance to the
1park from Seaview.
Only 54 parking places are planned for the park with The residents strongly object to this approach as the
no provisions for preserve parking. Staff considers park, preserve, A YSO and the residents share a
the park in isolation from the preserve and A YSO common access, Forrestal Dr. Under considerable
issues. pressure from the residents the present system of
providing preserve parking in the park, no parking along
Forrestal and keeping the Forrestal gate closed has
resolved the majority of traffic issues, noise and trash
dumping. This system should be incorporated in the
new design.
Staff states that the park is not designed for a rental With all foliage that blocks the view of the ocean
facility. Staff claims that the park would have an removed, views from all rooms and an amphitheater
insignificant impact on Forrestal traffic. that can accommodate large groups of visitors the
facility would become a popular venue for viewing,
weddings and other activities.
Staff proposes to provide 25 parking places behind Recent weekend preserve parking has been counted at
the Forrestal gate for preserve parking. They have levels reaching 75 cars with traffic on Forrestal at levels
even suggested opening the Forrestal gate to up towards 500 car during the day. The residents are
[preserve parking. opposed to opening the_gate as stated above. _
-
Parks & Recreation I Facts
Staff has installed a gate at Del Cerro and is First the assumption of 51 entry points is totally false.
presently implementing a registration parking system The 51 refers to all entry points in all the City's parks
to control the number of visitors into the preserve at and preserves. Here we are just talking about 19
that point. They are against a reservation system for trailheads into the Forrestal and Portuguese Bend
those entering the preserve based upon the stated Preserve of which five are in Rolling Hills or in a gated
assumption that there are 51 points of entry making it community. Only two are near a major road and
impractical to control. Staff has proposed a similar parking, Del Cerro and Ladera Linda. The rest are
gate at Forrestal and would assume that if successful buried in residential neighborhoods. 95% of those
would propose a similar parking registration system entering these preserves enter through these two points
at Ladera Linda. making it not only more cost effective but practical to
control the number of visitors in the preserve.
Staff estimate for the park is $15.7 milliom !This is considered excessive for a neighborhood park
and could exceed this number before completed. $300
thousand is ear marked for furnishings and fixtures.
Although not detailed in the report a large part of this
funding would have to be allocated to the proposed
display___Q_oards and cabinets in the Discovery Room.
24 March 2021
To: RPV Mayor and City Council Members
From: Coveman
Subject: Proposed Community Center at Ladera Linda
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
t1A~ 2 6 ZOZt
City Manager's Office
I am opposed to the proposed Community Center at Ladera Linda. My main objections to the proposed
center are as follows:
• The footprint of the proposed center is too large for the usable land area. The proposed center is
over 13,000 square feet which would make it larger than the next largest structure of 10,00.0
square feet at Point Vicente/PVIC. In terms of land coverage, the proposed Ladera Linda center
would cover approximately 6% of the usable land area. Although this sounds small, it is roughly
seven times larger than the next largest at 0.8% of the usable land area at PVIC. Even several
members of the Planning Commission expr.essed concern over the size of the structure.
• The infra-structure cannot easily acco.mmodate the traffic and congestion this center would
attract. Ladera Linda is located in a residential area with one single lane road into and out of the
area. Furthermore, that single lane road comes out at PV Drive South which is also single lane for
several miles in both directions. Clearly adding more traffic to these already congested roads is
not in the city's best interes,t. While some RPV residents couldn't care less about this, it becomes
a nightmare for the local Ladera Linda residents. Think back to when Trump golf course ho·sted a
car show and the parking and traffic problems it created (and that was only for a weekend!)
Although I am not opposed to a reasonable size center, I can't help but wonder why we need any·structure
at all. Perhaps a simple park setting similar to Del Cerro which has no structures at all attracts people as
a place to get out and enjoy nature. What's wrong with a park environment with a few benches and
seating areas? IT WOULD CERTAINLY COST A LOT LESS' THAN 12 MILLION DOLLARS!
Thank you
&
Cove man
27415 Larchbluff
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-377-9917
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 1:35 PM
To:
Cc:
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Ladera Linda April 6th CC Discussion
Letter 24 March 2021.pdf
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Connect with the City from your phone or tablet!
Available in the App Store and Google Play
...... G£TITON
V' Google Play
rl1is e-mail mcssaqc contains infmmation bclonqinu to the City of Rancho Palos Vcnlcs, which may be privileqed, confidential dlld/or· protectccl from disclosmc,
I he information is intended only for usc of the individual or entity named. Unauthmizcd dissemination, distribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibited. If you
received this crnail i11 error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender imnwcliatcly. Tl1ank you for your assistance ancl cooperation.
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.
From: coveman@cox.net <coveman@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 7:00AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda April 6th CC Discussion
Hello:
I recently mailed a letter to the City Council in which I oppose the proposed Community Center development plans for
Ladera Linda.
Just in case that hard copy does not reach you before the Tuesday, April 61h meeting, I have attached a scanned copy
here.
Thank you
1
Caveman
2
24 March 2021
To: RPV Mayor and City Council Members
From: Caveman
Subject: Proposed Community Center at Ladera Linda
I am opposed to the proposed Community Center at Ladera Linda. My main objections to the proposed
center are as follows:
• The footprint of the proposed center is too large for the usable land area. The proposed center is
over 13,000 square feet which would make it larger than the next largest structure of 10,000
square feet at Point Vicente/PVIC. In terms of land coverage, the proposed Ladera Linda center
would cover approximately 6% of the usable land area. Although this sounds small, it is roughly
seven times larger than the next largest at 0.8% of the usable land area at PVIC. Even several
members of the Planning Commission expressed concern over the size of the structure.
• The infra-structure cannot easily accommodate the traffic and congestion this center would
attract. Ladera Linda is located in a residential area with one single lane road into and out of the
area. Furthermore, that single lane road comes out at PV Drive South which is also single lane for
several miles in both directions. Clearly adding more traffic to these already congested roads is
not in the city's best interest. While some RPV residents couldn't care less about this, it becomes
a nightmare for the local Ladera Linda residents. Think back to when Trump golf course hosted a
car show and the parking and traffic problems it created (and that was only for a weekend!}
Although I am not opposed to a reasonable size center, I can't help but wonder why we need any structure
at all. Perhaps a simple park setting similar to Del Cerro which has no structures at all attracts people as
a place to get out and enjoy nature. What's wrong with a park environment with a few benches and
seating areas? IT WOULD CERTAINLY COST A LOT LESS THAN 12 MILLION DOLLARS!
Thank you
Caveman
27415 Larchbluff
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-377-9917
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To whom it may concern:
Beth Shirley <dbshirley3@cox.net>
Friday, April 2, 2021 7:13AM
cc
CityCierk
Ladera Linda Park
I have been a resident of Mediterrania for over 20 years and both of my children have graduated from the PV School
District.
I wish to voice my disapproval for the very large and expensive Ladera Linda Park Project. We don't need a park with
more rooms than any other city park. In all my years living here in Mediterrania, my children were never handicapped
by not having a large city park in our backyard. We have schools instead. My children played soccer, basketball, softball
and used the playground equipment at Mira Catalina Elementary School, the school within our neighborhood. They had
a great time. Occasionally, we went to Ladera Linda park for a Girl Scout meeting or a dance class.
I have read the article in PVP Watch and I agree with it. Ladera Linda is already congested enough. PLEASE build a
smaller less expensive park!! Not a park that will attract more people to further the congestion for the residents next to
Ladera Linda. I ask you to listen to the residents most affected by the proposal for the new park. If I were in their
position, I too would be very upset the large proposed park. I have discussed the new Ladera Linda Park proposal with
my neighbors and they agree with me, Ladera Linda should be a small neighborhood park.
Who is this park being built for? Our residents or outside interests?
Thank you,
Beth Shirley
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda expansion project
From: Erica <ericagraubart@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 8:27AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda expansion project
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
I am a 10 year resident of RPV and a 10 year resident of Ladera Linda Homeowners Association. I strongly oppose the
current plans for Ladera Linda park for the following reasons: No need for a terraced seating area clearly designed to
encourage speakers, performers, weddings, etc. Unsecured, open bathroom concept with common washing trough-
unsafe for kids and encourages homeless. Increased use means increased traffic, crime, trash etc in our community.
While our family agrees there needs to be an update/ upgrade at Ladera Linda Community Center, this massive
expansion is WAY too much. We've already seen an increase in crime, trash, traffic and homelessness in our
neighborhood-this will be a nightmare.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a
more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you,
Erica Sanchez
Heroic Drive
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park--Please vote as though the park was across the street from your
home
From: Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 202111:47 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park--Please vote as though the park was across the street from your home
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I moved to Ladera Linda with my family two years ago and I'm a proud parent of children enrolled at Mira Catalina and
MELA. While we are relative newcomers, we were drawn to RPV because of its reputation for being quiet and isolated
while convenient to LA. If those qualities are maintained, I hope this will be the last home we ever buy.
I also hope we are among the families you have in mind when you talk about building for the future of our city. Certainly
the quiet, safe neighborhood and access to the uncrowded playgrounds at Ladera Linda Park were important factors to
us when we decided to buy our home in the neighborhood.
You've already heard from many of my neighbors about our concerns with the proposed design for the new park. Some
residents of neighborhoods farther from the park complain that this process has dragged on for too long. What seems
clear to me is that the delay has been caused by the Recreation Department's refusal to address the concerns of the
neighbors whom this neighborhood park is intended to primarily serve. This failure, combined with the City's failure to
manage the current facility and adequately address the overwhelming crowds, leaves us very concerned about this
department's capacity to manage what would become the second largest public structure in the City, not to mention the
years of construction our neighborhood will be subjected to.
The sensible reaction to these concerns cannot be to speed ahead with a flawed design for an unnecessarily large
building that the majority of citizens oppose. Instead, I plead with you to carefully consider all of the concerns you've
heard from us, as well as the flaws in the Recreation and Planning departments' processes and leadership that have
allowed this problematic proposal to advance to this point.
To reiterate some of our outstanding concerns with the project's design:
• We're not looking for a facility that will win architecture design awards or attract the attention of the press.
What we want is a small, quiet facility with a couple of classrooms where local HOAs, Boy Scout troops and
community organizations can host meetings a few times per month, surrounded by a playground and ballcourts
for RPV residents to exercise and enjoy time outdoors with their families and neighbors. The Hesse Park building
design provides a simple, proven option that would better meet the community's needs versus the Ladera Linda
proposal.
• In addition to a simplified building design, we don't need sweeping ocean views that will attract photographers,
wedding parties and social media influencers from all over LA--those views are already available down the hill
at Founders Park and up above at Del Cerro, with the associated crowds that seek them out.
1
• We don't want a visitors center for the Preserve and we believe the docents' artifacts could be better displayed
at a more accessible facility like PVIC, but are open to some display cases in the entryway if others feel this is
important. But a room full of artifact display cases and tiered outdoor seating to present to school groups simply
are not needed or desired here to meet the needs of residents at the end of our quiet residential street.
• We also want secure doors, gates and bathrooms to keep our community and neighbors safe.
With those modifications, we would also like assurances that the City will manage the facility carefully and with more
attentiveness to the needs of our quiet neighborhood. This means much stricter limits on the number of events and
amplified music, limiting rentals to RPV residents, and keeping parking limited to the park's lot--out of neighboring
streets and not above the Forrestal gate.
It also means taking immediate action to address the concerns our neighbors have already reported about people
urinating on their properties, littering and stealing, and addressing the serious parking and traffic challenges we are
already experiencing on Forrestal and Trump National Drive before any new plans are approved or construction begins.
As conditions of approval, we would like to see guarantees around adequate staffing of the facility and the number of
hours those staffers will spend on patrol of the park versus sitting in the office, given the current inadequacies in
controlling bad behavior by some park visitors.
Thank you for your service to the city and for ensuring our concerns are promptly addressed. While you have a
responsibility to all city residents, I hope you will consider this decision as though the new facility was being built across
the street from your homes. Our neighbors on Forrestal and Pirate Drive deserve your full support for their safety, quiet
and quality of life.
Best regards,
Elliot Levy
Ladera Linda homeowner
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing April 6, 2021
From: jhashimoto3@cox.net <jhashimoto3@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 202110:37 AM
To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro
<barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; 'James Hevener' <jhevener@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing April 6, 2021
Dear Members of the City Council,
We want to thank the city planning staff, planning commission and city council for their efforts to make
improvements to the Ladera Linda Park and the creation of a new Community Center.
Much time, effort and city funds have already been spent since 2014 in carefully holding community
workshops, obtaining community input, analyzing building size, site amenities, and addressing
security and safety issues. Improvements to the design and site plan have been incorporated based
on this input. The current building footprint will have minimal impact to the site when compared to the
former school that once was there.
We support the Planning Commission approved design. There have been some recent suggestions
made for modifying this:
-The addition of roll-down security grilles at five openings for use after hours is a good addition
to the design.
-We do not feel the need to add an enclosed lobby at the staff office area.
-The current restroom design resembles what you would find at most state and national park
facilities and is acceptable to us.
-Keeping the main circulation areas open prevents the need to provide heating, cooling and
maintaining those proposed enclosed areas.
-By keeping the design as simple as possible, building and maintenance costs will be
minimized.
When we are able to get back to some state of normalcy, having an asset such as this available to
residents on the east side of the city will greatly enhance our ability to participate in city sponsored
activities such as exercise, art and other classes.
Please approve the design and the advancement to the next phase so that this project can be finally
completed, used and enjoyed.
Thank you,
1
Jerry and Kinuko Hashimoto
Part of Mediterrania HOA
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda park plans -oppose
From: Jay Sanchez <bruinjay@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 8:35AM
To: CC <CC@rpVC<!JSOV>
Subject: Ladera Linda park plans-oppose
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
JS
I am a 10 year resident of RPV and a 10 year resident of Ladera Linda Homeowners Association.
I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda park for the following reasons: No need for
a terraced seating area clearly designed to encourage speakers, performers, weddings, etc.
Unsecured, open bathroom concept with common washing trough-unsafe for kids and
encourages homeless. Increased use means increased traffic, crime, trash etc in our
community.
While our family agrees there needs to be an update/ upgrade at Ladera Linda Community
Center, this massive expansion is WAY too much. We've already seen an increase in crime,
trash, traffic and homelessness in our neighborhood-this will be a nightmare.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local
residents to develop a more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you,
Enrique Sanchez
Heroic Drive
Sent by phone. Apologies for brevity and syntax errors
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Project
From: Jim Knight <knightiim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, Aprill, 2021 5:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
April1, 2021
RE: April6, 2021 Hearing on the Ladera Linda Project
Mayor and Council members,
Below are my comments on the upcoming April 6, 2021 hearing you will be having on the Ladera
Linda project.
1) Under operational conditions, condition #41 states the parking lot will close at dusk 7
days a week. Yet the Community Center hours will go until 9pm or later under a rental
schedule. The conditions in this section are inconsistent and either one or the other
condition will be unenforceable. The City could install a one way tire spike exit lane and
close the entrance at dusk. But if a rental wants entrance and exit after dusk, one of these
conditions needs to be modified.
2) Under Parking Conditions, Condition #48 specifies one electric vehicle space and three
clean air vehicle spaces. Clean air vehicles have a very broad definition as any combination of
low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles qualifies.
Under the 2019 California Green Building Code, based on 54 new spaces, the City is
required to provide 4 electrical vehicle charging stations. One EV cannot use 4 electrical
stations. It appears that 4 EV charging spaces will have to be provided.
I have a number of suggestions on charging installation and software coordination with City
Hall in my comments on the Hess Park Project, but here are a few for this project:
-Staff has indicated to me that the City plans to use the ChargePoint C-1400 series charge
stations. If so, I highly recommend the CT-14021 which has two J-1772 Level2 charge plugs
per station. That way you only need two CT-14021 stations to supply the required 4 EV
spaces.
1
\
-Each J -1772 plug on the charging station should be wired with a 40 amp circuit so that each
plug gets the full 7.2kWh of output per vehicle.
-Have ChargePoint provide the needed software so that a discounted kWh rate can be
provided to RPV residents. This can be programmed into the station software so when the
vehicle is plugged in the station software automatically recognizes the individual vehicle of
the RPV resident.
3) Site Lighting Conditions
As a general comment, please do not make the same mistake with lighting that occurred at
the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Make sure all bollard and pole lights only light the
parking lot and not the residents above or the dark night sky.
Condition #56 sounds like a Las Vegas lighting plan. I don't know if you need "landscape
ambiance" lighting and please just keep sign lighting to the very essential.
#58 Mock ups and re-evaluation of the lighting plan are good ideas. There is a vast selection
these days of color temperature, directional LEDs, etc. that can mitigate any ambient
impacts.
#62 Bollards were the big mistake at the PVIC. Make sure they are pointed onto the parking
lot only.
4) Utility Conditions
#64 I highly recommend oversized conduit to accommodate a higher powered circuit wire
in the event the City wants to upgrade the charging stations to DC fast charging in the
future. The marginal cost of larger conduit during installation is far cheaper than retrofitting
later as pulling wire through an existing conduit is far easier than digging up sidewalks and
parking lots.
5) Solar system
I do not see any mention of a solar system as a part of this project. It was my understanding
that Council had directed that the project include solar energy. The time to plan for solar is
during construction. You have the option of installing a solar roof (cutting cost of a roof+
solar panels); leasing options, remote control management software and coordination with
SCE to offset other municipal sites, etc. The orientation of the 6, 790 sq. ft. of buildings
(and 137 sq. ft. covered patio) should have one roof shed facing S/SW to optimize year
round solar gain. A SCE smart meter at the facility elec. panel can coordinate supplying solar
energy to the EV charging stations as well. All of this is better in the planning stage rather
than a cosdy retrofit
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ladera Linda Project.
Jim Knight
2
April 1, 2021
RE: April6, 2021 Hearing on the Ladera Linda Project
Mayor and Council members,
Below are my comments on the upcoming April 6, 2021 hearing you will be having on
the Ladera Linda project.
1) Under operational conditions, condition #41 states the parking lot will close at
dusk 7 days a week. Yet the Community Center hours will go until 9pm or later
under a rental schedule. The conditions in this section are inconsistent and
either one or the other condition will be unenforceable. The City could install
a one way tire spike exit lane and close the entrance at dusk. But if a rental
wants entrance and exit after dusk, one of these conditions needs to be
modified.
2) Under Parking Conditions, Condition #48 specifies one electric vehicle space
and three clean air vehicle spaces. Clean air vehicles have a very broad
definition as any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and
carpool/vanpool vehicles qualifies.
Under the 2019 California Green Building Code, based on 54 new spaces, the
City is required to provide 4 electrical vehicle charging stations. One EV cannot
use 4 electrical stations. It appears that 4 EV charging spaces will have to be
provided.
I have a number of suggestions on charging installation and software
coordination with City Hall in my comments on the Hess Park Project, but here
are a few for this project:
-Staff has indicated to me that the City plans to use the ChargePoint C-1400
series charge stations. If so, I highly recommend the CT-14021 which has two
J-1772 Level2 charge plugs per station. That way you only need two CT-14021
stations to supply the required 4 EV spaces.
-Each J -1772 plug on the charging station should be wired with a 40 amp circuit
so that each plug gets the full 7.2kWh of output per vehicle.
-Have ChargePoint provide the needed software so that a discounted kWh rate
can be provided to RPV residents. This can be programmed into the station
software so when the vehicle is plugged in the station software automatically
recognizes the individual vehicle of the RPV resident.
3) Site Lighting Conditions
As a general comment, please do not make the same mistake with lighting that
occurred at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Make sure all ballard and
pole lights only light the parking lot and not the residents above or the dark
night sky.
Condition #56 sounds like a Las Vegas lighting plan. I don't know if you need
"landscape ambiance" lighting and please just keep sign lighting to the very
essential.
#58 Mock ups and re-evaluation of the lighting plan are good ideas. There is a
vast selection these days of color temperature, directional LEDs, etc. that can
mitigate any ambient impacts.
#62 Bollards were the big mistake at the PVIC. Make sure they are pointed
onto the parking lot only.
4) Utility Conditions
#64 I highly recommend oversized conduit to accommodate a higher powered
circuit wire in the event the City wants to upgrade the charging stations to DC
fast charging in the future. The marginal cost of larger conduit during
installation is far cheaper than retrofitting later as pulling wire through an
existing conduit is far easier than digging up sidewalks and parking lots.
5) Solar system
I do not see any mention of a solar system as a part of this project. It was my
understanding that Council had directed that the project include solar energy.
The time to plan for solar is during const1uction. You have the option of
installing a solar roof (cutting cost of a roof+ solar panels); leasing options,
remote control management software and coordination with SCE to offset
other municipal sites, etc. The orientation of the 6, 790 sq. ft. of buildings (and
137 sq. ft. covered patio) should have one roof shed facing S/SW to optimize
year round solar gain. A SCE smart meter at the facility elec. panel can
coordinate supplying solar energy to the EV charging stations as well. All of
this is better in the planning stage rather than a costly retrofit.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ladera Linda Project.
Jim Knight
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Friday, April 2, 2021 1:34PM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda Project
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Sharyn <sharynmc@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, April1, 2021 9:25 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear RPV City Council Members,
1 urge you to listen to the residents of RPV, especially those who live near the Ladera Linda Community Center, and
reconsider the size and cost of the proposed construction.
1
\.
My children have enjoyed basketball, soccer, and dance classes at Ladera Linda. While an update to the buildings would
be nice, I agree with others who have voiced concern over the size, the price per square foot, and the fact that it would
mean more traffic and disruption to those who live in the area. One of the reasons most of us live in RPV is because it's
off the beaten path and we enjoy the rural feel even though we live in a county with big cities.
Perhaps the city could do a survey (like the recent satisfaction survey) to see how many people want to go ahead with
this project?
Thanks for your service to the community and for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
Sharyn Mcllhargey
24 Nuvola Ct
RPV
Sent from my iPhone
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Friday, April 2, 2021 4:22PM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
FW: Ladera Linda
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Steven Carlsen <surfsupsteve@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 4:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
1 am a resident of Ladera Linda and I am adamantly opposed to the scale of the new community center project planned
for Ladera Linda.
1
I am also opposed to plans for shuttling people from Ladera Linda to Del Cerro.
Steve Carlsen
32357 Searaven Drive
RPV
Sent from my iPhone
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 2:43 PM
To:
Cc:
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Thoughts on the pending Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Projkect
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Ploy
....... GETITON
,... Google Play
I his mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, \Nhich may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure.
The information is intended only for usc of the individtwl or entity narncd. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyino is strictly prol1ibitcd. If you
received this email in error, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: Hans M Bozler <hbozler@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 2:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara
Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Dianne Bozler <bozler@usc.edu>
Subject: Thoughts on the pending Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project
We have read the staff report on this project as well as correspondence concerning the project. The current project
plans have been honed with much input and appear to be an outstanding opportunity to make a much needed
improvement to our City. These plans provide an opportunity to replace a seriously dilapidated facility that is currently
an embarrassment with an attractive environmentally sensitive and much needed facility that will reflect well on Rancho
Palos Verdes.
1
\ .
We are Rancho Palos Verdes homeowners living at 3521 Cool heights Drive; we are members of the Mediterrania HOA.
We benefit from the use of the trails, and the paddle tennis courts. We regard the open areas as one of the most
important lifestyle features of this neighborhood. We strongly endorse having a community center that we can be proud
of and that would be of benefit to the entire community.
Given all the careful planning and the excellent proposal, it is time to proceed without any further delay.
Hans and Dianne Bozler
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Val English <valenglish@icloud.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 12:45 AM
CC; Ken Dyda; David Bradley; Barbara Ferraro; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria
Gordon Leon; David Chura; William James; Lan Saadatnejadi; Stephen Perestam; Ron
Santarosa; Julie Hamill; Octavia Silva
Ladera Linda Park Project -please hear us
Dear mayor and city council members,
I have lived in Ladera Linda since August 1994. Over the last several years I have attended many meetings regarding the
planning of this park and community center project. I have watched the presentations and heard my neighbors speak. Have
you? We have been speaking about our concerns for years, yet we still don't feel we've been heard.
I have read through the proposal for the Ladera Linda development dated 12/31/2020 and examined the park layout and
proposed floor plan. I have examined the more recent staff report. I have attended multiple meetings about this plan in the
past, including the last two planning commission meetings, and given my input along with many of my LL and Seaview
neighbors. The problem I have with your current proposal is that you don't seem to have taken to heart the MAJOR concerns
we have with the size of the building. We also have concerns with the tiered seating which can easily be used as an
amphitheater for events, and with the clearing out of all foliage designed to provide the building with unimpeded views. This
building, in this setting, will create an environment drawing in too many people, increasing the attendant traffic, parking,
trash, and security issues we ALREADY encounter from visitors using the park, hiking trails, and soccer fields in our
neighborhood.
-The building size and other features make it incompatible with our neighborhood. This is a neighborhood park. The
only other park in RPV that shares a single entry/exit road with an adjacent neighborhood is Del Cerro, and look what
a train wreck the traffic has caused up there. And all they have is hiking trails.
-We don't really need a dedicated Discovery Room for -12 times per year; you could put showcases in hallways for
Discovery Room exhibits. Or move this to the museum at Pt. Vicente, or include it in the civic center plan, which would
put it near a trailhead for Boy Scout or school hikes to see local flora and fauna.
-We already have both traffic and parking headaches due to soccer and hikers, and DO NOT want Ladera Linda
turned into another Del Cerro. We already have unsafe conditions on Forrestal when A YSO families are coming and
going, and people are trying to find parking for hikes in the preserve. As it is now, it is very difficult to make a safe left
turn onto PV Drive South. Another hazard is people zooming up Forrestal and making a u-turn in the middle of the
road or at the entrance to Pirate. Visitors parking on Forrestalleave trash, make noise, and create safety hazards for
nearby neighbors.
We in Ladera Linda and Seaview have said all of these things before, many times. It is very disheartening, to say the least, to
have our needs repeatedly disregarded. Our sleepy little neighborhood is important to us. You are planning a center that will
negatively impact our quality of life and our home values!
At the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting, I was encouraged by some of the commissioners' comments, and I thank
them for their thoughtful discussion of this matter. Commissioner Chura pointed out, quite rightly, that these same public
comments and concerns were in evidence the last time to city council voted to approve this project. The problems have not
gone away. Commissioner Leon's comments echoed my own sentiments, and those of most Ladera Linda residents, when he
said that the proposed building is too large; that if it was half the proposed size, it would be the right size. I completely agree.
1
\
I have no objections to the open space part of the plan. The park, walking trails, paddle tennis, children's playground, all look
wonderful. However, a community center building ofthat size and design is not compatible with our little area. It has quite
literally been designed to be MORE useful, which will attract MORE people. There is no way you can guarantee us, with any
credibility whatsoever, that this plan will have no impact on usage and traffic. I've read the staff report and agree with
Commissioner Saadatnejadi who pointed out that there really is no valid traffic data that pertains to our concerns. A larger
traffic study is needed.
If you want a larger community and event center in our city, PLEASE, consider putting it on the Upper Point Vicente location
which is far more appropriate in all ways for a facility that will be frequently busy and bring in crowds for things like camps
and other events.
I have read and heard the arguments that city staff and architects had many meetings to give neighboring residents input
and that the time has come to push this through. I was at those meetings. The problem is, most of our input was ignored. I
don't know one single resident of Ladera Linda that is for this plan. The people who approve of this plan do not live here, and
will not be affected as we will. Ladera Linda residents will be affected day after day, week after week, for years to come.
Sincere regards,
Val English
310-594-2268
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
lspisano lspisano < lspisano@cox.net>
Friday, April 2, 2021 6:57AM
Octavia Silva
Ladera Linda Tree
Regarding Ladera Linda, Please keep the large existing pine tree in the front if possible, it's a treasure!
Laurie Pisano
3572 Vigilance Drive
RPV
lspisano@cox.net
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
lspisano lspisano < lspisano@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 8:24AM
Octavia Silva
Public Comments on Ladera Linda
As a directly affected home owner in Ladera Linda I am concerned by the scope of this project. I already have relatives
that will not drive here due to the problem of making a left turn at the bottom of PV Drive and Forrestal, it is increasingly
dangerous. We've seen a MAJOR uptick in the usage of the park since the people up at Del Cerro have used their HOAs
to stop people from parking near them. The parking lot at 9 am on the past Saturday was completely full, and the total
number of parking spaces planned would not accommodate these crowds, and that is without new buildings. I think in
light of the increase in usage another traffic study, done when AYSO and the new hiking groups are utilizing the area
(checking AYSO schedules, weekends) would show that the streets/Forrestal intersection (with only one outlet in case of
emergency) are not conducive to the new plan as proposed.
Laurie Pisano
3572 Vigilance Drive
RPV
1
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Chuck's Gmail <chuck.agnew@gmail.com>
Saturday, April 3, 2021 6:30PM
CC; Octavia Silva
Eric Alegria; David Bradley; CityCierk; CityManager; Planning; John Cruikshank; Ken
Dyda; Ken Dyda; Barbara Ferraro; Cory Linder; Parks; PublicWorks; Ken Rukavina;
Planning; Matt Waters
Ladera Linda
It's a beautiful building.
Yes, it's a beautiful building taking advantage of a spectacular view. The plan started off by talking
about a huge complex containing a gymnasium and swimming pool. You listened to the neighbors
and scaled back to a reasonable alternative. Ladera Linda presently has 19,000 sq. ft. of existing
buildings. That has been reduced to a 6,700 sq. ft. complex. Yes the roof is larger which adds to its
good looks. There have been many changes over time, all of which were reductions in size.
Some neighbors are concerned about making Ladera Linda a draw for "unwanted people". The city
has proposed that private rentals be limited to two per month, and to eight daylight special events per
year. I don't see that drawing "unwanted people". The proposed basketball court has been moved
from the lower field to the upper field where the paddle tennis courts are located to reduce
neighborhood noise.
I would suggest modifying the lower field. It presently is an invitation for informal soccer playing. This
has taken place in the past and is very noisy for the neighbors. The lower field should be broken up
by paths, barriers, tables, etc.
The Forrestal Preserve has become a draw for hikers. You can't change that. Just try to provide
adequate parking. The parking proposed at Ladera Linda is minimal. Please consider adding a
parking lot along Forrestal above the present gate. That should satisfy the Forrestal Preserve people.
A stairway between the two parking areas would allow overflow if either site becomes limited.
We used to hold neighborhood dinner dances, children's birthday parties, Christmas functions,
Halloween fun houses, neighborhood block parties, square dancing, etcetera at our Community
Center. Our present site is a ghost town. With the new park we can do it all again. We don't have
neighborhood annual dinner dances like we used to, partly because the price has become prohibitive.
With a modern Community Room that facility could become an attractive low cost option.
Thank you for the great work you all have done on the Ladera Linda Community Center. It's a great
plan. The park should be an outstanding boon to our property values.
My name is Charles Agnew and I am a 50 year resident of Ladera Linda.
32261 Phantom Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
cvagnew@cox.net
(31 0) 377 0290
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Edward Stevens <ezstevens@cox.net>
Sunday, April 4, 2021 7:40PM
CC; PC
Matt Waters; Sean Larvenz; Rudy Monroy
Strongly oppose the current plans for the Ladera Linda Pocket Park.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am a 40 year resident of RPV and a 40 year resident of the Seaview Homeowners Association.
I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda Pocket park because Ladera linda is a
small neighborhood Pocket Park.
Ladera Linda was originally a small local school for the 2 adjoining local Neighborhoods of
Ladera Linda & Seaview until it was shut down due to a lack of students. The City took over the
Park around 1978 & has not spent any City funds to maintain the buildings or the landscaping
just the bare minimum over the years.
Ladera Linda Park has always been a small Neighborhood Pocket Park & should remain that
way for the local Neighborhood Community to enjoy.
If this project is allowed to be built it will bring increased traffic, crime, trash, homeless etc
into our small community when advertised on the Social Media ..
The existing buildings could be retrofitted for less than what the staff has spent already on
trying to push this huge project forward that is not desired nor endorsed.
This project should be built at Hesse park or at the Interruptive Center or the City Hall Site not
at a Small Neighborhood Pocket Park without adequate parking and a street that does not
lend itself to the increased traffic.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to
local residents to develop a more suitable plan for this park. We appreciate the City Council is
seeking an appeal of the CUP because that means that we can now work together to make the
park meets the community's needs.
Thank you
Barbara Stevens
40 +years in Seaview
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone-(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Megan Barnes
Monday, April 5, 2021 10:03 AM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
FW:
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or
are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
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: Thomas Cooper <tccoop1129@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 2:38PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am a 48 year resident of RPV and a resident of Seaview Residents Association.
I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda park because of the possible Influx of potential bad elements ( my
home has been broken into already and I was able to Prevent another by intervening ).1 am approaching my 90 birthday
1
and have enjoyed the many wonderful years here on the peninsula.! am concerned also about the intrusion of noise
coming from possible large gathering that would destroy the blessed solitude that we enjoy now.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a
more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you for your consideration,
Rev. Thomas C. Cooper
Sent from my iPad
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Megan Barnes
Monday, April 5, 2021 10:05 AM
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: A Local Neighborhood Needs Your Help
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available in the App Store and Google Play
llh._ GET IT 00 r Google Play
I hi~; e-mail message contains information bclonqing to the City of Rancho l)alos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or-protected from
disclosure-The information is intenclecl only for use of the incliviclual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibltr!cL it
you received this email in errm, or arc not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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 Han 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: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 9:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: info@pvpwatch.com
Subject: A Local Neighborhood Needs Your Help
For those who don't live in Palos Verdes, but have friends or family who do, please consider forwarding this newsletter. It
is self-explanatory. Some family members were recently robbed living in the Terranea area. As I understand, these are
professional gangsters who work with a jeweler ... the only thing they took was their safe, but dumped everything into the
middle of the floor. You never get your jewels back as they are melted down for cash. No, they didn't have a security
system, but they do now that all their jewels and important documents were stolen. And, RPV was recently named the 4th
safest city in the states?
A few years ago, a young wife of an elderly resident was murdered in the Promenade parking structure in broad
daylight. This murder has never been solved. Could it have been a professional hired hit job? Most recently, I have
heard of elderly women on the hill (in many cases there are step-children) who have arranged to have ladies
declared .. (you fill in the blanks) via two physicians and a statement by a live-in caretaker.
1
'
Now referring to the PVP Watch Newsletter attached hereto re Ladera Linda ... This is just one project on the hill re
Public/Private Financing of debt. This is not just happening in Palos Verdes where our City Councils think we are all
rich ... and just because they can. You can Google the new City Hall in Long Beach re private/public financing. Long
Beach will have to pay off the building contractor/engineers, et al. for forty years before they will again own their City
Hall. This is the new trick, since the voters have been voting down their massive bonds on the election
ballots. Public/private financing does not require the residents vote. If you are a resident of RPV, our Council has been
spending money w/o transparency as to the monies spent to date re the new City Hall project. It is my understanding that
our current City Hall is structurally sound, and only needs NC and a little updating for a much lesser cost. Last I heard,
the committee is proposing to tear down the existing building and build a smaller one. They also want a
restaurant. Recently, the Admiral Risty on the hill for over 50 years (this week I noticed fencing around the former
Risty) ... retired and closed down re the price of rent. Many other businesses have suffered the same fate. Seems the hill
is overloaded with greasy spoons.
As PVP Watch has requested, I am contacting our RPV City Council at "cc@rpv.gov". I am also sending this email to my
email buddies. It is time to bring common sense back to not only our local government, but also the State and Federal
government. Over borrowing never ends nicely. This is not just happening on the hill ... your city may be next. .. so share
this newsletter with your friends and family, including those living in other cities and states. CA is beginning to act and
look like Brazil when I was there in the late 60's. Prices were high, and it was a very dirty city (no wonder they lead in
Covid cases) including the beach. As a homeowner, I am feeling the prices, in many case, doubling or tripling yet seniors
basically do not get raises.
Carol Mueller, 46 year resident of RPV
-----Original Message-----
From: PVP Watch <info@pvpwatch.com>
To: cmuell@verizon.net
Sent: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 2:49pm
Subject: A Local Neighborhood Needs Your Help
PVP Watch Newsletter -
2
Ladera Linda-Neighborhood vs. City
Our last newsletter was devoted to describing the history of Ladera
Linda Park and to its possible future. PVP Watch encouraged our
readers to reach out to the Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) city council,
planning commission and staff to let them know how you felt.
PVP Watch recently asked a Ladera Linda resident, Herb Stark, to
write an article capsulating the feelings of the Ladera Linda
community and that article is featured below in this newsletter.
Stark raises good points that the city council should ponder before
making their decision at the April 6, 2021, council meeting regarding
Ladera Linda Park. Amongst other things he points out that the people
3
most affected by the park, the residents in the surrounding area, do
not want a large facility that will bring more traffic, noise, litter and
potentially crime to their neighborhood. They want a utilitarian building
that will serve the needs of the community but is not ostentatious. It
appears to PVP Watch after watching numerous individuals speak at
planning commission meetings that individuals from outside the
neighborhood, who only infrequently visit the area, are the ones
advocating a large, expensive edifice.
Stark points out the cost issue. If a modest building will meet the
needs of RPV taxpayers and cost millions of dollars less PVP Watch
feels this is another germane issue. RPV taxpayer money should
always be spent frugally.
PVP Watch feels the residents of any neighborhood facing a major
change such as this should be carefully listened to and we support
Stark's recommendations. His less expensive building meets
everyone's needs and is a logical compromise.
We urge our readers to read Stark's article and imagine this is
happening in your neighborhood and then comply with his
request to contact the city council at the e-mail address he
provides.
Ladera Linda Park - A Homeowner's Perspective
by Herb Stark
On April 6, 2021, the Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) City Council will
meet to make a final decision on the fate of a new Ladera Linda Park
that is situated on 11.1 acres of land, 5.6 acres of which have extreme
slopes. It was a former kindergarten thru fifth grade school site,
located in the southeast corner of RPV, just north of Palos Verdes
Drive South (PVDS) and the Trump National Golf Course.
There have been over five years of meetings and endless discussions
with the City on building a new Ladera Linda Park. The Ladera Linda
subdivision, which consists of 175 homes, shares Forrestal Drive (a
two-lane road) with Ladera Linda Park, seven A YSO soccer fields,
and three Forrestal Preserve entrances for access to PVDS. One
would think that our City would listen to the concerns of the residents
most affected by this project, but that is not the case, even though the
Ladera Linda and Seaview neighborhoods practically surround Ladera
Linda Park.
4
·... ' . . ···• . . .
There have been several designs and sizes of the building to be built
discussed over the years and the latest is primarily a glass structure
more suitable next to the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in downtown Los
Angeles, but not in Ladera Linda. It is simply not compatible with the
neighborhood.
Some of the current design features are:
· A mostly glass enclosed building of 6, 790 square feet but has a roof
area, including large overhangs, of 251 feet long x 53 feet wide or
13,303 square feet.
· Contains five large classroom size rooms, while Hesse Park has
four, Ryan Park has one and the Palos Verdes Interpretive Center has
one.
· Contains 10 individual unisex toilet rooms, an open shower and an
open long trough sink in an open setting.
· An open air lobby and offices.
· A flat roof with a huge overhang all around the building.
· Numerous exterior exit and entry doors on all sides of the building
creating a potential security issue.
· Requires the rearrangement of the total site by moving 9, 000 cubic
yards of dirt to accommodate the 251 foot long building.
Recommendations:
This building should be compatible to the neighborhood and of
similar configuration to Hesse Park .
. A lobby and a hallway for security purposes while maintaining
coastal views. This eliminates the need to move 9, 000 cubic yards of
dirt and re-landscape the whole park site.
·The Hesse Park architecture would reduce the excessive 13,303
square foot flat roof size. Replace the large overhang portion of the
roof, which is almost the same size as the building itself,· with a more
conventional overhang.
· Reduce the number of classrooms to three from five which is more
than adequate since the usage rate of the present park for the last five
years, before covid-19, was five to six usages per week.
· From a security standpoint, it should be like Hesse Park, which has
security shutters on all the glass areas and when the shutters are
closed has no security issues. The staff proposed open formatted
building will be susceptible to vandalism and a magnet for the
homeless.
· Staff claims with the new design, the sheriff can check out the park
at night from the entry gate, which is 20 feet higher than the proposed
.··. .. . · .. · •... •· .
5
.··
i
:
... · .. ·.·
.
. ...
•·
. · . •. .. ••. . . • . ·.. . > ... > ..
building. This is not possible with a 13,303 square foot roof Any views
of night activity will be completely blocked by this huge roof overhang.
· Have a common entry point so that staff can see all visitors enter
and exit.
· Have conventional restrooms like Hesse Park, which are accessible
from inside and outside.
Park Costs
· There has never been an exact cost estimate for this project, but for
the total project it has been in the $12.6 million range. There is no
estimate for the building by itself In addition, landscape architects
have talked about one million dollars per acre for landscaping.
· Estimates for a recent project in Manhattan Beach, for construction
of a 7,000 square foot Scout and Senior Center building are $3.4
million ($486/square foot).
· Rolling Hills Estates, this month, decided to downsize their George
F. Canyon Nature Center from 5, 500 square feet at $2. 7 million
($495/square foot) to 3,355 square feet at $1.7 million ($506/square
feet).
· Since the roof of the proposed structure covers the open restrooms
and the office area a good estimate for the cost of the structure would
be the square footage of the roof. Using the $506/square foot the
building could cost as much as $7 million. Adding $10 million for
landscaping the total cost could be as high as $17 million.
Financing
City staff is interested in 'Public, Private Placement' (P3) financing
because it requires no resident approval for the project, as would be
necessary with a bond issue.
Summary
I hope that after you have read this article you will better understand
what is about to happen to those of us who live next to Ladera Linda
Park. Our city is not listening to its residents who are most affected by
this project. What we are asking for is a facility that meets the
community needs, is secure, maintains our quality of life and is not an
oversized architectural showplace.
RPV city staff is trying to compare the size of a former K-5 school site
to a City park. That is like comparing oranges to bananas .
> ·.·.• • .: ··.• .·. .·• ... . . : . .·.
6
; ..
•
....
If you do agree with me, I urge you to send an email to our City
Council at "cc@rpvca.gov" expressing your concern as to how this
project has been handled. Thank you. Herb.
COVID-19
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health reported
that as of March 17, 2021, there were 1,432 cases of COVID-19
in Rancho Palos Verdes, including 54 deaths; 424 cases in Palos
Verdes Estates, including nine deaths; 269 cases in Rolling Hills
Estates, including eight deaths; 53 cases in Rolling Hills,
including two deaths; and 22 cases in the unincorporated area of
the Palos Verdes Peninsula. PVP Watch extends its deepest
condolences to all those in our community touched by this illness.
PVP Watch Welcomes Contributions
PVP Watch appreciates the financial contributions of the many of you
who have sent checks to us because we depend on your support. If
you wish to make a contribution of $25 or more, please send checks
to PVP Watch, 5714 Wildbriar Drive, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA
90275. Thank you.
PVP Watch Welcomes Subscriber Comments
PVP Watch welcomes your feedback. Please send comments to
Those who have topics of community interest, such as the contributor
above, are encouraged to share those issues with
info@pvpwatch.com.
No promises we will print anything, but it will be read and reviewed by
us.
BTW we have a new updated website; www.pvpwatch.com.
7
PVP Watch I 5714 Wildbriar Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.pvpwatch.com
U n s ld_Q_$_(;LiP~_(;JDJI e U@_v e rlzgn,n_~J;
.UQdat~J~r_QfjJ~ I C.ld_~tQm_~L~_Q_019_\:tData NgtJJ;:~
Sent by info@pvpwatch.com powered by
1ry email marketing for f1·ee today!
8
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Reminder: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing
From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 9:38AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing
Hello,
I would like to attend this meeting in person tomorrow night at Hess Park at 7 p.m. I will take all precautions such as
when I ran errands ... two masks, and a face shield, etc.
Note: On Sat. Apr. 3, 2021, I emailed extensive comments to you at cc@rpvca.gov. Also please confirm receipt of my
email and my request to personally attend this meeting. You may confirm on line, however, I am having considerable
trouble making an Internet connection, so also please confirm at my home phone 310.377.1397 repeat
310.377.1397. My phone rings six (6) times then ans. machine comes on ... please speak up as 1 only answer legitimate
calls.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Carolean "Carol" Mueller 310.377.1397
-----Original Message-----
From: Do Not Reply@rpvca.gov <listserv@civicplus.com>
To: cmuell@verizon.net
Sent: Mon, Apr 5, 2021 9:02 am
Subject: Reminder: Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal Hearing
1
Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project Appeal
Hearing
Reminder: Tomorrow night, AprilS, the City Council will consider an appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of a Major Grading Permit, Site Plan Review, Variance
and Conditional Use Permit for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project.
The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings, the construction of a
new, 6,790-square-foot community center, patio areas, outdoor seating, a playground and
athletic courts, 54 parking spaces, a small storage facility, walking paths, lawn areas,
landscaping and grading.
The hybrid in-person/virtual meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in in McTaggart Hall at Fred
Hesse Jr. Community Park and via Zoom with a very limited number of in-person
attendees and COVID-19 safety protocols in place. 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 on the City website. Please submit your
comments 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 .
2
a
For project updates, sign up for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan listserv at
rpvca.gov/notify .
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.
Dshare on Facebook Dshare on Twitter
Copyright 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes. All Rights Reserved.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Email not displaying correctly?
3
Dshare via Email
Powered by
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: April 6 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding Ladera Linda Project
From: Ann Patton <aepatton1119@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:18 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: April 6 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding Ladera Linda Project
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am a 48-year resident of RPV. We moved here to raise our four children in the Miraleste area. I am writing today in
opposition to the planned development for Ladera Linda Park. The current design is not compatible with the adjacent
neighborhoods and is far too expensive. Surely the city has better uses for the funds. How will RPV residents have any
confidence that their elected representatives will be fiscally responsible when they build a new Civic Center in the
future, if those representatives think it is appropriate to spend almost $15 million on the renovation of a small park.
I was shocked when I recently visited that area along PVDS. The crowds flowing into Trump Golf Course, and the Ladera
Linda neighborhood across the street, were unbelievable. That used to be a quiet and peaceful area. Times have
changed and it doesn't appear that the city is doing anything to mitigate the problem of these excessive crowds. Until
that occurs, I think it would be irresponsible to build a large new facility that may bring more crowds into an area that is
already suffering.
Please look out for your RPV residents. Work on mitigating existing problems and not creating new ones.
Thank you.
Eilieen Patton
Colt Road, RPV
1
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Concerns I Ladera Linda Park I New Community Center Design
From: Nathalia Carbajal <nathjg@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 9:10PM
To: CC <~pvca.gov>
Subject: Concerns I Ladera Linda Park I New Community Center Design
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes Council Members,
I hereby express my concerns with Ladera Linda's new Community Center development. I have recently
moved to Sea Raven Drive; my residence is 5 minutes walking distance from Ladera Linda Park. This park, as is
today, was one of the key reasons I decided to move to this private neighborhood. However, the New
Community Center development has raised several concerns, as listed below.
1) The park is unique because of its low-key feel, where you see locals and surrounding neighbors primarily.
The new development seems exceptionally sophisticated-which could be greatly appreciated somewhere
else-but not in the neighborhood, where everyone is happy with the current look and semirural
environment.
2) The removal of all vegetation and the new building will invite large crowds and destroy our park's current
character.
3) The new design will bring different crowds outside the community (Ladera Linda, Seaview, Portuguese Bend
Club, and upper Portuguese Bend). We worry about the safety of our community.
4) The majority ofthe residents want improvements, but want it scaled to meet the local residents' needs and
not become a park to attend all of the South Bay area. Again, we worry about our neighborhood's safety and
the type of crowds that the new design will attract.
1
I hope that you will consider my concerns and arguments. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Sinceraly,
Nathalia Carbajal
2
Enyssa Momoli
To:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
RE: Fwd:
From: edmundo hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 20211:54 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd:
Dear Council Members,
My wife and I moved to Ladera Linda in 2013 from Belmont Shore in Long Beach. RPV was a stark and peaceful contrast
to the 14 years of traffic, trash, crowds, parking problems, crime, noise and homeless we lived with in Long Beach, and
we loved it. We thought we'd stay here for the rest of our lives. We no longer feel that way.
The main reason is the huge increase in people visiting the City, bringing with them many of the same problems we had
in Long Beach. I don't blame the people at all, but I do blame City leadership doing everything possible to encourage
MORE visitors.
My wife and I take long walks in surrounding neighborhoods twice a day and we've seen a noticeable increase in trash,
homeless people, traffic, early morning hikers/mountain bikers, car/motorcycle racing on PV East, noise and graffiti. We
recently found a vagrant passed out on the lawn of a neighbor on Forrestal Dr. After waking him to make sure he was
alive, he told me he was headed to "his secret camp in the hills." I, along with several neighbors, called the Sheriff's
Department who responded and arrested him (passed out on another neighbors lawn). This is one of many such
incidents that have become more and more frequent and I've begun to carry my phone at all times. As retired law
enforcement, I've even considered carrying a firearm with me .... something I regularly did in Long Beach. but never
thought of when we first moved here.
I honestly don't know your reasons or justification for this push to make RPV a tourist destination, nor do I understand
your rationale for spending nearly 16 million dollars on a de facto tourist center. Although none of you live in Ladera
Linda or Seaview, all of you live in this City and MUST be aware of the problems, not just at Del Cerro, but throughout
RPV. I cannot fathom the reason you would push ahead with this expensive project in such uncertain times against the
wishes of the majority of LOCAL residents who'll be directly impacted by it.
I know the current buildings need to be replaced, but I urge you to not throw millions in good money after bad and
consider a much smaller, less expensive and less architecturally dramatic COMMUNITY center. For comparison, I
understand the center will have 5,524 usable square feet. At 15.7 million, it'll cost $2,800/sq ft. For reference, APPLE
PARK in Cupertino cost 5 billion with 2.8 million sq ft. or $1,800/sq ft.
You were elected, in large part, to protect the interests of residents, not as advocates for the (non-resident) Director of
Recreation and Parks or (non-resident) design/builder, Johnson Favaro or visitors from around Greater LA. Please,
reconsider this project and the impact it will have on residents and the City.
1
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Fwd:ladera linda project
From: emmashoes@aol.com <emmashoes@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 5:18PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd:ladera linda project
THE THORNTON FAMILY ON ADMIRABLE DRIVE
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am a 50 year resident of RPV resident of seaview Homeowners Association. I strongly oppose the current plans for
Ladera Linda park because see below some of the reasons.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a
more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you
Here are some reasons:
1. Exorbitant cost (latest estimate, just released this week by City Staff, is $15.7M!!!!!!!!)
2. Stripping out all foliage and opening up views will attract crowds
3. Massive 251' long building incompatible with the community (this would be the largest park building in the entire city,
second largest city owned structure in the city, if built)
4. No need for 5 rooms .... 3 would be more than adequate for HOA meetings and other LOCAL needs
5. No need or desire for a "Discovery Room" (have any of you ever even seen it???? Do any of you know what is
inside it?????? Have your kids ever visited it?????? Believe me, it is not a big deal, only is used currently at most 12
times per year, and could easily be incorporated into the PVIC museum)
6. No need for a terraced seating area clearly designed to encourage speakers, performers, weddings, etc ..... i.e.
attract more users
7. Unsecure, transgender, open bathroom concept with common washing trough-unsafe for kids and encourages
homeless
8. Increased use means increased traffic, crime, trash etc in our community
Ladera Linda Park Committee
1
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: In support of the Ladera Linda Park Project
From: Benoit Hochedez <hochedez@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 202112:05 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityCierk <CityCierk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: In support of the Ladera Linda Park Project
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are expressing -again-our support to move forward with the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan.
In 2015, the City Council approved a Master Plan recommending a new community center at Ladera Linda,
with strong support from the community.
It's April 2021, 6 years after(!) and the new community center, which has now been approved by many past
and presents city council members, is still getting debated! It's astounding, not only given the derelict state of
the current park but because this is the only park and community center on that side of the hill.
The debates over the size of the building, the parking, the security of the park have been held. The arguments
addressed. And, if a minority will certainly keep fighting against the new park, the large majority of the
community now assumes the construction of the new park is well underway.
The architecture firm Johnson Favaro along with the help of the city staff have designed a great new
community park while taking into account the hopes and fears of the local community and the previous
recommendations from the city council.
This plan, which has been approved by the city council over a year ago, struck a great compromise with those
who were against a new park. Here is a recap of the past issues that were debated over two years ago:
• The views and park will attract "outsiders". We have heard that many times throughout this project.
"The park should not be too nice", "the views should be hidden", etc. This is such an irrational fear.
Any "outsider" coming to this part of the city to admire "our" views would be better off going to Trump
or Terranea: larger parking, picnic tables, better trails, better views, whale sighting, the possibility to
walk down to the beach, to have lunch or dinner (at Terranea), etc. Robert E. Ryan park has great
views and has always been a quiet park even on the weekends. Same with Point Vincente.
• Traffic and use. Ladera Linda used to be a school for many years. The current plan would actually be less
traffic and less noise. We have to compare the projected future use of the new park with what this park was
1
meant to be in the first place, not with the use of a derelict park that no one could use. The other issues can
be addressed in due time with proper traffic control and use policies.
• This is a "neighborhood park" and as such, it should only serve the directly adjacent communities. This
park is the only community park on the south-east side of the hill, serving more or less the same
community as the Mira Catalina school, from Seaview to Miraleste. Most of the Mira Cat parents
would tell you that they'd usually rather meet at Bogdanovich (a San Pedro park) than at the Ladera
Linda park, which might be closer but has absolutely nothing to offer to parents and their children.
This is a great opportunity to change that. And we would love to see a place where elders taking
local classes can interact with children playing nearby on the playgrounds.
• The building is too large for a "neighborhood park'. We are already talking about a project that has
been reduced to its essence: 2 classrooms, 1 meeting room, and 1 MPR! The proposed building is
smaller than anything proposed before, and, more importantly, a lot smaller than the actual
structures. Moreover, it is streamlined and integrates beautifully within the landscape. Talking to our
elderly neighbors who have been here since the 70s, most of them tell us that this park used to be a
lot busier, lively, and was more meaningful to the community. The current use of a long-outdated and
deprecated structure should not dictate the future of a new, updated, and more appealing structure.
This park is an opportunity to offer activities locally, so people (elders, parents with children, etc.)
won't have to drive all the way around or down the hill (30mn each way). RPV must see further than
the near future and work to bring facilities that will outlast many of us and benefit us, our children,
and our grandchildren.
• Nature Preserve Parking. The nature preserve parking is a real and important issue for the Ladera
Linda neighborhood but it is a separate issue with potential solutions outside of the park. The park
should not become the preserve parking. It's a park and not a parking lot.
It's time for the city to look ahead and build facilities for the next 30-40 years, on par with the rising
cost of houses (and property taxes) on the hill. Ladera Linda is the only city asset on this side of RPV and
deserves to be a great park and facility for the local community, from Seaview to Miraleste. With this project
from Johnson Favero, we believe we can have a lively community center with classes, neighborhood
gatherings, children's playgrounds, useable basketball courts, and ... maybe even closer city council from time
to time.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Regards,
Benoit Hochedez and Kaylee Hong
3505 Coolheights Dr
RPV, CA 90275
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center & Park
-----Original Message-----
From: Rustom Khosravian <krk777@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 8:39 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center & Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To whom it may concern,
I'm a resident of Ladera Linda (32405 Sea Raven Drive). We are not in favor of having a Community Center & Park built
along with an amphitheater in our neighborhood. It increase traffic, noise pollution and crime. This is a residential
neighborhood and we want to keep it that way.
Thank you,
Rustom Khosravian
Tel: 832-746-5163
Sent from my iPhone
1
\ '
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center
From: Irene lng <irenei@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 8:22AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
We are 20-year residents of RPV and 20-year members (and a former Board member) of the Ladera
Linda Homeowners Association. We strongly oppose the current plans for the Ladera Linda Community
Center because of the excessive size and accompanying cost ($15+ million!), in addition to the increase in
crime, traffic, noise & trash from many who do not live in RPV. RPV is rated the 4th safest city in
California, and we'd like it to stay that way! Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and
instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a more suitable plan for this Community
Center.
We are very disappointed and concerned that the voices of the local community are not being heard in
the design of the new Ladera Linda Community Center. We are not normally letter writers, but we felt
that we needed to speak up. For years, through our HOAs, many of us have been expressing our concern
that the designs being proposed are too large for a neighborhood community center. My wife and I
moved to Ladera Linda 20 years ago because we wanted to live in a quiet neighborhood next to the ocean
with excellent outdoor recreational opportunities. We did NOT want to live in a beach community with
lots of traffic, large crowds and noise. We are concerned that the size of the design being proposed and
the potential for scheduling numerous events will lead to all of these things at the community center.
We are not against progress and updating the facilities. But we were surprised to learn that the building
as proposed would be the second largest in the city. And having to bus visitors in seems to emphasize
that this is excessive for the needs of a neighborhood center. It would be better to reduce the number
of classrooms from 2 to 1 and, rather than a dedicated interpretive space, to disperse interpretation
throughout the building. If there is to be a shuttle system, it does not sound like there will be any plans
to charge non-residents for use. We recall the dog park fiasco from a few years back. Using social media
to advertise the local events has already increased the amount of activity in the nature preserve and
traffic around the existing buildings over the past year, much of it from outside RPV. This increase will
only continue if these new facilities are not carefully planned. And having more crowds, traffic, trash &
noise is not the atmosphere we moved here for.
We don't think it is just a small number of residents who oppose the design. We also don't feel that
reducing the square footage by removing walls counts as making the facility smaller. We know of many
1 ,,
people who are frustrated and feel their voices are not being taken seriously. I hope that you will prove
them wrong and respond to community input in the decisions you take on April 6.
Thank you,
Don Ershig
Irene Ing
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center
From: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April4, 202112:17 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am a 47-year resident of RPV and a 47-year member of the Ladera Linda
Homeowner's Association. I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda Park because of the excessive traffic and
noise, as well as other negative consequences to the adjacent neighborhoods the current plan is likely to engender. Most
RPV parks are adjacent to major thoroughfares within the city, while Ladera Linda is not. Please do not allow the current
plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you.
Patricia Stenehjem
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda expanded community center
From: fivemuellers <fivemuellers@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 5:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda expanded community center
Gentlemen:
I am writing concerning the proposed redesign of the Ladera Linda community center. I live In Seaview just
below Ladera Linda and am not in favor of the proposed large community center. It seems as if the city wants
to become a commercial event center. This of course would increase the traffic in an area that has only one
access road and would also increase traffic within the neighborhood due to people parking in the
neighborhood and taking the stairs up to the community center. There are enough event centers on the
peninsula and the city should not be in that business. We do not need an expanded community center.
There is the very likely potential for other unwanted consequences on the Forrestal Preserve. I have been
hiking frequently in the preserve for over a decade up to this year due to the pandemic. When I first started
hiking I would come across over three hundred unleased dogs on the trails. I contacted city hall to no avail.
After I was run off the trail by an aggressive dog, I began to carry pepper spray. It was very effective and I have
never been run off a trail again. However, real progress was made at reducing the problem after the city hired
rangers to enforce the regulations. I know that those rangers were replaced with deputy sheriffs which I
believe were replaced city rangers. I hope the large reduction in the unleashed dog problem continues. I
personally feel quite safe carrying pepper spray but have concerns about the safety of families with small
children. With large crowds being drawn to the large proposed community center I am sure that new people
will began hiking the trails and the unleashed dog problem could start all over again-at least until the rangers
can educate them.
Rangers can and have educated people. Early on there was a mob of about a dozen dog owners who ran their
unleashed dogs from the gate on Forrestal to the upper soccer field. I mentioned the leash law but was
scorned. I met several of them on the trails and they would only put leashes on their dogs when they saw that
I was carrying pepper spray. I'm sure you recall the disastrous experiment the city had with allowing the city
beaches to become dog runs. It was stopped and now dogs are not allowed on city beaches. This problem was
due mostly to arrogant dog owners including the dog mob. About two weeks after dogs were allowed on city
1
\.
beaches the dog owners asked for a meeting with city hall officials and the rangers. I was told about this
meeting by a ranger who was present. After a quorum was reached the ranger asked what the purpose of the
meeting was. A mob member stated that there this old guy on the Forrestal trails who kept on telling them to
put their dogs on leashes. (I will let you guess who that old guy was.} I guess the mob now thought that they
should be allowed to free run their dogs in the Forrestal preserve as well as on the beaches. The ranger's
response was essentially "So put them on a leash. That is the law. And furthermore, dog owners are
responsible for their dog's actions at all times. The Forrestal trails are narrow and it is the dog owners
responsibility to keep their dogs from other people on the trails." I didn't have to tell mob members to leash
their dogs after that. The upper soccer field gate was subsequently locked and the dog mob disappeared.
During the pandemic I noticed an increase in the number of hikers on the Forrestal trails. I was discouraged
when I realized that most of the new hikers didn't use masks when they met people. I was encouraged when
some trails were opened and a map was posted showing the direction of travel to be used when on the open
trails. I thought this was a good idea but after I saw sixteen people on the trail one day, with thirteen of them
going in the wrong direction, I was dismayed. I talked with several groups and asked them if they had read the
map at the trail head and told them that they were going the wrong direction. Alii got were blank stares! I
concluded that they either didn't care or most likely couldn't read a map. I reported this to the city and the
problem was resolved by removing the signs! I stopped hiking in the Forrestal preserve. I don't mind
responsible "outsiders" using the trails and many of the regulars on the trails before the pandemic didn't live
on the peninsula But I firmly believe that people who are not residents of our community are more likely not
to respect the preserve and other people using them. Oh, and yes, there was an increase in unleashed dogs
during the pandemic.
I will wait and evaluate the situation before I begin to use the Forrestal trails again.
I firmly believe a large Ladera Linda community center does not serve the best interests of the affected
Rancho Palos Verdes residents.
Respectively,
Hubert Mueller
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park
From: Bob Brink <bbrink@brinkfinancial.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:07AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cecilia Brink <cbrink@brinkfinancial.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
Hello Octavia, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor ProTem, City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members.
I hope this finds you all well.
My wife and I are 20 year residents of Ladera Linda, and I have some input for you regarding the proposed changes at
Ladera Linda Park.
After many years of living in San Pedro, we moved to Ladera Linda because of the open space, relative isolation, low
density, lack of traffic, and the peace, tranquility, and security that came with the city's commitment to maintaining this
environment. Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in response to encroaching development and increasing
population density in neighboring Los Angeles County, and was established so that residents, like us, could know that
the city government would protect and preserve the principals that were founding pillars of the city of Rancho Palos
Verdes. What we did not expect is that we would have to keep an eye on Ladera Linda Park, because the park attracts
unmonitored activities that are sometimes a threat to our safety, such as illegal fireworks, dirt bikes, parties, drinking,
smoking, and even off road vehicles. It should go without saying that a fire in the nature preserve is a potential disaster
for our neighborhood, and it is the city's responsibility to protect us from these threats to our safety. We should not
have to do this ourselves.
The proximity of the park to the homes in Ladera Linda is such that when there are activities there, the otherwise
peaceful environment of our neighborhood is significantly disrupted. All of these threats and disruptions happen
because of the park's presence and its open invitation to the public to visit our neighborhood. Less threatening, but just
as damaging to the tranquility and safety of Ladera Linda, are the noise, congestion, excessive parking and littering that
take place presently because of the park. Our neighborhood is too close to Ladera Linda Park to subject the residents to
this unmonitored activity, much less the increased activity that will surely come if the planning commission allows the
"improvement" of the facilities such that more people will want to visit. We have to bother the sheriff to attend to
these matters as it is, and the approval of this conditional use permit only serves to further the degradation of our
environment and reduce our safety by inviting more use of the park.
We know we don't "own" the park, but we should not have to tolerate the disruption and safety issues that the park
creates presently, much less tolerate the larger problem the commission will create if it grants this permit. Granting the
conditional use permit to make Ladera Linda Park more inviting and more accommodating to visitors is the antithesis of
good judgement, and the antithesis of the intent of the city's charter to maintain peace, safety and tranquility in a low
density peaceful environment. I hope the planning commission and city council understand they are charged to
maintain a safe and peaceful environment for all of the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, and that keeping the citizens
safe, and preserving less traveled nature of Ladera Linda, is their assigned responsibility.
1
My Best Regards.
Robert F. Brink ..
CF:e
32236 Searaven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Telephone: 310.265.2231
Fax: 310.265.2241
Mobile: 310.428.4244
http://www.brinkfinancial.com
BRINK
FINANCIAL GROUP !r'·,IC.
MAKING LIVES BETTER FOR OVER 33 YEARS WORLDWIDE
Securities and Advisory offered through Western International Securities, Inc Member FINRA and SIPC
Brink Financial Group and Western International Securities are separate and unaffiliated entities,
We cannot accept trade instructions via email or voicemail,
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda project April 6 council meeting
-----Original Message-----
From: Maggie Vlaco <maggievlaco@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:14PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project April 6 council meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am a 23 year resident of RPV and Ladera Linda. We live across the street from the park and my brothers and I attended
the Montessori School there. In fact, that was one of the reasons my parents chose to move here. They also chose this
community because it was more remote and quiet than other areas of the peninsula. But now with increased soccer
games and preserve visitation, it is no longer peaceful.
I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda park because its design is not compatible with the neighborhood,
there are too many rooms and the planned programming and events will result in more traffic and noise to our
neighborhood.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to local residents to develop a
more suitable plan for this park.
Thank you,
Maggie Vlaco
Ladera Linda resident
1
\ '
Enyssa Momoli
To:
Subject:
Megan Barnes
RE: Ladera Linda
From: Nina Smith <ninansteveca@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 4:49 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
I am so looking forward to the redevelopment of Ladera Linda Community Center. I am hoping for
some senior classes, exercise and club meeting space as well as voting center.. I am disappointed
that it has been downsized and there is no pool. Years ago there was community membership for the
High School pools where families would meet for open swim time, kids had aquatic classes and
adults had lap times available -good times were had by all. I understand the traffic and trash
problems, but they have been there for a long time-made worse by pandemic and social media
exploiting our beautiful area. I agree that there needs to be adequate parking but I feel those
concerns of traffic, trash and parking need addressing at another time. I know if asked our Lomita
sheriff can swing by and there always seems be a park ranger around. Thank you for your time and
patience. Nina Smith
1
\ '
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: LADERA LINDA
From: iamsambino@aol.com <iamsambino@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 202112:55 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: LADERA LINDA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is our third email to all CC members (previously sent individually) to express our UTMOST DISMAY that the city of
RPV is even considering such an OUTLANDISH proposal to our neighborhood of Ladera Linda.
To consider spending over 15 MILLION dollars for such an absurd addition to our INTIMATE neighborhood is beyond
unbelievable. What has already happened to our neighborhood is so upsetting and you would even consider making it so
much worse in regards to traffic, unnecessary exposure and exorbitant design that will attract far too many crowds outside
our community.
Why is such a structure EVEN being considered? We have been such a supportive and stand out area of Rancho Palos
Verdes. We are proud to live where we live and respect our community.
We are asking that this 15 MILLION+ proposal be taken off the table as you the City Council CAN AND SHOULD
DO .............. We are asking for YOUR SUPPORT in this matter as OUR City Council leaders. We would expect from the
VAST number of emails that you have received that its time to LISTEN and put this proposal to rest. As a neighborhood,
we are appalled and are suffering mentally over this matter.
Dr. Anthony and Lorette Rubino
32507 Searaven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From: Megan Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:09 AM
To:
Cc:
Octavia Silva; Ken Rukavina; Trang Nguyen; Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Ramzi Awwad
Karina Banales
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda
Attachments: img636.pdf
Megan Barnes
Senior Administrative
Analyst
mbarnes@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5226
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
Available In the App Store and Google Play
....... GETITON
......-Google Play
Thi,; c··mail rncssaqe contains information bclonqinq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which nray be privilcqcd, confidential ancljor protected from
di•;closure. The information is intended only for usc of the individual 01 entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prol1ibitccl. If
vou received lhis email in crTor, or are not an intcnclcd recipient, plcdsc notify the sender irnrnccJiately. Thcmk you for your dssist<rrrcc and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/D-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: PHIL SPINOSA <pspinosa@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 9:09AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
Hello Please see attached Thank you, The Spinosa's
1
\
f)~ Mcyr ~ clif-1 ,
~& cw q 3o~ ~ ob 12-fV aJ. a. 27 ~io-t~~~~~
We-e~~~ ~~trdaL~
~1Jr-~~~ ~~*·) ~ I ~I~ or) .~avrJ. ~ eo;{:,
p~ck ~~Ja~~~;;/:{;~~ 1
aJ~~~;t~~~~;6
~~~~A~~~-
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Lasers Linda community center and park
-----Original Message-----
From: Nasreen Khosravian <krk12tx@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 8:35 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Lasers Linda community center and park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I veto the project coming into my subdivision. I do not want to attract more traffic into our neighborhood. I veto the
changes proposed to the park
Nasreen Khosravian
32405 sea raven dr
Rancho Palos Verdes. CA
Sent from Nasreen iPhone
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Letter regarding Ladera Linda expansion
From: alyesh@aol.com <alyesh@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 5:46PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter regarding Ladera Linda expansion
April 3, 2021
To the city council, city of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I understand that it is not highly likely that anyone will pay attention to the comments of a resident of Ladera
Linda. Indications are for whatever reason that the horse has left the barn, but if you are considering the comments of
neighbors, I would like to add my voice.
I moved from Minneapolis, MN to CA 20 years ago and in the past six years live in the Ladera Linda of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
When I lived in Minneapolis, I was the volunteer neighborhood chair of the Stevens Square /Loring Heights
Neighborhood Revitalization Program. After 3 years and 78 meetings that directly involved 400 members of the 4,000-
member community, we came up with a unanimously approved plan that was accepted and adopted by the city and
which in fact became the model of revitalization for the other 80 neighborhoods. I can provide you the references to the
administrator of the NRP, Robert Miller for the city of Minneapolis who can attest to this reality.
We listened to what the residents wanted, and the neighborhood continued to thrive and is continuing that trajectory
even now 30 years later.
If there is an interest in improving the quality of life for those in the neighborhood, the plan must be scaled to meet the
needs of the neighborhood. If the plan is to create a regional park building it is fraught with many problems, some of
which cannot necessarily be anticipated. These include: crime and safety, parking, noise, traffic, trash, maintenance and
policing costs. Rather than making the neighborhood better and safer, you will create a problem for the neighborhood
instead. Anything that is built must be maintained. A larger than needed structure will increase the ongoing
maintenance costs and create budgetary problems for the city in the future. A modest plan that the neighborhood
approves will be cared for by the neighborhood because the neighborhood will see it as its own rather than serving
those who may not care for the neighborhood, who come, leave their trash and are gone because they have no stake
and no connection to the center.
If there is a desire on your part to serve the community, please listen to the community. The plan suggested so far is out
of touch with the needs of the community. I cannot fathom the logical reason for moving forward with the plan.
Please work with us.
1
\
Sincerely,
M. Elie Alyeshmerni
32443 Sea Raven Drive
Ladera Linda
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
310 9227852
2
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: NO to new Ladera Linda Development!
From: DC <danilo110787@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 8:42AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: NO to new Ladera Linda Development!
Hello,
I am deeply troubled to learn about the efforts of the new development. I truly believe this is antithetical to what makes
Rancho Palos Verdes special and that it will backfire on its intended efforts to add a more community feel to the area. I
just purchased a new property on Sea Raven and was not aware of this until after the closing of escrow. My wife was
already harassed on the first week by a homeless person who followed her demanding to know where she lived. The
person was in the LL center and to say this was a disappointment to us after being so excited to experience the
community was an understatement. This SAFETY issue will get WORSE based on the experience of any other
communication center that exists in LA and I will repeat: IT WILL BACKFIRE!
What I find most egregious is the fact that the residents were not consulted and brought into the mix. The city and
private development simply decide what to do, based on a lucrative contract. I wonder why ... People are scared and
nervous about this and I explicitly request that you do NOT proceed with this new development and allow the residents
to keep things as are. I would like to add that it is a great area at the moment, and people really enjoy it as is from what I
had seen. The entire idea of this place to be true to nature and offer beautiful wildlife hikes.
Thank you for your consideration and I await to see you will do the right thing, regard your taxpaying and voting
residents, and not abuse your powers.
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Opposition to Proposed Design of Ladera Linda Park Facility
From: Anthony P. Funiciello <AFuni@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April4, 20214:12 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Design of Ladera Linda Park Facility
April 4th, 2021
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members,
I am writing you in reference to the proposed design of the new Ladera Linda Park facility.
Anthony Funiciello
3578 Vigilance Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
I am a concerned resident of the Ladera Linda neighborhood. I do not agree that we need a 6900 square foot building and
strongly believe the building is too big for what the neighborhood needs. The size of the project needs to be reduced to preserve
the values of our homes and lifestyles of our residents. I am concerned such a large building would lead to more traffic and
overcrowding in our community. I am concerned about the crowding in our currently quiet and quaint neighborhood. I am also
concerned about the significant increase in the amount of people, pollution, traffic, and trash that will be left behind which goes
against the very nature of the Preserve. We already regularly see leftover trash and debris littered about the Preserve and
walkways and this project will exacerbate the issue. I also see the potential security issues involved with allowing more people to
access the neighborhood and Preserve.
I would like to strongly voice my dissent to the presently proposed plan.
Sincerely,
Anthony Funiciello
1
\ '
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Opposition to proposed Ladera Linda Plans
From: Elizabeth Sax <saxhouse1@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April4, 2021 4:19 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to proposed Ladera Linda Plans
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am a 24-year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and a 24-year
homeowner within the Seaview Homeowners Association. I strongly
oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda park--it is much larger than
what we need and far too expensive of a project! There is no need or
want for a discovery room, especially since PVIC already has
accommodations for an amphitheatre and outdoor gathering space.
Rancho Palos Verdes is a quaint city with charm, and revamping the park
space with the proposed plan will bring in unwanted congestion with
people, cars, exhaust, and noise. I do not want my tax money to go
toward improvements and upkeep of this proposed plan. I want to keep
our neighborhood clean, safe and uncongested.
Elizabeth Sax
4022 Admirable Drive
1
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Opposition Toward Ladera Linda Development
From: Aaron Bivinetto <aaron.bivinetto@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 202110:36 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Aaron Biv <biv@cox.net>; tanja <tanjaw8ing4iam@yahoo.com>; Diane Siegel <siegelfood@yahoo.com>; Rick Siegel
<frederickwsiegel@yahoo.com>; Avery Bivinetto <avery.bivinetto@yahoo.com>; Drew <drewbivi@gmail.com>;
Bivinetto Ellerie <bivinettoellerie@yahoo.com>; Jason Bivinetto <jason.bivinetto@yahoo.com>
Subject: Opposition Toward Ladera Linda Development
Dear Mayor and City Council members:
I represent myself as well as my wife and our four children in this expression of opposition toward any further
development of Ladera Linda Park.
We moved to the neighborhood of Ladera Linda in 2003 and are raising our four children here. Several years ago, Ladera
Linda Park started being leased to facilitate soccer leagues. Since and during that time, when the league is running, the
weekend traffic and congestion is intolerable. Unfortunately, during this time the neighborhoods surrounding the park,
Ladera Linda and Sea View, saw larger waves of crime and vandalism. And since that time, it has continued to escalate to
burglaries, mail theft, auto break-ins as well as vandalism which is still persistent.
In the last three months, in my once quite neighborhood of Ladera Linda, I have had two tires slashed on one of my
vehicles, eggs have been thrown at three of our vehicles and one of our vehicles was broken into and the steering
column/cylinder key lock were broken, in an attempt to steal our vehicle. This is terrible in and of itself, but during this
same time period, two other vehicles within Ladera Linda had its tires slashed as well. Additionally, other homes and
vehicles were targets of eggs/vandalism as well.
1 as well as many residents of our neighborhood, have been on heightened alert. Just last week, I waived hello to yet
another vehicle that slowly drove down our dead--end street looking as if they were casing the neighborhood. The male
in the vehicle slowed down nervously and asked me "Where is the park at?" My heart told me it was a convenient way
for him not to look suspicious, but in either case our neighborhood has already had enough of a negative impact with
the park as it sits. And it is unbearably worse when soccer leagues are allowed to play there, creating more attention,
traffic, congestion, and crime in our neighborhood.
1
\
In the past, Ladera Linda Park used to be the elementary school for our neighborhood (a relatively small population of
Sea View, Ladera Linda, and Portuguese Bend residents of Rancho Palos Verdes). This is and would be an appropriate
use for this property. Conversely, building a large community center that will attract more vehicles, congestion, and
people as well as planning to utilize buses to transport people to other parks is an absolute inappropriate use for a small
residential street and neighborhood park.
This will bring far too many vehicles to a small residential street and will attract a wider footprint of people, their traffic,
attention, and excessive congestion which is not appropriate for this residential location. Again, I reiterate that Ladera
Linda Park is on a small residential street unlike several other parks in RPV which are located on major thoroughfares
including several parks on PV Drive South and Hawthorne Blvd. Those streets are conducive to high traffic unlike the
residential street of Forrestal Drive, Ladera Linda Park, and its residents.
The simple fact is that Ladera Linda Park is on a small residential street and is the drive way to homes on Forrestal Drive
and in the Ladera Linda housing tract. The grandiose plans of developing a large community center at Ladera Linda Park
is far too excessive when compared to its original and appropriate use. In fact, these plans if implemented in our
residential neighborhood of Ladera Linda would constitute absolute neglect for our neighborhood and its public safety.
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes possesses several parks on major thoroughfares which are much more conducive to
these development plans and to the traffic they would bring.
We chose not to live on or adjacent to a busy street like PV Drive or Hawthorne Blvd! Please do not bring
an inappropriately busy street to our neighborhood residential street and park.
Please, I know my family as well as many in our neighborhood, beg you NOT TO FURTHER DEVELOP Ladera Linda Park,
and it should be maintained as a small neighborhood park which lies on a small neighborhood residential street. If you
must expand, do it at a park on Hawthorne Boulevard where the thoroughfare is more conducive for higher traffic
counts and the congestion it brings.
Thank you for your consideration.
Aaron Bivinetto
Tanja Bivinetto
Jason Bivinetto
Avery Bivinetto
Drew Bivinetto
2
Ellerie Bivinetto
3420 Gulfcrest Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
3
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Reconsider Ladera Linda Development
From: Alex Hynes <abhynes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:40AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Reconsider Ladera Linda Development
To whom it may concern,
My wife and I bought a home in Ladera Linda in December. We were familiar with the area; and love the peacefulness
of the area and its natural beauty.
Building a $15 million+ destination at Ladera Linda is stupid. Don't be stupid.
Nobody needs a huge building at Ladera Linda. We don't need the traffic. We definitely don't need the costs associated
with such a ridiculous project.
Please reconsider.
Thanks,
Alex Hynes
3578 Heroic Dr
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1 \.
Enyssa Momoli
To: Megan Barnes
Subject: RE: Strongly oppose the current plans for the Ladera Linda Pocket Park.
From: Edward Stevens <ezstevens@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 7:40 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Sean Larvenz <SeanL@rpvca.gov>; Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Strongly oppose the current plans for the Ladera Linda Pocket Park.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am a 40 year resident of RPV and a 40 year resident of the Seaview Homeowners
Association. I strongly oppose the current plans for Ladera Linda Pocket park because Ladera
linda is a small neighborhood Pocket Park.
Ladera Linda was originally a small local school for the 2 adjoining local Neighborhoods of
Ladera Linda & Seaview until it was shut down due to a lack of students. The City took over the
Park around 1978 & has not spent any City funds to maintain the buildings or the landscaping
just the bare minimum over the years.
Ladera Linda Park has always been a small Neighborhood Pocket Park & should remain that
way for the local Neighborhood Community to enjoy.
If this project is allowed to be built it will bring increased traffic, crime, trash, homeless etc
into our small community when advertised on the Social Media ..
The existing buildings could be retrofitted for less than what the staff has spent already on
trying to push this huge project forward that is not desired nor endorsed.
This project should be built at Hesse park or at the Interruptive Center or the City Hall Site not
at a Small Neighborhood Pocket Park without adequate parking and a street that does not
lend itself to the increased traffic.
Please do not allow the current plan to move forward, and instead require staff to listen to
local residents to develop a more suitable plan for this park. We appreciate the City Council is
seeking an appeal of the CUP because that means that we can now work together to make the
park meets the community's needs.
Thank you
Barbara Stevens
40 +years in Seaview
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Chris Pisano <cjpisano@yahoo.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 8:21 AM
Octavia Silva
Ladera Linda
As an eighteen year resident of the Ladera Linda community I would like to register my displeasure with the proposed
project. The center, as designed, is too big and not in scale with the surrounding. My wife and I were drawn to this area
because if the openness and quiet beautiful surroundings. We already suffer on weekends when AYSO is in season and
are now suffering due to the changes in parking at Del Cera, which is causing increased traffic in this area. There are
weekends where it is nearly impossible to cross PVDS from Forrestal. I ask the city to reconsider this project and put in
place a more scaled back center.
Respectfully,
Chris Pisano
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
\.
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Craig Whited <craigwhited@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 11 :25 AM
CityCierk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Ladera Linda Community Center
Ladera Linda Letter to City Council.pdf
From: Craig Whited [mailto:craigwhited@cox.net]
Sent: 04/05/2021 11:21 AM
To: 'Eric Alegria'; 'david.bradley@rpvca.gov'; 'ken.dyda@rpvca.gov'; 'barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov';
'john.cruikshank@rpvca.gov'; cc@rpvca.gov
Cc: Ara Mihranian (AraM@rpvca.gov)
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Members of the City Council,
Please find rny attached letter to you regarding the I,adcra Linda Comrnunity Center plan that you
be considering at your meeting on April 6th. We certainly hope that you will approve the L.adera
as currentl:y detailed in the Staff Report.
Yours very truly,
Craig vVhited
President-Mediterrania IIOA
1
Craig R. Whited
31145 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, 90275
H-310/541-5272 & Cell-310/947-1840
April 5, 2021
Mayor Eric Alegria
Mayor ProTem David Bradley
Councilman John Cruikshank
Councilman Ken Dyda
Councilwoman Barbara Ferraro
Dear Members of the City Council
I'm Craig Whited and am the President of the Mediterrania Home Owners Association. Our HOA has
over 250 separate residences and is directly connected to the Ladera Linda Park via the Pirate Trail.
In 2018, Mediterrania was determined by the City Council to be one of the four neighborhoods in the
direct vicinity of the Ladera Linda Park to be considered key stakeholders in the design process.
Since that time Jim Hevener and Suzy Cyr have been the representatives of our HOA and have
provided direct input into the process at every stage in an attempt to reach a compromise with
adjacent Ladera Linda HOA residents, including the unanimous recommendation to hire the design
firm of Johnson Favarro.
Last month, the Mediterrania HOA Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the then current
Ladera Linda Park Project Plan and Design now in front of the City Council. We seek your approval
on April 61h for the plan with the modifications contained in the City Staff Report. We also believe that
operational policies for Ladera Linda should consistent with those of Hesse Park (as Hesse Park
serves a similar function and is also directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods).
The Ladera Linda Park and Community Center have been used for years by our HOA for annual
meetings and by our residents for recreation, classes and meetings. The Boy Scout Troop that I was
privileged to lead as its Scoutmaster for 25 years, has used the Ladera Linda Community Center and
nearby trails for many, many years and has participated in a variety of Eagle Service Projects as well
as performing trail maintenance activities in the area.
It has been over 30 years since Ladera Linda Elementary graduated its last class, and the facility has
been a community center and park for most of the time since. Sadly the facility has been allowed to
deteriorate and currently receives an "F" grade. While it might be cheaper to tear it down, there is no
other community center on the SE side of the Hill. At least one is desperately needed just to maintain
the current level of outdoor opportunities. With the influx of younger families we need even more
parks and recreation facilities to get children out from behind their "screens."
While the Ladera Linda Community Center compromise plan that was previously agreed to is less
than half of the current footprint, it is certainly a great deal better than the crumbling, dangerous
facility that currently exists there and there should not be any more delays in moving forward.
Thank you.
Craig R. Whited
President-MHOA
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To All City Council Members:
Dann Cloud <dcloud@cloudminturn.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1 :54 PM
CityCierk
Teresa Takaoka; Lisa Garrett
Ladera Linda Park Project
First let me say I appreciated the thorough analysis that the planning commission presented in the 2/25/21
meeting.
One of the take a ways from the planning commission meeting was that none of the pro upgrade participants
will be directly affected by this project.
I assume they would not come here on a weekend which is when the major challenges do & will continue to
occur.
Also, as was mentioned in the meeting, the data that is being used is from 2019 and before. Obviously a lot has
changed since then & I personally don't believe we will ever return to the way it used to be. So we need to
make decisions based on current data.
One thought is to postpone the project. This would allow time to see if the traffic & crime statistics will be
lower after things get back to the new normal
We have lived in the Ladera Linda neighborhood for 29 years. One of the reasons we moved here is because of
its rural atmosphere.
Since the Trump Golf Couse was completed & recently with the parking being limited and people parking all
the way from the club house to PV drive south it has become increasingly dangerous to make a left turn off of
Forrestal on to PV drive south. We have also been impacted by more crime (car thefts & home break-ins) since
the increased exposure of people exploring the Trump area.
If the council & planning commission move ahead with this current plan , which makes no sense from a cost
standpoint, the increase in crime as well as potential traffic accidents and possibly death will rise dramatically.
There is no reason to expand the Ladera Linda facility beyond its current setting and capacity.
Because we are so close to San Pedro the only people that will be attracted are from there & other surrounding
areas.
This will not have any recreational benefit for local RPV residents
The only thing it will accomplish is to bring in more visitors from out of the area which will create more crime
& accident exposure
Since Ladera Linda residence are a minority our voice is small. But since we are the only ones that will be
adversely affected I feel we should be heard.
Please DO NOT proceed with this project.
1
(])ann
Daniel J. Cloud, ChFC, CLU
Chartered Financial Consultant
Registered Investment Advisor (RIA)
DCloud@Cloudminturn .com
Direct: (31 0) 543-1492
Mobile: (31 0) 490-073 5
Cloud, Minturn & Associates, LLC (CMA)
Risk Management Advisors
Human Resource Administrators
Registered Investment Advisors (RIA)
Serving A Select Clientele With Personalized Service Since 1986
Telephone (310) 316-3662 Facsimile (310) 755-6080 FAX
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The infonnation in this e-mail is privileged and confidential. Any use, copying or dissemination of
any portion of this e-mail by or to anyone other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to sender and delete it from your system immediately.
2
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Corrected address for City Clerk
Richard Ishibashi < rtishibashi888@gmail.com >
Monday, April 5, 2021 11:47 AM
CityCierk
Fwd: Please Support the Ladera Linda Project
From: Richard Ishibashi <rtishibashi888@gmail.com>
Date: April 5, 2021 at 11:43:24 AM PDT
To: cc@rpvca.gov
Cc: cityclrtk@rovca.gov, david.bradley@rpvca.gov, ken.dyda@rpvca.gov, John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov,
Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov, barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov
Subject: Please Support the Ladera Linda Project
Dear City Council,
Please support the approval of the Ladera Linda Project. The new facility replaces a deteriorated resource used by the
entirety of the Palos Verdes community with a new, thoughtful, less intrusive footprint that will preserve the Discovery
Room and provide utility to the young and old. The opposition to the new project appear to be from a few voices who
seem to purposely mischaracterize the facts of its dimensions and scope, in order to create a general fear that it will
become a magnet for menacing outsiders, in yet another example of exaggerated cancel culturing that threatens to
eliminate and deny forever what has served the RPV community at large, has existed in the same location for decades,
all the while in peaceful coexistence with that location's community. Our neighborhood has a park (Highridge) that
holds soccer games that draws families with their children during its season, that brings with it cars and the boisterous
sounds attendant to games. It is the sound of family exuberance, togetherness and support. Should this, too, be
canceled in the name of peaceful denial and isolation? Ours is a community strong In family, education, and
wholesomeness that facilities like Ladera Linda and our park facilities help foster and engender. Please keep the Ladera
Linda project for all of us, and not deny it for the misplaced fears of the few.
Thank you,
Richard Ishibashi
Resident, Rancho Palos Verdes
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pam A <andresen.pam@gmail.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 12:52 PM
CC; CityCierk
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Ladera Linda Project Support
There are many factors that make the city of RPV great: community members, education, food/retail, transit, public
spaces, open spaces, city officials and many more. The city of RPV has done a great job of achieving great results of all of
the above by making compromises in the best interest of the community. The Ladera Linda project is another example
of that great compromise that benefits the entire community. For many years, residents on the East side of RPV have
been without a functional community center or park. RPV residents have been forced to meet in other cities or non-city
buildings (Marymount University) and children looking for a great park do not have one within walking distance. The
Ladera Linda project which was supported by the planning commission is a great example of compromise. Many, many
years of compromise and negotiations have got us to this reduced plan which is in line with the goal and objective-less
is more.
I am disheartened by the negative comments coming from those in the immediate Ladera Linda neighborhood-their
NIMBY attitude and aggressive position of "NO" is not the behavior that has made this community great. This city has
progressed through compromise, through negotiation and through the view of the best interest of the entire
community, not just for those in the immediate vicinity.
Hours of operation, Parking, traffic and safety are concerns of every neighborhood, however, all of those concerns can
be mitigated as is done with every project in RPV and that was done with Terranea, Trump golf and now the new homes
at Trump Golf Course. Policies can be put in place to mitigate concerns as was done with Hesse Park.
I am in full support of the Ladera Linda project, a negotiated and compromised solution has been provided and should
continue to move forward as the Planning Commission has set forth.
Thank you
-Pam Andresen
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tony B <tbrar44@yahoo.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 1:16 PM
CityCierk; CC
Ladera Linda project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Hello,
We support the current project as has been proposed. We look forward to spending time with our kids in a community
center that appeals to families of our community.
Tony and Mindy
Mediterranea HOA
3520 Hightide Dr
1
\
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mayor and City Council,
jack fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 3:05 PM
CityCierk; CC
Ladera Linda
As a resident of Ladera Linda I'm frustrated and disappointed in the manner in which the Ladera Linda
Community Center Project has been handled. I have emails going back to 2014 announcing meetings asking for
the neighbors input into the wants, needs and design of the park. The take away was "smaller is better" which
was repeated over and over by some members of the previous council.
This is a neighborhood park not a community center. The size and cost of this project have ballooned way out
of control. The City would be duplicating resources that exist in other City facilities and the cost of
$15.7million is irresponsible and obscene for a City our size.
It appears to me that the City Council has subjugated their responsibility to represent the Citizens of the Ladera
Linda in favor of the bureaucrats in the Parks Department. This was not why you were elected. I strongly
request that you reject the park design and budget and listen to the residents of Ladera Linda and not the City
bureaucrats.
Thank you for your time,
Jack Fleming
REAL TOR and CPA
310-748-5206
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Walt Goede <waltgoede@cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 3:10PM
CC; CityCierk
Walt Goede
Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To RPV City
I wish to strongly support the Ladera Linda project. Over the past many months I have attended all the planning
meetings held at the Ladera Linda facility to develop an informed opinion on this topic. I have been very distressed by
the people in the immediate Ladera Linda local area as they have not tried to see the big picture and how the facility
benefits the entire community and have instead continually raised opposition with red-herring type arguments to try to
stop this project. This community center can serve as a vital resource for all of RPV by providing a place for its residents
to enjoy our area as well as providing a meeting place for local residents.
I have been a resident of RPV since 1976 and live in the Mediterranean area. Over the many years I have watched my
children play soccer at the fields and have attended many community meetings at this facility. Since the area closed as a
school the buildings and facility have been allowed to run down and become outdated. The current new design appears
to be excellent even though it has been significantly compromised to satisfy the nay-sayers in this area. We also
frequently walk the trails in this area and do not see evidence of all the issues the people in this area continually
complain about. These are classic attempts associated with the "Not In My Area" arguments that that they continually
put forward. When this was an active school site there was much higher usage but now all of a sudden the people in
this area would prefer to put up gates and have it a totally closed community. If any changes are needed it should be to
accommodate additional parking.
I believe the plans for this facility have already beed downsized more than is reasonable and further delays trying to
make the facility less useful are unwarranted. I urge the city leaders to move forward without any additional delays.
Sincerely
Walt & Carol Goede
31051 Hawksmoor Dr
RPV
310-344-9100
1
\ .
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Lois Karp <JLKarp@Cox.net>
Monday, April 5, 2021 3:49PM
cc
CityCierk
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
April 6, 2021 Agenda: Public Hearing item #1 Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
PLEASE APPROVE THE LADERA LINDA PROJECT! I have been an eastside resident for 50 years. I love Rancho Palos Verdes
and have worked to support it all these Years. It is a beautiful and safe place to live. I consider myself very lucky to have
chosen to live here so long ago, as it gets better every year. We have beautiful parks, views and open space, which
enhances our lives.
However, the south east part of the City has been the step child when it comes to improved park space. The City has no
other alternative site in this area for a Community Center and Park except Ladera Linda. The City has been working and
reworking the Ladera Linda plan for almost 7 years. This current plan is about as small and unobtrusive as it can get. Any
smaller and it will be useless.
The people who are objecting to the renovation of this site will not be happy with any plan. That is so obvious. This part
of the city is entitled to have a community center and park providing a place to meet, hold classes for children and
adults and a place for our children to play.
The traffic complaints have nothing to do with the park. They are a completely different problem for the City to solve.
The site was an Elementary School and generated more traffic than this park ever will and this community park plan has
more parking than it had as an Elementary School.
I implore you to approve this project. The planning process for this proposed project has gone on for much too long and
now is the time to approve it.
Thank you,
Lois Karp
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Karmelich <MKarmelich@pobox.com>
Monday, April 5, 2021 4:03 PM
cc
CityCierk; David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Please approve Ladera Linda Community Center Project
Please add my voice in support of the Ladera Linda Community Center Project.
We need a nice facility like this in our area for us and our kids. What a great asset to the community.
I've reviewed the current plans and options at https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16902/Attachment-
K RPV-Ladera-Linda-City-Councii--Design-Modification-Options-Apr-2021
All looks good, including security gates.
Please approve, this would be great for everyone!
Thanks,
Mark Karmelich
6321 Via Colinita
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
1