The URL can be used to link to this page

20211018 Late CorrespondenceTO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK OCTOBER 18, 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, October 19, 2021 City Council meeting: Item No. G 2 3 4 5 Description of Material Email exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst, Waters and Eric Glassy; Zachary Ellison Letter from: Jess Morton (Los Angeles County Director) Emails from: Donna McLaughlin; Joan Krause; Jess Morton; Herb Stark; Evi Meyer; Martin Byhower; Gary Randall; Cynthia Woo; Jackie and Jim Showalter; Peter Shaw; Dave and Sue Breiholz; Al Sattler; Joan Kelly; Sharon Yarber; Kim Lindsey; Mark and Mei Martin; Doris Leimer; Charlene M. O'Neil, President( Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association) Emails from: Herb Stark; Jerry and Marcia Hebert; Christine Fink- Hansen; James Hevener; Joan Russell; Patricia Stenehjem; Donald Bell Emails from: Mickey Radich; Amanda Wong Email exchanges between Assistant Engineer, Lopez and Renee Jensen; Suzanne Brothers; Darren Wadsworth Email from Director of Community Development, Rukavina Email exchanges between Director of Community Development, Rukavina and Vance Purdy; Letter from: Pearl Laraneta Emails from: Barbara Cambilargiu; Michael Kelsey; Colleen Campbell; Brian Mazen; John Zuanich; Pamela Anderson; Lisa Farrar; Vicki Croucier; Jamie Farrar; David Liebesny; John Zuanich; Reid lsaki; Stephanie Krasovec; Nancy and Arthur Sams; Dylan Bruno; M L Bettino; Linda and Dana Aratani; Tammy Zar; Rhoanne Washington; S. Branger; Chris Caoile; Veena Rangappan; Michael Kotlyar; Adrienne Livoti; Mahesh Mahajan; Audrey Stempel and Daniel Elroi; Lonnie Additions/Revisions and Amendments to the Agenda Monday, October 18, 2020 Page 2 Jordan; Mia Montpas; Michelle Castelo Alferes; Adriana Peacock; Mary Clarke; Dave Unvert; Barbara Cambilargiu; Mira Catalina; Marianne Shriver; Joan Russell Respectfully submitted, C~z1~,2/A_j Teresa Takaoka L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20211018 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2021 \2021 Coversheets\20211018 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx Enyssa Momoli From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:27 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: eBikes on nature preserves: Ordinance 650 Late corr attached fore-bike item Thanks, Matt -----Original Message----- From: ERIC GLASSY <efglassymd@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:07 PM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: eBikes on nature preserves: Ordinance 650 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Matt Even the class 1 e-bikes are dangerous. 20 MPH is pretty fast and the required "peddling" can be token, not difficult at all. I've seen 20 mph accidents and they are not pretty. Trails are sometimes narrow and class 1 bikes zipping past are worrisome. I do not see any upside to modifying Ordinance 650. Trails in RPV are meant for walkers, hikers, and joggers. Not assisted transportation. Sincerely, Eric F. Glassy, MD > On Oct 12, 2021, at 3:21 PM, Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote: > > > Good Afternoon, > > Thank you for your email correspondence related toe-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. As you may know, the City Council re-introduced Ordinance 650 at the October 5 City Council Meeting. At that meeting the City Council voted to modify Ordinance 650 to allow Class 1 e-bikes on trails that currently allow traditional mountain bikes. The City Council's decision to only allow Class 1 e-bikes was primarily based on the different classes of e-bikes, as defined below: > > Class 1 e-bike > * Electric motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling. > * Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour > > Class 2 e-bike > * Electric motor/throttle may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle 1 G ., > * Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour > > Class 3 e-bike > * Electric motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling. > * Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 28 miles per hour > * Must have a speedometer > > Additionally, E-bike classes 1-3 must have a capacity of less than 750 watts, and per the California Vehicle Code, must have a label containing the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle, printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type. > > At its October 19 meeting, the City Council will consider the second reading of Ordinance 650. If Ordinance 650 is approved on October 19, all of the modifications to Preserve and Park rules (including allowing Class 1 e-bikes in the Preserve) will become effective on November 19, 2021 (30 days after the Ordinance is introduced). > > The City very much appreciates your feedback and engagement in matters pertaining to Preserve operations, as the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is unique and is treasured by so many throughout Los Angeles County and beyond. Below is information on two additional public meetings at which the topic of Class 1 e-bikes will be further discussed. We greatly value public participation and involvement and encourage you to attend: > > Preserve Public Forum (virtual) > Wednesday, October 13 at 6 p.m. > Please use the link below to fill out the Quarterly Preserve Public Participation Form: > https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17234/Public-Participation-F > arm-Lead-In-Page > > Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 19 at 7 p.m. > Please use the link below to fill out the City Council Meeting Public Participation Form: > https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17234/Public-Participation-F > arm-Lead-In-Page > > Thank you, > > > Matt Waters > Senior Administrative Analyst > -------------------- > > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > Recreation and Parks Department > 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > www.rpvca.gov > mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ERIC GLASSY <efglassymd@mac.com> > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:23 PM > To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> > Subject: eBikes on nature preserves: Ordinance 650 > 2 > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. > > > Dear RPV City Council, > > I am writing to express my concerns about the approval of eBikes on nature trails. > You have received a number of concerns, I am sure. > I just want to add to them. >Weare blessed with wonderful, preserved natural sanctuaries on the Peninsula. > These are meant to be shared and enjoyed. > But allowing bikes in general and eBikes in particular will put our resources at risk. > I hope you reconsider your current position and vote to not allow these recreational vehicles on our trails. > > Respectfully, > > Eric F. Glassy, MD 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:05 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: FW: E-Bikes LC From: Zachary Ellison <zachary.b.ellison@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 202112:03 PM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: FW: E-Bikes Thank you for the information! Let's hope no one gets hit by an E-Bike going 20 mph. But if they do I hope they sue RPV. Totally hypocritical to close off parking claiming it's too many people for the Reserve to handle and then okay this change. Let the Reserve be for nature, not electric vehicles. Best, Zach On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:11 PM Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon, Thank you for your email correspondence related toe-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. As you may know, the City Council re-introduced Ordinance 650 at the October 5 City Council Meeting. At that meeting the City Council voted to modify Ordinance 650 to allow Class 1 e-bikes on trails that currently allow traditional mountain bikes. The City Council's decision to only allow Class 1 e-bikes was primarily based on the different classes of e-bikes, as defined below: Class 1 e-bike • Electric motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling. • Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour 1 Class 2 e-bike • Electric motor/throttle may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle • Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour Class 3 e-bike • Electric motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling. • Electric motor stops assisting when the bike reaches 28 miles per hour • Must have a speedometer Additionally, E-bike classes 1-3 must have a capacity of less than 750 watts, and per the California Vehicle Code, must have a label containing the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle, printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type. At its October 19 meeting, the City Council will consider the second reading of Ordinance 650. If Ordinance 650 is approved on October 19, all of the modifications to Preserve and Park rules (including allowing Class 1 e-bikes in the Preserve) will become effective on November 19, 2021 (30 days after the Ordinance is introduced). The City very much appreciates your feedback and engagement in matters pertaining to Preserve operations, as the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is unique and is treasured by so many throughout Los Angeles County and beyond. Below is information on two additional public meetings at which the topic of Class 1 e-bikes will be further discussed. We greatly value public participation and involvement and encourage you to attend: Preserve Public Forum (virtual) Wednesday, October 13 at 6 p.m. Please use the link below to fill out the Quarterly Preserve Public Participation Form: https ://www.rpvca.gov/Docu me ntCe nte r /View /17234/Pu blic-Pa rtici patio n-Fo rm-Lead-In-Page Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 19 at 7 p.m. 2 Please use the link below to fill out the City Council Meeting Public Participation Form: https://www.rpvca.gov/Docu me ntCe nte r /View /17234/Pu b I ic-Pa rtici patio n-Fo rm-Lea d-1 n-Page Thank you, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p From: Zachary Ellison <zachary.b.ellison@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:35 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: E-Bikes Dear RPV City Council - I have hiked in your reserves since 2011. Please do not allow e-bikes into the reserve. They 3 will create unsafe conditions for other users, erode the trails and annoy the wildlife. Your reserves are much too small and delicate to accommodate this activity. Why should I have to dodge e-bikes? Wait until one spooks someone's horse! Don't do this seriously and give us back the parking on Crenshaw too. Thanks! Best, Zachary Ellison Lawndale, CA 4 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Late corr -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 12, 2021 6:36 PM CityClerk Katie Lozano; Matt Waters FW: Comment Letter for Oct. 19th City Council Meeting E-Bike Letter to RPV City Council.doc From: Jess Morton <jmorton@igc.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 6:27 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comment Letter for Oct. 19th City Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Please pass this letter on to the members of the City Council in advance of the Oct. 19th meeting. It pertains to our opposition to approving an e-bike exemption for the Preserve. Thank you, Jess Morton Los Angeles County Director Endangered Habitats League 1 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDI CATED TO ECOS YS TEM P RO TE C TION AND SU STAIN AB LE LAND U S E City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275 10/13/21 Re: Opposition to allowing e-bikes on Preserve trails Dear Mayor Alegria and Council Members , The Endangered Habitats League (EHL), which has been engaged in the development and oversight of southern California's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) since its inception in 1991 , strongly protests the City Council 's passage of an exemption to the City 's prohibition on the use of motorized vehicles in the Preserve. The threats to both habitat health and pedestrian safety already posed by mountain bike presence in the Preserve will be exacerbated by this unwarranted exemption, which offers no offsetting gain to City residents. The rationale presented at the City Council meeting of October 5th for adoption of this last-minute change to the proposed regulations for the Preserve was weak, at best, and clearly underrates the potential harm it will cause. Nor was any thought given to its lack of CEQA and NCCP compliance , considerations so necessary with such a change. While EHL greatly appreciates the care usually taken by the City in attempting to balance the competing needs of residents for recreation against the requirements for habitat protection imposed by the NCCP and the agencies which provided the bulk of funds needed to acquire Preserve lands in the first place , we believe the regulation change in this case misses the mark. Indeed , most Council members expressed concerns about it , going so far as to question allowing bikes on the trails at all. That this change was not part of the public notice for the meeting is troubling in the extreme , and contrary to normal City procedures. The suggestion that this exception to the no-vehicle rule could be rescinded by the City Council if some unspecified amount of harm is done is hardly reassurmg. We expect that there will be considerable opposition to the exemption voiced by City residents and local organizations, especially those in the environmental community. We also expect that , after careful reflection, the Council itself will soon come to the conclusion that it was ill-considered and hastily passed without the careful thought it deserved. As staff pointed out, no other similar open space in the County allows e-bikes . That is for good reason. We suggest consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game re incompatibility of such an exemption with NCCP requirements. 8 4 2 4 SANTA M ON I CA B LVD SU I TE A 592 Los A NGELES CA 9 00 69-4 267 ♦ WWW.EHLEAGUE.ORG ♦ PH ONE 2 13.8 04 .2 750 We oppose the newly inserted exemption fore-bikes, regardless of class, in the regulations on Preserve trails use, and ask that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council withdraw its approval. Cordially yours, Jess Morton Los Angeles County Director Enyssa Momoli From: Katie Lozano Sent: To: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:05 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: e-bikes on the trails Late correspondence -----Original Message----- From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:52 PM To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: e-bikes on the trails -----Original Message----- From: Donna McLaughlin <ddmclaughlin@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:51 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: e-bikes on the trails CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear City Council Please do not allow e-bikes back on the trails. They speed and cause damage to our beautiful and fragile preserve. I have been hiking these trails for over 20 years and the past several years with more and more e-bikers coming has made my hiking less enjoyable. We hike in the preserve to destress and enjoy the beautiful peaceful nature. Hiking with e-bikes flying down (and up) the trails is hazardous and stressful. They do not follow the rules and are constantly on "no bikes allowed" trails. They have no respect or consideration for hikers (or other bikers that I have overheard talking about them). We have seen less and less horses on the trails as one rider told me the horses are very spooked by the fast bikes. Class 1 e-bikes are also very hazardous flying down the trails and on the narrower trails we have had to jump out of the way several times. The Ishibashi Trail has so many blind curves they don't slow around those. That trail should be closed to ALL bikers due to the blind curves. E-bikes cause more erosion due to their heavier weight and are more dangerous to the safety of hikers. They also go faster and end up skidding around corners and causing damage to the vegetation. Other Preserves do NOT allow e-bikes for the above reasons. Please consider the safety of hikers above all else. No one should have to hike in this beautiful nature preserve and worry they are going to get hit or yelled at to move over by a biker. Please hike the trails and experience what it like to be coming down the lshabashi Trail with an e-biker speeding on a heavy bike behind you and not able to control his speed to stop in time around a curve to avoid you. He will either hit you, force you to go off trail into the vegetation or he will go into the negation to avoid hitting you. Thank you for thinking of the safety of all of us on the trails. Donna McLaughlin Rancho Palos Verdes resident 1 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:39 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: E bikes on PRESERVE TRAILS LC From: Joan Krause <joanckrause@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 20214:38 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: E bikes on PRESERVE TRAILS Hi, I am a frequent hiker in PVPLC. It is one of my favorite places to hike and has been for 30 plus years. Obviously I have seen many changes to the area. Most recently e-bikes have come to my attention in not a positive way. I can't tell you the number of times I have been hiking up hill and suddenly someone is yelling "On your left!" I am always stunned because they are right on my heels and in my panic I don't know which way to turn. This happens over and over again on a single hike because they can go so fast and repeat the same route over and over while I am hiking. Where a regular bike by it's nature can only go as fast as the biker can pedal leaving plenty of time and plenty of room to get out of the way. Also they don't cause as much erosion because they can't go fast enough to repeat their route multiple times as thee-bikes do. The trails get wider and wider as more people discover this beautiful place. Single file trails with vegetation on both sides are a thing of the past. You can now walk three abreast on most trails. E-bikes only add to this problem and speed up the erosion process. It's a matter of time before someone gets hurt or the hills are so damaged that they become unusable. When the rains return I wonder how much of the hillsides will wash away making them impassible by hikers, horse riders and bikers. Please reconsider allowing e-bikes on the trails. They are dangerous motor vehicles that are destroying flora and fauna as well as creating dangerous situations for other users. Joan Krause 4021 Via Pima PVE 90274 310-528-8343 Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:22 AM CityClerk; CC Subject: October 19th City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item G Consideration and possible action to adopt Ordinance No. 650, amending Chapter 12.16 (Streets, Parks and Recreational Facilities) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. I am recommending to the city council that they reject opening up the Preserve hiking trails to electric bikes. This recommendation is based upon four issues. 1. Safety: There have already been reports of speeding e bikes endangering hikers. These bikes can go up to 20 MPH, a hiker is going at 2 MPH. 2. Trail Damage: If you have been on the trails you can see where the tracks of normal bikes, going at high speed, are traveling up the sides of the trails. This action erodes and widens the trails damaging the plants along the trails. Withe bikes at higher speeds this problem will be worse. 3. Fire: We live in a high fire zone. Hundreds of e-bike battery fires and explosions happen each year due to malfunctioning and aging batteries. 4. Traffic, Parking and Noise: E bikes will open the preserves to more visitors. We already have a problem with traffic, parking and noise. Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Katie Lozano Sent: To: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:11 AM CityClerk Cc: Matt Waters Subject: FW: Class 1 E-bike use Late correspondence. -----Original Message----- From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 202110:10 AM To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Class 1 E-bike use -----Original Message----- From: Evi Meyer <evi.meyer.rusch@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 202110:09 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Class 1 E-bike use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As a longtime resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and a frequent user of its beautiful trails I strongly oppose the use of class-1 E-bikes in the Portuguese Bend area or any other area of the Peninsula. It is hard enough to navigate around mountain bikes using the same trails often very inconsiderate of other users. If E-bikes were permitted on these trail it would destroy their recreational value and also the important habitats the trails are located in. So please reconsider and don't allow E-bikes. Sincerely Evi Meyer 448 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: le Teresa Takaoka Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:58 AM CityClerk FW: Class 1 E-Bike access to Portuguese Bend Reserve From: Martin Byhower <avitropic@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 202110:54 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Paul Blieden <bliedenp@gmail.com>; Jess Morton <jmorton@igc.org>; David Quadhamer <dquadhamer@yahoo.com>; Tori Fay <tfay@chadwickschool.org>; Samantha Henry <shenry@chadwickschool.org> Subject: Class 1 E-Bike access to Portuguese Bend Reserve Dear Council Members, I spent decades living in the South Bay and working to conserve the natural resources on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, in capacities such as president of the Palos Verdes/ South Bay Chapter of the Audubon Society and science teacher at Chadwick School. I am deeply disturbed to learn that you have approved the use of motorized bicycles on the Reserve. The deleterious impacts and impossibility of enforcing rules mitigating those impacts render it virtually certain the great damage will be done and that the experience of most visitors will be greatly diminished. Existing bike trails cause erosion, disturbance to wildlife, safety issues, and opportunities for some individuals to create new shortcuts and trails into valuable, protected and unique habitat. In a time when severe droughts and other impacts of greatly diminished populations of birds, insects, and other creatures, areas such as the Reserve deserve even more protection, not less. Please reconsider your decision! Martin Byhower, Georgetown Texas I arise in the morning torn between a desire to savor the world and to save the world. This makes it hard to plan the day. -E.B.White It's Your Nature martinbyhower.com 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: grapecon@cox.net Thursday, October 14, 2021 7:43 AM cc CityClerk; CityManager E-bikes in Preserve? I understand you all are making a decision (or have already made a decision) to allow Class 1 e-Bikes in the preserves. I will be very brief in my comments. E-bikes, no matter what class, have no place in a nature preserve. Period. If you previously decided to allow them, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Please do your job to protect the nature preserve and the safety of all those who visit. RPV residents are counting on you. Thank you Gary Randall Longtime RPV Resident (nearly 50 years) 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: From: C.Woo<cwoo@live.com> Teresa Takaoka Friday, October 15, 202112:14 PM CityClerk Fw: E-Bikes In The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Sent: Friday, October 15, 202112:01 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: E-Bikes In The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve To Members of the City Council: I would like to comment as a private citizen on the proposed change to allow Class 1 e-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. I have been a Volunteer Trail Watch (VTW) member for several years and am currently a co-coordinator of the VTW program. My thoughts on this matter are my own and do not represent PVPLC's. While this proposed change may have been considered in order to give seniors increased access to the Preserve, the implementation is so broad as to allow abuse of the original intent. I understand that this was done to avoid age-discrimination issues. But the vast majority of e-bikers will likely not be senior citizens. It was noted that Class 1 e-bikes are capped speed-wise at 20 mph. While many seniors may not intend to do pedal-assist and reach 20 mph, it will be much easier for younger riders to achieve that speed limit. In my younger and fitter days on a mountain bike, I would average about 15 mph while pedaling at a decent pace on flat, paved, bike-only trails. The thought of having e-bikers going 33% faster than that on narrow, winding, dirt trails that are shared with equestrians and hikers (who may be accompanied by children and/or dogs) is unsettling and dangerous. And, in terms of enforcement, distinguishing Class 1 e-bikes from Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes is difficult; the differences are very subtle. When you have an e-biker quickly approaching you, it is practically impossible to make that distinction by looking at the bike from the front. You can get a side view when thee-biker passes you, but by then they have little incentive to stop and will often pretend that they do not hear you if you ask them to stop. Issuing permits to use e-bikes within the Preserve was one idea that was raised. The concept is nice, but enforcement would be difficult and costly. Enforcement staff would need to be stationed at entrances during Preserve hours If the city wants to adequately limit e-bikes to Class 1 only. Trying to check such a permit once e-bikers are inside the Preserve is not feasible. As VTW members have experienced firsthand over and over, bikers can easily ignore or evade someone who is on foot. Please, please let the PV Nature Preserve serve its primary purpose: To preserve nature. Do not let it become an open-space bike park. Thank you for your time. Cynthia Woo 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:15 AM CityClerk FW: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #g Re: E-Bikes From: Jim & Jackie Showalter <jjshow2@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:00 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #g Re: E-Bikes Dear Council Members, As Del Cerro Residents we are very appreciative of the countless hours you have put in to coming up with an intelligent and inclusive solution to the parking and access to the Preserve. We know you are still fine-tuning the parking system, but it's almost completed, and we are sure there are other issues you would be glad to have the time to tackle. So we are amazed you are even considering welcoming E-Bike riders! We don't have anything against riding E-Bikes, but we fear there may be problems with them in the mix along with hikers, bikers and equestrians. Most importantly, this adds a whole new category of people who would want to come to the preserve, and we have learned that social media would spread the news and people would come in droves from far and near! So please, no E-Bikes. We we local residents, the Preserve, and you City Council members all deserve a rest! Jackie and Jim Showalter 7 Crestwind Drive 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:15 AM CityClerk FW: A Practical Approach to Managing E-Bikes From: Peter Shaw <pshaw999@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:47 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Subject: A Practical Approach to Managing E-Bikes Teri -Please add to late correspondence for the Oct 19th Council Meeting. Thanks. Members of the City Council Thankyou for listening to me and others at the 7 October council meeting and recognizing that seniors need an exception to the ban on E-Bikes. As I mentioned in answering Council Member Ferraro's question, there were still some details that needed to be worked out on how to manage the E-Bikes to ensure we meet both the objectives I outlined. It's said the devil is in the details and that absolutely is the case here. City staff recently held the quarterly public forum for the Preserve and not unexpectedly there was a lot of concern expressed about the possibility of the Preserve being invaded by E-Bikes. Once I explained the rationale, I think most of the people were compassionate to the needs of seniors but the fear of the potential negative side was not assuaged, at least that is my impression of the meeting. I have also visited a bike store and got a lot of useful input that has clarified a lot of questions, expanding and consolidating my understanding. As a result, I have been thinking about how we as a city should approach management of E-Bikes. Let me reiterate, like almost everyone else, I absolutely don't want the Preserve to be invaded by E-Bikers from all over southern California; I just want senior bikers to be given the opportunity to continue enjoying our wonderful open space. Despite my earlier advocacy for Class 1 E-Bikes, my current thinking is that we need more control than we would get by simply allowing all Class 1 E-Bikes. I believe stronger management is needed and I have three suggestions outlined in this message that I would highly recommend be implemented. Each adds a constraint but I feel the best approach is to adopt all of them. Limit E-Bike Power Level Previously, I had recommended we limit the power level and I suggested somewhere in the 500 -750 watt range would be appropriate. This was based on a "back of the envelope" theoretical calculation that it would require 1500 watts to take my pandemic weight up a 10% grade at 20mph. I also said more than once that we should do some trials to get a better understanding. Fortunately, I located a Bike Calculator tool that allowed me to look at the various impacts of these variables including the performance of regular bikers with more rigor than actually conducting limited trials. From the data I created, I was able to condense the problem down to comparing a single metric of how regular bikes and E- Bikes with different weight and fitness riders could ascend Burma Rd trail, the primary pathway back to the top of the hill. 1 To start, I created a baseline for conventional bikes. Heavier riders can generate more power than lighter ones but they also have more weight to lift up the hill. This enables the performance to be looked at simply from a fitness standpoint, specifically, power to weight ratio. A typical fitness range of bikers, excluding all elite categories, is from 0.5 to 2 watts of power per lb. of body weight. I have a data point from a rider who averages 24 minutes climbing Burma Rd. That means his average speed is 5 mph and his body produces slightly over 1 watt per/lb. The bike calculator nailed his performance parameters so I have good confidence in its accuracy. A biker at the high fitness end of the spectrum would have an average speed of 9.7 mph up this 2 mile long, 6.9% grade. I believe one of the bikers who called in at the last council meeting mentioned he would ride about 8 mph. So from this human powered data, I concluded we should strive to limit the maximum uphill speed of an E-Bike on Burma Rd to about 10 mph. For E-Bikes, the power level of the motor is by far the dominant parameter, although rider body weight does come into play as well. For a 55 lb E-Bike riding up Burma Rd, the range of speeds is shown in the table below. Rider Body Weight (lbs) Power 175 200 225 (Watts) 250 6.3 5.7 5.2 500 11.9 10.9 10.1 750 16.7 15.5 14.4 The clear conclusion from this table is that a 500 watt power level is ample to achieve the stated goal for Burma Rd but that 250 watt E-Bike would not keep up with many of the fitter riders on regular bikes. As identified in staff's updated agenda report, per the California Vehicle Code, Classes 1, 2 and 3 E-Bikes are all rated as 750 watts maximum and the only differences are the maximum speed of either 20 or 28 mph and the motor control modes of pedal assist, throttle or a hybrid of both. They also point out inconsistent interpretations across manufacturers and I have found on the web there are bikes that don't even conform to the maximum power. Power is by far the dominant variable, yet it is not a discriminator in the classifications. Because of this rather convoluted way of classifying E-Bikes, my revised thinking is that we should get away from identifying allowable E-Bikes by class and instead be more specific about what we are comfortable allowing. I think a 500 watt limit is appropriate given all the other variables. That is generally the recommendation I've seen multiple times in my research for buyers who plan to ride hills. What this means is we need to specify the allowable E-Bike as 500 watt power, 20 mph maximum powered speed, having a pedal assist mode and with a California mandated decal indicating maximum power and speed. This specification removes the upper half of the power range and completely eliminates class 3 bikes that have the higher speed rating. For most seniors, a restriction to 500 Wis unlikely to be an issue. I visited the bike store in Manhattan Beach and one of the questions I asked was how many Class 1 E-Bikes they sell with 750 W power. Their answer was they have never sold one because the typical customer doesn't want or need that much power. They are using the bikes simply for assist, not to go fast. But obviously that could change so the specified power limit is the only way to keep these bikes controlled and ensure all they can do is keep up with regular bikes going uphill. Fortunately, physics dictates that power is key so being specific has the added advantage of "future-proofing" against changes that might be made either to the technology or the classification system. Management and enforcement of this power limit I believe mandates the need for a permit system -see below. Age Limit 2 In my earlier email, I recommended that there should be a minimum age limit and I suggested 50 was appropriate. Apparently, the city attorney's position is that constitutes age discrimination. I am sure the irony is not lost on you that a total ban is discriminating against older riders yet an exception to allow this disadvantaged group is in itself age discrimination. I have researched at length the legislation and I now know more about age discrimination than I ever wanted to. But I failed to find anything that would lead to this determination. Google has its tentacles into everything on the web but what it can't find is the absence of something. However, I did locate a reference in the Equality and Human Rights Commission site that, after identifying what constitutes age discrimination, had a list of what was lawful. One of listed lawful items stated: "an organisation is taking positive action to encourage or develop people in an age group that is under-represented or disadvantaged in a role or activity". That is exactly what we are trying to accomplish. You might have detected from the spelling that this came from a UK government office. I fully recognize it has no validity in the US but the value system in the UK tends to mirror that of the US. As you know, I'm thankfully no lawyer but the complete absence of anything that relates to this type situation suggests it may not be included in current legislation. Consequently, I am questioning the city attorney's position on this and I think it should be challenged. This is important because an age limit will really help limit the number of E-Bikes that will be allowed on the Preserve. It also constrains the user group to seniors who are known to be more responsible and respectful of other users. Since the only objective here is to provide a means for aging seniors to get up hills, I see no downside to implementing this practical limit. The age limit will preclude all of the younger generation of thrill seekers which is exactly what we want to accomplish. It will also preclude all the responsible riders younger than the limit but in my opinion that's perfectly OK because they are fit enough to ride up the hills on their own, that is what they are doing at the moment and that is what we should be encouraging them to do. Permit System My original suggestion was also a permit system but staff seemed to reject it based on what I believe was an unsupported premise that it would be hard to manage because there are so many entry points to the Preserve. I contend all the groups involved with enforcement are walking around, not monitoring entrances (unless it's raining). The advantage of a permit system is that only regular users of the preserve with E-Bikes will actually apply. Somebody remote from this area who might be tempted to come hearing that E-Bikes are allowed would be dissuaded from doing so if a permit were required. On my visit to the bike store in Manhattan Beach, I asked them to point out to me the California-mandated decal. It was eye opening to observe they first had difficulty finding it because it was placed in a very obscure position. Also, it is very small and virtually unreadable without getting down on one's knees to get close enough. A picture is included so you see what I mean (it's the little black label with white lettering just above the weld on the front of the rear frame). I had anticipated a state-mandated decal would be a very clear, easy to see and obvious to spot; otherwise, what's the point? Unfortunately, none of those are the case. As a result, I have reconsidered the argument that enforcement could be accomplished via the mandated decal. Even if we stay with implementing the decision of record for Class 1 E-Bikes, I now believe the only practical way to manage them on the Preserve is with a permit. 3 I believe the significant features of a permit system should be: • The permit should have a photograph on it that shows both the applicant and their bike together. This ties the rider to a specific bike. • Once the paperwork is approved, the applicant then shows up at city hall with the bike and demonstrates it is the one in the picture, it has the parameters that conform to the permit restrictions and it has the California-mandated decal. • The applicant then pays a fee that is determined by the city to at least cover staff time and expenses. • The rider agrees, via their signature, to all the conditions including they present, upon request, the permit to a ranger, any member of OSM staff in uniform or any VTW member displaying their VTW badge. If they fail to do so, that represents an infraction that can be cited by a ranger or reported by OSM or VTW. • Enforcement personnel only need to be looking for infractions on uphill trails, like Burma Rd, as that is where it will be easy to stop any rider and scrutinize their E-Bike credential. If the bike they are using isn't the one identified on the permit, then that becomes an infraction as well. The true benefit of a permit system, especially one that is burdensome to obtain, is that it will dissuade pretty much all of the casual riders that many people fear will be the outcome if we do not put strong management in place. I believe there is another significant advantage in that if we modify the code language from "excluding therefrom Class 1 electric bicycles" to "excluding therefrom city-approved permitted electric bicycles", then Ordinance 650 can press ahead. Thereafter, the permit system can be developed and agreed through policy. Additionally, it provides time to tailor the permit conditions such as the power limit as well as determination of whether an age minimum can be applied. In the long term this also provides the means to change the permit conditions without having to modify municipal code. I might not have expressed the terminology correctly as I am no expert in drafting municipal code but hopefully you understand the intent that I trust the experts can implement. In summary, I want to ensure we manage E-Bikes effectively to minimize the impact on the Preserve while still meeting seniors needs. It doesn't help in any way to find out the worst case scenario materializes because if that happens you will have to resort to banning them completely. Through your decision, you indicated a desire to not bar senior bikers who need the help, but I also believe we need to be smart about how we control and manage this. My suggestions of limiting power levels to 500 watts eliminates all the high-performance E-Bikes, instituting a minimum age limit constrains the users to the group we want to help, and a permit system makes the whole E-Bike approach enforceable and manageable. I realize it's not as simple, but unfortunately simple solutions tend to have unintended consequences and as I said earlier, the devil really is in the details. I recommend staff be directed to come up with a management approach that meets the needs of seniors while also alleviating the concerns about excessive E-Bike use. I believe their Alternative 2 incorporates a similar message but it is not as specific as I think it needs to be. I believe it should focus on how we can satisfy just the needs of seniors with E-Bikes as opposed to presuming the answer is class 1 E-Bikes. My apologies for changing my recommendations a little but I think it is important that we get this right from the outset. As ever, I am at staff's disposal if they need help especially with analysis. Sincerely, Peter Shaw 5 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:22 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: E-Bikes in the Land Conservancy From: Sue Breiholz <sbreiholz@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 20214:30 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: E-Bikes in the Land Conservancy Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, We are residents in neighboring Rolling Hills and have ridden our horses in the Reserve for over 40 years (before it was a Reserve). We treasure the beauty and openness of the land and trails. It was been difficult to use the trails for horses safely since mountain bikes have been allowed to share the trails with pedestrians and riders. Adding E-Bikes to the mix would further worsen the situation and dramatically change the passive use of the land. We feel it is completely inappropriate and damaging to the trails to allow motorized vehicles in our beautiful preserve. It was not the intent of the preserve to provide roadways for bicycles and E-Bikes. Please protect our Portuguese Bend Reserve and keep it save and open for passive use as it was intended. Sincerely, Dave and Sue Breiholz 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:25 AM CityClerk Re: My thoughts on why E-bikes should not be allowed in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve From: Al Sattler <alsattler@igc.org> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:37 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: My thoughts on why E-bikes should not be allowed in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve October 15, 2021 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: I urge you to reconsider your action of October 5 to (tentatively) allow E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. People speaking at the Preserve Forum on October 13 were nearly unanimous in saying many reasons why E-bikes in the Preserve would be a bad idea. I agree. E-bikes are heavier than mountain bikes, which means that they could cause greater injury to people, horses, wildlife, and plants, and tear up trails more. Some hikers and equestrians already avoid the Preserve because they are afraid for their safety. E- bikes would make the situation worse. At the October 5 City Council meeting, it was said that the intent was to make the Preserve accessible for older, less fit people who want to mountain bike in the Preserve. However, accident statistics seem to show that older E-bike riders are more likely to have accidents, since their reflexes and strength are worse than younger riders, so they are less capable of controlling a heavy E-bike. If somebody is unable to use a standard mountain bike, they can still enjoy the Preserve by hiking. 1 G. Distinguishing between Class 1, 2, and 3 E-bikes can be almost impossible from more than a few feet away. AB1096, the California law, sponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition, that set up the classes of E-bikes specifies that all E-bikes have permanent labels, "printed in Arial font in at least 9- point type." Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 would be impossible for a Ranger to read from more than a few feet away. The result would inevitably be that all three classes of E-bikes would be using and abusing the Preserve. Class 2 does not require the user to be pedaling, and Class 3 is capable of pedal-assisting up to 28 miles per hour. Mountain bikes have reportedly been using all the trails in the Preserve, including ones that are just for hikers, so it can reasonably be assumed that E-bikes would do the same. In the Preserve forum October 13, it was reported that 3 "No E-bikes" signs had been ripped out, which does not speak well of the character of E-bike users. Allowing the use of E-bikes on a trial basis would be a bad idea. Once E-bike users are allowed to use the Preserve, they would buy E-bike mountain bikes, and expect to continue to be able to continue to use them. In addition, local stores that sell E-bike mountain bikes would expect that they could continue to sell such bikes for local use. Closing the Preserve to E-bikes again might cause them to be left holding inventory that they would be unable to sell. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve was established to provide space, habitat, for native plants and animals, especially endangered species, with non-destructive public use consistent with habitat preservation. It is wonderful for people to get out and appreciate nature and exercise in a natural area. However, increasingly powerful mechanized means of locomotion are not consistent with those goals. Sincerely, Al Sattler 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Saturday, October 16, 2021 5:44 AM CityClerk Fw: My thoughts on why E-bikes should not be allowed in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve AI_Sattler _EBike_comment.pdf From: Al Sattler <alsattler@igc.org> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:37 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: My thoughts on why E-bikes should not be allowed in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve October 15, 2021 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: I urge you to reconsider your action of October 5 to (tentatively) allow E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. People speaking at the Preserve Forum on October 13 were nearly unanimous in saying many reasons why E-bikes in the Preserve would be a bad idea. I agree. E-bikes are heavier than mountain bikes, which means that they could cause greater injury to people, horses, wildlife, and plants, and tear up trails more. Some hikers and equestrians already avoid the Preserve because they are afraid for their safety. E- bikes would make the situation worse. At the October 5 City Council meeting, it was said that the intent was to make the Preserve accessible for older, less fit people who want to mountain bike in the Preserve. However, accident statistics seem to show that older E-bike riders are more likely to have accidents, since their reflexes and strength are worse than younger riders, so they are less capable of controlling a heavy E-bike. If somebody is unable to use a standard mountain bike, they can still enjoy the Preserve by hiking. Distinguishing between Class 1, 2, and 3 E-bikes can be almost impossible from more than a few feet away. AB1096, the California law, sponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition, that set up the classes of E-bikes specifies that all E-bikes have permanent labels, "printed in Arial font in at least 9- point type." Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 would be impossible for a Ranger to read from more than a few feet away. The result would inevitably be that all three classes of E-bikes would be using and abusing the Preserve. Class 2 does not require the user to be pedaling, and Class 3 is capable of pedal-assisting up to 28 miles per hour. Mountain bikes have reportedly been using all the trails in the Preserve, including ones that are just for hikers, so it can reasonably be assumed that E-bikes would do the same. In the Preserve forum 1 October 13, it was reported that 3 "No E-bikes" signs had been ripped out, which does not speak well of the character of E-bike users. Allowing the use of E-bikes on a trial basis would be a bad idea. Once E-bike users are allowed to use the Preserve, they would buy E-bike mountain bikes, and expect to continue to be able to continue to use them. In addition, local stores that sell E-bike mountain bikes would expect that they could continue to sell such bikes for local use. Closing the Preserve to E-bikes again might cause them to be left holding inventory that they would be unable to sell. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve was established to provide space, habitat, for native plants and animals, especially endangered species, with non-destructive public use consistent with habitat preservation. It is wonderful for people to get out and appreciate nature and exercise in a natural area. However, increasingly powerful mechanized means of locomotion are not consistent with those goals. Sincerely, Al Sattler 2 October 15, 2021 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: I urge you to reconsider your action of October 5 to (tentatively) allow E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. People speaking at the Preserve Forum on October 13 were nearly unanimous in saying many reasons why E-bikes in the Preserve would be a bad idea. I agree. E-bikes are heavier than mountain bikes, which means that they could cause greater injury to people, horses, wildlife, and plants, and tear up trails more. Some hikers and equestrians already avoid the Preserve because they are afraid for their safety. E-bikes would make the situation worse. At the October 5 City Council meeting, it was said that the intent was to make the Preserve accessible for older, less fit people who want to mountain bike in the Preserve. However, accident statistics seem to show that older E-bike riders are more likely to have accidents, since their reflexes and strength are worse than younger riders, so they are less capable of controlling a heavy E-bike. If somebody is unable to use a standard mountain bike, they can still enjoy the Preserve by hiking. Distinguishing between Class 1, 2, and 3 E-bikes can be almost impossible from more than a few feet away. AB1096, the California law, sponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition, that set up the classes of E-bikes specifies that all E-bikes have permanent labels, "printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type." Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 would be impossible for a Ranger to read from more than a few feet away. The result would inevitably be that all three classes of E-bikes would be using and abusing the Preserve. Class 2 does not require the user to be pedaling, and Class 3 is capable of pedal-assisting up to 28 miles per hour. Mountain bikes have reportedly been using all the trails in the Preserve, including ones that are just for hikers, so it can reasonably be assumed that E-bikes would do the same. In the Preserve forum October 13, it was reported that 3 "No E-bikes" signs had been ripped out, which does not speak well of the character of E-bike users. Allowing the use of E-bikes on a trial basis would be a bad idea. Once E-bike users are allowed to use the Preserve, they would buy E-bike mountain bikes, and expect to continue to be able to continue to use them. In addition, local stores that sell E-bike mountain bikes would expect that they could continue to sell such bikes for local use. Closing the Preserve to E-bikes again might cause them to be left holding inventory that they would be unable to sell. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve was established to provide space, habitat, for native plants and animals, especially endangered species, with non-destructive public use consistent with habitat preservation. It is wonderful for people to get out and appreciate nature and exercise in a natural area. However, increasingly powerful mechanized means of locomotion are not consistent with those goals. Sincerely, Al Sattler Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:27 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: From: Joan Kelly <kate1inkelly649@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 202112:24 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes I have been a volunteer trail watch with the Palos Verdes Land Concervancy for many years and I hike mostly in the Portuguese Bend Preserve. I however would like to comment here as a resident of Palos Verdes. I am an owner of a pedal assist e-bike and I would NEVER ever use one on a rough trail. It alters the experience quite a lot. The trails are not suited to the accelerated speed for many reasons. Horses and hikers are already in danger of bikes speeding downhill and now we will have bikers speeding on the flat and uphill. Yes I can really barrel up a hill with pedal assist. You do not have to be fit to ride a pedal assist bike. This will just be an added danger in an already exhausted trail denuded area. What a shame that now we have to deal with this. I ask that NO e-bikes of any kind be allowed in any of the Palos Verdes Preserves. It will be SO difficult to monitor this activity especially as most bikers travel at speed and will just add agro for the VTW volunteers who tirelessly monitor the trail system every day keeping people and animals safe. Please please it is easier to stop this now other than trying to stop this after a terrible accident happens Joan Kelly katelinke1ly649@gmail.com 310 691 0659 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Friday, October 15, 2021 4:35 PM CityClerk FW: E-bikes in the Preserve From: sharon <sharon@sharonyarber.com> Sent: Friday, October 15, 20211:40 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: momofyago@gmail.com Subject: E-bikes in the Preserve Dear Council, I am very disappointed that you voted to allow e-bikes in the Preserve, particularly since staff recommended prohibiting them, and Council notoriously moves staff recommendation. It is bad enough that we have to tolerate regular bikes. With social media I can only imagine the exponential increase in bike activity that we will see withe-bikes, and not by seniors! The speakers who appeared before you in support of e-bikes were the only speakers because the rest of us were confident there was no way you would vote Yes, particularly given staff recommendation. We opponents are shocked. I attended the quarterly Preserve meeting via ZOOM this past Wednesday and there was one speaker in favor and a large number of speakers opposing e-bikes, including owners and riders of e-bikes. I hope you watched the meeting. The staff presentation on Wednesday showed pictures of class 1, 2 &3 bikes. They are virtually indistinguishable. The font size of the label on the bike rim identifying the class is 9 points! So how do you propose to enforce the limitation to class 1? Will you have a person standing guard at every entrance into the Preserve to stop and check the class? Of course not. These bikes are considerably heavier than regular mountain bikes and pose a real threat to the safety of all visitors. They are much harder to handle, even on pavement, than regular bikes and there is no way seniors are going to be using them to get up the steep, uneven and rocky trails in the Preserve. Have you watched people peddling like mad to get up a hill on one? I saw a teenager in great shape feverishly peddling up Granvia Altamira the other day. Seniors are not going to be doing that. Seniors currently enjoy the Preserve by hiking or horseback riding. Speaking of horseback riding, I, as an equestrian, am already sorely disappointed in the impact that regular bikes have had on the number of equestrians enjoying the Preserve. I know countless riders who no longer ride in the Preserve because of the dangers they have experienced from encounters with people, especially younger riders, bombing down trails at hide speeds. The Preserve is supposed to be for passive recreation, to enjoy communing with nature while soaking in the magnificent views of the Pacific and Catalina Island. The Preserve is not a playground or a park or a velodrome! I am particularly disappointed in Councilmen Dyda and Bradley who caved and grudgingly voted yes. There is nothing noble or admirable about voting against your conscience, your better judgment and the interests of your constituents solely to achieve a unanimous vote. Unanimity is not why you were elected to serve on Council. You are supposed to act independently and exercise your best judgment, even if it means there's a 3-2 vote. 1 I sincerely doubt that Councilwoman Ferraro has ever hiked in the Preserve and likely has no clue what it's like to encounter a biker bombing down a trail and hitting or nearly hitting a hiker or scaring a horse. Same with Councilman Dyda. And how about the rest of you? How often do you venture into the Preserve, and do you hike, ride a bike or a horse, if anything? And how often do you see elderly people struggling to ride bikes uphill in the Preserve? What's next? Motorized wheelchairs? I fail to understand why you do not conform to the trail use rules of RH and RHE where only hikers and horses are allowed. No bikes, strollers or other "vehicles" with wheels are allowed. Why? Because horses and hikers and bikes do not co-exist particularly well. I also draw your attention to the fact that no bikes of any kind are allowed in Griffith Park, which has amazing trails, far superior to those in our Preserve, yet they limit the trails to horses and hikers alone. I hope you will seriously reconsider this ill advised course of action and change your votes when this Ordinance comes up for second reading and second vote on the 19th • Sharon Yarber Sent from Mail for Windows 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:57 AM CityClerk FW: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes From: Firenze Toscana <toscana72@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:51 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: DelCerro_HOA@hotmail.com Subject: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes Dear members of the City Counsel; With the current restrictions in place, for the first time in years the entrance to Del Cerro has seemed safe. Of course there will be complaints about paying for parking, but I believe our Rancho Palos Verdes board understands that their first priority is to RPV residents. Those who drive in to use the hiking trails seem to be complaining that they need to hike some steps more to enter the preserve ... since the activity is hiking, those extra steps should not be an issue. There is always the option of entering via the City Hall. I trust the parking restrictions will remain in place to help regain the peace and tranquility we so valued. As an equestrian I'm very concerned with allowing e bikes. I agree that they would be hard to regulate and would open the preserve up to a flood of problems, including, as mentioned, damage to the terrain and environment. Thee bikes I've seen also have a buzz/hum which when multiplied would no doubt be disruptive to animal habitat. I'm pleased to share our beautiful Rancho Palos Verdes with people from other cities in the area, but have previously felt invaded and ultimately marginalized to accommodate masses of people many of whom have treated the preserve as a type of Disneyland, demanding ease of parking more befitting a theme park than a quiet residential neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Please help uphold and protect the spirit, peace and safety of our Nature Preserve. Please uphold the current parking restrictions on Crenshaw south of Crest, and please don't allow new vehicles to invade the trails which would add a disrupting influence to both the fauna and flora which we love and have vowed to protect. Sincerely, Kim Lindsey Del Cerro Resident 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 10:13 AM CityClerk FW: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes. From: Mark Martin <purplezebra796@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 202110:12 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: purplezebra796@yahoo com <purplezebra796@yahoo.com>; delcerro_hoa@hotmail com <delcerro_hoa@hotmail.com> Subject: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes. Dear RPV City Council: My wife and I are strongly opposed to approving E bikes of any class in the preserve, even class 1. Partly because of wear & tear of fat tire Ebikes (is it worse than a regular bike? seems possible) Partly because of excessive speed hazards (I've only been scared of regular bikes flying downhill, so far .... ) Partly because visually identifying class 1 (20 MPH assist) vs class 3 (28 MPH assist) seems difficult at best. But mostly because of the concern nicely spelled out by a neighbor: "If the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is virtually the only large open space in LA County that allows e-bikes, the preserve will undoubtedly attract many users to this area at a time when the City is just beginning to gain control over the traffic problems on Crenshaw." Given the "uphill is easy" virtue of e-bikes, it would only be a matter of time before ebikers from all over Los Angeles discover the trick of parking at the Promenade mall, then e-biking up to the preserve. Not a bad idea if a reasonable number a day did this, but the quantity is likely to be excessive Thank you, -Mark & Mei Del Cerro 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: -----Original Message----- From: Doris <dvleimer@cox.net> Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 10:25 AM CityClerk FW: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes. 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes. Sent: Monday, October 18, 202110:11 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 10/19/2021 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #G Re: E-Bikes. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 1 October 18, 2021 Dear Council Members, If I understand correctly you have recently decided to allow e-bikes on the preserve trails. I also heard the decision might have something to do with consideration for older individuals who could not walk the trails, but could manage the trails on e-bikes. May be. But, maybe older individuals one-bikes would just become one more hazard for all. I can only imagine what it would be like to try walking these preserve trails with my grandchildren while looking at the view, guarding against steep edges, watching out for animal excrement and, now, dodging e-bikes -or any kind of bike -silently coming up behind us. I can only imagine this because I just will no longer use these trails if e-bikes are allowed, even though I live within minutes of a trailhead. I believe our preserves were created to provide people with an opportunity to enjoy the clean air, natural sounds and beautiful sights of our environment, not to be trampled by excess foot traffic and machines. On the subject of Del Cerro parking, I would like to say thank you for the peace of mind that has been ours during these past few months. We have so enjoyed being able to leave and come home without having to be extraordinarily vigilante about sudden car stops because someone has spotted a parking place open up, or excessive u-turning, or doors open with dogs and people exiting in the area near Park Place where the curve doesn't allow a three-car width as it does near the beginning of Crest and Crenshaw. I suspect that allowing parking reservations up to an hour before park time may well create more "waiting for my turn" cars sitting in the street. When pulling into an open space becomes a competition between people who are arriving with no understanding of the reservation system and those trying to claim their reservations, the struggle is rarely beneficial to anyone. While I understand that trying to create a preserve policy that makes the most people happy is important, please try not to lose sight of what it would mean if these amazing sights and sounds of nature are lost to the future because we only focused on the needs of this moment in history. Doris Leimer Del Cerro Homeowner Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Sirs/Mesdames: Melody Colbert <melcolbert@aol.com> Monday, October 18, 2021 11 :00 AM cc CityManager E-Bikes in Nature Preserve Attached please find correspondence from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association, directed to the RPV City Council regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to the use of e-bikes in the Nature Preserve. Respectfully, Melody Colbert Treasurer, PVPHA 1 October 18, 2021 Dear Mayor Alegria and Members of the Council, The Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association would like to register its strong opposition to allowing e-bikes in the Preserve. We believe that e-bikes pose a clear and present danger to equestrians and hikers alike. We understand that the alleged justification for allowing e-bikes is to enhance the enjoyment of the Preserve by seniors who would otherwise struggle on regular bikes, but we question the source of this information. The interests of all parties need to be considered and balanced. Fit and even not so fit seniors are quite capable of hiking in the Preserve to enjoy the purpose for its existence -spending time in nature in a peaceful and tranquil environment. We all know about the numerous complaints that have been lodged with the City about some bikers damaging the habitat, widening trails, and most importantly having run-ins with horses and hikers. Please do not allow e-bikes in the Preserve. You will not be able to enforce the limitation to just Class 1, and even Class 1 bikes are considerably heavier and harder to handle than regular bikes. We believe that safety is of the utmost importance, and the proposed ordinance to allow e-bikes will put more people in jeopardy. The use of the Preserve by equestrians has already been severely hampered as a result of allowing regular bikes. Let's not exacerbate the problem by allowing e-bikes. The City has already struggled mightily with issues of overuse and parking that have been engendered by social media. It is not hard to imagine the Preserve being overrun with this new "fun" activity once word gets out that the Preserve is a new playground fore-bikes. There is no need for these e-bikes, and the purpo1ted benefits to seniors, which are speculative and questionable in any event, are far outweighed by the burdens to other users as well as the potential for damage and destruction to the habitat we are trying so very hard to preserve, and at great cost to the City. We encourage you to re-think your initial decision to approve e-bikes and sincerely hope you will choose to vote this down on October 19th. Very truly yours, PALOS VERDES PENINSULA HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION Respectfully submitted, /)/ ;J L-}1_,A~·\.P Charlene M. O'Neil, President Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:57 PM CC; CityClerk Subject: City Council Meeting October 19, 2021 Public Hearing Item 2 Ladera Linda Park When will the City Council take action against Recreation and Park's false statements and manipulation of the narrative to fit their position? 1. Height of the light Poles: The height of the light poles have to be raised to 16 feet to support the security cameras and prevent being vandalized Fact: The cameras do not need light to see at night. Flock cameras are being installed around the city at 6 feet. The city manager has stated that there have been no reports of the cameras being vandalized. 2. The 16 feet will reduce the number of lights needed: Fact: At that height the lights would cause light pollution. In order to reduce light pollution at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center the light standards are set at 10 feet. 3. Lighting the open fields: The upper and lower fields of the park need to be lighted for security reasons and night use. Fact: The Park is supposed to close at sunset. There is no requirement for lights. No other park in the city has lights on the open areas. 4. Pathway Lights: The lights are needed to provide a safe area in an emergency per City requirements and to light pedestrian pathways outside of the parking lot. Fact: The following statement was obtained from city staff when a request was made under the Freedom of Information for the document or directive requiring a safe park area. Staff's response: "There are no specific, listed provisions, in the California Building code, for "lighted Emergency safe spots" However, chapter 10 of the 2019 Building Code, has provisions for egress illumination and egress path lighting, inside the building, but nothing really that touches on the outside of the building, other than the required exterior building lighting measures, as listed in chapter 6 of title 24 of the 2019 California Nonresidential Energy Standards. Since the park is closed at sunset there is no need for pedestrian pathway lighting. The only lighting required is between the building and the parking Lot between sunset and 9 pm. 1 5. Building Security: Security shutters are not cost effective as there is nothing of value in the facility. Fact: The building could still be vandalized, damaging windows in an attempt to enter the building. The criminal element does not know there is nothing of "value" if true. Look what the city manager says about car crimes. From the City Manager's weekly report Tips to Prevent Vehicle Burglaries Take steps today to prevent thefts from your vehicle. It only takes a matter of seconds for a thief to break into your car and grab your valuable items. Look through the windows of your vehicle. What do you see? A bag on the passenger seat? A charging cord? A garage door opener? Change in a cup holder? The same thing will happen with the building. Shutters prevent crimes. Sensors records crimes. Recommendations 1. All lights should be removed from the upper and lower fields 2. Remove all path lights 3. The only lights in the park should be on the building and the parking lot 4. All lights should be at a maximum height of 10 feet 5. Install security shutters on all windows Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:25 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Park -----Original Message----- From: MARCIA HEBERT <mjhebe@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 2:39 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Community Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Jerry & Marcia Hebert do not support the proposed plans for lighting, landscaping, security and parking at Ladera Linda Park. We live at 3552 Vigilance Drive in the Ladera Linda "neighborhood." Sent from my iPad 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 1 :55 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Park From: Christine Hansen <cfink@cfid.bz> Sent: Monday, October 18, 20211:18 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Dear Council Members; We are adamantly opposed to the development at Ladera Linda as proposed, mainly in terms of lighting, security, parking, and landscaping. We live in Ladera Linda and know how much effort and expense went into putting electrical below ground, doing away with streetlights, and now only to be bombarded with a public space which will pollute the sky. We have also experienced a definite increase in crime, and this will attract even more. Thank you for listening to these opinions. Sincerely, Christine and Michael Hansen Christine Fink-Hansen 949.922.2551 Christine Fink Interior Design www.interiorsbycfid.com 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 2:41 PM CityClerk To: Subject: FW: Comments on Revised Ladera Linda Security Plan From: James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 2:35 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments on Revised Ladera Linda Security Plan Dear Members of Council The Revised Security Plan strikes the right balance between cost and effectiveness, and includes a series of modifications and changes to address legitimate concerns of nearby residents while not compromising the over-all design and purpose of the Park. Here are the main points I believe support the Staff Report: 1. We support the changes proposed by Staff to address the legitimate concerns of nearby residents. Our prior support of the original security plan was not meant as a rejection of legitimate concerns of other residents. The original plan was a reasonable one and the revised plan is even better. We are glad to see Staff making changes to minimize overhead lighting, reduce the number of cameras, and further consider the best location for seating areas, while not compromising functionality and security at the site. 2. Earlier design changes were made to minimize the impact on adiacent residents. Since my involvement in the process for the past seven years, I and the other MHOA representatives have tried to work with nearby residents and City Staff to reach compromise solutions to issues of concern. As Council is aware, the City hired Johnson Favaro with the unanimous support of all the HOAs, including LLHOA, and JF engaged in a complete redesign which: a. Further reduced the size the building so that it now is less than 1/3 the size of the existing footprint. b. Moved the building further away from both LL and Seaview. 1 c. Moved all the active recreation components to the rear corner of the Park away from LL and Seaview. The choice to eliminate parking on the upper level and keep Preserve parking separate was supported by the majority of LLHOA and Seaview residents involved in the process since the alternative designs would have involved moving active components closer to either LL or Seaview, and also raised safety issues related to the children's play area. d. The approved design also created a new buffer zone along the top of the slope above Seaview to avoid direct sightlines into adjacent Seaview properties. The drawings attached below show how the current footprint is basically right up against the top of slope, while the JF design created an entirely new buffer zone with no path or access along the top of the slope. Seaview residents were involved in providing this key input and approved the design. e. The compromise Plan eliminated other proposed active components such as a tennis court, additional black top, swimming pool, kitchen, storage for Las Candalistas and other non-profits, and even the continuation of the dedicated discovery room. All of these elements were supported by a significant number of residents including residents of LL and Seaview (and still are). The MHOA (and I personally) supported the compromise Plan which eliminated these elements as a matter of respect towards and in the spirit of compromise with adjacent residents. We are not asking to go backwards, but the history of how we got here is important. 3. Further changes would impact the basic design of the Park and Community Center. No plan is perfect and the City could spend hundreds of thousands and even millions more and end up with a plan that was not any better would be subject to both the same and new objections. This design was approved by Council twice and unanimously by the resident-led Planning Commission. It is time to move on. 4. We agree that Preserve parking remains a serious concern. and we strongly support further measures including resident only parking in LL if that is what the neighbors want. But, it has been disheartening to see the LLHOA fail to acknowledge the prior compromises including the compromise over parking in the Park, and it is disheartening to see the personal attacks on Council Members and the actions of certain spokespeople for the LLHOA including retaliatory social media posts and videos trying to push people to park on Coolheights Drive to access the Preserve. These posts and correspondence made clear that this effort was not just informational and instead the posts were specifically directed at me personally and other residents of Mediterrania who have supported the Park. I personally have a thick skin and have avoided further retaliatory posts, but these actions are directly at odds with what the LLHOA wants for itself. While we may never see eye to eye on this Project, these actions are harassment, plain and simple. Representatives of the MHOA remain available to meet with Staff and the other HOAs, and will always work to reach consensus, but compromise is a two-way street. Good compromises always involve everyone getting less than what they want but with their primary objectives met. The current Plan satisfies this test. Thank you all for your continued diligence in moving this important Project forward. 2 Jim Hevener Here is the current footprint. You can see how the buildings are right up against the slope. You also can see the location of the blacktop, basketball courts and play area near LL. Here is the new design, with the building pulled back and buffer zone created. You also can see all the active elements moved to the back of the Park away from LL and Seaview. 3 Here is a cross-section showing how the buffer zone works to avoid direct sightlines. All of this came out of the Design process in which representatives of all the HOAs participated. 4 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:10 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Community Center Project From: j.russell j.russell <j.russell@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center Project To Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Committee Members, I am requesting that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes reconsider the approval of the Ladera Linda Community Center Project or at least postpone it until it is more feasible for completion. Because of the state of the economy from the pandemic and the current inflation rate, we all know it will cost more than has been budgeted and take more time to complete than has been projected. Our city should be more concerned about maintaining existing properties at this difficult time. During the 25 years that I have lived here, Palos Verdes Drive East has only been resurfaced once and it is in terrible condition, like too many of our other streets. Our community is going to face many repercussions due to Housing Bills SB 9 & 10. Before a new community center is added and 647 more houses/units are to be built, we should feel responsible to provide sewer lines to the many homeowners that are still forced to have septic systems and find solutions to the overburdened power lines. How would the city feel if they had to consider the property where our City Hall is located to be zoned "Mixed Use"? Would they ever consider their offices to be below housing that doesn't require parking? Unlike other areas of our community, If the city property was used it could generate income for the city by leasing the units and Hawthorne Blvd. can handle the increase in traffic, water, electrical and sewer needs, Please reconsider the Community Center Project, Joan Russell 28978 Palos Verdes Dr. East Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310/832-3169 1 Enyssa Momoli To: Ramzi Awwad Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park From: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 202112:06 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing once again to state that I do not support the proposed plans for lighting, security, landscaping, and parking at Ladera Linda Park. Even with the lighting and security camera plans modified, they will still generate an excessive amount of light in our neighborhood, as well as impact our privacy. My home is directly east of the park, with my main bedroom, kitchen and family room views facing west toward the park grounds. From the diagrams of the lighting placement, it seems that I will have a view of a "forest" of poles during the day, and a "sea" of lights after dark. Please consider landscaping that will preserve the ocean views from nearby homes, but prevent intrusive views from the park into local yards and homes. Also, I sincerely hope you will consider allowing only emergency vehicles access to the park through the lower Forrestal gates. Any other vehicles (or pedestrian) traffic will definitely impact my and my immediate neighbors' privacy, and generate noise. Please also reject plans for expanded parking beyond the Forrestal Gate, which, along with added traffic and noise, will have an impact on the privacy of homes along Forrestal Dr., as occupants of cars headed downhill can look directly into our yards and homes. Sincerely, Patricia Stenehjem 32215 Searaven Drive 1 2-. Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 2:53 PM CityClerk FW: RPV City Council Meeting October 19, 2021 Ladera Linda From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 2:49 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Home Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Subject: RPV City Council Meeting October 19, 2021 Ladera Linda Dear City Council Members Ongoing Ladera Linda Project You now have local real estate agents describing your project as a developing tourist destination. Since I have objected to most of the design, lighting, security and landscaping plans with council and staff oblivious to the impact you are creating on our neighborhood, it is no surprise to me that you just continue to vote against the best interests of the Ladera Linda Community. I only wish this was being constructed in front of your homes and you had to contend with the growth in number of cars, gawkers, and inconsiderate visitors who will come. I have specific objections to the elements to be determined tonight. No other park or city property has the lighting or CCTV system you are planning. That alone is sufficient reason to reject the plan for Ladera Linda is the only facility that is embedded in a residential neighborhood. The amount of lumens as well as visual pollution coming from the poles is a significant component of over-design. Would you want the poles and lights in front of your home? There is no reason for lighting for the CCTV cameras. They are capable of functioning at night. There is no neighborhood compatible reason for the height of the poles. Staff should have a design refresher educational consultation with Flock camera personnel. Ask them about necessary lighting or camera height needed to provide a security presence. Check the new Flock cameras added to Forrestal and Pirate in Ladera Linda. They are neither lighted or 16' high! My consultation with the LA County Sheriff when retrofitting a 150,000 sq ft building in Compton, resulted in design considerations at their suggestion. They believed we should shutter or security film all glass surfaces. We did both and never had any penetration into the facility. They also suggested to not add lighting poles in favor of simply installing low angle, hooded floodlights on the building to secure a large, 150 car parking lot for an early morning to late night work schedule. They suggested we install a low cost CCTV system; for after the event recording review rarely aided apprehension. Our recording never was any help when a UPS trailer was stolen from our loading dock. They did feel addition of dummy cameras could be a possible deterrent and we did put several on the property. 1 1 The landscape and hardscape design continues to be a coming attraction for the overflow crowds that now regularly clog Founder's and Marilyn Ryan Sunset Park at the Trump site. Would you welcome all those visitors into your front yard? You have not shown fiscal or community responsibility in handling of this project. I only hope that even at this late date, you can come to realize that what is now designed and planned is neither appropriate to the site or welcomed by local residents. Help us and just vote to stop it. Don Bell Ladera Linda 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:20 AM CityClerk FW: City Council Meeting 10/19/21 -Item #3 Permit Parking for Ladera Linda From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 5:38 PM To: Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Bill Schurmer <sbschurm@yahoo.com>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>; Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net>; Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; Herb Stark <stearman@juno.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net>; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Scott Mills <smills300@gmail.com>; Yossef Aelony <Y.aelony@cox.net> Subject: City Council Meeting 10/19/21-Item #3 Permit Parking for Ladera Linda The residents of Ladera Linda are in favor of establishing a Ladera Linda Residential Permit Parking Program on certain streets in our neighborhood and recommend that you approve Item #3 on the Agenda. A number of years ago, our neighborhood voted and paid for undergrounding all of our utilities in order to retain ocean views and not be impeded by light poles and overhead wires and we wish to retain this atmosphere. The only entry to our neighborhood, Pirate, has a grass parkway with trees and sidewalks while some of our other streets have a 5 foot or 6 sidewalk and others have no sidewalk at all. When we expressed concern over the AYSO soccer attendees driving too fast on Forrestal, we approached the city to ask that a stop sign be placed at the southbound intersection of Forrestal and Pirate and we were told that because it was so close to the Ladera Linda Park entrance, it was not possible. A few years ago this area was slurry coated and as a result they painted large markings on the roadway at that intersection. Along with those road markings 16 signs were placed near that intersection, which obstructed the views of some residents. 1 Therefore when we discussed Permit Parking with city staff, we were very concerned about signs and poles. There are signs, poles and a Flock camera on Pirate, but there are no signs and poles on our other streets and we wish to keep them that way. We asked our City Manager to have staff meet with us and discuss painting the Permit Parking information on the curbs, but we have not heard from our city staff. We want the project to be approved, but we also would like the Permit Parking information to be printed on the curbs of Sea raven and Phantom, however the staff report only discusses poles with signs and no curb markings. In many areas I see curb paintings for 10 min., loading zone, no parking as well as other markings. 2 Enyssa Momoli To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: RE: 10/19/21 Meeting item 3 From: Amanda Wong <kiwi esq@hotmail.com > Sent: Sunday, October 17, 202110:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: 10/19/21 Meeting item 3 CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palo s Ve fdes. Dear City Council, While I am in favor of permit parking on Pirate since many of the visitors to the nature reserve park in front of my home, litter, and have their dogs defecate on the parkway in front of my home and urinate on my mailbox (and have yelled at me when I confronted them about it), at the same time I am extremely concerned about the potential visual blight of more signage in front of my home. Case in point, these bright fluorescent signs were placed in front of and to the side of my home a couple of years back . Until I spoke up, one was originally placed directly in front and blocking my view of Catalina without the city or public works ever reaching out or consulting with me first. When I complained it was moved from the location that completely blocked Catalina -off to the right. But it's still clearly visible and a complete eyesore. From my kitchen window in addition to the 2 crosswalk signs, I also see a huge blue reflective public parking sign . As you can see, the signage is huge, unnatural in color, jarring to the eye, and a blight on what is otherwise my only ocean view from my home. There are 14 signs already at the intersection of Pirate & Forrestal. While I support permit parking, I would welcome further discussion about the required signage before proceeding. Thank you . Amanda Wong 1 2 Sent from my iPhone 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:22 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Comments for Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 From: Sean Lopez <SLopez@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 3:55 PM To: 'Gordon & Renee Grenier' <glowlizard@yahoo.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Comments for Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 Good Afternoon Renee, Thank you for reaching out to the City regarding this item on the upcoming Council agenda. Your email was received by the City Council and will be included in late correspondence for Tuesday's meeting. Also, I have forward your message to the local Caltrans team involved with this project. I was informed from the project manager that they will meet with construction tomorrow and will provide us with an update. As soon as I get the update, I will pass that along to you and the Council. Respectfully, Sean Lopez Assistant Engineer slopez@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5333 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov ► GETITON Google Play lliis f.>mail mcs:;a(J('. contains infmmt,tion bolonging to the City of Rancho Pulos Verdes, which Irniy be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. TIie inf'onniltion is intcnduJ only lor use of the i11rJivit1ual or entity named. U11au\hori1cd dissemination, distribution, or copyinu is strictly prohiliitell. H you received this email in error, m ;ire not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your 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. 1 From: Gordon & Renee Grenier <glowlizard@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 202112:30 PM To: cc <CC_@JQ.VCa_.,_gQ'{> Subject: Comments for Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 1 _cA1.rr10N: r111~,~m~1foflslr1ate(i ffo1W<>utsi,de,ofthe¢1tv,~t.R~ttcH8';'#aios\Yerdes. ·•· L-------------------------------------------- I have a comment for the October 19 Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation: The Staff Report notes,"Within the City limits, Phase One of the project (currently in construction), will install seven curb ramps that are compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards." The reality is that the sidewalks/curbs at several corners along Western in RPV were removed SEVERAL MONTHS AGO and have been sitting there, all torn up since that time. When will the curb ramps and sidewalks at these corners be completed? This is a safety issue. Pedestrians have to either go in the street to avoid these corners, or walk through the uneven torn up areas. At least one of these corners has a PVPT A bus stop, so you have children going through the torn up sidewalk areas to get to the bus stop on a daily basis. Please urge Caltrans to finish what they started in a timely manner. Thank you, Renee Jensen RPV Resident 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:15 AM CityClerk FW: Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project From: Sean Lopez <SLopez@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, October 18, 20218:13 AM To: 'Suzanne Brothers' <calicatkid@gmail.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Good Afternoon Suzanne, Thank you for reaching out to the City regarding this item on the upcoming Council agenda. Your email was received by the City Council and will be included as late correspondence for Tuesday's meeting. Also, I will forward your message to the local Caltrans team involved with this project. As soon as I get a response, I will pass that along to you and the Council. Respectfully, Sean Lopez Assistant Engineer slopez@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5333 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. 1 L\ •' -----Original Message----- From: Suzanne Brothers <calicatkid@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 202110:07 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov> Subject: Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Members of the City Council, Please do NOT approve Caltrans proposal of bicycle lanes on Western Avenue, between 25th Street and Palos Verdes Drive North. With the new housing at Ponte Vista adding to the already congested traffic on Western Avenue, bicycle lanes would only cause the current situation to go from bad to worse. Residents of upper San Pedro and the east view section of Ranch Palos Verdes use Western Avenue as an essential main artery for exiting these cities. Bicycle lanes would greatly hinder this and become a risk to our safety, especially in an emergency situation. In addition to bicycle lanes hindering the flow of traffic, it would be incredibly dangerous for bicyclists inclined to use them. Due to the congestion, I've witnessed far too many impatient drivers speeding to the right of vehicle lanes in a risky attempt to avoid the backup. Installing bicycle lanes would be a recipe for adverse consequences. For these reasons, I implore you NOT to approve the bicycle lanes on Western Avenue, between 25th Street and Palos Verdes Drive North. Thank you for your consideration, Suzanne Brothers 28644 Vista Madera Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 99275 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:15 AM CityClerk FW: Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 From: Sean Lopez <SLopez@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:01 AM To: 'Darren Wadsworth' <wadsbrau@hotmail.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 Good Morning Darren, Thank you for reaching out to the City and providing support of this project being presented to the upcoming Council agenda item. Your email was received by the City Council and will be included as late correspondence for Tuesday's meeting. Also, I will forward your comments to the local Caltrans team involved with this project. Once Caltrans provides a response, I will pass that along to you and the Council. Respectfully, Sean Lopez Assistant Engineer slopez@rpvca.gov Phone -{310) 544-5333 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. 1 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: Darren Wadsworth <wadsbrau@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:41 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hi, I am in favor of this project. I would like to note however that a "class Ill bike lane" is essentially no different or safer than just riding on a street with no bike lanes. The class shouldn't even exist. We {cyclists) just call them roads. I would be in favor of at least a class II lane the entire distance. Thank you, Darren Wadsworth San Pedro, CA 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:04 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Miraleste Plaza LC From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 5:45 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Miraleste Plaza Honorable Mayor and City Council, We have received numerous emails from residents of the Miraleste area objecting to "low income" housing being proposed in the Miraleste Plaza as part of the Draft Housing Element Site Inventory. In response, we are responding with the text below. Regards, Ken Dear ____ _ Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence next Tuesday, October 19th. The City has received a number of concerns regarding the Miraleste Plaza, which has been identified as one of several potential sites to accommodate additional housing within the City to comply with the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state- mandated requirement. A key component of the draft Housing Element is the preparation of a potential housing sites inventory to identify potential locations can accommodate the City's 6th Cycle (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is a representation of existing and future housing needs for all income levels in a jurisdiction (city or unincorporated county) and it is a requirement of California housing law that a jurisdiction demonstrate, in their Housing Element Update, how this housing allocation will be accommodated in the City during the next housing cycle (2021-2021). Given the large increase in the City's RHNA from the 5th to 6th Cycles, it was a challenging process to identify housing sites sufficient to fully accommodate the required housing units. SO potential housing sites have been identified, which includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors and in commercial districts as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. The list of potential housing sites also outlines potential density, which considered site constraints and availability of infrastructure. The list also identifies zoning modifications (mixed-use in commercial districts and higher density in residential zones) for the identified sites along with preliminary housing unit yields. As currently identified in the draft Housing Element Update, the Miraleste Plaza sites are considered for mixed-use with the potential for up to 13 above moderate-income housing units A mixed use designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided; and above moderate-income housing means no very low-or low-income level housing units were considered for this area if the parcels are ultimately rezoned for mixed-use. 1 It's important to note that the City must identify potential housing sites for all income levels in order for the State Department of Housing and Community Development {HCD) to be able to certify the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element to be compliant with state law. A noncompliant Housing Element may result in the City becoming ineligible for state and federal funds, and in the worst-case scenario, the state referring the City to the Attorney General for non-compliance or taking jurisdiction over the City's zoning and land use decisions. Thus, in order to prevent such outcomes, the City is working towards preparing a Housing Element Update that could at least meet the minimum requirements to have a certified Housing Element in place for the future, which is why it was important to identify housing sites city-wide through the site inventory process. It is also important to note that the City Council's ratification of the Housing Element and associated site inventory is not an automatic approval of a development or an automatic rezoning for higher density. What is being done now is identifying sites that may have the potential to accommodate additional housing. To be compliant, the City must ensure there are no governmental or other barriers preventing the units from being built by a private developer (not the City). To that end, subsequent to approval of the Housing Element by HCD, the City will need to embark on the process of rezoning identified sites to accommodate the RHNA. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. When the time comes, there will be public notices sent out and noticed public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate. Further, environmental assessments will be conducted in conjunction with this action. The potential site inventory list is a matrix that will likely be refined with time depending on the real estate market and larger economic factors as well as community input. At this time, there is a feasibility study being performed by the City's consultant to review the feasibility of mixed-use in Miraleste Plaza, which will help the City further refine the feasibility of developing this area, or not. The results of the feasibility study will become available in November 2021 and will be incorporated into future staff reports to provide context of the potential sites inventory. The City Council will be review the draft Housing Element at the October 19 City Council meeting {Staff Report). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda If you have any other questions or concerns, please visit the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update webpage. You can also subscribe to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update listserv to receive future notices regarding this matter at https://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development t;,;jCity of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 krukavina@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5227 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. 2 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. ► GETITON Google Play 3 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Ken Rukavina, PE Ken Rukavina Monday, October 18, 2021 11 :02 AM Jaehee Yoon FW: Comments regarding the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element plan --more comments. Miraleste_Plaza 1 Jpg Director of Community Development t:~City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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. ► G£TITON GooglePlay From: vpurdy1@cox.net <vpurdy1@cox.net> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 3:09 PM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Comments regarding the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element plan --more comments. Hello Ken Thank you for the reply. I understand that the city must generate a plan that complies with the current law. And that any site choice you make with generate objections. So: my personal first choice would be: don't include ANY of the potential sites 34-38 in the Miraleste Plaza area. I still think that the homeowners association (Art Jury) requirements would deter would-be developers. My distant second choice would be to pick site 36 only. It's a large real estate office complex, mostly utilized by non- residents of the city. Sites 34, 35, and 38 are all enterprises that have been there for years and are highly regarded by the locals. Perhaps you could pass this along to those tasked with developing the final list. I've attached a top-view of the area so you can see for yourself what these sites look like. Thanks Ken Respectfully Vance Purdy vpurdyl@cox.net From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 5:39 PM To: vpurdyl@cox.net Subject: RE: Comments regarding the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element plan Dear Vance, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence next Tuesday, October 19th. The City has received a number of concerns regarding the Miraleste Plaza, which has been identified as one of several potential sites to accommodate additional housing within the City to comply with the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state- mandated requirement. A key component of the draft Housing Element is the preparation of a potential housing sites inventory to identify potential locations can accommodate the City's 6th Cycle (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is a representation of existing and future housing needs for all income levels in a jurisdiction (city or unincorporated 2 county) and it is a requirement of California housing law that a jurisdiction demonstrate, in their Housing Element Update, how this housing allocation will be accommodated in the City during the next housing cycle (2021-2021). Given the large increase in the City's RHNA from the 5th to 6th Cycles, it was a challenging process to identify housing sites sufficient to fully accommodate the required housing units. 50 potential housing sites have been identified, which includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors and in commercial districts as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. The list of potential housing sites also outlines potential density, which considered site constraints and availability of infrastructure. The list also identifies zoning modifications (mixed-use in commercial districts and higher density in residential zones) for the identified sites along with preliminary housing unit yields. As currently identified in the draft Housing Element Update, the Miraleste Plaza sites are considered for mixed-use with the potential for up to 13 above moderate-income housing units A mixed use designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided; and above moderate-income housing means no very low-or low-income level housing units were considered for this area if the parcels are ultimately rezoned for mixed-use. It's important to note that the City must identify potential housing sites for all income levels in order for the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to be able to certify the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element to be compliant with state law. A non compliant Housing Element may result in the City becoming ineligible for state and federal funds, and in the worst-case scenario, the state referring the City to the Attorney General for non-compliance or taking jurisdiction over the City's zoning and land use decisions. Thus, in order to prevent such outcomes, the City is working towards preparing a Housing Element Update that could at least meet the minimum requirements to have a certified Housing Element in place for the future, which is why it was important to identify housing sites city-wide through the site inventory process. It is also important to note that the City Council's ratification of the Housing Element and associated site inventory is not an automatic approval of a development or an automatic rezoning for higher density. What is being done now is identifying sites that may have the potential to accommodate additional housing. To be compliant, the City must ensure there are no governmental or other barriers preventing the units from being built by a private developer (not the City). To that end, subsequent to approval of the Housing Element by HCD, the City will need to embark on the process of rezoning identified sites to accommodate the RHNA. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. When the time comes, there will be public notices sent out and noticed public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate. Further, environmental assessments will be conducted in conjunction with this action. The potential site inventory list is a matrix that will likely be refined with time depending on the real estate market and larger economic factors as well as community input. At this time, there is a feasibility study being performed by the City's consultant to review the feasibility of mixed-use in Miraleste Plaza, which will help the City further refine the feasibility of developing this area, or not. The results of the feasibility study will become available in November 2021 and will be incorporated into future staff reports to provide context of the potential sites inventory. The City Council will be review the draft Housing Element at the October 19 City Council meeting (Staff Report). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda If you have any other questions or concerns, please visit the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update webpage. You can also subscribe to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update listserv to receive future notices regarding this matter at b.ll,Qs://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development 3 of Rancho Palos Verdes 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. ► G£TITOO Google Play From: vpurdy1@cox.net <vpurdy1@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 7:52 PM To: Housing Element <HousingElement@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments regarding the draft 6th Cycle Housing Element plan Hello, City of Rancho Palos Verdes I am submitting comments for the October 12 meeting, agenda item 2021-2029 DRAFT 6TH HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW: City-Wide (OS). A neighbor alerted me to the 203 page draft plan. I've reviewed the plan, and here is my understanding: 1. The city is required to develop plans for 639 affordable housing units. (Presumably due to AB 9 that passed) 2. On the draft plan, pages numbered 158 and 159, you have identified 50 potential sites for 1633 housing units: 631 for "low income" and 1002 for "above moderate income". The next step will be to narrow the list down. My request: Please avoid using sites 34 to 38, in the Miraleste area a. The number of potential units is small (average of 3 per site, only 15 total) 4 b. Many of the (potentially) displaced businesses have been there for well over 50 years, and are an integral part of the community. c. The Miraleste area falls under the jurisdiction of the Art Jury, so any development would incur additional costs. I imagine that any developer would prefer sites that accommodate a fairly large number of people. Fortunately, many of the 50 sites you identified can meet that requirement. Many are located along Western Ave, a major thoroughfare and close to shopping and transportation. I can see that meeting the 639 unit requirement will be a difficult challenge for the city. Congratulations for identifying as many potential sites as you did. With Respect Vance Purdy vpurdy1@cox.net 5 Pearl Laraneta 6524 Via Siena Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310)514-9494 October 16, 2021 Mr. Octavio Silva Deputy Director/Planning Manager 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275 HousingElement@rpvca.gov Dear Mr. Silva: My family purchased our home in 1951 and was the only home on the hill. They worked hard to maintain their home and now this home belongs to me. We have seen many good changes in RPV through out the years. But, now you want to put affordable housing in the Plaza. It is wrong! We pay high taxes and try to maintain our property. This is going to make the prices of our homes depreciate. We as individuals have worked had to live up here and live comfortably and now you want to throw a wrench into our lives. I am not in favor of this idea. Place these people in an undeveloped area! Not here! Our homes were never affordable so why try to put this in our upscale neighborhood. Why should they be given affordable homes here in our area when we work so hard. Not happy! R.P.V. you have let us down! We don't need this! Would you destroy the Malaga Cove Area? So why destroy something that is convenient for us (Bank, Francisco's, Automotive Repair, Hair Salon, Liquor Store) which is so convenient for older people who rely on these establishments. Sincerely, Pearl Laraneta Plaraneta@gmail.com Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Barbara Cambilargiu <bclark@lilybleu.com> Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:50 PM CityClerk Miraleste Plaza opinion on the possible housing development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Miraleste is a beautiful, historic neighborhood, one of the original in PV under the jurisdiction of the art Jury and Palos Verdes homeowners association along with Palos Verdes Estates. It is a quiet, peaceful and charming neighborhood which is what people pay for when they buy single family houses here. The kind of neighborhood where your children can walk or ride their bike to school and the locals including our elderly population regularly get their hair and nails done as well as frequent the deli and Italian restaurant, Union Bank and the real estate office. For many residents this is one of the few convenient and safe places on this side of the hill where you can find these goods and services without having to drive a distance. Miraleste plaza houses a fire department which continuously responds to emergency situations on a daily basis with firetrucks and paramedics going in and out. What impact will additional housing in that plaza have on the access for the fire department to respond to emergency situations? How will this extra density affect the safety of our children walking to and from Miraleste middle school? The plaza is a safe place for them to ride bikes and hang out while waiting for their parents to pick them up after school. I am wondering if you have reached out to the principal of the school to inquire about the congested traffic patterns and how this will further affect the safety of our children. Was there an actual assessment done when picking this area? We feel strongly that this is not an appropriate place to put multi use apartments as there are already affordable apartments in the neighborhood and many more just down the street at Miraleste Canyon Estates. This particular parcel is more suited to single family homes and we prefer to keep the plaza as a commercial zone. 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 9:20 AM CityClerk FW: Public comment for 10/19 council meeting agenda item 5 (Housing Element) From: MICHAEL KELSEY <mpkelsey@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 5:07 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: Public comment for 10/19 council meeting agenda item 5 (Housing Element) Dear City Council, I believe you have crossed a line in the sand that I know have to fight .. And fight I will.. I have lived in the Melralstie for over 50 years .. I use are deli at least once a week .. I use are bank at least 2 times a week and The best "fast food around" Francisco's all week .. To drive down the hill and back up would ad way to much to the pollution traffic to are beautiful area .. I believe there is other places to consider. Michael Kelsey 310-993-920 3 1 s. Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Colleen Campbell <colleencampbell21@gmail.com> Sunday, October 17, 2021 4:13 PM CityClerk Public comment for 10/19 council meeting agenda item 5 (Housing Element) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear City Council, Sounds like more divisive rhetoric to me! No thank you! I'm writing to express my concern about our affordable housing shortage and its impact on the future of our city. Exclusionary zoning and land use practices have led to an undersupply of affordable medium-and high-density housing near jobs and transit, and have perpetuated segregated living patterns and the exclusion of historically disadvantaged communities. Rancho Palos Verdes has an opportunity to address the need for more housing in a way that furthers equity, environmental sustainability, and economic recovery in its housing element update. We should update the housing element in a way that encourages historically high housing growth, while furthering fair housing opportunities and undoing patterns of discrimination in housing. We can't miss this opportunity to fix our city's housing crisis. I urge you to legalize more housing, make housing easier to build, fund affordable housing and end homelessness, and strengthen tenants' rights. Sincerely, COLLEEN CAMPBELL Sent from my iPhone 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Brian Mazen <bmazen29929@gmail.com> Monday, October 18, 2021 9:54 AM CityClerk Brian Mazen Comments From Homeowner Re Housing Element Project For October 19, 2021 City Council Meeting My name is Brian Mazen. My family and I have been homeowners and residents in the Miraleste Hills neighborhood of RPV for the past 27 years. Miraleste Hills is a stone's throw away from your proposed Housing Element project at Miraleste Plaza. My 24-year old daughter attended and graduated from Mira Catalina Elementary, Miraleste Intermediate School, and Palos Verdes High School. I'm a little late to this party as I just found out about this Housing Element issue over the weekend. While it may be a moot point, I do want to submit for the record that we strongly oppose this "Affordable Multi Family Housing Project," which I believe should more aptly be described and labeled as the low income housing project. My wife and I have worked extremely hard in our careers over the past 30+ years to be able to move to RPV. One of the primary reasons for moving to RPV was to be in a neighborhood and City that was safe and protected from the very thing that is being proposed with this low income housing project. My understanding of this proposed project is that the City will be removing and redeveloping the current Miraleste Plaza area to build 639 Units of low income housing. While the City contends that there will also be Units designated for "moderate" income levels, I got to believe that most of the Units will be snatched up by low income people. In other words, by people who would never otherwise be able to afford to live in our City and who will undoubtedly not fit in with the existing residents. I want you to know that my family and I, along with numerous other local residents (including numerous students from Miraleste Intermediate School) and visitors (such as visiting contractors), regularly use and patronize the businesses operating in/at Miraleste Plaza. I personally see these other people using these businesses when I'm there conducting my own business. My family does its banking at this Union Bank Branch (been doing so for the past 27 years), have consulted and used real estate agents from the RE/MAX real estate agency, and have regularly patronized Francesco's Cafe Italia, Miraleste Liquor & Deli, Miraleste Hair Stylists, Miraleste Cleaners, and Miraleste Automotive over the past 27 years. These friendly local community proprietors have become a part of the fabric of our nice little neighborhood. Not only will losing these businesses be a big inconvenience for us and others as we will now be forced to leave the safe and uncrowded confines of Miraleste to shop and do our business, but it will undoubtedly be extremely disruptive and financially costly to those businesses. Given the current economic times, I suspect that, unfortunately, some of these businesses will have no choice but to shut down their operations for good. It's sad to think that they were able to survive the horrible business climate created by the COVID-19 pandemic, only to now be threatened by this low income housing project. Another obvious problem will be that the addition of 639 housing Units will significantly increase the vehicle traffic, parking, and crowds in our once secluded, quiet, and uncrowded community. If each of these Units contains 4 people 1 5. (which may be a conservative estimate as low income people often like to have more occupants in their homes than the property was designed for and can reasonably and legally accommodate -I have personally witnessed this while managing real properties), then we are talking about the addition of over 2,500 people and their vehicles. The Miraleste Plaza area is just not large enough to accommodate the influx of so many new people and vehicles. Where will all these people park their vehicles (which could number in the thousands if each Unit has more than one vehicle)? I can also only imagine how bad the traffic will be, especially when students and parents are arriving and departing Miraleste Intermediate School. Equally important, bringing in low income residents will undoubtedly also bring in an element of crime. It cannot be reasonably disputed or controverted that low income people and communities always contain an element of crime. While not every low income person is a criminal, there will certainly be some percentage of them and their extended families and visitors that will be involved in crime and illegal operations. To contend otherwise is just not realistic. (Although a little facetious, the City should also consider placing a Sheriff Department substation inside the Fire Station in order to maintain law and order around this proposed low income housing project.) If you doubt or dispute this premise, I urge you to simply look around and visit other nearby low income cities and communities, such as San Pedro, Harbor City, Lomita, Carson, Wilmington, Compton, Lynwood, Lawndale, Gardena, Hawthorne, and South Central Los Angeles. (Go check out the housing projects at the bottom of 1st Street in San Pedro. I do, however, caution you to not get out of your car for safety reasons.) These cities have, among other problems, significant drug, gang, violent crime, burglary, theft, property damage, homeless, pollution, and graffiti problems. I have managed real properties in some of these nearby cities and I have seen the problems first hand. One of my conclusions is that these people simply do not have respect for property or human life. If you dispute this contention, I dare you to go take a walk in one of these communities alone after dark. One of my biggest concerns involving this proposed project is that many of the children attending Miraleste Intermediate School walk to and from school. In doing so, they will have no choice but to walk directly by this proposed low income housing project. This will put them in direct contact with the criminal element occupying the low income housing. They will most likely be solicited to buy drugs or other illegal contraband. So, instead of these children stopping by Miraleste Liquor & Deli to purchase a soda, snack, or ice cream after school, they can now potentially swing by the low income housing project to buy some marijuana, fentanyl, heroin, or other illegal drugs. While this is obviously only speculation, it is speculation based on common sense, history, experience, and reality. The world has changed and we can't ignore it. It is happening in other cities, and it will happen here too if we let it. Even if it is speculation, it is not a risk that I, or any other parent or resident, should have to take. If the City is somehow compelled to build a low income housing project inside our wonderful city, I suggest and urge it to do so on some larger undeveloped land and area so it is not as disruptive, harming, and damaging as it will be to the quiet little community of Miraleste. I conclude my comments by asking each of you one simple, yet very important, question: Would you want a low income housing project to be built near your homes? Please help us save and protect our community. Thank you. Brian Mazen 29929 Knoll View Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Brian Mazen Home: 310-833-2329 Mobile: 310-997-7671 2 Brian Mazen Home: 310-833-2329 Mobile: 310-997-7671 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Dear Sirs, John Zuanich <jztrading@aol.com> Monday, October 18, 2021 10:14 AM CityClerk I am a resident in the Miraleste / RPV area, two blocks from the Miraeleste Plaza, am shocked to receive through the grapevine and not officially notified by your committee or management I council that there are discussions to eliminate the Miraleste Plaza to build affordable housing. I have never received any letters or seen any publication or articles in the newspapers in regard to this proposal. Why weren't letters of this proposal / details sent to the residents in the area months ago as this matter seems to have been discussed in detail for sometime?. Ho wlong?. Is this correct or legal on what you have done by not officially notifying us?. What does affordable housing mean?. Please clarify the criteria to meet this, thank you. Such a decision is a economic impact on what it will have on the displacement of the business and employees, as well as the neighborhood with additional vehicle movement, traffic, construction, etc.There are many factors to take into consideration for such a change in a family neighborhood. It seems that the council or decision makers are bowing to the developers, and not the residents or loss of employment?. Increase in crime rate. Disturbance of a quiet neighborhood. What about the effect it will have on the value of my home in the near vicinity of this plaza ?. Our property taxes go up each and every year, will the council re-asses our homes for the lower values and drop our property taxes affecting every home on the hill that will lose values because of this?. For the record, I DO NOT SUPPORT OR ENDORSE THIS MATTER AND PROPOSAL BY THE RPV OR ANY RELATIVE COUNCIL. and would appreciate a response on this submission before taking further action, thank you and All the best in 2021 1 ><(((o> ----><(((o> John Zuanich 6528 Via Lorenzo Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal(f 90275 email: jzrrading((1)aol. com Mobile I WhatsApp +1.310. 710.4522 "And in the end it;'s not t:he years in your life that count it's the life in your years "A. Lincoln 2 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:15 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Miralest Plaza -Nextdoor From: Pamela Anderson <familyforusc@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:01 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Miralest Plaza -Nextdoor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. From my neighborhood: https://nextdoor.com/p/ 4jSKTPtnb3m/c/669797760?utm source=share Hi there city of RPV, I want my voice to be heard. I do not want low income housing developed in my neighborhood. I pay an exorbitant amount in taxes, housing, schools etc. I won't be happy if this passes, especially during Covid the information isn't out there to my neighbors ( everyone is taking precautions and staying in ). No one knows about this in our neighborhood, you may have been working on it, but the city should send out a mass mailing like you do for neighborhood compatibility, so everyone can give their opinion. Thank you, Pamela Anderson 6436 Via Colinita, RPV Pamela Sent from my iPad 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:14 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Miraleste Plaza From: Lisa Farrar <lisaeunjafarrar@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:17 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Miraleste Plaza What's going to happen to all the businesses there? Autoshop, hair salon, deli, Francesco, bank? Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:14 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Miraleste Development From: Vicki Croucier <vcroucier@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 9:11 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Miraleste Development Hello, Just saw the letter regarding a huge housing development going in at Miraleste near the fire station. Has the city considered the traffic on PV East? It seems there are a lot of empty businesses on Western where traffic would be much less of an issue. Many kids from the school walk to that deli area to be picked up. It is already dangerous with the high volume of traffic and lack of proper sidewalks adding more traffic is irresponsible. Please reconsider. I believe there are far more better locations for a housing development. Thank you Vicki Croucier Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Octavio Silva Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:14 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Housing project located at Miraleste Plaza From: Jamie Farrar <jbrynne@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:56 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Housing project located at Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I have been a resident of Eastview for 10+ years and my family and I are opposed to adding more housing especially in that part of our neighbourhood. It is already a complete nightmare coming in and out and people race through our streets to cut through to the school without stopping at stop signs. I and my family as well as every neighbor I can talk to will attend every meeting and sign every petition against this. The little plaza is the last bit of a family neighbourhood feel. How about trying to fix our traffic problems or doing something beneficial instead of adding to our problems. Oh and FYI the trails aren't even safe. My daughter came across a man unconscious while walking our dog. I don't feel like my daughters are safe getting off the bus for school. Have you SEEN western Avenue and Capitol? I had to ask for security to walk me to my car at the Ralph's down the street because a homeless man was mad I wouldn't drive him somewhere. I cannot even believe this would be considered near a school. Jamie Farrar Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: englishdv@aol.com Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:02 AM Housing Element; Octavio Silva Proposed Miraleste Plaza Development I just learned today that there is a proposal to convert the current Miraleste Plaza into multi-family density housing. As a local resident I wish to express my strong opposition. This is a terrible idea! It will add traffic and congestion to an already busy intersection (Miraleste Drive is the main access to PV Drive East and is at times congested) and take away from the character of the neighbourhood. I urge you to reconsider this proposal. David Liebesny (4048 Miraleste Drive). Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sirs, John Zuanich <jztrading@aol.com> Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:58 PM Housing Element MIRALESETE PLAZA RE-DEVELOPMENT I am a resident in the Miraleste / RPV area, two blocks from the Miraeleste Plaza, am shocked to receive through the grapevine and not officially notified by your committee or management/ council that there are discussions to eliminate the Miraleste Plaza to build affordable housing. I have never received any letters or seen any publication or articles in the newspapers in regard to this proposal. Why weren't letters of this proposal / details sent to the residents in the area months ago as this matter seems to have been discussed in detail for . ? H 1 ? sometime. . o w ong .. Is this correct or legal on what you have done by not officially notifying us?. What does affordable housing mean?. Please clarify the criteria to meet this, thank you. Such a decision is a economic impact on what it will have on the displacement of the business and employees, as well as the neighborhood with additional vehicle movement, traffic, construction, etc.There are many factors to take into consideration for such a change in a family neighborhood. It seems that the council or decision makers are bowing to the developers, and not the residents or loss of employment?. Increase in crime rate. Disturbance of a quiet neighborhood. What about the effect it will have on the value of my home in the near vicinity of this plaza ?. Our property taxes go up each and every year, will the council re-asses our homes for the lower values and drop our property taxes affecting every home on the hill that will lose values because of this?. For the record, I DO NOT SUPPORT OR ENDORSE THIS MATTER AND PROPOSAL BY THE RPV OR ANY RELATIVE COUNCIL. and would appreciate a response on this submission before taking further action, thank you and All the best in 2021 s. ><(((o> ----><(((o> John Zuanich 652 8 Via Lorenzo Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. 90275 email: jztrading@aol.com Mobile I WhatsApp +1.310.710.4522 "And in the end it's not the years in your lffi, that count, it's the l[le in your years "A. Lincoln 2 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Reid lsaki <reid.isaki@gmail.com> Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:00 PM Housing Element Fwd: Miraleste location ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Reid lsaki <reid.isaki@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 4:15 PM Subject: Miraleste location To: <housingelement@rvpca.gov> Hello, I'm concerned about the location of the affordable multi family location in rpv. Do you have any idea where the location of this building will be? I was told it would be at the miraleste plaza. Cant this be on western Ave where there are lots of non operable businesses like Marie calendars which is just a vacant building? Can you please let me know where the locations are going to be? I looked at the 114 page document but couldn't find the proposed locations Thank you for your time Reid 5. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Stephanie Krasovec <skrasovec@cox.net> Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:03 PM Housing Element Miraleste Plaza-Housing Element project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Silva, I am writing to oppose the removal of the Miraleste Plaza businesses and placing residential housing in its place. To remove long term businesses that serve our community just to place affordable housing is a mistake. I have been a patron of Miraleste Automotive, Miraleste Market, and Francesco's since we moved to RPV in 1995. Living on this side of the hill we are limited on where we can go to pick up a loaf of bread, or milk without traveling down to 25th and Western in San Pedro. During the pandemic when I didn't want to travel to a busy grocery store, I instead could go and pick up a few things there. Additionally, Francesco's is also the only eating establishment on this side of the hill. Greg Streeter at Miraleste Automotive has been a great partner in providing support to our local school and community, and his Miraleste Automotive is one of the few places where you can take your car for repairs and know and trust the answer of what is wrong with your vehicle. They get the repair done in a timely fashion, plus providing a ride home for you and picking you up at home once your repairs are complete. Let us also address the traffic congestion .... ,more cars at an already busy corner with the Miraleste Intermediate School and all those who travel down Miraleste Drive to connect to 1st Street on the way to the freeway to go to work etc. Certainly there are other open space places located in the Palos Verdes Area that these structures can be put where there would not be an impact on traffic and personal businesses of our community. Please reconsider this area for the Housing Element Project. Regards, Stephanie Krasovec 30741 Ganado Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: nancy sams <n_sams@yahoo.com> Wednesday, October 13, 2021 1 :36 PM Housing Element Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Miraleste Plaza is the only commercial site serving PV Drive East. I live near Marymount and with the exception of the real estate offices I frequent every business there on a regular basis. Miraleste Auto is exceptional in service with fair pricing, where I can drop my car off and walk home without being stuck waiting for hours at a service location far away. In the Plaza I do my banking, visit my safe deposit box, pick up grocery items, dine in a good restaurant, and more. I was horrified to learn Miraleste Plaza is on the list for housing development. We need and depend on those businesses and losing them would be a huge blow to the residents on the east side and beyond. Please do not take this away from us. We lose too much and gain little, if anything by putting housing in this location. Nancy and Arthur Sams Calle Aventura Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear RPV Planning Dept Dylan Bruno <dylanbruno@earthlink.net> Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:33 AM Housing Element Miraleste Plaza Regarding the new housing element, I have some thoughts of opposition to the redevelopment of Miraleste Plaza into affordable housing units. My opposition is not NIMBYism, not concern for property values, or being unsympathetic to the plight of the homeless or under housed. My opposition is based simply on the alternative opportunity presented by that proper! as to quality of life and day to day living conditions. Living up on the hill, almost everything you need requires a car ride, and there are really no thoroughfares in PV. So almost every drive is through a residential neighborhood. So, to go grocery shopping, I have to drive past people sitting in their front yard trying to enjoy a sunset, on their hands and knees gardening, playing ball with their kids. And I feel guilty rushing through their lives in my car because I need groceries or have to deposit a check down on Western. So I have decided to make some modest adjustments to my habits in an effort to improve the quality of life for my neighbors. When I need milk or eggs or other staples, I walk to the Miraleste Plaza and buy them at the deli. I have switched banks to Union Bank so I can walk to Miraleste Plaza to deposit a check or withdraw money. When we don't feel like cooking, we eat at Francesco's. The deli doesn't have organic produce, the restaurant isn't the best in the area and I don't get the best rates at the bank. But I am minimizing my carbon footprint and keeping one more car out of the intimacy of my neighbors lives. And to me, and this community, there is value in that. There is a reason people spend tens of thousands of dollars on luxury vacations to Tuscany and the South of France ... every beautiful hilltop village has a cafe, a bakery and a cheese and meat shop. They may not each be the best in the world, but they have their unique personality and charm. And in aggregate, the diversity of experience they provide, makes for a world class lifestyle. We have the opportunity to be that. Losing the businesses at Miraleste Plaza would be a detriment to the persona of the East side of the hill. As would be the loss of Kelly's Corner on PV Dr North, or The Corner Store in San Pedro. Imagine redeveloping all of these into dense housing units. Their impact on traffic and the flow of people would be compounded because of the extra density minus the walkable locations. We have to remember that as density increases around us, these small but unique oases become more important and they need to be nurtured. Miraleste Plaza has so much potential to provide for this community that will be lost if it is redeveloped as high density housing. Please reconsider alternative options, and please realize and foster the value that commercial plaza serves. Best Dylan Bruno Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: ML Bettino <ml.bettino@gmail.com> Thursday, October 14, 2021 11:13 AM Housing Element Proposed Project at Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As a long time resident a few blocks from the Miraleste Plaza, I am appalled at your idea of mowing down the plaza for housing units. There are so many reasons against your plans. Traffic and pollution issues to begin with. Many of us walk to the Plaza regularly. We enjoy the pizza at Francescos. We depend upon the store for milk, etc. since it is the closest store for the elderly and underaged from driving, to use. The automotive shop has been a God send when car problems have hit us all. You do know that we are a potential fire zone. Do you really want to put new units near those canyons? And more traffic near the school? This is a bad bad idea. "One day on the water is worth three on land" mlb mlbettino.com 310 3441892 Podcast -impactz.org Check out my recent release: Second Son 6. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dana Aratani <dlaratani@cox.net> Friday, October 15, 2021 10:52 AM Planning Housing Element Comment and Input Flag for follow up Flagged We have lived on Via Lorenzo in Miraleste since 1989. The plaza is an important part of our community. It has businesses that we have used since we moved in. Our community was planned in the 1920's with very narrow streets. It is in the Art Jury area known as the "Red Tile Roof' area; that dictates the unique appearance of the Miraleste. We love this area and feel that Rancho Palos Verdes should be proud to have an area with a history that is directly and legally tied to Malaga Cove (the only other "Red Tile Roof' area on Palos Verdes. Presently, on our narrow streets, one car can barely pass between a parked car on each side of the street (for larger SUV's and trucks, vehicles are regularly missed by inches). Miraleste streets are so narrow that we have to move our vehicles the night before each trash day. The waste disposal trucks will sit on their horns for the parked party to move their vehicles. [We can hear a waste disposal truck's horn as this letter is being composed.] Our neighbor and I make it a practice to not park at our usual spots in order for our waste disposal truck to go through We have significant traffic from Miraleste Intermediate School. Long lines of vehicles form traffic in order to get to the school. Vehicles attempting to avoid the long lines on the street of Miraleste and/or Palos Verdes Drive East will often times go through the neighborhood through Via Lorenzo, Via Siena, and Via Colinita. It is a real threat to our safely as this thoroughfare often times creates drivers who are driving fast between our narrow streets. The Miraleste plaza parking lot is often times full with parents or parties awaiting pick up for students. This area becomes extremely chaotic. Imagine an area that is already dense and congested with added living units? We heavily oppose the proposed development of Miraleste Plaza. Our streets are too narrow and the planning of our neighborhood streets cannot accommodate an increased activity. Seeing the proposed development of Miraleste Plaza is disheartening and feels like our local RPV government pays no heed to our plight. Please show that we are wrong in this regard. Signed, Linda and Dana Aratani Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Tammy Zar <tammyzar@cox.net> Friday, October 15, 2021 11: 12 AM Housing Element Miraleste Plaza Flag for follow up Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hello, I learned this week through a friend about a plan to build low income housing where Miraleste Plaza is located. I live near Marymount college and never received the letter that was sent nor did my neighbors. It's terrible that it was only sent to those surrounding areas to Miraleste plaza. Our Union Bank, sandwich shop called Francescos and our food/liquor store where all the Miraleste middle school kids go after school is an important source of food and banking in our town. It's unimaginable for us to lose the closest source of food to those of us living on the hill. Many of us including the elderly people (and there's a lot) don't like going all the way into the town on Western Ave. so they go there for their milk, butter, eggs, lunch and dinner plus their banking needs also adding our longtime and trustworthy auto repair garage. One of the reasons we moved here is for the small town (Mayberry) feel and it would be absolutely terrible to lose it. I would like to know when and if there is a town hall meeting regarding this so I can join all these people that oppose it, and there's a lot! Letters really should've gone to everyone on this side of the hill!! Possibly you could consider the other side of the hill near City Hall or perhaps the desert. Please reconsider (I'm begging) don't let this move forward and look elsewhere. Thank you for your time. Tammy Zar Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Rhoanne <rhoanne@cox.net> Friday, October 15, 2021 1 :57 PM Housing Element Miraleste Plaza Flag for follow up Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Planning Commission, I am begging you to reconsider your proposal to tag Miraleste Plaza for a multifamily redevelopment project! I have been a resident of RPV for over 55 years. I moved here when we were still Palos Verdes Peninsula. In the last 5-10 years our quality of life has been threatened by overpopulation and overbuilding. We live here ( and worked hard to get here) because we desire a rural suburban environment. Unfortunately, recent congestion has lead to coyote problems, traffic jams, theft and mental illness, among other problems. Please do not compound it by taking away our little shopping center and replacing it with more housing. The intersection of Miraleste Drive and PV Dr East is already impacted due to drop off and pick up at Miraleste Intermediate school. The area cannot tolerate a multifamily addition. Please consider an area that would not cause more danger to our students, who already have to dodge over anxious drivers to get on and off campus. The plaza is an essential part of our neighborhood. It provides our senior community a bank, a snack and a place to take their automobiles without leaving "the hill". Many of our aging community find it very stressful dealing with the challenges of even a short commute. The Deli is a spot that our students can walk to for a popsicle after school. It really is the only spot on this side of the peninsula that we can access local businesses on foot. I know that this is a state mandate and a supreme challenge for you to comply with. Please look further in your search to another area. Thank you for your consideration, Rhoanne Washington 3 Cayuse Ln. Rancho Palos Verdes rhoanne@cox.net 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Stacey Branger <foodcooker@yahoo.com > Saturday, October 16, 2021 4:27 AM Housing Element I oppose Flag for follow up Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Sirs, As a long time resident of Rolling Hills Estates, I strongly oppose any such mandates from any government body to build any kind of low income housing PERIOD. You are inviting crime, traffic, overcrowding to the local schools and the very reason we have chosen this pristine rural community to live in. This is absurd and should have never been proposed in the first place. I along with my neighbors will fight this, and any low income housing units you think you might want to build. Sincerely, S. Branger Sent from my iPad Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Christian Caoile <caoilechris@me.com > Saturday, October 16, 2021 7:23 AM Housing Element Opposing Flag for follow up Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To whom it may concern Please find a better site for low income housing not on silver spur rd. This will not suitable since this a very busy commercial, business and school area .. why do we have to do this to our quiet town, this not fair for the residents who paid thousands of dollars to live here . Sincerely Chris Caoile RPV resident 3104088399 Sent from my iPhone Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Anikara rangappan <arangappan@icloud.com> Saturday, October 16, 2021 8:51 AM Housing Element Low income housing Flag for follow up Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hello, Kindly find a different site for the low income housing. Concentrating them close to the only shopping area we have will make it likely unsafe and crowded for us to go there. There are a lot of senior citizens here and we don't have too many choices for recreation and shopping. PLEASE don't make things more difficult for us than it already is. I am sure there are other sites more suitable in PV that won't impact the quality of life for those of us who are already here. Thank you. Regards, Veena Rangappan Sent from my iPhone 6. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Michael Kotlyar < Mike.Kotlyar@outlook.com > Saturday, October 16, 2021 9:17 AM Housing Element Housing density Flag for follow up Flagged Have the environmental impact report been completed or will be completed? Since this has to do with traffic congestion, utility needs, etc. we, the public, have the right to know what will happen with our neiborhood. Sent from Mail for Windows Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Adrienne Livoti <adriennelivoti@gmail.com> Saturday, October 16, 2021 11 :33 AM Housing Element Housing Flag for follow up Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Please do not allow any more housing projects!!! We moved here for the beautiful & quiet neighborhood. Let's keep it that way! Adrienne Livoti Sent from my iPhone 1 6. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: m.mahajan@verizon.net Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:58 AM Housing Element new higher density housing Flag for follow up Flagged Please stop any attempts for higher density just so you the politician collect a bit more taxes to spend more and to pay city employees more and to feel good by spending more. High density housing population means lower living standards, lower health, more crime etc. Whole world is full of the examples of degradation that happens with higher density, stop it. Mahesh 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Audrey & Daniel Elroi <family.elroi@gmail.com> Sunday, October 17, 2021 6:58 PM Housing Element Support for low income housing Flag for follow up Flagged Dear RPV government, As a resident I am writing in super of adding low income housing to our neighborhood. We are aware of the lack of low income housing in California and in the Los Angeles area especially. We believe we need to do our fair share and the peninsula certainly has room to absorb a few low income families. Please do what you need to do to satisfy the state mandated requirements to add affordable housing throughout our area. Sincerely, Audrey Stempel and Daniel Elroi Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hello, jockoplotz@gmail.com Sunday, October 17, 2021 11 :21 PM Housing Element low cost housing Flag for follow up Flagged My name is Lonnie Jordan and I reside on Grayslake Rd. For years now, officials keep telling us that we do not have enough water or power, or whatever shortage that is coming around the bend. Water restrictions and flex alerts are becoming the norm now and I don't think that continuous building expansion is the answer. This includes commercial properties, apartments, single family homes, etc. Once a city is overbuilt, there is no going back. Traffic and parking will also be worse. Crime rates go up along with population density. If you decide to change the city plan to include more high density buildings, you refrain from any future water or power alerts. Thank you Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: LC Octavio Silva Monday, October 18, 2021 6:07 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Objection Miraleste Development. From: Mia Montpas <miamontpas@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:07 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Objection Miraleste Development. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Octavio. We are a 30 plus year resident of Miraleste/Clevis area. We absolutely oppose the building of any development in the Miraleste Plaza. Bad for our housing and schooling. There are so many other open areas for development (Trump area, near Hawthorne, off Crenshaw or Hawthorne toward PCH) and more. Many in areas that don't affect businesses or housing. Please note our objections and let us know how else we can be heard. Mia Montpas 29075 Clevis Road RPV 310-619-8773 Sent from my iPhone 1 5- Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Le Octavio Silva Monday, October 18, 2021 6:08 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Miraleste Plaza From: Michelle Castelo <m.v.castelo@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 7:40 AM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hello Octavio, I recently found out about the plan to convert the Miraleste plaza into low income housing and I am strongly protesting this idea. We recently purchased our home on Via Siena. My husband and I have 3 small children and part of the reason we purchased our house was the close proximity to schools, availability to walk to school and lower traffic on our street. If this plan goes through, the traffic will be unsafe for my children to walk to school. Already we are seeing traffic jams in the area particularly on Miraleste Dr. and have noticed increased traffic on Via Siena. There are cars that drive fast through an already narrow street. If this proposed plan goes through it will put my family and young children in danger. Recently there was a car that zipped through our street and crashed into our neighbor's truck. This is not okay and it will only get worse. What is the plan for traffic and safety? Another reason we bought the house was that we love the area that it is in. We like that it has been preserved by the Palos Verdes Home Association and Art Jury. By building this housing, how will it be continued to be preserved? I am curious about where this plan is on getting approved. How might we be able to stop this from happening? Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Michelle Michelle Castelo Alferes 5. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Le Octavio Silva Monday, October 18, 2021 6:09 AM Jaehee Yoon Fw: Housing Element From: Adriana Peacock <adrianapeacock@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 4:12 PM To: Octavio Silva <0ctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Housing Element CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hello Octavio, I attended the Planning Commission meeting on October 12. Many speakers made comments regarding the lack of knowledge regarding the Housing Element & it's potential sites in our community. I was wondering if it would be possible for the city to make Housing Element banners & post them in locations around the city. The banners in the photo are located at the intersection of Miraleste Drive & PV Drive East. Surely if banners can be made to advertise Halloween & Fall Festival they can be made for such an important issue as the Housing Element? I am sure that many members of the community would be willing to pick them up & post them in the appropriate locations throughout our city. If there is anything else that we as members of the community can do to help the Planning Department please let me know. We all realize that you are working hard dealing with the State & their Housing Element demands. Adriana Peacock Sent from my iPhone 3 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Officials, Mary Clarke <meclarke9@verizon.net> Monday, October 18, 2021 7:43 AM Housing Element Low Income Housing I am concerned about low income families and the homeless, etc. I just feel my husband and I have worked our whole lives, never living above our means, saving, saving, saving so we can live in a safe area. Your proposals for nearby low income housing can rip all of that away. With a more dense population and when you give something to those that have not dreamed of it and saved for it, they tend to take it for granted and therefore do not maintain it. Our neighborhood will change for the worse. Crime, traffic, noise are all things that come to mind. We treasure our space up here and know how blessed we are. Please take care of those that live here now. We all worked to get here, saved. Nothing was handed to us. There has to be a way to help your target audience and not destroy what so many of us have worked so hard for. Thank you for your time, Mary Clarke RPV Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: dave unvert <drunvert@gmail.com > Monday, October 18, 2021 9:59 AM Housing Element NO NO NO In no way shape or form should RPV let the Miraleste Plaza become" affordable housing" nonsense. NO! Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Ken Rukavina Monday, October 18, 2021 11 :31 AM Jaehee Yoon Subject: FW: Miraleste Plaza opinion on the possible housing development Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 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: Barbara Cambilargiu <bclark@lilybleu.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 202111:28 AM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Miraleste Plaza opinion on the possible housing development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Ken, Thank you for your hard work and support of our beautiful city. Careful consideration of these potential sites are greatly appreciated. While I do not believe it is right for the state to mandate these, I understand the cities are left with no choice in the matter. Below are the main reasons I do not think Miraleste is a good site for this housing. 1. Miraleste middle school and the walking children and traffic would make it a much more congested and dangerous situation. 2. Miraleste Fire Department responds to a large area and needs access to go in and out of the fire station. Adding housing without parking garages would create more traffic and is a safety hazard for all who need the services of the FD. 1 3. The retail sites located in the current plaza serve our community and provide a safe place for our older population to get services where they do not have to drive far. Since they are owned by multiple people how would a cohesive Spanish style multi use plaza be possible and would the PV Art Jury approve of this since we are part of the original PV Estates development under PVHA jurisdiction. One other side note; the garage that provides service to many neighbors who need their autos fixed used to be a gas station and I believe there was some reason they had to stop selling gas, possibly land contamination from a leaking gas tank? 4. Providing even moderate income housing in this area does not make sense under the housing guidelines since public transportation is not readily available and there are very few available jobs nearby. Thanks again, Barbara Cambilargiu > On Oct 14, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote: > > Dear Barbara, > > Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence next Tuesday, October 19th. > > The City has received a number of concerns regarding the Miraleste Plaza, which has been identified as one of several potential sites to accommodate additional housing within the City to comply with the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. > > The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state- mandated requirement. A key component of the draft Housing Element is the preparation of a potential housing sites inventory to identify potential locations can accommodate the City's 6th Cycle (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is a representation of existing and future housing needs for all income levels in a jurisdiction (city or unincorporated county) and it is a requirement of California housing law that a jurisdiction demonstrate, in their Housing Element Update, how this housing allocation will be accommodated in the City during the next housing cycle (2021-2021). > > Given the large increase in the City's RHNA from the 5th to 6th Cycles, it was a challenging process to identify housing sites sufficient to fully accommodate the required housing units. SO potential housing sites have been identified, which includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors and in commercial districts as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. The list of potential housing sites also outlines potential density, which considered site constraints and availability of infrastructure. The list also identifies zoning modifications (mixed-use in commercial districts and higher density in residential zones) for the identified sites along with preliminary housing unit yields. > > As currently identified in the draft Housing Element Update, the Miraleste Plaza sites are considered for mixed-use with the potential for up to 13 above moderate-income housing units A mixed use designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided; and above moderate-income housing means no very low-or low-income level housing units were considered for this area if the parcels are ultimately rezoned for mixed-use. > > It's important to note that the City must identify potential housing sites for all income levels in order for the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to be able to certify the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element to be compliant with state law. A noncom pliant Housing Element may result in the City becoming ineligible for state and federal funds, and in the worst-case scenario, the state referring the City to the Attorney General for non-compliance or taking jurisdiction over the City's zoning and land use decisions. Thus, in order to prevent such outcomes, the City is working towards preparing a Housing Element Update that could at least meet the minimum requirements to have a certified Housing Element in place for the future, which is why it was important to identify housing sites city-wide through the site inventory process. > 2 > It is also important to note that the City Council's ratification of the Housing Element and associated site inventory is not an automatic approval of a development or an automatic rezoning for higher density. What is being done now is identifying sites that may have the potential to accommodate additional housing. > >Tobe compliant, the City must ensure there are no governmental or other barriers preventing the units from being built by a private developer (not the City). To that end, subsequent to approval of the Housing Element by HCD, the City will need to embark on the process of rezoning identified sites to accommodate the RHNA. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. When the time comes, there will be public notices sent out and noticed public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate. Further, environmental assessments will be conducted in conjunction with this action. > > The potential site inventory list is a matrix that will likely be refined with time depending on the real estate market and larger economic factors as well as community input. At this time, there is a feasibility study being performed by the City's consultant to review the feasibility of mixed-use in Miraleste Plaza, which will help the City further refine the feasibility of developing this area, or not. The results of the feasibility study will become available in November 2021 and will be incorporated into future staff reports to provide context of the potential sites inventory. > > The City Council will be review the draft Housing Element at the October 19 City Council meeting (Staff Report). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda > > If you have any other questions or concerns, please visit the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element Update webpage. You can also subscribe to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update listserv to receive future notices regarding this matter at https://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. > > Sincerely, > > Ken Rukavina, PE > Director of Community Development > > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > > 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: Barbara Cambilargiu <bclark@lilybleu.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 4:50 PM > To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> > Subject: Miraleste Plaza opinion on the possible housing development > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. > > 3 > Miraleste is a beautiful, historic neighborhood, one of the original in PV under the jurisdiction of the art Jury and Palos Verdes homeowners association along with Palos Verdes Estates. It is a quiet, peaceful and charming neighborhood which is what people pay for when they buy single family houses here. The kind of neighborhood where your children can walk or ride their bike to school and the locals including our elderly population regularly get their hair and nails done as well as frequent the deli and Italian restaurant, Union Bank and the real estate office. For many residents this is one of the few convenient and safe places on this side of the hill where you can find these goods and services without having to drive a distance. > > Miraleste plaza houses a fire department which continuously responds to emergency situations on a daily basis with firetrucks and paramedics going in and out. What impact will additional housing in that plaza have on the access for the fire department to respond to emergency situations? > > How will this extra density affect the safety of our children walking to and from Miraleste middle school? The plaza is a safe place for them to ride bikes and hang out while waiting for their parents to pick them up after school. I am wondering if you have reached out to the principal of the school to inquire about the congested traffic patterns and how this will further affect the safety of our children. Was there an actual assessment done when picking this area? > > We feel strongly that this is not an appropriate place to put multi use apartments as there are already affordable apartments in the neighborhood and many more just down the street at Miraleste Canyon Estates. This particular parcel is more suited to single family homes and we prefer to keep the plaza as a commercial zone. 4 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Debra Coutu <debra.coutu@cox.net> Monday, October 18, 2021 12:04 PM Housing Element Housing Element -Miraleste Plaza I would like to submit my comments regarding the repurpose of the Miraleste Plaza for low income, multi-family housing. The RPV hills is a goal for people to aspire and work toward, not a place to provide for low income, multi family housing. This is not intended to be mean, racist or anything else one could accuse these days. We ALL have to live where WE can afford, and this is not an easily affordable place, but that is what keeps it's beauty, charm and rural appeal. There are few commericial locations close to the hill to easily and quickly do banking, grab some items at a store or a quick bite and removing the Miraleste Plaza for low income, multi-housing is just unacceptable to all who NOW live here. Not sure if this thought process includes removing the Fire station, but given our susceptibility to fire, it would be unconscionable to remove it and replace it with congestive multi-unit housing. Cities are for multi-family housing, not the suburbs, and definitely not in the beautiful hills of RPV, CA. The RPV citizens will fight this. Debra Coutu Mira Catalina This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 3:10 PM CityClerk FW: Housing Element in regards to Portuguese Bend From: Marianne Shriver <momshriver@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:10 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Housing Element in regards to Portuguese Bend CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear City Council, Please do not consider further housing development in Portuguese Bend. The area is unstable no matter was people like to think. The road along the neighborhood, PV Drive South, is constant proof that the slide is active. There is no indication it will ever stop. It certainly won't be contained. In this time of drought, when there should be less movement due to less water reaching the layer of clay the land slides on, we are still seeing movement. Lately it has been in parts of the neighborhood previously considered stable. The de-watering wells do not keep up. The recent building that somehow occurred is a mistake. If we have any wet years ahead, there will be vulnerability through out the area. Thank you for your consideration, Marianne Shriver 1 15.