Loading...
20211019 Late CorrespondenceEnyssa Momoli From: Katie Lozano Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:52 PM Enyssa Momoli Cc: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: PVPLC Comment regarding E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Hi Enyssa, Teri asked me to forward you this late corr just in case. Thanks, Katie From: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20214:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: PVPLC Comment regarding E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Dear Mayor and members of the City Council, I would like to provide comments for Council's consideration regarding the decision to authorize the use of electric bicycles (e-bikes) within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Several members of the community have commented about the environmental impact, safety concerns, and enforcement concerns that bicyclists and the presumed increase of e-bikes will present. I agree with many of these concerns, as I will echo herein, but I want to ensure that one major consideration is addressed before e-bikes can be evaluated for introduction to the Preserve. The City's NCCP/HCP Plan and the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) that is part of the NCCP/HCP only took into consideration the public recreational enjoyment of the Preserve for pedestrians, equestrians and mountain bikers on certain trails. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife then based their environmental impact findings on these considerations articulated in the PUMP, which serves as the basis for their permit issuance. For the City to explore the introduction of motorized e-bikes to the Preserve, the Wildlife Agencies would need to evaluate the potential environmental impacts and implications to the NCCP/HCP permit. Circumventing this due process could potentially jeopardize the permit and the confidence bestowed upon the City to follow the letter of the NCCP/HCP plans. It is not worthwhile to restart so many years of hard work by so many to get the NCCP approved, based on such a contentious matter. I also urge that considerations for introducing e-bikes must also take into account the Land Conservancy's expertise as Preserve Habitat Managers and co-permittees under the NCCP/HCP. We have expended significant funding and resources over the past 15 years to implement the PUMP and Preserve Trails Plan, which involved mitigating the impacts of recreation to habitat and soils by closing hundreds of spur trails, reducing widening trails, and slowing mountain bike speeds by rerouting certain trails or implementing slowing measures, to name a few tasks. In partnership with the City, we developed the Volunteer Trail Watch in 2014 to address the growing concerns around trail safety and enforcement of Preserve rules to safeguard habitat and the peaceful visitor experience for which the Preserve was created to protect. The City also expends 1 significant funding on an annual basis to enforce the Preserve rules and, in my view, expanding the use of e- bikes runs counter to all of these efforts. This work has helped make headway in countering the impacts of Preserve misuse and abuse, and while it is uncertain how ebikes will impact the natural resources, it can be assumed that it will not result in a benefit to the conservation goals of the Preserve and NCCP/HCP. I have strong concerns that allowing e-bikes into the Preserve will have the following effects: I. Expand the demographic of individuals who ride bikes in the Preserve to those who may be more novice riders. I appreciate that Council's intent was to provide a way for seniors or those who are less mobile to see different parts of the Preserve, but without an ability to select by age or effectively enforce such a permit system, it should be expected that riders of all ages will flock to the Preserve once news gets around that Rancho Palos Verdes is the only open space area that permits e-bikes in arguably the most scenic place in Los Angeles County. Many of the current trails designated for bikes are treacherous, narrow, and a safety concern for bike riders as well as other trail users. They pose risks to even skilled riders (as we've seen several accidents involving mountain bikers) and I am concerned about increasing risks associated with introducing less-skilled riders to these trails for everyone's safety. 2. Several points of data are being collected about the trends in covered bird species, habitat, and current trail widths to understand what dynamics are at play between recreational use and impacts to biological resources. While there isn't conclusive evidence that the amount or volume of use is driving impacts to the local environment, it is a known fact that behavior and violations of Preserve rules are having a negative impact on habitat. However, we have documentation showing how mountain bike use has caused damage on certain trails with steep slopes and erosive soils, and it should be assumed that expanding use of e- bikes will further exacerbate those impacts to biological and soil resources. This assumes that ebikes would or could not be relegated only to wide, low-slope trails {ie. Burma Road Trail) with a speed limit in place to avoid collisions. 3. I am very concerned that increasing risks of user conflict on trails will drive away the few equestrians who visit the trails, residents who have enjoyed the trails peacefully for decades, and the very volunteers who spend hundreds and thousands of hours supporting City enforcement and Conservancy management work. Members of the Volunteer Trail Watch, for example, brave the trails every day to educate visitors and encourage compliance with the rules. Many of these volunteers have themselves experienced unfortunate run-ins with mountain bikers who disregard the rules, and some volunteers have been hit or nearly hit by mountain bikers in the Preserve. I dread the scenarios that might occur with expanded e-bike use of the Preserve. There are many places for those with reduced physical abilities to enjoy the Preserve, and perhaps efforts can be made to make those places more welcoming or known on foot, rather than making provisions to allow all people to visit the hard-to-access places in the Preserve on e-bikes. We support the vision that everyone should be able to enjoy the Preserve, but not everyone may be able to enjoy the Preserve in the same way. It is important to remain dedicated to the foundation of the Preserve's acquisition and the NCCP/HCP, which is for habitat preservation and species protection first and foremost. Recreation is only allowed in ways that it does not impact this primary directive, and it is inconceivable how the permitted use of e-bikes will work to serve this goal but rather may only serve to challenge it. This is a complicated issue, and we appreciate the continued working relationship with City staff, enforcement personnel and Council to further the goals of the Preserve and the NCCP/HCP. I am available to discuss this matter further. Respectfully, Adrienne Mohan Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 2 Adrienne Mohan Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 916 Silver Spur Road #207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 www.pvplc.org (310) 541-7613 x203 (310) 930-4332 (cell) Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all. Join ' our mailing list Join us on 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:21 PM CityClerk FW: Trees and lighting Photo Oct 16, 8 41 49 AMjpg; Photo Oct 15, 6 48 55 PMjpg From: vlaco5@cox.net <vlaco5@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:19 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Trees and lighting Council Members, Attached are photos of the trees that are directly across from my house and which currently block most of my view through the park. We have been urging staff to reduce the mass and lace these trees for a few years now. They partially completed one of the three trees (center one in the first photo) in my photo and the arborist said there is more that they can cut back on this tress to further reduce its size. They have not yet started work on the tree in the left of that same photo. The arborist informed us that it could be reduced by around 25%. My concern is this. With the minimal trimming that staff did on one of these trees I can now see the lights from the parking lot at night. My concern is that when they complete the work on the larger tree is will expose me to more of the lights from the parking lot. In the second photo, you can see where the view through the tree has been partially restored and they have not yet completed the work on this tree. Of course, I worry that the 16 ft lights in the parking lot of the new park will also be an issue for me when it gets dark. As an alternative to the 16 ft light pole, we asked staff to look into using 12 ft poles instead. Seems like a fair compromise. Please do a mock up of the planned lighting once our trees have been properly trimmed along Forrestal and allow residents living adjacent to the park to weigh in on the process. Thanks, Jessica Vlaco 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:36 PM CityClerk FW: Pedestrian gate and privacy issues Photo Oct 19, 3 08 50 PMjpg; Photo Oct 19, 3 08 45 PMjpg From: vlaco5@cox.net <vlaco5@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:37 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Pedestrian gate and privacy issues Council Members, Attached are two photos I took of the current utility gate at Ladera Linda Park. As you know, this is where staff is now planning on adding a pedestrian gate. The first picture was taken from my backyard. The second photo was taken from my bedroom. Perhaps now you will understand my concern about noise and privacy. I have no doubt that people standing at or near the gate can see directly into my bedroom, especially it starts to get dark. This is another reason why I asked staff to move the walking path farther away for the edge of the park which borders Forrestal. Please help me to preserve some privacy and quality of life in my home. Please don't put a pedestrian gate here. Find a better solution. Please move the waking path farther from the edge of the park. I hope you understand the significance of your decisions you are making and the potential impact on our community. Thanks, Jessica Vlaco 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:16 PM CityClerk FW: Regular Business Item 3. From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:55 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Regular Business Item 3. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Members of the City Council, In order to protect our neighborhood from unwanted traffic and improve safety, I would urge you to approve the residential parking permit requested by our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Diane Mills President LLHOA Sent from my iPhone 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:46 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: proposed Housing Project at Miraleste Plaza From: John Letcher <letcherj@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:45 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: proposed Housing Project at Miraleste Plaza Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes, ertle s~ October 19, 2021 My name is Theresa Robertson and I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Housing Element project you are, apparently, considering to be located in the Miraleste Plaza. I have lived in the vicinity of the Miraleste Plaza for five decades. My parents' home is less than a half mile from the Plaza, and my current home (inhabited by my family and me) is located 0.7 miles from the Plaza. I have done business in the Miraleste Plaza for the entire time I have lived here. Miraleste is a secluded section of RPV, located just above San Pedro. The local businesses located in the Plaza provide services that residents would have to drive into San Pedro to duplicate. The businesses located there now have been there for the entire time I have lived in the area, some of them under different ownership but providing the same services they currently do. The Union Bank has been several different banks (and is scheduled to become yet another bank) within the next six months. It serves predominantly local residents because there is little reason for residents of other parts of RPV or of San Pedro to drive here to bank. The RE/MAX real estate office in the Plaza is owned and staffed by a local family whose children attended Miraleste Intermediate School and now work with Mom and Dad as realtors. Francesco's Cafe Italia , the Miraleste Deli, and the Miraleste Hair Stylists have been serving our community for decades. The cafe and the deli also do a brisk business with the many day laborers and workmen who work on the homes in our area and would not have time to drive into San Pedro to buy lunch or other refreshments during the work day. The Miraleste Plaza is also home to the Miraleste Hair Stylists and Miraleste Automotive. Both these businesses provided needed services to our local community. The lot at Miraleste Automotive is ALWAYS filled with cars being serviced, an indication of the large number of residents who depend on them for their car repairs. Both the owners of the Miraleste Cafe Italia and Miraleste Automotive are residents of the Miraleste neighborhood, also sending their children to Miraleste Intermediate School. I hope you have an understanding that this small plaza is home to local businesses, owned, primarily, by local residents that provide valuable daily services to local residents AND visitors and 1 service providers. Closing the Plaza will require all residents of this community to travel around the other side of the Peninsula or down into San Pedro to take advantage of the same services we now have within a few miles of the furthest house in Miraleste. This is not a large piece of property. I am mystified as to why the city would think it a good idea to put in housing that would remove some of the very services new residents would want to take advantage of. I can't imagine that the current owners would want to voluntarily relocate their successful businesses to a different location, incurring increased expenses and having to establish a new customer base. I also do not understand why you feel it a good idea to build low-and medium-income housing in a neighborhood that would provide NO local services because they were all removed to make room for this proposed development. The Miraleste area is served by PV Drive East, a two lane winding road that drives not familiar with the area are not fond of driving. If the Miraleste Plaza were converted to housing, there would be NO local services in the community and more cars on the road . This area is not convenient for residents who have to access freeways or require public transportation to get to work . I understand the need for California cities to build affordable housing as quickly as possible, but I question the thought process that would place such housing in a relatively out-of-the-way neighborhood. The west and north areas in RPV are readily accessible to Torrance, Lomita, and the rest of the South Bay. Saying that I do not want to be thought of as a "NIMBY." I just do not understand the logic of considering an idea that would completely eliminate all local services to be replaced by more residents who would like to access the "gone" services . While this idea might sound good on paper, I hope all members of our City Council will visit the Miraleste Plaza if you have not already done so. Council members are residents of the community, possibly unlike some of the staff who came up with this proposal. Take the drive up PV Drive East, from either direction, and see if the Miraleste Plaza location makes sense for the idea being considered. Take the drive into San Pedro, down Miraleste Drive (another one-lane road) and drive through the Eastview section of RPV to access the closest services in San Pedro to realize this is, indeed, a small, secluded neighborhood. I simply suggest there is other under-used property (public or private) in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes that could be converted into the planned housing units that would make more sense for the community and for the new residents of the new housing. Thank you for your attention, Theresa Robertson 11 Via Subida Rancho Palos Verdes, CA.90275 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hello, Jaehee Yoon Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:39 AM CityClerk Octavio Silva; Ken Rukavina FW: Comments regarding proposed Miraleste Plaza redevelopment Miraleste Plaza concerns.docx Please see attached and email LC below for Regular Business Item No. 5. Thank you. Jaehee From: Matthew Laurent <matlaurent@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202110:08 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov>; Housing Element <HousingElement@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments regarding proposed Miraleste Plaza redevelopment j CA:WJT10N : Hello, My wife and I recently learned of the housing redevelopment plans for Miraleste Plaza. We and our neighbors moved here to get away from medium and high density housing, and we believe that redeveloping the area in such a fashion would significantly compromise the reasons we live here. I struggle to see how such a development can be a positive thing for our neighborhood. Please see my attached letter which describes my position in more detail. I, in principle, could become more interested in a project at Miraleste Plaza if it were developed into a true town center that provides a walkable destination for our neighborhood. However, it would have to be something that reflects the small-town nature of Miraleste, and serves the community in a positive way. We are highly soured by all of the aggressive traffic through Miraleste, which is especially severe around school hours. We fear that adding density will exacerbate an already serious problem which contributes an element of danger, as well as noise and tailpipe pollution to an otherwise peaceful neighborhood. Thank you for considering my concerns, Matthew Laurent 1 6. Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members, When I learned of the plans to evaluate Miraleste Plaza for rezoning and redevelopment, it caused me and my wife a great deal of concern. We were attracted to Rancho Palos Verdes and Miraleste for their commitment to open spaces, the natural environment, and the self-described mission statement of providing a semi-rural way of life to its residents. These were ultimately a deciding factor in our choice to move here, and to save frugally for years in order to afford a home here. We look forward to coming home every day to our peaceful home environment, and value the oasis that our neighborhood provides from the surrounding overdeveloped regions of LA County. The proposed plan for redevelopment to Miraleste Plaza, I fear, does not take the wishes and well-being of current residents into consideration. I understand the pressure that the city faces from the state to bring new housing to our area, yet I see a direct conflict between this plan, and the overall mission of the city as well as the quality of life for residents of Miraleste. We and our neighbors live here to get away from traffic and high density housing. We already compromise an otherwise pastoral environment to the high traffic on Miraleste and Palos Verdes Drive, and we do not have room to compromise further. We pay high property taxes and strove to afford an expensive house in this area because of the environment, and it would be heartbreaking to have that stolen from us. I urge all city officials to consider your people and your voting public when making decisions for Miraleste. Have the decision-making be driven by the well-being of our folks, and respond to local needs -not political pressure from state officials. If Miraleste Plaza must be redeveloped, do so in a fashion that serves our existing neighborhood and community. Miraleste Plaza is the only place within walking distance to grab a drink or bite to eat. Any plan should support local businesses in the plaza, and define a clear commitment to avoid any increases in traffic or associated pollution. We love our neighborhood, our neighbors, and the environment of Miraleste. We believe that the addition of medium or high density housing in the plaza cannot meet the above goals. Best regards, Matthew and Myley Laurent Enyssa Momoli From: Ken Rukavina Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:10 PM CityClerk Cc: Jaehee Yoon Subject: FW: Housing plan Miraleste Plaza Additional late correspondence. Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development L. 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 Di rect o ry on the City website. b, GHITON P Google Play From: Barbara Huffman <bjh301@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:07 PM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Housing plan Miraleste Plaza Hi Ken, of Rancho Pa" os Merdes . The Miraleste plaza should be off the list. No city is forced to provide housing. Sent from my iPhone 1 On Oct 19, 2021, at 5:00 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 . The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state-mandated requirement to identify possible/ potential future housing locations that could possibly accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is an allocation of current and projected housing needs for all income levels (not just low), which was distributed to cities by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Fifty potential housing sites throughout the City have been identified to fully accommodate the required housing units. The Potential Sites Inventory includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors, within commercial and institutional districts, as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. Miraleste Plaza has been identified as a possible location to potentially accommodate up to 13 above moderate-income (not low income) housing units in a mixed -used zoning district. A mixed-use zoning designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process in the future to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. This will be a public process, with public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate and provide input. Environmental assessments will also be conducted in conjunction with this action. Potential sites may be added or deleted from the Potential Sites Inventory as more detailed analysis is performed. The City Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element at tonight's City Council meeting (Staff Report and Public Review Draft Housi ng Eleme nt). This matter is listed as Item No . 5 under Regular Business on the Cit y Council meetin g agenda. For additional information, 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 .g ov/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. 2 -----Original Message----- From: Megan Barnes <mbarnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20214:58 PM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov > Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov > Subject: FW: Housing plan Miraleste Plaza -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Huffman <bjh301@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20214:58 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Housing plan Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes . Sent from my iPhone. To whom it may concern and planning commission. I am against a proposal to change the zoning of the Miraleste plaza area. This section is under the Palos Verdes Homes Association Art Jury. The RPV planning commission can't just change the zoning to increase revenue. The area in question is commercial not designated high density housing. Miraleste area under the PVHA is to keep the quality of life standard for residential homes and a space for some businesses for this area, just as the Malaga cove plaza is for Palos Verdes Estates residents. These areas have strict guidelines for building permits and codes, the commission doesn't have a right to change the rules . The residential single family homes and rural environment is why people live here. Miraleste is already built out. Thanks, Barbara Huffman 3 En yssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:30 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:29 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:26 PM To: conniesmith@me.com ; A lbar@linkline.com ; cgardnerrpv@gmail.com ; Claire.E .Leon@gmail.com ; corinne gerrard <corinne .pbca@gmaii .com >; jeanshriver754@gmail.com ; katelinkelly649@gmail.com ; johntootle law@gmail.com ; Dendrochick@aol.com; leetwid@yahoo.com ; summer.rainbow10@gmail.com ; professorohlaker@gma il.com ; 2hunter@cox.net; pbde48@gmai l.com ; pszask@gmail.com ; sparks1240@cox.net; claudia.pbca@gmail.com ; golisapv@gmail.com ; sheridanmacknight@yahoo.com ; sal1 iereeves71@gmail.com ; plumbingexpress@linkline.com ; momshriver@cox.net Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov > Subject: FW: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend Dear Portuguese Bend Area Residents, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence . Although three properties on or adjacent to the west side of the landslide area were identified as potential sites to accommodate additional housing, these sites will be re-evaluated and properties within any landslide zone and in conflict with the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan and federally issued permits will be recommended to not be included as potential sites to accommodate required housing units. No other properties within the landslide zones were included in the list. The City Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element at tonight's City Council meeting (Staff Report and Pub lic Rev iew Draft Housing Element ). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Co uncil meeting agenda Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development t. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 1 5 . 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. AvoJlabl. in the App Stor• ond Goool. Ploy b.._ GUITON ~ Google Play From: Megan Barnes <mb arnes@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202110:40 AM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov> Cc: Karina Banales <kbanales@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202110:36 AM To: CityClerk <Ci tyC lerk@rpvca .gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca .gov> Subject: FW: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend Late correspondence. Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5202 (telephone) 2 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca .gov ~ Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belongi11g to the City of Ra11cl10 Palos Verdes, which may be privile;Jed, confidential aml/or protected from dis clo su1 e. ,he information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized clissemination, clistribution, or copying is strictly prohibitecl. If you re ceived tilis email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immecliately. l hank you for y our assistance ancl cooperation. 0 . . . ~ C,[TITON ~ Google Play From: Claudia Gutierrez <cl audia.pbca@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:20 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend A resident sent this to the wrong email address for the City Council, can you pass it on please . Thank you. Claudia Gutierrez PBCA Director Treasurer 310-872-4874 cell 424-206-9301 home ----------Forwarded message--------- From: Connie Marie Smith <conniesmith@me.com> Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:05 PM Subject: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend To: <cc@rpv.gov> Cc: Alba Rouwenhorst <Albar@linkline.com>, CatalinaCat G <cgardnerrpv@gmail.com>, <Claire .E.Leon@gmail.com >, corinne gerrard <corinne.pbca@gmail.com>, Jean Shriver <ieanshriver754@gma il.com >, Joan Kelly <katelinkelly649@gma i l.com>, <johntootlelaw@gmail.com>, Judith King <Dendrochick@aol.com>, <l eetwid@yahoo.com >, Lorraine Knight <summer.rainbow10@gmail.com>, Magnus & JoNeen Ohlaker <professorohlaker@gmail.com>, M. Hunter <2hunter@cox.net>, <pbde48@gmail.com>, Peggy Zask <pszask@gmai l.com>, <sparks1240@cox.net>, Claudia Gutierrez <claudia .pbca@gma il.com>, Lisa Gladstone <golisapv@gma il.com >, Sheridan MacKnight <sheridanmacknight@yahoo .com >, Sallie Reeves 3 <salliereeves71@gmail.com >, Hendrick Rouwenhorst <plumbingexpress@linkline.com >, Marianne Shriver <mornshriver@c_ox.net>, Claire Leon <claire .e.leon@gmail.co m > To the Members of RPV City Council, Prior to the meeting coming up regarding the RPV Draft Housing Element where the Council will consider the locations of an additional 647 housing units in this city, I would like you to be aware of what is happening here in Portuguese Bend where my home is located. Three years ago we bought our house for $3.3 million here on Thyme Place. Before purchasing the house, we had geologists, engineers and construction consultants evaluate and confirm that the home had remained stable since 2005 when Ed Beal designed and built it. Four things have occurred during the three years since we purchased this house: 1) First, the dewatering wells that had protected this side of Portuguese Bend for nearly forty years were allowed to deteriorate to t h e p oin t t ha t the majority became non operational. Ground water was not being removed at an adequate rate anymore. 2) The Monk lot moratorium was lifted and new homes were constructed on lots above us with extensive grading, hardscape, and high water use landscape designs. 3) Acres of avocado and citrus orchards have been planted on the York property just above Abalone Cove, requiring thousands of gallons of irrigation each year, and further exacerbating the ground water situation in the Abalone Cove landslide area. 4) Wa t erlines began breakin g on the streets around us. 4 Over the course of the last eighteen months, even though we are experiencing drought conditions, we have seen a great deal of movement to the walls and floors of our home. I have shared the following photos with several city officials, and I share them with you now to show you what is currently happening in a home that had no movement for twenty years: The floorboards in the hallway entry are showing new 1" gaps separating from N/W to S/E. They are bulging upward and buckling intermittently in several places. Floorboards in the bathroom and hall are showing new 1/2" gaps separating from N/W to S/E. 5 Floorboards in office entry are showing new 3/4" gaps pulling N/W to S/E . Floorboards in living room are showing multiple gaps separating in a N/E to S/W, and showing an increasing slope to the floor. 6 The stone fireplace in the living room is showing damage where the baseboard is separating rom the wall, causing cracking along the fireplace seams. The outdoor S/W facing exterior cement is showing hairline cracks in many places. 7 j Please. Until the issues threatening existing homeowners in the Portuguese Bend Abalone Cove area are fully understood and addressed, it is irresponsible to consider adding additional homes, hardscape, landscape, irrigation, and grading to this area. Thank you, Connie Smith 4 Thyme Place, RPV 310-344-9424 8 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:30 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Comment on Draft Housing Element From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca .gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:30 PM To: cassiej@aol.com Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW : Comment on Draft Housing Element Dear Cassie, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence . Although three properties on or adjacent to the west side of the landslide area were identified as potential sites to accommodate additional housing, these sites will be re-evaluated and properties within any landslide zone and in conflict with the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan and federally issued permits will be recommended to not be included as potential sites to accommodate required housing units. No other properties within the landslide zones were included in the list. The City Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element at tonight's City Council meeting (Staff Report and Public Review Dr aft Housing Element). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development L 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. Fo r a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directo ry on the City website. 1 Conr,ect wit+, the City frOffi yot.i, ~ or ,abletl DOW 'It/_~ From: cassiej@aol.com <cassiej@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202112:44 PM To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegr ia@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david .bradley@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John .Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov >; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpv ca.gov> Subject: Comment on Draft Housing Element Dear City Council, Mayor, This letter is in regard to the City's need for housing units with respect to the housing element. I had tried to reach the Planning Commission last week and apparently my voicemail went unheard. I was told this in passing days after the fact during an unrelated personal encounter. Apparently they couldn 't hear what I was saying, yet nobody reached out to me from the Planning Commission or the City to let me know that there was a problem with their recording . At any rate, what I was referring to in my voice mail was the Draft Housing Element sent out by a staff member to the public with a number of sites around the City listed as potentially suitable for housing. Sites numbered 41 , 48, 49 and 50 listed the possibility of 400 homes, more or less, in that area. My concern about this is that this is now a public document and these properties are, or certainly have been, under scrutiny, even litigation, with the City. They're not uniformly zoned for housing (some is agricultural) and they're in and around a landslide where building any homes is questionable. The City has also been in negotiation for the sale of this property and for a document to be out there stating that the City would consider 400 homes in that location is irresponsible. Makes me feel that the City has been negotiating for the preservation of this land, and for the remediation of a landslide, in bad faith. The NCCP/HCP along the the General Plan hold sway over this area and are guiding documents you must take into consideration. The wildlife corridor it would provide is indescribably important. Additionally, there has been significant movement within the Portuguese Bend Community . Specifically , the Abalone Cove Landsl ide , not the usual Portuguese Bend Landslide, has been quite active in the last couple of years. Those potential 400 homes are in and near the Abalone Cove Landslide . There have been Council people who seem to know almost noth ing of this, which I find mind-boggling. The landslides are of one of the defining features of our City, for better or worse . We have spent untold and un-totalled dollars for study, repair and remediation . For council members to claim that they know nothing of recent movement is unacceptable. Because much of this movement has happened in and to a private community does not mean it hasn't happened in and to this City. Claims of ignorance of substantial land movement in the City near the s ites called out for 400 homes is disheartening. I think the NCCP/HCP and the City Plan call for your rejection of this iteration of the Draft Housing document at this time and request a reviewed, accurate, rational and responsible revision of some of its findings . Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Jaehee Yoon Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:49 PM CityClerk Cc: Ken Rukavina Subject: FW: Affordable housing in Miraleste Hi, Please include the email below as le. Thank you. Jaehee From: Tom Jones <tjones@cwdriver.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:43 PM To: Housing Element <HousingElement@rpvca.gov> Subject: Affordable housing in Miraleste I grew up just down the hill from Miraleste in San Pedro. I always wanted to live here and my 60-70 hours a week allowed me to buy a fixer-upper here. I worked hard to make my home beautiful, something I was proud of. I love this area and use the local businesses in Miraleste Plaza regularly. It sickens me to think that that this quiet peaceful and beautiful neighborhood would be destroyed by adding high density housing, parking and traffic to streets that were not designed for it. The Art Jury and Planning Commission cannot allow such a development. No doubt there are areas in Rancho Palos Verdes that would better suit this development. The San Pedro community was ruined by allowing high density housing, please don't let it happen here. I am strongly opposed to this measure and hope the leaders of Rancho Palos Verdes would support their constituents and move this in an area more suitable. Thank you, Thomas and Jeannette Jones 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Jaehee Yoon Sent: To: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:42 AM CityClerk Cc: Ken Rukavina Subject: FW: Opposition to rezoning Miraleste Plaza Hello, Please see email below which is LC for Regular Business Item No. 5. Thank you . Jaehee -----Original Message----- From: Mark Karmelich <mkarmelich@pobox.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 7:29 PM To: Housing Element <HousingElement@rpvca.gov> Subject: Opposition to rezoning Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I've read the material regarding rezoning of areas in Rancho Palos Verdes to accommodate multi-family housing. I realize this is a state mandate, but I must voice my displeasure to any consideration to rezoning Miraleste Plaza. I've owned a home in Miraleste for 28 years, and the plaza is the ONLY place on this side of the hill for a small store (Miraleste Deli) and dining (Francesco's). Not to mention the local bank and ATM, Miraleste Automotive, and nail salon. To lose those businesses would be an incredible blow to the neighborhood. There would no longer be anywhere to go in town for these necessary services. The Deli is crowded everyday after school with kids from Miraleste Intermediate, who now will have no where to go. It is truly insane to think about rezoning the one place we can all walk to for food. Insane, given how many choices there are elsewhere especially along Western Avenue where the impact would be minimal. Please stop stop stop any zoning changes to Miraleste Plaza. This is simply a terrible idea for the neighborhood, given that it is the ONLY place in town for these services! Thank you, Mark Karmelich 310-420-6549 1 5 . CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2021 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. Description of Material Public Comment Email from: Sunshine G Notes from Quarterly Preserve Public Forum, Senior Administrative Analyst, Lozano Letter from: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, David Mayer Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst, Lozano and Fred Weiner Emails from: Lynn McLeod; Tony Baker; Leslie Stetson; Donald Bell; Jana Cooley; Herb Stark; Cindy Akiyama; Bill Lavoie; and Adrienne Mohan. 1 Clarification from Senior Planner, Seeraty and Larry Carapellotti 2 Update on Staff Report Emails from: Martha Foster; Pam Allen; Phyllis W.; John Sestich; Nadine Sestich; Herb Stark; Nancy Ohara; Mickey Rodich; Jessica Vlaco; and Rachel Diffendal. 3 Email from: Diane Mills 5 Email exchange between Director of Community Development Rukavina and Brian Mazen; Lori Skeldon ; Darrell Mariz; Deborah Paul; Emails from: James Hevener; Colleen Campbell; William Winburn; Connie Smith; Alyson McFerson; Kathy Stapel; Margaret Russell; Cindy Johnson; Monica Stergion; Kay Holmes; Scott Sandell; Ann Wong; Marty and Lora Dodell; Barbara Cambilargiu; Cassie Jones; Lisa and Lilt Owens 6 Email from: Larry Maizlish ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, October 18, 2021**. Respectfully submitted, c~1~~ Teresa Takaoka Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11 :04 AM Eric Alegria; David Bradley; Barbara Ferraro; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank CityClerk This is what I intend to read into the record, tonight, under Items not on the Agenda Tonight is the night when the "direction" the City is going in will be decided. Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members. We have a semblance of a Parks Master Plan. One would think that we have a detailed inventory and maintenance schedule of the City's public infrastructure and assets but, we don't . We used to have a Trails Network Plan. What we do have is a lot of user conflicts on our public properties because we don't have a City-wide Public Amenities Plan. Staff has proposed that the word "preserve" be added to our Municipal Code. They have not produced an analysis of how that will impact residents and visitors. Their other recommended code changes are just a hint. Council should not take this action until Staff does a whole lot more than just produce such an analysis. The City of RPV is morphing into a different place than what is described in even our updated, General Plan. Only the City Council can do something about that. Tonight is the night and under Item G is the place to do it. Postponing the Ladera Linda Project changes will help as will all parking issues. I do believe that everyone supports having a nature preserve. A lot of people have submitted correspondence and taken the time to speak at a lot Council meetings because there is no other venue for them to negotiate the physical and legal ramifications of operating a nature preserve. What we have is a City-wide theme park and there is a lot more to it than preserving access to the coastal zone and protecting endangered habitat. Like the PVPHA has pointed out... The interests of all parties need to be considered and balanced. That is what the CUP process is supposed to be all about. 1 I urge each of you Council Members to individually, decide to postpone codifying the word "preserve" and to initiate the process of defining what it really means here in Rancho Palos Verdes as a public effort. Obviously, We, the People are anxious to help. Who is going to step up and make a motion with enough teeth in it to get the City Manager to actually do this in a timely fashion? Too many people are suffering while we wait. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. SUNSHINE Portuguese Bend 310-377-8761 sunshinerpv@aol.com 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Katie Lozano Monday, October 18, 2021 5:31 PM CityClerk Cory Linder Subject: Attachments: Late Correspondence: Preserve Public Forum Notes 10.13.21 FORUM Notes.docx Good Afternoon, Attached are notes taken at the October 13 Quarterly Preserve Public Forum. They contain feedback on the Agenda item G. Staff is submitted these notes as late correspondence. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department katiel@rpvca.gov Phone -{310) 544-5267 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov ► GnrtM Google:Play This o mail rnessaqe cont,iins information bdonginq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may lw privilened, conJ-idential and/m protected lrorn disclosure, The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named, Un,mthorizecl dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited, 11 you received this email in error, or ilre not an intended recipient, pk\<Jse notify the sender immediately, Thank you for your Jssista11ee and coo1x;ration. City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVID-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. 1 Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Quarterly Public Forum 6 p.m. Wednesday, October 13, 2021 via Zoom Webinar Meeting Notes Staff in Attendance: Recreation and Parks Director Cory Linder, Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Dan Trautner, Senior Administrative Analyst Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst Matt Waters, Open Space Management Recreation Supervisor Norma Saldana, Senior Ranger Taylor Fox, Recreation Specialist Evan Sichan, and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) Conservation Director Cris Sarabia. Senior Analyst Katie Lozano reviewed meeting protocols and reviewed agenda. She expressed that the purpose of the Quarterly Public Forums is to enhance transparency and solicit public feedback and involvement in Preserve management. Senior Analyst Lozano reviewed the meeting topics. 1. Preserve Projects Current and Upcoming City Projects Senior Analyst Lozano provided a general update on the following topics • NCCP/HCP Update • Preserve Parking and Access Project o ParkMobile Parking System • Landslide Abatement Measures • Altamira Canyon Project • Trail Projects • Utility Projects Analyst Lozano provided an update on the NCCP/HCP. She explained the roles of the various agencies and noted that the Federal permit was received in 2020 while the State permit had not yet been received. She reviewed the next steps in the process planned for 2021-22. Analyst Lozano reviewed the Holistic Preserve Access and Parking plan. She discussed ParkMobile, additional enforcement, temporary parking restrictions, dispersing public use via shuttle programs and increased emphasis on alternate sites including Alta Vicente Reserve, Search Engine Optimization efforts, traffic and parking analysis, and access gates at Burma and Rattlesnake Trailheads. She noted that this effort strives to achieve a balance between access, preventing negative neighborhood impacts, and habitat protection. Recreation and Parks Deputy Director Daniel Trautner provided a detailed overview of the ParkMobile process in the Del Cerro area. He discussed reservations, zones, payments, enforcement, number of spaces, blocks of time-both free and paid, and reviewed early results and data. He discussed public concerns about cost, the need to make reservation the night before, and the lack of spontaneity. He reviewed recent Council actions on October 5 that allow for same day reservations, simplified access to the ParkMobile link, improved signage, and discontinued reservations for visitors with Residential Recreational Parking Permits. Senior Admin Analyst Lozano discussed the temporary parking moratorium. She noted that the moratorium which began in September 2020 will be continued untill December 21, based on City Council direction on October 5. Analyst Waters provided an update on the City's search engine optimization efforts which are designed to provide accurate information on the City's website and other popular sites as well as encourage Preserve visitors to try less impacted Reserve areas such as Alta Vicente Reserve. Director Linder discussed the 90-day pilot shuttle program that began on April 9. Ne noted that it was funded with $20,000 in Prop A funding. He noted that ridership levels were low. He noted that the shuttle program had been discontinued by the City Council on October 5. Analyst Lozano presented a detailed overview of traffic and parking analyses including a completed analysis of Crenshaw Boulevard south of Crest as well of upcoming traffic and traffic calming plans on Crenshaw (south and north of Crest), Forrestal Drive, Abalone Cove and Palos Verdes Drive South, and PVIC. Analyst Lozano provided information on the Landslide Mitigation project including background information, current status and the next steps in the process which is an EIR draft which is expected this fall. Analyst Lozano provided an overview and status report on the Altamira Canyon project which will include hydrology and hydraulic studies and public outreach. Recreation Supervisor Norma Saldana presented a detailed overview of the following trail maintenance projects: • Ocean Trails Reserve o Sagebrush Walk Trail step repairs o South Shore Coastal Trail installation of surface water control o West Bluff restoration area o Bridge at Catalina Trail/Lakeview Trail Closure (closed as of May 21) o Coastal Switchback Trail closure (closed as of June 21) • Portuguese Bend/Filiorum o Access gate updates at Burma and Rattlesnake Trailheads o Cal Water repairs o Landslide monitoring survey • Abalone Cove: o Sea Dahlia Step repair project-on hold pending City geologist review o Altamira Canyon rockfall o Installation of new MPA sign project completed o Tongva Memorial site ceremony on October 16 • San Ramon/Vista Del Norte o Public trail signage-Sol y Mar HOA o Downed utility line o Damaged monument sign removal • Report on maintenance data including trimming and graffiti removal • Reviewed current LA County healthcare guidelines • Presented slide on Preserve contact information, listserv option, trail alerts webpage, websites and emails Current and Upcoming Habitat and Trail Projects (PVPLC) PVPLC Conservation Director Chris Sarabia provided an update on the following topics: • Habitat restoration at Abalone Cove focusing on site preparation, planning and irrigation and maintenance • Update on Heritage Castle restoration project • Habitat restoration maintenance at Abalone Cove, Alta Vicente, Portuguese Bend and fuel modification areas • Shared before restoration and current photos of Alta Vicente Reserve • Shared photos of fauna and flora in Preserve • Fuel load reduction-continued mowing of large mustard stands • Trail work and recent trail projects Public Comments/Questions Meeting participants provided the following feedback and input: • Asked whether a visitor with a Resident Recreational Parking permit can park on Park Place. Deputy Director Trautner confirmed that they could. • Asked why visitors to Portuguese Bend area couldn't park on Crenshaw without a reservation if there was adequate parking. Deputy Director Trautner said that the reservation system was put in place at Council direction to reduce vehicle queuing, u-turns, and other unsafe maneuvers. He noted that the City was looking to strike a balance between usability/spontaneity without negatively impacting residents. He noted that an update to the City Council was planned for December 21. • Question about the source of trail denuding. Analyst Lozano responded that it was likely caused by hikers and paragliders. • Question about whether the Burma Gate damage was accidental. Analyst Lozano said that one accident was likely accidental but the cause of the second is unclear. She noted that bollards and security cameras are being considered. • Question if resident parking at Park Place was limited to 3 hours or unlimited. Analyst Lozano clarified that it was 3 hours. • Comment that 2 hr 45 minute time for parking is too long. • Another speaker noted that 2 hr 45 minutes may be too long or too short depending on the individual trail user. Asked if shorter time frame discussed by Council was being implemented. Deputy Director Trautner said shorter time block options were being explored with ParkMobile staff. • Question about what sites were being targeted as alternative sites for parking via SEO and were those efforts successful? Senior Admin Analyst Waters opined that Alta Vicente was the top alternative site and assessing the impact of SEO efforts was difficult due to the many methods being used to redirect and educate Preserve visitors. Analyst Lozano discussed attendance counts at Alta Vicente as well as efforts to shift the "front door" Preserve status from Portuguese Bend to Alta Vicente. Director Linder added that Ocean Trails Reserve was another targeted alternative. 2. Upcoming City Council Agenda Items Senior Analyst Lozano provide an update on the following City Council items: • October 19: o Second reading of Preserve-related Municipal Code Amendments pertaining to: ■ E-bikes • Aircraft (paragliders, parasails, etc.) • Protection of facilities and vegetation • Vending, commercial services, and industrial activities • November 2: o Report on Installing Wildfire Monitoring Cameras o Consider Amending RPVMC Section 12.16.140 prohibiting overnight camping on public property • November 16: o Consider installing trailhead and Preserve parking surveillance cameras and security measures o Consider Amending RPVMC Section 12.16.140 prohibiting overnight camping on public property (second reading) o Consider alternative uses to the existing farming use at Alta Vicente Reserve • December 21: o Award a PSA for Traffic Consultant for Del Cerro Area o Status Update on ParkMobile Parking System Analyst Lozano provided detailed information about the Preserve-related Municipal code amended items going to City Council on October 19 with a particular emphasis on E-bikes. She discussed that on October 5, 2021, Ordinance No. 650 was introduced by the City Council to make the following modifications to Chapter 12.16 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC): 1. Rename RPVMC Chapter 12.16 to include the word "Preserve," and to read, "Streets, Parks, Preserve, and Recreational Facilities." 2. Repeal and replace RPVMC 12.16.010 to prohibit damage to City facilities, including vegetation. Amendments would allow the City to recover costs from damaged facilities and vegetation. 3. Repeal and replace RPVMC 12.16.020 to regulate motorized vehicles and Class 1 e- bicycles in the Preserve (all other classes of e-bicycles are prohibited}. 4. Repeal and replace RPVMC 12.16.045 to prohibit ultralights including paragliding from flying over City property. 5. Add RPVMC 12.16.170 to regulate vending, commercial services, and industrial activities in parks, Preserve, beaches, and recreational facilities. Analyst Lozano noted that the ordinance was being presented to the City Council on October 19 for its second reading and adoption. If adopted, the ordinance would go into effect on November 19, 2021. Public Comments/Questions • Cynthia Woo expressed concerns about telling one class of e-bikes from another and asked what the process was for this issue. Director Linder explained staff's process in preparing the City Council staff report. He agreed that it would be difficult to enforce this policy because e-bikes are difficult to identify and differentiate. • Cindy Akiyama noted that it is a nature preserve not a park and expressed concerns about habitat damage. She noted that RPV would be the only open space area in Los Angeles County that allowed e-bikes, a situation that would gain increased attention via social media. Analyst Lozano noted that there was one area in the Santa Monica Mountains that also allowed e-bikes on trails. • William Lavoie voiced concerns that the Preserve would become an obstacle course. He stated that he had experienced several close calls with bikes and one collision. He stated that allowing e-bikes will make the situation even worse leading to accidents and lawsuits. • Peter Shaw spoke in favor of seniors being able to use e-bikes to assist with uphill access. He stated that City should encourage access for seniors. He favors a limited exception fore-bikes not broad usage. He noted that bikes and e-bikes go the same speed downhill-the main discernible difference is going uphill. • Al Sattler noted a potential increases in e-bike accidents nationwide among the elderly. He expressed regret that long-time trail users are avoiding the trails system due to the presence and speed of bikes, a situation he believes would be exacerbated bye-bikes. He noted that the law only requires e-bikes to have a nine-point font label-far too small to be easily seen. He emphasized that it is a nature preserve not a playground. • Leslie Bygart echoed statements that the purpose of the Preserve is the preservation of nature and expressed concern that the impact of e-bikes is unknown. She asked if a Council's change to the proposed ordinance language would require another City Council hearing. Analyst Lozano responded that there would be a second reading to the ordinance at the October 19 City Council meeting. • Hans Bozler expressed that this policy would create a tremendous imbalance between hikers and runners compared toe-bike users. This change would make conditions in Portuguese Bend Reserve even worse. • Jessica Vlaco noted that e-bikes are heavier which would lead to greater habitat impact. She said that an enforcement plan should be in place before e-bikes should even be considered. She raised that possibility of designating a separate trail which would be open to e-bikes. Analyst Lozano weighed in that the City Attorney had opined that a senior-only trial would not be allowable. • PVPLC Conservation Director Sarabia said that PVPLC was very concerned about this issue and its potential impact on habitat. He said that PVPLC would officially submit its opinion to the City Council. • Sharon Yarber, speaking on behalf of the PV Horseman's Association, opposed allowing e-bikes. She noted that many equestrians avoid the Preserve because of the presence of bikes and allowing e-bikes would make it worse. Speaking as a resident, she expressed concerns that thee-bikes would go faster than 20 MPH if riders weighted less than 170 pounds. She said policy would be unenforceable and opined that the reason that only speakers in favor of e-bikes spoke at the October 5 Council meeting was because staff had recommended against it. • Dean Francois said he was opposed to all cyclists. He stated that allowing e-bikes could lead to a total ban of all bikes. • Cindy Akiyama said that the weight and power of e-bikes should be considered. She expressed concern about e-bikes hitting trail users. She noted that there are many senior-friendly hiking trails in the Preserve. • Peter Shaw said the plan should ideally limit not just classes of e-bikes but also power levels. He stated that more research is needed to establish power level limits. He said that e-bike permits, describing the type of e-bike, should be required and displayed. • Sharon Yarber indicated interesting in learning more about the City Attorney's analysis that concluded senior only trails would be discriminatory. • Bill Lavoie said enforcement on e-bikes would be so difficult that their use would proliferate to the point where they would be used throughout the Preserve. He stated that e-bikers would use all classes and levels of bikes, despite any regulations in place. • Analyst Lozano thanked attendees for their feedback, shared that notes taken at this Forum would be submitted as late correspondence for the October 19 City Council Meeting, and shared instructions on how to participate in the October 19 City Council Meeting. 3. Preserve Operations Preserve Enforcement and Operations Report (RPV) Senior Park Ranger Taylor Fox presented a detailed report on enforcement efforts in the Preserve. He reviewed citations, public contacts, incidents for each Reserve, and trail counter data. In addition to the highlights listed below, he shared that the full Enforcement Report is available on the City's Preserve webpage and was distributed to Forum participants. Focused enforcement and patrols: • Portuguese Bend Reserve: high attendance and land movement • Ocean Trails Reserve: high attendance, increased reports of dog off leash and dogs on the beach issues • Forrestal Reserve: increased reporting of dogs off leash, dog waste, and bikes on non- bike trails • Alta Vicente Reserve: report of aggressive/repeat dog walker with dog off leash Third Quarter Highlights: • Vandalism of City property • Graffiti • Maintaining significant trail closures • ParkMobile implementation • Public safety assists/coordination Recreation Specialist Evan Sichan reviewed the City's two Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and reported data on violations and education. Volunteer Trail Watch Report (PVPLC) Conservation Director Sarabia presented an overview of the mission and achievements of the Volunteer Trail Watch (VTW) and discussed observations, classes, trainings, and workshops. Public Comments/Questions • Al Sattler expressed concern about the safety oftide pool animals being returned to the MPAs. He praised the efforts of the VTW and raised concerns about the removal of "no e-bike" signs. • Peter Shaw praised the efforts of City Staff in dealing with these complicated issues. • Jessica Vlaco echoed the praise of staff, especially the Park Rangers. She noted that they can't be everywhere at once which makes enforcement difficult. She encouraged the City to look for pro-active measures rather than rely on enforcement. • Al Sattler asked if volunteers should provide information to the Rangers if they saw poaching and inquired about a volunteer program. Staff noted that volunteers could contact staff at the Abalone Cove Parking Lot or could contact CalTip to report these instances. Staff emphasized that volunteers and the public should not confront poachers directly. Director Linder discussed the benefits of a volunteer program. Analyst Lozano presented a slide with public contact information, and thanked attendees for their feedback and participation. The meeting ended at approximately 9:00 p.m. Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Late correspondence. Katie Lozano Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:31 PM CityClerk Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder FW: Copy of letter re: Proposed use of e-bikes in the Rancho Palos Verdes Nature Preserve 20211019s_09B0417-22CPAOOOS_LA_RPV EBI KESjds_dm_.pdf From: Ludovissy, Jennifer@Wildlife <Jennifer.Ludovissy@Wildlife.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202112:19 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Mayer, David@Wildlife <David.Mayer@wildlife.ca.gov>; Drewe, Karen@Wildlife <Karen.Drewe@wildlife.ca.gov>; Eric_Porter@fws.gov; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; amohan@pvplc.org; Sch ma Ibach, Heather@Wildlife <Heather.Schmalbach@Wildlife.ca.gov>; jonathan_d_snyder@fws.gov; marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov; Garn, John C <john_garn@fws.gov> Subject: Copy of letter re: Proposed use of e-bikes in the Rancho Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Mr. Mihranian, Please see attached copy for your records. If you have any questions, please contact Heather Schmalbach of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife at 858-637-5511, or Mary Beth Woulfe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 442-287-9001. Thank you, Jenny JENNY lUDOVISSY I Staff Services Analyst She/Her/Hers CALlFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 'j"·".11 ,J w·1LoL1r• ... 1-,::>!''1 anc, . tt: South Coast Region 5 3883 Ruffin Rd, San Diego, CA 92123 Office (858) 467-2702 I Cell (858) 716-7147 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 37125A7F-A411-4E38-98FA-FC1881DA8C39 U.S. Fl$H & wn,nLlFl~ SEU.VICE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 In Reply Refer to: FWS/CDFW-09B0417-22CPA0005 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, Cali fomia 92123 October 19, 2021 Sent Electronically Ara Mihranian Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 92075 Subject: Proposed use of e-bikes in the Rancho Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Dear Mr. Mihranian: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), collectively referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies," were recently made aware of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council's tentative approval of an ordinance that would allow the use of Class 1 e-bikes in the Rancho Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve) at their meeting on October 5, 2021. The Wildlife Agencies met previously with City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) staff and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) regarding the issue of e-bikes in the Preserve on August 4, 2021, and sent subsequent emails October 8-15, 2021, regarding potential negative impacts to sensitive biological resources, and inconsistency with City's Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) and the City's federally permitted habitat conservation plan. The Wildlife Agencies were notified that a second reading and further discussion of the e-bike ordinance (Ordinance No. 650; amending Chapter 12.16 of the Municipal Code) is on the agenda for the City Council's meeting on October 19, 2021. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including habitat conservation plans (HCPs) developed under section l0(a)(l)(B) of the Act. The Department is a Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project [California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15386] and is a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program, a California regional habitat conservation planning program. The Service issued a section 10 incidental take permit (Permit) to the City associated with the City's Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) in DocuSign Envelope ID: 37125A7F-A411-4E3B-98FA-FC18B1DA8C39 Mr. Ara Mihranian (FWS/CDFW-09B0417-22CPA000) 2 April of 2020 which allows incidental take of covered species related to identified projects and activities. The NCCP/HCP includes the development of a PUMP to balance the public's passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within the Preserve. The PUMP, adopted by the City in April 2013, is designed to ensure that use of the Preserve is consistent with the biological protection and conservation goals of the NCCP/HCP. Certain activities, such as the use of motorized vehicles, are explicitly prohibited to reduce potential impacts to biological resources and minimize hazards to public safety. The use of e-bikes was not contemplated or authorized as an allowed use in the PUMP; therefore, potential impacts from the use of e-bikes in the Preserve were not analyzed in the Service's Permit decision documents. Specific concerns resulting from the increased speed and expanded use associated withe-bikes include: widening of trails and the accompanying damage to habitat, collisions with species, increased erosion, expanded incursion into areas of the Preserve, and increased management and patrol-associated funding needs. A recent annual report for the Preserve (PVPLC, May 2021) indicates that continued development of unauthorized trails and user-associated widening of existing trails is a threat to sensitive species covered under the NCCP/HCP and remains a management and enforcement challenge. Based on the potential impacts to biological resources from e-bike use in the Preserve, it is our position that introduction of e-bikes into the Preserve would require an amendment to the PUMP and concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies with this amendment. Per the NCCP/HCP, public access to the Preserve is conditionally allowed for passive recreational purposes and to promote an understanding and appreciation of natural resources. Excessive or uncontrolled access can result in habitat degradation and the disruption of critical wildlife functions and is inconsistent with the biological protection and conservation goals of the NCCP/HCP. The Wildlife Agencies encourage the City Council to reconsider allowing the use of e-bikes in the Preserve or postpone any final action until we can ensure consistency with the PUMP and NCCP/HCP. We appreciate the City's coordination on this issue and look forward to our continued collaboration in implementing the City's NCCP/HCP. If you have questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact !leather Schmalbach 1 of the Department at 858-637-5511, or Marv Beth Woulfo 2 of the Service at 442-287-9001. JONATHAN SNYDER Jonathan Snyder Digitally signed by JONATHAN SNYDER Date: 2021.10.19 11 :37:40 -07'00' Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 Heather.Schmalbach@wildlife.ca.gov 2 marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov Sincerely, David Mayer Environmental Program Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife DocuSign Envelope ID: 37125A7F-A411-4E38-98FA-FC1881DA8C39 Mr. Ara Mihranian (FWS/CDFW-09B0417-22CPA000) cc: Karen Drewe, Department -Karen.Drewe@wildlife.ca.gov Eric Porter, Service -Eric_Porter@fws.gov Katie Lozano, City of Rancho Palos Verdes -KatieL@rpvca.gov Cory Linder, City of Rancho Palos Verdes-CoryL@rpvca.gov Adrienne Mohan, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy-amohan@pvplc.org 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Katie Lozano Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:30 AM Fred Weiner Cc: Cory Linder; Ara Mihranian; CityClerk Subject: RE: CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10-19-21 eBikes Hello Mr. Weiner, Thank you for your email and all of your volunteer service in the Preserve. I am going to include this as late correspondence with City Council Agenda item G this evening. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department katiel@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5267 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov ~ GE'l'lfOH f!'i:r Google Play 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. Unauthoriztid 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 COV/D-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. From: Fred Weiner <fweiner08@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 20211:25 PM To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10-19-21 eBikes 1 Hi Katie, I hope you had a nice weekend! I am not in favor of the City Council allowing any eBikes, including Class 1 eBikes, in the Nature Preserve. Did you or your colleagues look at topics I found on the Internet re Class 1 eBikes such as the possibility of the eBike batteries catching fire, the weight of eBikes which make them more difficult to control and faster speeds going downhill, etc? Also, as a separate, but related topics, have you assessed if Class 1 eBikes are allowed, it will likely be publicized on the Internet and ATTRACT more vehicles that will come the Nature Preserve, especially the Portuguese Bend Reserve on Crenshaw Blvd, which conflicts with the City Council's goal of reducing traffic and increasing safety in that area. Additionally, as a road cyclist myself, I am disappointed that many bike riders, and especially those on eBikes, do not know of or follow Bicycle safety protocols, including such basic rules as correctly Signaling when approaching and passing others. Furthermore, at the Nature Preserve, mountain and eBike riders are UNAWARE and DO NOT follow the Nature Preserve "Right of Way": Equestrians, Hikers, and last bikes. I have observed many bike/eBike riders riding extremely fast, on all trails, including trails that are very narrow, startling visitors, with little or no regard for the safety of others. Attached is the recent information I found in that regard. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and your Team for all you do! Fred Weiner RPV Resident 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 4:40 PM CityClerk FW: Ebike riding in Portuguese Bend Reserve From: Lynn McLeod <lynnmcleod@mac.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:36 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ebike riding in Portuguese Bend Reserve CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear sirs, this is to express my strong disapproval of the proposal to allow exile riding in Portuguese Bend Reserve. I have hiked those trails, many of which are narrow, windy and steep. This is definitely not a place to be mixing biking and hiking. It is dangerous for the participants in these activities, especially the pedestrians, who could easily collide. In addition, the Reserve was set aside as a nature preserve, where the focus is on creating and maintaining habitat for plants and the animals, including birds, that live among them. Bikes can go off the trail or fall and cause significant damage to the natural ecosystem, not to mention the rider. I understand that e-riders want to use their bikes wherever they can, but the nature of the vehicle makes it incompatible with the purpose of a nature preserve. Please preserve the Reserve free of ebikes so that it can fulfill this important purpose. Thank you for your attention, Lynn McLeod Palos Verdes Peninsula 310-375-2103 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 7:29 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: E-bikes on the preserve From: tony baker <tbake377@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 7:03 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: E-bikes on the preserve Dear City Council I sent one communication already, but I would like to make an addendum to that letter. The main talking point of the pro e-bike folks is that the allowance of these mechanized machines will allow seniors to access the Preserve. I'm 76 years of age and I love hiking in the Preserve and have no problems aside from dodging mountain bikers. Most e-bike enthusiasts who will be riding the trails will be young people and there will be many of them. For seniors with mobility issues there are miles of flat easy trails to enjoy. Frankly, seniors have no business riding a mountain bike--let alone an e-bike--on the steep and narrow trails of the Preserve. The last thing that I want to see is a senior--or anyone else--on a heavy motorized vehicle bearing down or up on me while I am enjoying a pleasant walk in our Nature Preserve. Thank you in advance for voting this down. Tony Baker Portuguese Bend 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 7:29 PM CityClerk FW: Class 1 E Bikes in the land conservancy ordinance to be decided From: Leslie Stetson <lesliestetson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:43 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Class 1E Bikes in the land conservancy ordinance to be decided CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As a resident of Rolling Hills I have always objected to all bicycles in the Portuguese Bend Land Conservancy. As an avid equestrian I have always found the shared trail usage to be a safety hazard and given the poor site lines and narrow trails I personally no longer support, ride or enjoy the Conservancy. I have many equestrian friends who feel the same way and more and more all of the PV bike usage is up and is encroaching onto our P Community Trails. Rolling Hills was not afraid to acknowledge the inherent conflict of bikes on our steep trails, but as with the problems Westfield is experiencing we have photographic evidence of the misuse. It is sad that the open shared energy of our PV trails network is leading to fencing off of trails. Your inability to say NO is trending towards justified threats of not allowing hikers or equestrians in to access which I find sad but maybe necessary? Your own conservationists have acknowledged the damage bikes do to the trails and now when you view the site from below you see a complete lack of vegetation and a crazy maze of tracks from the bikes. I do not think this is close to conservation and is a shame given the beautiful vegetation I remember riding amongst. Please take a stand and just say NO to more random abuse of nature! Leslie Stetson Sent from my iPhone 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 7:32 PM CityClerk FW: RPV City council Meeting October 19, 2021 eBikes From: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 2:58 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 eBikes Dear City Council Members, E-Bikes Why is there a need fore-bikes in the Preserve? Among the numerous flawed staff recommendations to Council, to approve e-bikes in the Preserve is the most ridiculous. This will go well on the way to a Disneyesque outsiders attraction. Thee-Bike e-Ticket will be to bomb up and down Burma Road as close to 20 MPH as they can pedal. What fun to be a hiker or family with young children or a baby buggy out for a quiet hike in the Preserve. The existing trails user base has been very successful in loving the Preserve nearly to death compared to health of the areas that were originally obtained. As a PUMP member, I voted against expanded trails utilization. Each user group has left its mark based on the activity of its least rules compliant member. The Preserve is not able to heal itself based on the level of current use (and the ongoing drought is a silent element of habitat elimination). The Open Space staff and Rangers are incapable of maintaining enforcement of existing rules. How can any reasonable person believe they will be able to control e-Bikes? We should be stewards of the unique resource in our community. Allowing another class of user, which will bring its own least rules complaint members, will continue to erode the vitality of the Preserve and a new accelerant to its demise. Don Bell 1 G. Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:14 AM CityClerk Re: Ordinance 650 re E-Bikes From: Jana Cooley <janascooley@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 8:47 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ordinance 650 re E-Bikes Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Rancho Palos Verdes, As a member of the Palos Verdes Horsemen's Association, and an equestrian, I strongly oppose the adoption of the ordinance that would allow Class I Electric Bicycles to be used on the trails of the Preserve. I believe that the increased traffic congestion and unregulated speed of the bikes traversing the hilly trails would be detrimental to the safety and enjoyment of the trails by hikers and horseback riders alike. I listened to the speakers at the October 5 meeting and one suggestion was made that astonished me: to suggest that a bell be rung by an E-bike cyclist to warn a hiker or horseback rider of the bike's approach. A horse can be easily spooked by a sudden noise or an unseen but fast approaching vehicle (bike, in this case) and to think that this was suggested as a traffic control method is extremely disturbing. Another posed justification for allowing E-bikes was that less athletically able persons could use the bikes to ride on the trails. That sounds reasonable, but what happens if such as E-bike rider goes too fast and loses control around hikers or horseback riders, or even when they are out on their own? E-bikes are very popular and are used to increase speed without as much physical effort, whether it's pedaling less or using a throttle to kick into electronic mode. The bikes are efficient modes of transportation and an alternative to cars, but why would the council wish to increase the speed and noise that E-Bikes would bring to the Preserve trails? Sincerely, Jana Cooley 9 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-3809 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:53 AM CC; CityClerk Outrageous Today, as I was coming up the Purple Sage Trail there was a woman off the trail calling to her dog that had run off into the brush. It sounded like a large dog. Forrestal has become a dog outhouse and the trails are not far behind. Bicycliers are on trails that they should not be on. Now you are going to authorize electric bikes. Soon to start building an entertainment center at Ladera Linda with lighting more consistent with a prison. The only thing missing is the guard towers and barbed wire on the top of the fences. When is this city council going to start considering the quality of life of the residents and preserving the habitat? Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: To the RPV City Council, Cindy Akiyama <cindy@akimountain.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:40 PM CityClerk E-bikes in the Preserve I volunteer with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, but speak as a local resident who has been hiking in the Preserve almost every week for over twenty years. I urge you to reverse the decision to allow e-bikes in the Preserve. I remind the Council that this is a nature preserve, not a recreational park. It is intended to provide habitat for our native flora and fauna and trails that enable peaceful enjoyment consistent with its designation as a nature preserve. If approved, the Preserve would become one of the first open space areas in LA county to allow e-bikes. Is this a distinction we want? Social media would certainly make this known, creating traffic and usage in conflict with the preserve's objectives, and and opening the door to law suits for injury to hikers, equestrians and horses. Those unable to hike or cycle in the steeper areas of the preserve can enjoy beautiful walks or rides every day elsewhere on the Peninsula. Respectfully, Cindy Akiyama Rolling Hills Estates 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:03 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: E-Bikes From: mrmnply@aol.com <mrmnply@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20214:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: E-Bikes Good afternoon My name is Bill Lavoie and I lead hikes in the Preserve for the Sierra Club. I think that allowing E-Bikes in the preserve is a bad idea and here is why. Several times we have had close calls where mountain bikes have come down the trails at about 20 miles an hour and nearly run into us. Sometimes we have had to jump out of the way. I have been hike by a Bike. The mountain bikers are using the preserve as an obstacle coarse. This has been a very hazards situation and adding E-Bikes to this is only going to increase the hazards for hikers and horses. At some point someone is going to get seriously hurt and sue the city for creating a hazardous situation. How will the city defend itself if a young child is killed by a mountain bike. Please prevent the hazardous situation. Sincerely Bill Lavoie Leader in the Sierra Club 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:03 PM CityClerk FW: PVPLC Comment regarding E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve From: Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20214:02 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: PVPLC Comment regarding E-bikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Dear Mayor and members of the City Council, I would like to provide comments for Council's consideration regarding the decision to authorize the use of electric bicycles (e-bikes) within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Several members of the community have commented about the environmental impact, safety concerns, and enforcement concerns that bicyclists and the presumed increase of e-bikes will present. I agree with many of these concerns, as I will echo herein, but I want to ensure that one major consideration is addressed before e-bikes can be evaluated for introduction to the Preserve. The City's NCCP/HCP Plan and the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) that is part of the NCCP/HCP only took into consideration the public recreational enjoyment of the Preserve for pedestrians, equestrians and mountain bikers on certain trails. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife then based their environmental impact findings on these considerations articulated in the PUMP, which serves as the basis for their permit issuance. For the City to explore the introduction of motorized e-bikes to the Preserve, the Wildlife Agencies would need to evaluate the potential environmental impacts and implications to the NCCP/HCP permit. Circumventing this due process could potentially jeopardize the permit and the confidence bestowed upon the City to follow the letter of the NCCP/HCP plans. It is not worthwhile to restart so many years of hard work by so many to get the NCCP approved, based on such a contentious matter. I also urge that considerations for introducing e-bikes must also take into account the Land Conservancy's expertise as Preserve Habitat Managers and co-permittees under the NCCP/HCP. We have expended significant funding and resources over the past 15 years to implement the PUMP and Preserve Trails Plan, which involved mitigating the impacts of recreation to habitat and soils by closing hundreds of spur trails, reducing widening trails, and slowing mountain bike speeds by rerouting certain trails or implementing slowing measures, to name a few tasks. In partnership with the City, we developed the Volunteer Trail Watch in 2014 to address the growing concerns around trail safety and enforcement of Preserve rules to safeguard habitat and the peaceful visitor experience for which the Preserve was created to protect. The City also expends significant funding on an annual basis to enforce the Preserve rules and, in my view, expanding the use of e- bikes runs counter to all of these efforts. This work has helped make headway in countering the impacts of Preserve misuse and abuse, and while it is uncertain how ebikes will impact the natural resources, it can be assumed that it will not result in a benefit to the conservation goals of the Preserve and NCCP/HCP. 1 I have strong concerns that allowing e-bikes into the Preserve will have the following effects: I. Expand the demographic of individuals who ride bikes in the Preserve to those who may be more novice riders. I appreciate that Council's intent was to provide a way for seniors or those who are less mobile to see different parts of the Preserve, but without an ability to select by age or effectively enforce such a permit system, it should be expected that riders of all ages will flock to the Preserve once news gets around that Rancho Palos Verdes is the only open space area that permits e-bikes in arguably the most scenic place in Los Angeles County. Many of the current trails designated for bikes are treacherous, narrow, and a safety concern for bike riders as well as other trail users. They pose risks to even skilled riders (as we've seen several accidents involving mountain bikers) and I am concerned about increasing risks associated with introducing less-skilled riders to these trails for everyone's safety. 2. Several points of data are being collected about the trends in covered bird species, habitat, and current trail widths to understand what dynamics are at play between recreational use and impacts to biological resources. While there isn't conclusive evidence that the amount or volume of use is driving impacts to the local environment, it is a known fact that behavior and violations of Preserve rules are having a negative impact on habitat. However, we have documentation showing how mountain bike use has caused damage on certain trails with steep slopes and erosive soils, and it should be assumed that expanding use of e- bikes will further exacerbate those impacts to biological and soil resources. This assumes that ebikes would or could not be relegated only to wide, low-slope trails (ie. Burma Road Trail) with a speed limit in place to avoid collisions. 3. I am very concerned that increasing risks of user conflict on trails will drive away the few equestrians who visit the trails, residents who have enjoyed the trails peacefully for decades, and the very volunteers who spend hundreds and thousands of hours supporting City enforcement and Conservancy management work. Members of the Volunteer Trail Watch, for example, brave the trails every day to educate visitors and encourage compliance with the rules. Many of these volunteers have themselves experienced unfortunate run-ins with mountain bikers who disregard the rules, and some volunteers have been hit or nearly hit by mountain bikers in the Preserve. I dread the scenarios that might occur with expanded e-bike use of the Preserve. There are many places for those with reduced physical abilities to enjoy the Preserve, and perhaps efforts can be made to make those places more welcoming or known on foot, rather than making provisions to allow all people to visit the hard-to-access places in the Preserve on e-bikes. We support the vision that everyone should be able to enjoy the Preserve, but not everyone may be able to enjoy the Preserve in the same way. It is important to remain dedicated to the foundation of the Preserve's acquisition and the NCCP/HCP, which is for habitat preservation and species protection first and foremost. Recreation is only allowed in ways that it does not impact this primary directive, and it is inconceivable how the permitted use of e-bikes will work to serve this goal but rather may only serve to challenge it. This is a complicated issue, and we appreciate the continued working relationship with City staff, enforcement personnel and Council to further the goals of the Preserve and the NCCP/HCP. I am available to discuss this matter further. Respectfully, Adrienne Mohan Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Adrienne Mohan Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 916 Silver Spur Road #207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 2 www.pvplc.org (310) 541-7613 x203 (310) 930-4332 (cell) Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of al/. Join our mailing list Join us on 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:05 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: interpretation hearing date From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, October 18, 20214:56 PM To: Larry Carapellotti <larryc3@cox.net> Cc: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Rudy Monroy <rmonroy@rpvca.gov> Subject: interpretation hearing date Hi Larry- Thanks for your call earlier today. Just to clarify, the maintenance interpretation item is not on tomorrow's City Council meeting agenda. Only the continuance for the permit parking program item is on the agenda (link below). https://rpv.granicus. com/GeneratedAgendaViewer. php?view id=S&event id=1699 For the maintenance interpretation, I had suggested that we meet this week, as I need to finalize the staff report for the November 2nd City council meeting by this Friday. Will you have time to finish reviewing all the materials and then meet this week? I am available through Thursday, but will be out of the office on Friday. Also, if you do need a bit more time, I should be able to find out this Wednesday if we would be able to move the maintenance interpretation item to a later City Council meeting in November or December, but this may not be possible, as we need to get it resolved sooner than later. I'll follow up with you ASAP, thank you. Thank you, Amy Seeraty Senior Planner amys@rpvca.gov Phone -(310) 544-5231 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov h...... GU lfatf ,,,,,,.., Googfe Play This e··rnail rnc)ssa9,i co11tai11s information belon1Jin9 to the City of' Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privile9ed, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the Individual or entity named. Unauthorized clissernlnation, cllstrlbutlon, or copying is strictly prohibl\:ecl. If you rnceived this email in error, or are not an intended recipient:, please notify the sender immediately. Tt1ank you for your assistance and cooperation. City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0-19, visitors are required to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may be working remotely. If you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate 1 department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: James O'Neill Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:18 PM CityClerk Ramzi Awwad; Ron Dragoo Corrected page of staff report (for Ladera Linda item) 2021-10-19 Staff Report (Ladera Linds Park and Community Center) RJA (corrected typo page).pdf A typographical error was discovered in the staff report {for Ladera Linda) for tonight's City Council meeting. Attached is a revised page showing the correction. 1 Table 4-Estimated Architecture, Engineering, Management, Administration, P "tf d I f C t erm1 mg, an nspec 10n OS S PERMITTING ANPFEES COMMITTED ESTIMATED TOTAL ·. (07,.06,.21) F.UTUR.E ESTIMATE Building Plan Check Review -$100,000 $100,000 Utility Service Fees -$50,000 $50,000 Sub Total -$150,000 $150,000 ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, MANAGEMEN.T/ ADMINISTRATION,.AND INSPECTION Planning, $460,000 $335,000' $~795,000' Architecture/Engineering Design and Construction Administration Services Project Management, -$880,000 $880,000 Construction Management, and Inspection Sub Total $460,000 $1,215,QQQ l $1,675,QQQ l Architecture, Engineering, $460,000 $1,365,000 l $1,825,QQQ l Management, Administration, Permitting, and Inspection Total All costs are rounded to the nearest $5,000 to reflect a level of precision that is commensurate with a forecast of expected future costs. 'Will need to be re-estimated to account for design changes to landscape, lighting, and security plans T bl 5 P a e -roJec t T t I oa PR()JE(;T lQTAL . COMMI.TTE.D ESTIMATED TOT.AL ·. (07-0~~21) FUTURE ESTIMATE Building -$7,620,000 $7,620,000 Park Grounds -$4,855,000 $4,855,000 General Construction -$1,795,000 $1,795,000 Architecture/Engineering, $460,000 $1,365,000 $1,825,000 Management, Administration, Permitting, and Inspection Project Total $460,000 $15,635,000 $16,095,000 Comparison to July 6, 2021 Reported Cost Estimate The July 6, 2021 cost estimate, totaling $15,895,000, only reported commitments from July 6, 2021 forward; therefore excluding prior commitments, dating as early as 2019, of approximately $300,000 for services to be provided by Johnson-Favaro, Michael Baker, and Kosmont. The cost estimate being presented today, totaling $16,095,000 includes these prior commitments, but also deducts approximately $100,000 in value engineering savings described earlier in the report. Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 4:10 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: RPV City Council Meeting October 19, 2021 Ladera Linda From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:55 PM To: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: RPV City Council Meeting October 19, 2021 Ladera Linda Great letter Sent from my iPhone On Oct 18, 2021, at 2:48 PM, Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com> wrote: 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! 1 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. 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: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:52 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Ladera Linda proposed plan From: pam allen <dawneallen3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:51 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda proposed plan I have lived near Ladera Linda for nearly 50 years, Appreciating always the "quiet:" neighborhoods. PLEASE Do NOT allow the" purposed" plan . Thank you. Sincerely, Pamela Allen 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:56 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: " Purposed plan for Ladera Linda" From: pam alien <dawneallen3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:55 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: " Purposed plan for Ladera Linda" I DO NOT support this plan.! PLEASE maintain the relative quiet, less trafficked streets on Forrestal, Sea Raven ,etc. My household vote AGAINST this current plan. Sincerely, Pamela Allen 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:10 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: I do NOT support this Purposed plan for Ladera Linda ! Please keep the relative quiet & less traveled streets on & near Ladera Linda From: pam alien <dawneallen3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:08 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; laderalindahoa@cox.net Subject: Fwd: I do NOT support this Purposed plan for Ladera Linda ! Please keep the relative quiet & less traveled streets on & near Ladera Linda Have lived on Sae Raven for almost SO years. ----------Forwarded message--------- From: pam allen <dawneallen3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 16:57 Subject: I do NOT support this Purposed plan for Ladera Linda ! Please keep the relative quiet & less traveled streets on & near Ladera Linda To: <laderalindahoa@cox.net> Sincerely Pamela Allen 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:32 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: WE DO NOT SUPPORT LADERA LINDA CONCTRUCTION PLAN From: pam alien <dawneallen3@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:30 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: WE DO NOT SUPPORT LADERA LINDA CONCTRUCTION PLAN ----------Forwarded message --------- From: pam allen <dawneallen3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:14 PM Subject: Re: WE DO NOT SUPPORT LADERA LINDA CONCTRUCTION PLAN To: Deborah Dawne Allen <rndeborah@gmail.com> Cc: webdenalO <webdena10@gmail.com> Thank you! On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:58 PM Deborah Dawne Allen <rndeborah@gmail.com> wrote: cc@rpvca.gov laderalindahoa@cox.net Hello, We have lived on Sea Raven Drive for over 45 years and our neighbor has been here even longer. We are shocked and very much against the proposed Ladera Linda constructions project. We would like to attend tonight's infrastructure meeting via Zoom Tonight @ 6 pm, can you please send me a link? We do not support the proposed plans for lighting, landscaping, security, and parking at Ladera. Thank you, Ms. Allen 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 7:31 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: WE OPPOSE LADERA LINDA PROJECT -----Original Message----- From: Sue Realsty <suerealsty@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:43 PM To: laderalindahoa@cox.net; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: WE OPPOSE LADERA LINDA PROJECT CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We do not support the proposed plans for lighting, landscaping, security, and parking at Ladera. Thank you, Ms. PHYLLIS CHABOWSKI at 32465 Sea Raven Drive My house was recently vandalized and also broken into. Then again, Last Friday 2 men tried to break in again ... the police did not arrive for 24 minutes ... ! was terrified .... ! do not want any outside additional traffic in our community. It will make it unsafe. The neighborhood itself is too dark and incites criminals. Sincerely, Phyllis W. 1 7_' Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:12 AM CityClerk Subject: Re: Ladera Linda From: JOHN SESTICH <sticho@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 202111:42 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I am opposed to the grand remodeling of the Lad era Linda facility. As all of can see the large amount of people that have come to this area since the Covid 19 pandemic started. There have been many issues, from people being harassed, robbed, and intimidated to name a few. I do not want these issues migrating into the nearby neighborhoods. I moved to the Ladera Linda neighborhood over 20 years ago because of is quiet and secluded atmosphere. Now when I walk the trails, I have been picking up a lot of litter, that was never a problem prior to the covid 19 crowds. Let's not continue this trend. There is no reason that the facility can just be updated and not turned into this ugly community center. John Sestich Phantom dr 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 8:12 AM CityClerk Subject: Re: Ladera Linda From: Nadine Sestich <nsestich@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 202111:27 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I do not support the the proposed plans for lighting, security and parking at Ladera Linda park. The traffic and trash is already horrible from the Covid crowds. We have had to install a private security system because of all the traffic and theft. The noise and lighting will destroy our beautiful views of the stars at night. This neighborhood echoes horribly I do not want to hear all the noise from the events that will be hosted. Cheering for youth soccer games is tolerable but large group congregations and events is not what I want in my neighborhood. PLEASE STOP Nadine Sestich Sent from Nadine's iPad 1 2. Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11 :56 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: Ladera Linda COMMUNITY center From: Nancy Ohara <nanceo33@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202111:39 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda COMMUNITY center I don't think the city council will read this email, but at least I tried. Do any of the city council members remember when Rancho Palos Verdes City Council designated the beach below Trump as a dog beach? The pilot program was shut down after 1 month because the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes were tired of dealing with the trash, crowds, noise, traffic, and desecration of the environment. Do any of these complaints sound familiar? The residents of Rancho Palos Verdes know and appreciate what the city has to offer (that is why we moved here.) The beauty, quiet and quaintness is important to preserve because that is what makes the city unique from other coastal cities. We are one of the last cities to have that, but the decisions this city council is making is quickly changing it. The residents understands the community center needs to be upgraded and improved, but we would like it to fit in the community and not have a detrimental impact. Our community is quaint and quiet. We would appreciate a community center that reflects our community with very little environmental impact. Bright lights, removing trees and bushes, and adding more parking is not environmentally responsible. It is not what I want as resident. Bigger is not always better. People and crowds is not better. If any of the council members have been on a hike or walk lately around the city, you would see the amount of trash and dog feces everywhere. I am asking the City Council to please think about the decisions you are making and how they are impacting the residents who supported you. Nancy Ohara Ladera Linda resident 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Radich, James O'Neill Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:06 PM mickeyrodich@gmail.com CityClerk FW: City Council Meeting 10/19/21 -Ladera Linda, Cost Update Thank you for your email. It will be included in Late Correspondence for tonight's City Council meeting. From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202111:51 AM 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@iuno.com>; Jack Fleming <jjfleming2000@yahoo.com>; Jessica Vlaco <v1aco5@cox.net>; Marty Foster <martycrna@gmail.com>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Scott Mills <smi11s300@gmail.com>; Yossef Aelony <Y.aelony@cox.net> Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 10/19/21 -Ladera Linda, Cost Update The City Council asked staff to provide them with a current cost projection for Ladera Linda park as well as regular future cost updates. I see where the staff was unable to provide the Council with the financial information they asked for, because they did not have time. I find that disturbing since they already talked about all of the cost savings they achieved. In reading the staff report I see a number of items that I bring to your attention: 1. On page #7, in the 1st paragraph, a comment was made by staff to justify lighting in the whole park that states; "and would further limit the use of the park ground by the general public including residents from the Ladera Linda neighborhood who use the park ground for their evening walks". Has anyone from staff ever been to Ladera 1 1... Linda park every day to witness these so-called evening walks? They are very few and far between. My neighbors in Ladera Linda walk around our streets for their evening walks. 2. Our HOA has never asked to close the park at sunset, we have suggested to close the park at dusk. There is a time difference between sunset and dusk. Sunset is the exact time that the upper disk of the sun is at the horizon while dusk is the time when the center of the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. The average time between sunset and dusk is approximately 50 minutes and darkness comes later. 3. On page #10, Table #4 shows $200,000 for tables and chairs along with $140,000 for audio-visual equipment. In the last Council meeting, the architect stated that the building was not worth protecting because it only contained some furniture and a few computers. That makes no sense at all. These items must be protected along with the building itself. What about the priceless collection in the Discovery Room/Meeting Room? I guess that is not worth protecting as well. 4. This staff report does not recommend adding steel shutters nor a driveway ADA ramp or driveway sidewalk, because they were too expensive. The previous Council meeting staff report eliminated the ADA ramp, the sidewalk next to the driveway and the pedestrian gate was moved to lower tier area utility entrance. When we asked staff about that, we were told that the Council approved them. I don't think you did. Did you, our Council, remember approving their removal? 5. Staff is spending more than $15.6 million dollars on this project with $700,000 of exterior lighting, most of which should be eliminated and now they are quibbling about adding $194,000 on steel shutters which would provide true security for the building? This is hard to believe. Staff does not state the cost for the expensive and elaborate cabinets and drawers in the Discovery Room/Meeting 2 Room as shown by the architect in his earlier renderings. I would not be surprised if their cost were $200,000, but this cost won't be questioned by staff. 6. Also on page #10, Table 5, under Planning, Architecture/EngineeringDesign etc., The Table shows a "Committed Number" of $460,000 and the next column shows an "Estimated future" of $335,000 and the third column shows a "Total Estimate" of $1,825,000. That does not add up. What happened to the $1million difference? 7. Also, Table #5 shows a "Total Project" cost increase of $460,000 while Table #4 alone shows an increase of $1,365,000 for Planning, Architecture/Engineering, etc. Is the ridiculous $800,000 cost for a project manager included? Did our Director of Finance approve these tables? 8. I feel that the cumulative current cost estimate that the Council requested should include more than the "only reported commitments from July 6, 2021 forward". It should also include the estimates for all of the changes that have taken place from the beginning, including the Project Manager hiring and increased architectural costs. 9. Page #13, 1st Paragraph states: "As outlined in the updated Lighting and Safety and Security plans. The proposed 16 foot tall light standards and associated cameras have been eliminated from the lower tier of the project site and along the Forrestal Drive entry. Proposed improvements are now limited to the middle and upper tiers of the project site, primarily in the parking lot, community center and playground areas". This statement is very confusing. Does it mean that there will be no light poles and cameras in the lower tier and the Forrestal entry? Does it mean that there will be 10 foot poles and cameras in the lower tier? Does it mean that there will be bollards in the lower tier? Exactly what does it mean. Please be more specific. 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:23 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: City Council Meeting On 10/19/21 -Ladera Linda From: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:22 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting On 10/19/21 -Ladera Linda At the last CC meeting on 10/05/21, Mayor Alegria instructed staff to meet with our HOA to listen to our recommendations and to work out a mutual agreement for lights. cameras, security and landscaping and bring it up to the next CC meeting for CC approval. To make you aware, we have met with staff for 2 Zoom meetings since then and we have not come together with any agreement on many of the items. Ara has listed the items we suggested, but the staff report will only show staff recommended preferences for the CC meeting on 10/19/21. The staff's original recommendation was for 57 light poles and ballards throughout the park. Their reasoning was that they needed this lighting for the cameras that are spread throughout the park. At the last CC meeting the Security expert, much to our surprise and also staff's surprise, stated that the cameras did not need lighting after dark, in order to function. Staff also stated that the 57 lights would be lit all night. We objected to the lights being lit all night long and now there is no need to install lights throughout the park. 1 1 The signs at Hesse and Ryan parks state their open hours to be 7:00 AM till dusk. The same should apply to Ladera Linda. It makes sense to end outdoor activities at dusk. At the last CC meeting, the architect stated that there was no need to protect the building because there was only furniture and a few computers to protect so he concentrated on cameras filming the grounds. We disagree. The building is the most important thing to protect, especially against vandalism. Hesse park and PVIC have steel shutters covering the glass areas and have no issues with vandalism. We understand that it would make sense to have cameras during the day so that the park employees are aware of all activity in the park. Ongoing changes have been made to the architect's sketches that the public is not aware of. You may also not be aware of them either. They removed the sidewalk that was next to the main driveway as well as any pedestrian access. The ADA handicap ramp on the opposite side of the driveway was deleted. They added a remote controlled pedestrian gate at the lower grass area level. A safe refuge area was added in the center of the lower grass area which requires 10 tall light poles and 12 bollards plus cameras which is not required by any code. If there was a code for a safe refuge area, it could easily be incorporated in the parking lot and you could eliminate 22 lights and bollards. The position of our HOA is as follows: 1. Remove all light poles and bollards from the upper and lower areas. 2. Only the parking lot area would need lights. 3. All parking lot lights should be timed to turn off 30 minutes after the park building is locked at night. 2 4. Reduce the number of cameras throughout the park. The sketches show that the cameras around the building and the lower grass area have a range of 300 feet. 5. Make sure that the lights and cameras do not invade the privacy of Jessica's and Amanda's homes. 6. All of the buildings glass areas as well as the open lobby area should be protected by steel shutters to protect the building. 7. No need for any glass breakage detectors. 8. Include a sidewalk alongside the main driveway entrance as we presently have. 9. Include the ADA handicapped ramp on the opposite side of the main entrance driveway. 10. Move the pedestrian gate from the lowest grass level to be at the main driveway entrance. 11. Provide actual and projected cost changes when an change occurs. I feel that our requests are reasonable and hope that you agree with them. If you have any questions or anything you wish to discuss, please call me. 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Council Members, vlaco5@cox.net Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1 :33 PM cc Ara Mihranian; CityClerk Ladera Linda Landscape, Security and Lighting plan review on October 19 (late correspondence for public hearing Item 2) First of all, I want to say how disappointed and surprised I was to find out that staff and the architect were planning a pedestrian entry to the park directly across from my bedroom. I am sure you saw the shocked looks on our faces in the audience when this was brought up at the last Council meeting in September. This was an issue for me back when it was first proposed by Dick Fisher in his original conceptual plan. It continued to be an issue for me until the first meeting I had with the new architect. At that meeting, Johnson Favarro, assured me that it was not an issue. They stated that they did not have to include an ADA entry in this location. I breathed a huge sigh of relief and didn't worry about this matter again for the past two years until it made its way into the discussion at the last council meeting. At that same meeting, Ara stated that they would be no pedestrian gate put in-that this gate would remain a locked utility gate. The architect added that this pedestrian gate was proposed as a matter of convenience for the residents of Ladera Linda and Mediterranea as a quicker entry to the park. They specifically said this was not an ADA issue. However, at the first meeting with staff after the September council meeting, staff informed us that, contrary to what was stated on record at the last council meeting, this was, in fact, an ADA requirement. This is literally the 11 th hour of this project and we are just now learning of this? What happened to the assurances I was given by the architect? Are they ignorant of the requirements? Did they intentionally mislead me and my neighbors? Or is there a difference of interpretation between staff and the architect? I would like an explanation. It does make you wonder what other surprises are in store for us? We just found out about the 11 refuge area" for the first time recently. We also just found out that they plan on putting in a 11viewing node", an area that families could use as sort of an exclusive picnic area. A big concern for me was that when I first inquired about both of these features after seeing them on the landscaping and lighting plans that were presented at the last council meeting, staff did not know what these two areas were. Shouldn't staff have been able to tell me that the proposed 10-foot lights leading from the building to the north lawn area were light the path to the 11 refuge area" as required by code? They had to look into it and get back to me. The same thing happened with the circular viewing node. No one knew what it was when I asked them about it. It was on the landscaping plans but no one could tell me what its purpose was. After looking into it, staff informed us that it was a viewing node to be used by families as a more exclusive type of picnic area. So ... they go from not knowing what it is to trying to persuade council and residents how necessary it is to the park's design. Discrepancies and misstatements in the staff report: • We did not ask for this park to be closed at sunset. We suggested that council consider closing all of the city parks at sunset instead of dusk in order to reduce the need for additional lighting. We realize that this would require a change in the ordinance and had suggested that this be discussed at some point in the future. We asked that staff at least raise the issue with council. 1 • We never asked for the paths to be removed from the lawn area as stated below. That is completely false. We asked if they could pull the paths back a bit from the border of Forrestal. Currently the path comes very close to that edge of the park. The south side of the path is pretty far from the south border of the park, presumably to minimize noise and privacy concerns from the residents of Seaview. We simply asked them to have the same consideration for those of us who live directly across the street from the park. Moving the path a bit farther from that edge of the park would help with noise and privacy concerns that we have. • It should be noted that at our first meeting with staff after the September council meeting, we were informed that staff had planned on eliminating the existing sidewalk along the driveway. Therefore, the pedestrian gate they proposed directly across from my house was not just a secondary pedestrian access point. It was going to be the ONLY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS INTO THE PARK. There would have been no safe way for pedestrians to enter the park except through the one and only pedestrian gate being planned across from my bedroom. We all know there will be limited parking in the new park and that for many events, visitors will need to make use of overflow parking on upper Forrestal. How exactly did staff plan on getting these visitors to and from the overflow parking on Forrestal into the facility? I guess they would all have walked down the middle of the driveway to get to the building. That, or they all would have paraded through the pedestrian gate across from my house. Neither option is acceptable. • When we held our second meeting with staff, they decided that they would recommend replacing the existing sidewalk. However, they believe it is safer to have the sidewalk on the south side of the driveway. Our HOA suggested putting the sidewalk on the north side of the driveway rather than the south side as we believe more of the people using the sidewalk will want to continue north along Forrestal and it would be safer for pedestrian access if the sidewalk was there. • It is true that staff was not able to gain access to my house in order to assess any potential impacts from the proposed lighting. There were not a lot of options during the week they chose since I work full time. It was difficult to schedule a mutually agreeable time to meet. In any case, my concerns have not been resolved, but clearly staff feels that they can conclude there won't be any impact on the adjacent neighbors after visiting just one house. My concerns are that once the trees bordering Forrestal are reduced in height and mass, as is currently being planned by the city, the 16 ft lights at the park will be visible from my home. With just the limited trimming they already did on one of the trees across from my house, I can now see through the tree branches into the park and I can see the lights from the current parking lot lamps. I plan on speaking at the meeting tonight but wanted to get some of my thoughts on paper in advance. Three minutes goes pretty fast. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jessica Vlaco 2 'I Updated Landscape Plan Residents from the Ladera Linda neighborhood that met with Staff recommend following revisions: • Provide a sidewalk on the north side of the driveway. • Eliminate the node and bench at the southeast corner of the lower tier, c secondary option, move the node and bench to the middle or upper tier. • Locate the ADA compliant pedestrian path near the driveway to eliminate th to provide an ADA compliant pedestrian access through a locked, call-ac gate adjacent to the maintenance gate on Forrestal Drive. • Eliminate the pedestrian path around the large lawn at the lower tier, o secondary option, eliminate the pedestrian path on the south side. • Do not open ocean views by removing existing brush just below the top of th1 on the south side of the site 1 or as a secondary option, maintain existing veg adjacent to the southern slope at the lower tier. 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Origi na I Message----- From: Rachel <diffend@cox.net> Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:03 PM CityClerk FW: Ladera Linda Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:00 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. My name is Rachel Diffendal .. my address is 3704 Vigilance Dr RPV. I am calling regarding the plans you are considering for the Ladera Linda Park. I do not support you current plans ... this community cannot endorse such a plans .. for our neighborhood and the value of our real estate. Rachel Diffendal 1 1. Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: -----Original Message----- Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:04 PM CityClerk FW: Regular Business Item 3. From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:55 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Regular Business Item 3. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Dear Members of the City Council, In order to protect our neighborhood from unwanted traffic and improve safety, I would urge you to approve the residential parking permit requested by our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Diane Mills President LLHOA Sent from my iPhone 1 Q J. Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:01 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: FW: Comments From Homeowner Re Housing Element Project For October 19, 2021 City Council Meeting From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202110:23 AM To: Brian Mazen <bmazen29929@gmail.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: FW: Comments From Homeowner Re Housing Element Project For October 19, 2021 City Council Meeting Brian, It's not possible to provide you a year when any development may occur. Provided that the Housing Element update is deemed compliant by the HCD deadline, the City will have three years to rezone property to accommodate any required higher densities. During the next housing cycle, the City is not required to build housing but rather remove barriers to development of housing at the various income levels by property developers. Whether or not housing gets built in any particular location, and when, will be dependent on the real estate and housing market being at a place where potential developers have the incentives to build. Therefore, it's anyone's guess in terms of when building might occur at any given location. Regards, Ken Ken Rukavina, PE 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. \ ~ GETITON r,r, Google Play 1 ~-\J From: Brian Mazen <bmazen29929@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:20 PM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: FW: Comments From Homeowner Re Housing Element Project For October 19, 2021 City Council Meeting Thank you Ken for getting back to me so quickly. I obviously didn't have all the information about this project when I sent my email to you guys earlier today (I just learned of this proposed project this past weekend). The limited information I did obtain came from the RPV Housing Element Update Fact Sheet found online Although the Unit number appeared to be ridiculously high for Miraleste Plaza, I wrongly assumed that all 639 Units would be built at Miraleste Plaza. Seeing that the number is actually only going to be up to 13 Units makes this bad news a little easier to swallow, but it's still something my family and I strongly oppose and object to in its entirety. Miraleste Plaza is still not a good fit or location for this housing project. I believe that undeveloped land outside of our little downtown community of Miraleste Plaza would be a better fit to avoid the disruption, harm, and damage that undoubtedly will be caused. We didn't buy an expensive home in RPV to be next to a housing project. It will most certainly adversely impact the value of our property along with the properties of our neighbors. While I won't hold you to this, if this project comes to fruition and actually gets developed, can you provide me with a ballpark estimate of the year it might be completed? What is the earliest it could be completed? Thank you. Brian Brian Mazen Home: 310-833-2329 Mobile: 310-997-7671 On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 2:16 PM Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Brian, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. 2 The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state-mandated requirement to identify possible/ potential future housing locations that could possibly accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is an allocation of current and projected housing needs for all income levels (not just low), which was distributed to cities by Southern California Association of Governments {SCAG). Fifty potential housing sites throughout the City have been identified to fully accommodate the required housing units. The Potential Sites Inventory includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors, within commercial and institutional districts, as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. Miraleste Plaza has been identified as a possible location to potentially accommodate up to 13 above moderate-income (not low income) housing units in a mixed-used zoning district. A mixed-use zoning designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process in the future to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. This will be a public process, with public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate and provide input. Environmental assessments will also be conducted in conjunction with this action. Potential sites may be added or deleted from the Potential Sites Inventory as more detailed analysis is performed. The City Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element at the October 19 City Council meeting (Staff Report and Public Review Draft Housing Element). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda For additional information, 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 Copy: Mayor and City Council Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development 3 ~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. ► GUITON GooglePlay From: Brian Mazen <bmazen29929@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 202111:28 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Brian Mazen <bmazen29929@gmail.com> Subject: Comments From Homeowner Re Housing Element Project For October 19, 2021 City Council Meeting Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, 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 4 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 (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 5 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? 6 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 Brian Mazen Home: 310-833-2329 Mobile: 310-997-7671 7 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Ken Rukavina Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:46 AM Jaehee Yoon Subject: FW: October 12th Planning Meeting Questions Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development t:i~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 . .... GETITON pr Google Play From: Lori Skeldon <loriraquel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202111:27 AM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: October 12th Planning Meeting Questions Hi Ken, Thank you for the informative reply. I do want to call out this one comment though ... 1 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. I know that there was good intention previously in getting the word out to residences on this issue via social media and the newsletter. However, I think in this day of age, we are all familiar with the process of social media and algorithms. Just because I like the RPV page, it does not necessarily mean that I will see the RPV post or sponsored ads when I log on to Facebook. Most people do not know to make a habit of checking the RPV website or to sign up for notifications. I hope that in the future, the city will find a more effective way of communicating to the surrounding residences about what is being discussed for their neighborhood. Because when the communication from the city is not effective, it creates unnecessary hysteria thus promoting misinformation. Thank you again, Lori Skeldon On Oct 14, 2021, at 5:38 PM, Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Lori, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence next Tuesday, October 19 th . 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. 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 2 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. 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, including PVHA. 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 athttps://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development <image001.jpg>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 3 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. <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> From: Lori Skeldon <loriraquel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:34 PM To: Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov> Subject: October 12th Planning Meeting Questions Hi, My name is Lori and I have a few questions in regard to the proposed housing project for the Miraleste Plaza; 1.) The Miraleste Plaza is under the Palos Verdes Homes Association & Art Jury jurisdiction. The neighboring Miraleste community is also included under the PVHA & Art Jury. How is RPV collaborating with the PVHA / Art Jury to ensure that a new development will maintain the integrity of character and appeal within the community and meet the Palos Verdes Homes Association and Art Jury standards? The following is taken from the PVHA website: Wkh#3dcrv#Ihughv/$<: rp hv:/Pvvrfldwlrq:/tlqg:/buw/:M>rn/ #z huh#1vw::1ec:ilvkhg:/tlqg# hqv.uxvw:i.g:/#tz lvk#,,kh#3uhvhuydwlrq:/tlqg#1qirufhp hqVJ/Jri#Akh#3urvhfwlyh# Uhvwilfwlrqv;liF ryhqdq¼V:/tlqgW rqg lwlrqvffiru#AkhrehqhilVJ/Jr i#:ic:olB ur s huwj # r z g huv#Nrreu]qj :/tie rxWFW<::hjp rvw/J::1w;.,..udfwlyh:/tlqg#Jdwlvidfwru / #ghyhcrsp hqw# srvvlechl # Z khq:/tl.rex I hu#.rlj qv#ltghhg#lqg#Jhfhlyhv#vlvdl#Lru#tkhJu#rnrshuwl #1.q# SYH#ru#!? ludchVVllh/#tkdw/krp hrz qhu#ljuhhv/:k#lffhsw.4tle]gh#lqg# xskrcg#tkh#3unhfwlyh#Jhvw.llfwJrqv,4f'ryhqdqWv#Jqg#FrqglwJrqv:/tl.v#tkh I# shuw:l]qk#tkhJu#rnrshuwl J##t;rkh#<.rp hrz qhu:/tl.OJY#;,.dnhv#rz qhuvkls#ri# dq I #:IrqOfrp sol Jqj #tdvCexbv,#frqglwJrq#rq#tkhJu:/=lsurshuwl #ru# hqfurdfkp hqWJiflqvJr#FJwl #3duncrlqgv#ru#Jljkw#r-i/~ d I #tkdw/h{ lVvhg#lw# ¼kh#,v]p h#tkh I #Jhfhlyhg#,vlvdl]ffl Wkh:/=lsxusrvh#ri#tkh#( rp hv:/PvvrfldwJrq#lv/:k:/tl.vvlvw/krp hrz qhuv# xqghuvw:lqg#lqg#frp soi fu l¼k#,-kh#Jhvw.llfwJrqvfu khq:/=lsurs rv]qj # 4 Jp suryhp hqWIT#v.r#AkhJu#Jhv]ghqfh:/ku#3Urshuwl dqg:/Mzr:fu.qirufh# frp scildqfh#z khuh#flrcrlwlrqvtkdyh:/kffxuuhgl 2.) The Miraleste Plaza sits next to a major intersection that is currently highly congested at the beginning and end of the school day (this congestion occurs WITH traffic patrol). Numerous children walk to the plaza after school awaiting pick-up. Has anyone from the planning department completed a review/ assessment of the current school traffic patterns (auto and foot traffic) to determine the effect of what an added housing project at Miraleste Plaza would contribute to the already difficult traffic at the intersection of Miraleste Drive & PV Drive East? The areas of concern are; -Safety of school children walking from Miraleste Intermediate School to the Miraleste Plaza. -The impact on in/ out accessibility for the Miraleste Plaza Fire Department if the surrounding one lane roads (with minimal shoulder space) are even more blocked than before. -Impact of traffic during worker commuter hours (no other way off the hill if you live in the area). I am looking forward to tuning in to the meeting and hearing your response. Best, Lori 5 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: To Whom it May Concern; Lori Skeldon <loriraquel@gmail.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1 :30 PM CityClerk City Council Mtg 10/19 Comments I am writing in regard to the proposed housing project for Miraleste Plaza. I live in the immediate area thus cause for concern. While I am well aware that this proposed project is not low-income housing, it is still a multi-family housing development for an already congested residential area. I also know that this is a state mandate and the city is under extreme pressure to submit a plan. However I would challenge the city to convince the community as to WHY they feel Miraleste Plaza is an optimal location for this project. Are we 'checking the box' to get the draft completed or do you have solid and factual reasoning as to how and why this proposal would enhance the neighborhood? Identifying housing sites along Silver Spur makes sense. Identifying housing sites along Western makes sense. Those are areas already surrounded by commercial businesses, transportation options, and jobs nearby. However, identifying housing sites at the Miraleste Plaza does not make sense and these are the reasons why; Traffic / Infrastructure: Miraleste Drive is the only access point to the 'hill' from the 110-freeway exit. Miraleste Plaza sits at the intersection of this access point where connecting roads are one lane roads only. There is no ability to widen these roads to accommodate an increase in housing and traffic flow. I have witnessed vehicular accidents on both Miraleste Drive and the PV East Drive switchbacks which have shut down traffic completely with zero (or very limited) ability to turn around and proceed in a different direction. The thought of evacuating from the hill due to brush fires or any other emergency is already frightening enough. I cannot imagine the city intentionally adding to the problem. The infrastructure around the Miraleste Plaza to accommodate more housing is simply not there. School / Safety of Children The Miraleste Plaza is a key location for children walking after school for those who live locally or get picked up from parents. Even with the existing traffic guards during school hours, traffic is already chaotic and often can be dangerous for the children's safety. Again, why add to this problem? Fire Station Accessibility I am concerned about fire station accessibility should additional housing (multiple tenant cars, etc) be added to the Miraleste Plaza. We should not be doing anything to impede the in and out access of the fire station. Lastly, The 'hill' is special. The appeal of moving to the hill is to get away from the noise. If you chose to further congest a quiet residential family neighborhood, you take that appeal away. As a city, why would you want to do that (other than fulfilling a mandate request)? Side note -I know there was good intention previously getting the word out to residences on this issue via social media, the RPV website postings, and the printed newsletters. However, in this day of age, we should all be familiar with the challenges of social media algorithms. Just because I 'Like' the RPV Facebook page, does not guarantee that I will see the RPV post or sponsored ad when I log in. I would request that in the future, the city will find a more effective way to communicate to the surrounding residences about what is being discussed for their neighborhood. When communication is not effective, it creates unnecessary hysteria thus promoting misinformation (as seen on NextDoor). Best, Lori Skeldon Mother of 2 school age children, 10 year resident of Miraleste 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Cc: Darrell Mariz <djmarizsocal@gmail.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11 :06 AM Housing Element Pat Shu Subject: Re: Proposed multi family zoning of Miraleste Ken, Thank you for submitting our email for the hearing. The addition of 13 multi family units does not seem like much of an accomplishment for the city to achieve its goal. Additionally, any residents of the units would be forced to drive for most of their frequent errands. It is not a walkable area. We used to live in a town home near Westen Avenue where we could walk to grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, public transport/bus, auto repair and others. Unfortunately, that is not something we can do now. Sincerely, Darrell Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus Please pardon any typos On Oct 19, 2021, at 10:39, Darrell Mariz <djmarizsocal@gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus Please pardon any typos Begin forwarded message: From: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Date: October 19, 2021 at 10:33:42 PDT To: Darrell Mariz <djmarizsocal@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Proposed multi family zoning of Miraleste Dear Darrell, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state-mandated requirement to identify possible/ potential future housing locations that could possibly accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is an allocation of current and projected housing needs for all income levels (not just low), which was distributed to cities by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Fifty potential housing sites throughout the City have been identified to fully accommodate the required housing units. The Potential Sites Inventory includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors, within commercial and institutional districts, as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. Miraleste Plaza has been identified as a possible location to potentially accommodate up to 13 above moderate-income (not low income) housing units in a mixed-used zoning district. A mixed-use zoning designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process in the future to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. This will be a public process, with public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate and provide input. Environmental assessments will also be conducted in conjunction with this action. Potential sites may be added or deleted from the Potential Sites Inventory as more detailed analysis is performed. The City Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element at tonight's City Council meeting (Staff Report and Public Review Draft Housing Element). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda For additional information, 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. 2 -----Original Message----- From: Darrell Mariz <djmarizsocal@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20218:27 AM To: Housing Element <HousingElement@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Proposed multi family zoning of Miraleste CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. > My wife and I own property on Colt Road. We believe that Miraleste plaza is not a good location for multi-family housing. > > 1. It will change the nature of the Miraleste neighborhood and make it more noisy and congested. That is a major reason we purchased our property -it is quiet and uncongested. > > 2. The Miraleste Plaza property is not under-utilized: it appears that all of the commercial spaces are occupied. > > 3. We do not know the exact square footage, but the Miraleste Plaza property does not seem large enough to build a significant number of multi-family units. > > 4. There is a fire station at Miraleste Plaza and having a significant increase in vehicles and pedestrians will make it more difficult for emergency vehicles to leave the station when they receive an emergency call. > > 5. There is little public transportation in the area & trips for grocery shopping must be done by private vehicles. There is very little within walking distance of the Plaza and walking any significant distance would be difficult due to the steep hillside. The current street layout is incompatible with a significant increase in traffic. > > 6. There are areas in the Western Avenue corridor and the Silver Spur corridor which are much better suited for multi-family housing. > > Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus > Please pardon any typos 3 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Ken Rukavina, PE Ken Rukavina Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:02 AM Jaehee Yoon FW: Redevelopment of Miraleste Plaza 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 . .... GETITO+I P"" Google Play From: Deborah Paul <deborahpaul16@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202110:58 AM To: Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Redevelopment of Miraleste Plaza Ken, Thank you for a speed reply with more information. 13 units on that property! Mixed use? This is crazy. This is not a main transportation center, nor does the small amount of acreage look like there will be enough room for parking for multiple family members. Surely, building 13 units adjacent to a fire station is absolutly folly. Or are you going to take away our fire station, too, to squeeze the raunchy housing in? Are you one of those who think this is a grand idea? You can word this as fluffy as you want, the idea is still absurb. And 50 potential sites throughout Rancho Palos Verdes? I feel like this is a pogen, like when they rounded up the Jews in Germany and shoved multiple families into sub-housing ghettos before they sent them off to the gas chambers. You are contributing to socialism at its worse and I doubt the community is going to stand for it. Please rethink your stance on this, nobody wants this. Deborah Paul On Oct 19, 2021, at 10:44 AM, Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Deborah, Thank you for your comments, which will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. The City is currently in the process of preparing the 2021-2029 Housing Element 6th Cycle Update, which is a state-mandated requirement to identify possible/ potential future housing locations that could possibly accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 647 units. The RHNA is an allocation of current and projected housing needs for all income levels (not just low), which was distributed to cities by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Fifty potential housing sites throughout the City have been identified to fully accommodate the required housing units. The Potential Sites Inventory includes a combination of developed properties along commercial corridors, within commercial and institutional districts, as well as on vacant residential sites citywide. Miraleste Plaza has been identified as a possible location to potentially accommodate up to 13 above moderate-income (not low income) housing units in a mixed-used zoning district. A mixed-use zoning designation means that commercial uses will continue to be provided. Any rezoning identified in the Housing Element will require a separate public process in the future to rezone and amend the General Plan to accommodate higher density or mixed-use overlay zones to comply with the Housing Element. This will be a public process, with public hearings conducted with both the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the process to provide the community with opportunities to participate and provide input. Environmental assessments will also be conducted in conjunction with this action. Potential sites may be added or deleted from the Potential Sites Inventory as more detailed analysis is performed. The City Council will be reviewing the draft Housing Element at tonight's City Council meeting (Staff Report and Public Review Draft Housing Element). This matter is listed as Item No. 5 under Regular Business on the City Council meeting agenda. 2 For additional information, 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: Deborah Paul <deborahpaul16@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202110:40 AM To: Housing Element <HousingElement@rpvca.gov> Subject: Redevelopment of Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To Octavio Silva: Here's my public comment about the possible redevelopment of Miraleste Plaza for an "affordable multifamily project." I'm very dismayed this is the first I've ever heard of this project. Nor has any of my neighbors. Is the City trying to slip this past residents in our quiet, bedroom community already overburded with too much traffic, a dangerous, busy Palos Verdes Drive East and no where else to build in this area? We do NOT want low income housing on that busy corner. We like our businesses who serve our neighborhood well. No one wants ugly, trashy-looking government buildings in their well kept neighborhood which will certainly invite homeless camps and drive down property values. The governments ill attempt to equalize the wealth of individuals, city, state and nation need only look to San Pedro (and Los Angeles) 3 and what a trash heap they have become to see what the government is doing to our peninsula and harbor. You can keep your plans for an equitable society. This is not the place to sneak in the homeless. Everyone I know has worked their tails off to be able to live in a beautiful place like Rancho Palos Verdes, and we definitely don't want this in our neighborhood. All that said above is putting it nicely. If I said what I was really thinking, you would be as flabbergasted as I am right now. Deborah Paul Miraleste Resident 310-259-9701 4 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 4:40 PM CityClerk FW: Comments on Housing Element From Mediterrania HOA From: James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 18, 20214:33 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Housing Element <HousingElement@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>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>; Octavio Silva <OctavioS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Comments on Housing Element From Mediterrania HOA Dear Members of Council and Staff involved with the Housing Element On behalf of the Mediterrania HOA, we want to acknowledge the severe challenges associated with the State-mandated Housing Element, especially the dramatic increase from the last cycle and the impact of recent State legislation including SB 9 &10. We understand that these are State mandates and the Council already has taken a position in opposition to such mandates. We do not want to adopt a NIMBY attitude but do request the City consider all feasible ways to: (1) Plan for increased density in areas where multi-family developments already exist such as Western Avenue and Silver Spur (provided necessary parking and traffic mitigation measures also are required). (2) Eliminate or further reduce the allocations for Miraleste Plaza and Marymount which are adjacent to single-family neighborhoods. There are not only compatibility issues, but also serious traffic and safety concerns. The City already pays for traffic control at Miraleste/PVDE and the switchbacks starting at Marymount have been the site of racing and several fatal and near fatal accidents. (3) Also, with respect to the Marymount Property, the 44 units is based on 12 units per acre and 3.71 acres but given the extreme slope and unstable geology less than half that amount is buildable so the allocation should be reduced accordingly. Also the current CUP for the property imposes additional limitations regarding housing/parking etc. which also limit such possible development. Please reconsider in light of these limitations. We look forward to working with the City in good faith, and below is an article distributed by our Board to our residents to provide information on the Housing Element and hopefully to help direct energies in a productive manner. Please let us know if you feel any of the information we have 1 provided is not accurate and how we may assist the City in providing additional information to and obtaining input from our residents. The Board of Directors of Mediterrania HOA Dear Neighbors, ALERT -MARYMOUNT AND MIRALESTE PLAZA SLATED FOR REZONING TO ALLOW 57 MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AMONG 647 NEW UNITS IN THE CITY UNDER STATE MANDATES There has been a lot of buzz about the new City Housing Element and what it may mean for our Neighborhood and our City. The short version is that State mandates require the City to identify sites for additional housing (647 in RPV) and take steps including rezoning to facilitate such development. In our immediate area, a vacant parcel adjacent to Marymount has been slated for possible rezoning to allow a multi-family development of up to 44 units, and the buildings in Miraleste Plaza are slated to allow mixed-use redevelopment including 13 residential units. The City Council will consider the matter on Tuesday October 19, and you can share your thoughts on the Draft Housing Element through November 4, 2021, by emailing them to housingelement@rpvca.gov. Regardless of how you feel about the housing situation in California, these State-level mandates represent a fundamental change in the way land use and development are managed. They shift the authority from the local to the State level, and override single family zoning and our City's authority to establish and manage local zoning ordinances and development standards. We urge residents to get involved and make your voices heard. Residents certainly should voice their concerns to the City with respect to the Marymount and Miraleste Plaza sites, but any significant change will require action at the State- level through either amendment of the new State laws (including SB 9 and 10) 2 or the repeal of these laws through a ballot initiative. While your Board does not take a position on whether or not more housing is needed, we unanimously agree that land use decisions should be managed at the local level through ordinances approved by our City Council and managed by our City Staff and Planning Commission. lncentivizing development is one thing; mandating it is another. Here is some information we feel you may find useful: • "Housing Elements" are not new. All California cities are required to adopt a comprehensive General Plan to guide land-use planning decisions. The Housing Element is a key component that provides an analysis of a community's housing needs for all income levels and strategies to respond to provide for those housing needs. It has been required since 1969. • The "RHRA Allocation" for RPV is 647. The State sets goals for new housing and allocations are made for each jurisdiction (called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment or "RHRA" Allocation). The RHRA Allocation for the period 2021-2029 is 647 which is dramatically higher than the last cycle. • Compliance with the RHRA Allocation for RPV is exceedingly difficult if not impossible, and even the identification of potential sites was extremely difficult. Concerns over the RHRA and compliance have existed since the process began in late 1960s, but the dramatic increase in the RHRA Allocation this cycle has been particularly challenging for RPV which is predominately single-family zoned and there is very little vacant land available for development. The City hired a consultant and engaged in extensive analysis of the entire City. While residents of our neighborhood are obviously concerned with Marymount and Miraleste Plaza, these represent less than 10% of the total and no doubt residents 3 of other parts of the City have similar concerns with other identified parcels. • Identification of a site does not does not mean it will be developed. It is very concerning that the RPV list includes a potential multi-family development of 44 units on the Marymount parcel and mixed-use redevelopment of Miraleste Plaza including 13 residential units. That said, both of these parcels are privately owned, and the City is not proposing to purchase or take either property by eminent domain. The development of either site would require the involvement of the current owner or purchase by a private developer but rezoning certainly will make it easier. • The much larger concern is that recent State mandates could require the City to rezone and otherwise eliminate customary development standards. Your Board understands that change and further development are inevitable, but recent State mandates including SB 9 and 10 essentially remove the City's ability to manage development through zoning and related development standards. As part of the Housing Element, the City already has indicated that it could be required to rezone the Plaza to mixed use and the Marymount property from institutional to multi-family. There is even a question as to whether our view and tree ordinances, setbacks, minimum parking, traffic mitigation and similar requirements have been over-ruled. • Residents should provide input on the Housing Element, but don't expect major changes. Your Board strongly opposes both the Marymount and Miraleste Plaza plans, and we urge residents to get involved. While development of a limited number of single-family homes on the Marymount property may be worth considering, a large multi-family development would not only change the character of the neighborhood, but it would also exacerbate traffic and safety concerns. The Plaza is literally the only nearby commercial property and traffic already is a 4 nightmare necessitating a City-funded traffic controller every day while MIS is in session. We do think the City should look at additional units along the Western Avenue corridor (which already includes multi-unit developments), but the fundamental problem is that these mandates come from the State. So, while we encourage residents to provide comments to City Council (including advocating for more units along Western and less in single-family areas), we do not anticipate either site will be eliminated from the final Housing Element. • If we want local control restored, we will need to support a ballot initiative. We cannot stress enough that our City Council has limited control, and any real change must take place at the State-level. Indeed, our Council already has issued a policy statement in favor of local control, but recent litigation in Huntington Beach and other jurisdictions has generally upheld State mandates. Restoring local control almost certainly will require either an amendment or repeal of SB 9 & 10 and other mandates through a ballot initiative. There is at least one group already working on a ballot initiative for the November 2022 election. Stay tuned for more information on this and potentially other efforts and how you can get involved. • Draft Housing Element. Here is the complete draft Housing Element Update (the tables listing the sites and associated maps are on pages 158-161 ). https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/1767 4/Draft- 6th-Cycle-Housing-Element 5 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Teresa Takaoka Monday, October 18, 2021 5:27 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Public comment for 10/19 council meeting agenda item 5 (Housing Element) From: Colleen Campbell <colleencampbell21@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:24 PM To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Public comment for 10/19 council meeting agenda item 5 (Housing Element) This is a copy of my comment and the message they attach to your comment that you don't see when you send your statement! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Colleen Campbell <colleencampbell21@gmail.com> Date: October 17, 2021 at 4:12:41 PM PDT To: cityclerk@rpvca.gov Subject: Public comment for 10/19 council meeting agenda item S (Housing Element) 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: Subject: Colleen Campbell <co11eencampbell21@gmail.com> Sunday, October 17, 2021 5:06 PM CityClerk La housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I'm writing to protest the attached letter in the comment options. I do not agree with what they "added to my statement for the upcoming meeting on 10/19. Sent from my iPhone 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council, Evan's productions studios <robinwinburn@gmail.com> Monday, October 18, 2021 5:53 PM CityClerk Housing Crisis in the L.A. Region 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, William Winburn 1 Enyssa Momoli From: Ara Mihranian Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:36 AM CityClerk Cc: cc Subject: FW: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend Late correspondence. Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ~ Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure . The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this ema il in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. DOWNLOAD ., ___ _ 'flt_:,-Ytp\j a AYo ilob le 1n the App Store ond Google P loy I P 1J1t d n.111 11n P 1r • AppStore ' ,( • 1· \ ~ .. • Google Play From: Claudia Gutierrez <claudia.pbca@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:20 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd : 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend 1 CAUTION: This email orl lnated from outside of the Cit of Raneho Pales Verdes . A resident sent this to the wrong email address for the City Council, can you pass it on please. Thank you. Claudia Gutierrez PBCA Director Treasurer 310-872-4874 cell 424-206-9301 home ----------Forwarded message --------- From: Connie Marie Smith <conniesmith@me.com > Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:05 PM Subject: 4 Thyme Place in Portuguese Bend To: <cc@rpv .gov > Cc: Alba Rouwenhorst <Albar@linkline.com >, CatalinaCat G <cgardnerrpv@gmail.com >, <Claire.E .Leon@gmail.com >, corinne gerrard <corinne.pbca@gmail.com >, Jean Shriver <jeanshriver754@gmail.com >, Joan Kelly <kate1inkelly649@gmail.com >, <johntootlelaw@gmail.com >, Judith King <Dendrochick@aol.com >, <leetwid@yahoo .com >, Lorraine Knight <summer.rainbow10@gmail.com >, Magnus & JoNeen Ohlaker <professorohlaker@gmail.com >, M. Hunter <2hunter@cox.net>, <pbde48@gmail.com >, Peggy Zask <pszask@gmail.com >, <sparks1240@cox.net>, Claudia Gutierrez <claudia.pbca@gmail.com >, Lisa Gladstone <golisapv@gmail.com >, Sheridan MacKnight <sheridanmacknight@yahoo .com >, Sallie Reeves <salliereeves71@gmail.com >, Hendrick Rouwenhorst <plumbingexpress@linkline.com >, Marianne Shriver <momshriver@cox .net>, Claire Leon <claire .e.leon@gmail.com > To the Members of RPV City Council, Prior to the meeting coming up regarding the RPV Draft Housing Element where the Council will consider the locations of an additional 647 housing units in this city, I would like you to be aware of what is happening here in Portuguese Bend where my home is located. Three years ago we bought our house for $3.3 million here on Thyme Place. Before purchasing the house, we had geologists, engineers and construction consultants evaluate and confirm that the home had remained stable since 2005 when Ed Beal designed and built it. 2 Four things have occurred during the three years since we purchased this house: 1) First, the dewatering wells that had protected this side of Portuguese Bend for nearly forty years were allowed to deteriorate to the point that the majority became non operational. Ground water was not being removed at an adequate rate anymore. 2) The Monk lot moratorium was lifted and new homes were constructed on lots above us with extensive grading, hardscape, and high water use landscape designs. 3) Acres of avocado and citrus orchards have been planted on the York property iust above Abalone Cove, requiring thousands of gallons of irrigation each year, and further exacerbating the ground water situation in the Abalone Cove landslide area. 4) Waterlines began breaking on the streets around us. Over the course of the last eighteen months, even though we are experiencing drought conditions, we have seen a great deal of movement to the walls and floors of our home. I have shared the following photos with several city officials, and I share them with you now to show you what is currently happening in a home that had no movement for twenty years: The floorboards in the hallway entry are showing new 1" gaps separating from N/W to S/E. They are bulging upward and buckling intermittently in several places. 3 Floorboards in the bathroom and hall are showing new 1/2" gaps separating from N/W to S/E. Floorboards in office entry are showing new 3/4" gaps pulling N/W to S/E. 4 Floorboards in living room are showing multiple gaps separating in a N/E to 5/W, and showing an increasing slope to the floor. The stone fireplace in the living room is showing damage where the baseboard is separating rom the wall, causing cracking along the fireplace seams. 5 The outdoor S/W facing exterior cement is showing hairline cracks in many places. I Please. Until the issues threatening existing homeowners in the Portuguese Bend Abalone Cove area are fully understood and addressed, it is irresponsible to consider adding additional homes, hardscape, landscape, irrigation, and grading to this area. Thank you, 6 Connie Smith 4 Thyme Place, RPV 310-344-9424 7 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Alyson McFerson <1ov2punt@yahoo.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1 :30 PM CityClerk RPV Housing Element -Miraleste My name is Alyson McFerson and I have lived on Miraleste Drive for over 30 years. It has come to my attention of the city's proposal to remove the small businesses in the Miraleste Plaza that have occupied that area for decades and replace them with multifamily housing units. This would be an absolute travesty for this area for a number of reasons. The intersection where this housing proposal is meant to be placed is extremely busy during school hours as there are two schools that feed from the streets surrounding the plaza. By creating multiunit housing here, it would increase the additional traffic flow that would most likely cause safety hazards for students walking to this area for pick- up. Additionally, by placing housing in the plaza would take away the small town vibe and just make it like every other city. These small businesses have been the cornerstone of the Miraleste area and it would be devastating for these people to lose their livelihoods not to mention for all the residents who frequent these establishments. After reviewing the most recent survey results that were acquired by the city in early October, it is abundantly clear the residents of RPV do not want multifamily housing (72% of respondents said they would not support it). Let's keep the feel and look of a small town and not move forward with this proposal. Sincerely, Alyson McFerson 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: kwstapel@verizon.net Monday, October 18, 2021 1:47 PM Housing Element proposed high density low income housing To Whom It May Concern, The vast majority of our RPV community is heavily against these new mandates for high density, low income housing as expressed in the survey. Those of us who live here have worked hard and for many years to be able to afford living in this pleasant and safe community. Not everyone can, nor should, be able to live here if they cannot afford it. That said, the government clearly does not care about the sentiments of their citizens, as many people across the state who also live in pleasant areas will protest this infraction upon their neighborhoods. I feel this housing presents major issues for our city and our citizens in the areas of traffic congestion, more foot traffic and people walking on the streets, more litter and trash and pollution, unattractive high density, high rise buildings which goes against the ambiance of our community. Last but not least, given this is low income, what do you think the crime rate around here will do? We already have a fair problem with theft -just ask the merchants in the grocery and drug stores in the Peninsula Center shopping area. Higher crime will walk right in the door with the group of people who will be moving into these low income units, and evidently there will be many of them! I think these mandates should be collectively fought by all cities in California, however it seems that is not happening, or attempts to protest it have been thwarted. In the meantime, I would put these units as far away from any residential areas as is possible. So that leaves the commercial areas on Deep Valley and Silver Spur, or on vacant land somewhere on the peninsula, away from residential areas. I assume that the state expects all of us to carry the costs of implementing this very expensive and very unpleasant and unpopular endeavor. Of course those with low incomes will not be held responsible for those costs. They can live in a nice area without having to pay for that privilege which means they will not have an invested interest in keeping it nice. Sincerely, Kathy Stapel Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: j.russell j.russell <j.russell@cox.net> Monday, October 18, 2021 2:52 PM Housing Element Regarding Community Center and Housing Follow up Flagged To Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and Committee Members, I am requesting that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes reconsider the approval of the Lad era 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 instead of creating more. 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 they add a new community center and allow 647 more houses/units 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 project, Margaret Russell 28978 Palos Verdes Dr. East Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310/832-3169 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: cynthiadaj@gmail.com Monday, October 18, 2021 4:30 PM Housing Element Draft Housing Element -Miraleste Plaza To Whom it May Concern, I adamantly oppose redevelopment of the Miraleste Plaza area in it's entirety, to an affordable multifamily project. The property values of this area will be negatively impacted as well as the demographics of this area. Really, what are you thinking? You will have an uproar in the community if this goes any further. The hill is not a place for this type of project. Cindy Johnson RPV Home Owner. 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Monica Stergion <monica.stergion@gmail.com> Monday, October 18, 2021 6:26 PM Sent: To: Octavio Silva; Housing Element Subject: Concern w/ Proposed Miraleste Plaza and Marymount Re-Development Mr. Silva/ Housing Element team - I think those attending the Planning Commission 10/12 meeting shared good insight as did those that responded to the recent survey, but I also want to express my concern with the proposed redevelopment of the Miraleste Plaza and Marymount areas: • Increased traffic and safety concerns with Via Siena, Miraleste Drive, and PV Dr. E. o Via Siena/ Via Lorenzo is a narrow road which cars go too fast down already and is a street where several families walk with young children and pets. Additional housing will result in additional traffic in the area. o Traffic along Miraleste Dr. is very backed up before/after school already and currently has a city-funded traffic coordinator. o Many families have pick-up spots around Miraleste Plaza after school, making it a crowded area. o Concerns with increased cars parking on the side streets. • This is predominantly a single family owned housing area. There are currently some multi-development dwellings in the Plaza area. o Further multi-family development would change the character of the Miraleste and Marymount neighborhoods. • Risk of lowering home values in the area and potential higher crime/safety concerns if introducing lower income housing in the area. Several homeowners have heavily invested in home remodels/improvements recently with the intent to ultimately increase home values. o This is an area I worked (and continue to work) hard to be able to afford and it was a goal/desire to be here in a quiet, more secluded, spacious neighborhood. This was not my first home and I lived in several other lower cost, higher density areas prior to being able to afford living here; there's nothing wrong with others having to do the same to be in a predominantly single-family housing area. • The Miraleste Via Siena area falls under the PV Estates Art Jury -added requirements/coordination with re-developing. • The Miraleste Plaza offers convenience to the neighborhood with the automotive shop, nail/beauty salon, mini-market, bank, and restaurant. o Businesses/lots are independently owned. Possibly more challenging coordination involved with re-developing. Here are some suggestions/ recommendations moving forward: • Look at additional units along the Western Avenue corridor and/or Crenshaw/Hawthorne/Silver Spur areas where several multi-family unit dwellings exist currently. If proposed units cannot be eliminated in the Miraleste and Marymount areas, then reduce the# of proposed units to help minimize the impact. • Minimally fulfill the State's requirements and initiate push back/repeal process for state mandates SB-9 and SB-10 through ballot initiatives, communication campaigns and legal action if needed. • Improve communication about the proposed housing development plan for impacted neighborhoods. Most neighbors were not aware of the proposed plan and discussions taking place by the City. o Recommend mailers be sent out and/or banners/signs posted in the area -it's not enough to rely on social media, city website and newspapers. Most busy parents and working family members are not actively checking these sources. o Make sure impacted businesses are aware of the proposed plan. I will continue to stay informed/involved during upcoming City meetings. Thank you for your consideration - Monica Stergion Via Siena Homeowner 2 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Kay Holmes <out1ook_24CAEE6BOEDC8C7D@outlook.com > Monday, October 18, 2021 8:03 PM Housing Element Ballot Initiative needed to restore use of land control As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I strongly support the need to restore control of land use to the local level. I will support an amendment to SB 9 & 10 or their repeal. I will vote accordingly for candidates who also support this. Kay Holmes Sent from Mail for Windows 1 6. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: scott sandell <scotts23@gmail.com > Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:02 AM Housing Element; Octavio Silva Housing Element/Miraleste Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To whom it may concern: I would like to express my concern about the possibility of redeveloping Miraleste Plaza, which I believe would do more harm than good. While I understand the city must provide options for new housing via the Housing Element under a state mandate, I believe changing Miraleste Plaza is not the way to do it. The number of proposed units appears initially small, but the impact to the neighborhood would be large and could open the door for even more dense projects in the heart of single-family neighborhoods. For decades Miraleste Plaza has provided a number of local services such as the county fire station, Francesco's, the deli, a bank, an auto repair shop (previously a gas station), real estate agencies, and a tiny hair salon in a quaint location that meshes well with the surrounding neighborhood and natural landscape, just as the original designers of the Palos Verdes project intended. It's also been vital to generations of Miraleste Marauders, whether high schoolers, middle schoolers or their parents. Moreover, the infrastructure of the area does not support higher-density housing. Public transportation from there is limited to the local PV bus; and the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive already has become busy and hazardous at times to navigate by car or foot, and the traffic backup from school has pushed cars onto narrow streets well beyond the immediate intersection. One should also be mindful that the plaza is set directly next to single- family homes. As it now exists, and has for decades, it is in relative harmony with the community, which is also overseen by the Palos Verdes Homes Association's Art Jury, as Miraleste is part of the original Palos Verdes development. One might even consider Miraleste Plaza as a historical landmark, just as Malaga Cove Plaza has recently been recognized, as it too was foreseen in the original plan --and notably, as a "minor" business center. A significant change to the plaza would upend that history and harmony. Of course, few RPV residents want to see more development, as so many people live here to enjoy the natural beauty and open spaces of the area, and the region is subject to significant fire hazard. The recent Housing Element Survey results found that respondents overwhelmingly want to "maintain existing housing" and only a small fraction want "higher density multifamily housing." Respondents ranked preserving open space and nature as their highest priority, followed by conservation of existing housing stock. They favored commercial districts for new housing -and while Miraleste Plaza might be considered a "commercial district" in a sense on paper, few who live on the east side of the Hill would call it a "commercial district" given its low-key profile and close proximity to single-family houses. Other sites in the draft Housing Element would seem to be more suited to such development, as they are in truly commercial districts with major stores, and on large thoroughfares with public transportation. Those theoretically should be able to provide a sufficient number of units necessary to meet the city's quota under the current state mandate, without major disruption to the fabric of our city. 6. In short, redeveloping Miraleste Plaza would hurt the Miraleste area while providing little benefit in reaching the city's numerical housing goal. Therefore I would urge that Miraleste Plaza be removed from consideration in the Housing Element. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: AW <annnwong@yahoo.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:47 AM Housing Element Low income housing on Silver Spur CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. I oppose having low income housing units recommended to be built on Silver Spur. This would create pollution, traffic, public transportation access and possibly an increase in crimes with proximity so close to Peninsula High School, with kids walking to and from school everyday. Ann Wong 5. Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Ken Rukavina Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:40 AM Jaehee Yoon FW: Draft Housing Element Late correspondence for HE. 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. ► GETITON Google Play From: Lora Dodell <loradodell@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 202112:47 PM To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Draft Housing Element We have reviewed the Draft Housing Element document along with the proposed site maps. The map on page 161 is my concern. One of the proposed sites is on Montemalga and Basswood near Malaga Canyon. This site is not only a potential fire hazard, but is located far too close to Silver Spur Elementary School. It is certainly in a more residential area than other proposed sites and should be removed from consideration. Marty & Lora Dodell Capeswood Drive, RPV 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: Barbara Cambilargiu <bclark@lilybleu.com> Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:06 PM CityClerk Comments on proposed RHNA housing in Miraleste CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To City Council: My husband and I have lived in Miraleste since 1995 and raised our daughter in this quiet, quaint and historical single family neighborhood. The following reasons are my biggest objections to using the plaza for this RHNA objective. 1. Miraleste middle school is nearby and more housing would be adding to the already congested and dangerous situation in the mornings and afternoons when children are walking to/from school and parents are dropping them off and picking them up. 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. 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. Thank you! Barbara Resident of Miraleste 1 6. Enyssa Momoli From: Ara Mihranian Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:22 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: Comment on Draft Housing Element Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? I his c·rnail message contains infonnat.io11 bclonqing to the City of Rancho Pa!os Verdes, 1,vhich may !Jc privileged, confidential and/or protected from dbclosure. The information is intended only for use of \he individual m enUly named. Unaut.horlzecl clisse111i11iltion, distrib11Uon, or copyi119 is strictly prohiilited. If you nx,"ivcd this email in error, or are no\ an intc:ndecl rtocipir~nt, please no\ily the sender i111111eclia\ely. Thank you for your assisli1nce and cooperalion . ....... GETITON ~, Google Play From: cassiej@aol.com <cassiej@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 202112:44 PM To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@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> Subject: Comment on Draft Housing Element 1 Dear City Council, Mayor, This letter is in regard to the City's need for housing units with respect to the housing element. I had tried to reach the Planning Commission last week and apparently my voicemail went unheard. I was told this in passing days after the fact during an unrelated personal encounter. Apparently they couldn't hear what I was saying, yet nobody reached out to me from the Planning Commission or the City to let me know that there was a problem with their recording. At any rate, what I was referring to in my voice mail was the Draft Housing Element sent out by a staff member to the public with a number of sites around the City listed as potentially suitable for housing. Sites numbered 41, 48, 49 and 50 listed the possibility of 400 homes, more or less, in that area. My concern about this is that this is now a public document and these properties are, or certainly have been, under scrutiny, even litigation, with the City. They're not uniformly zoned for housing (some is agricultural) and they're in and around a landslide where building any homes is questionable. The City has also been in negotiation for the sale of this property and for a document to be out there stating that the City would consider 400 homes in that location is irresponsible. Makes me feel that the City has been negotiating for the preservation of this land, and for the remediation of a landslide, in bad faith. The NCCP/HCP along the the General Plan hold sway over this area and are guiding documents you must take into consideration. The wildlife corridor it would provide is indescribably important. Additionally, there has been significant movement within the Portuguese Bend Community. Specifically, the Abalone Cove Landslide, not the usual Portuguese Bend Landslide, has been quite active in the last couple of years. Those potential 400 homes are in and near the Abalone Cove Landslide. There have been Council people who seem to know almost nothing of this, which I find mind-boggling. The landslides are of one of the defining features of our City, for better or worse. We have spent untold and un-totalled dollars for study, repair and remediation. For council members to claim that they know nothing of recent movement is unacceptable. Because much of this movement has happened in and to a private community does not mean it hasn't happened in and to this City. Claims of ignorance of substantial land movement in the City near the sites called out for 400 homes is disheartening. I think the NCCP/HCP and the City Plan call for your rejection of this iteration of the Draft Housing document at this time and request a reviewed, accurate, rational and responsible revision of some of its findings. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes 2 Enyssa Momoli From: Ara Mihranian Sent: To: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:25 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: RPV City Council re Portuguese Bend/ building affordable housing Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager CITVOF 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5202 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you really need to print this e-mail? I his c rn,1il message cont,ins infornwtion bclonqing l.o IJ1c of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privilegccl, confidential and/or prolect(Xl from clis.clo:;me, The infonnation i'., intended only for use of the or c:nUl.y 11,1111ed, Unaul.horiZ<':d clisseminiltion, distribution, or copyi119 is strictly prnhiliilecl. If yo11 received this email in c,rror, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender i111meclia\ely, Tl1i111k you for your assistance nncl cooperation. b..,, GHITON P'""' Google Play From: Lisa Gladstone <Lisa@coastalobesity.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 20211:13 PM To: Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@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> Cc: Connie Smith <conniesmith@me.com>; Jeremy Davies <jeremydavies2014@gmail.com>; Claudia Gutierrez 1 <clauderpv@hotmail.com>; knightjim33@gmail.com; colleen miller <colleen.miller1014@aol.com> Subject: RPV City Council re Portuguese Bend/ building affordable housing Dear Council Members, We are long term Portuguese Bend homeowners among the many that have seen rapid land movement affecting our community. Working through ACLAD and Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association, we have been assured that the City has met to discuss the recent slide, damage to streets, homes, water and gas mains. I know that Ara has personally been informed regularly. Yet, we understand that this unstable area is under consideration for building affordable housing. We need to know that you are all aware of the big picture here, and the strain that any building puts on this land! Are you so disconnected from the Landslide issues plaguing us that you would be considering additional strain on our current situation? You have already heard from my friend and neighbor Connie Smith, so I will simply reiterate what she has told you while adding our voices asking the Council to pay attention to the challenges of this community, not only when it comes to considering this as a site for more building, but to ask you for your attention to the slide area, dewatering issues and damages here that we have already experienced, without the requested help of the City of RPV. We need to better understand what is happening to the Albalone Cove slide right now, do what we can to stop it, and definitely NOT do anything to exacerbate it. Even if we don't understand all the geology, or all the politics, we are observing damage in our own homes and neighborhood, for example: • new and significant damage is occurring in many Portuguese Bend homes • the dewatering well system put in 40 years ago to pull ground water from our slopes in order to stop the Abalone Cove slide has greatly deteriorated over the years • new movement is now regularly breaking underground water pipes, further destabilizing the land • In this already precarious situation, new homes, hardscape, and landscape are continually being added to the slopes above us 2 • thousands of gallons of irrigation water are now being added to the slide via York's avocado orchards, but he will not allow monitoring of two dewatering wells that once operated there Please consider the issues we already face in Portuguese Bend and don't do anything to exacerbate our already daunting problems. Sincerely, Lisa and Milt Owens 18 Cinnamon Lane RPV, Ca 90275 3 Enyssa Momoli From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:52 PM CityClerk Subject: FW: CC 10/19/21 -Agenda Item 6 From: CTE <info@ctecomputer.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:51 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: CC 10/19/21 -Agenda Item 6 Hi Mayor, Council, and staff. In regards to Agenda Item 6: There seems to be good consensus that Councilman Dyda has earned this naming. With his decades of service, time, and effort put into the City, let's move forward with a decision on exactly what is to be named and how to rename it. While including Ken Dyda on a future wall of honor should be done regardless, the other two staff recommended choices include the civic center complex as a whole or just the driveway alone. Councilman Dyda deserves to have his name on something that will be remembered. The driveway naming might end up with a sign that people will soon over time ignore. I would support the other option here, to rename the site the Ken Dyda Civic Center. Even if it soon becomes common speak to only call it the Dyda Civic Center in regular conversation, his contributions to the City and to us residents call for this recognition. I am looking forward to the Council voting on this naming as a way to partially thank Councilman Dyda for his work to help make our city into what it is today. Thanks, Larry Maizlish LA County Fire CERT City of Rancho Palos Verdes Emergency Preparedness Committee voice 562 421-7105 text only 562 275-3710 larry@maizlish.com Please do not Reply All to this message. The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be Interpreted as the individual work product of the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City of RPV, City Council, staff or other entities. 1 TO: 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, L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\202112021 Coversheets\20211018 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx L:\LA TE 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, 20214:07 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/Pu blic-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/DocumentCenter/View/17234/Public-Participation-Form-Lead-ln-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/DocumentCenter/View/17234/Public-Participation-Form-Lead-ln-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 1 s horse! Don 1 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 G- ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE 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 reassuring. 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. 8424 SANTA MONICA BLVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGELES CA 90069-4267 ♦ WWW.EHLEAGUE.ORG ♦ PHONE 213.804.2750 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 G. 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, 2021 4:38 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 SO years) 1 G Enyssa Momoli From: Sent: To: Subject: From: C.Woo<cwoo@live.com> Teresa Takaoka Friday, October 15, 2021 12:14 PM CityClerk Fw: E-Bikes In The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:01 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 DearCouncilMembera, 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 W is 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 SO 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 4 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 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 kate1inkelly649@gmail.com 310 6910659 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: De1Cerro_H0A@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: -----Origi na I Message----- Fro m: 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 on e-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 l'VPHA ~ 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 l 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, /) ' 1 //,'!) J} !/ {,~\.._,;J[J;)u;): (~y (11t~l1Pdyc.,lbe,·'i) 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 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 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 /-~lt,'~· 1/ --+1}---··· " 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 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 Searaven 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 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 GooglePfay ! his e-mai! mossaqc rnntalns information bclonqing to t110 C:ily of Rancho Palos Vcrdos, wl1icil may be privilcqod, confidential and/or protected from d1•;closurc Tl1e inforrnc1Uon is intc11dcd only lor use of the irnJividual or entity narnocL Un,iu1horizec1 dissemination, distrilJution, or cupyin,J is strictly prnl1ib1tod. If you received till,; email in error, or arc not iln i11tcnded recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assi:;tancc and coopcrdUon, 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<~~..@JJ)_:L~QY> Subject: Comments for Caltrans Western Avenue Bicycle Pedestrian Improvement Project Presentation October 19 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, 20218:01 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 L\. 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. 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. 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 meetingjlgenda 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:f/www.rpvca.gov/I ist.aspx. Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development t;;,t;lCity 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. ► G£TITON Google Play 3 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: l<en 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 . .... GETtTOH ~ Google Play From: vpurdyl@cox.net <vpurdyl@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 vpurdy1@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 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 web page. You can also subscribe to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update listserv to receive future notices regarding this matter at ht~/ /www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx. Sincerely, Ken Rukavina, PE Director of Community Development 3 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. ~ GE.TITON ~ 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 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 / 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 6. ><(((o> ----><(((o> John Zuanich 6528 Via Lorenzo Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal(f 90275 email: Jztrading(ii>,aol. com Mobile I WhatsApp +1.310. 710.4522 in the end it:'s not the yeurs in your /if(: 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/ 4j5KTPtnb3m/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 S. 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, 20218:17 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? 1 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 <0ctavioS@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 <OctavioS@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). s. 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 1 ><(((o> ----><(((o> John Zuonich 6528 Via Lorenzo Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif 90275 email: jztrnding@aol.com Mobile I WhatsApp +1.310. 710.4522 "And in the end it's not the years in your l{fi:: that count, it\ the ltfc: 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 6. 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 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 propert 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 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: M L 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 Pod cast -impactz.org Check out my recent release: Second Son 1 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 1 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 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Stacey Brang er <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 1 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 5. 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 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 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, 20219:07 PM To: Octavio Silva <OctavioS@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 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! 1 Jaehee Yoon From: Sent: To: Subject: Ken Rukavina, PE Ken Rukavina Monday, October 18, 2021 11 :31 AM Jaehee Yoon FW: Miraleste Plaza opinion on the possible housing development 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. 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. 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 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. > 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 6-