Loading...
CC SR 20210907 03 - Forrestal Reserve ParkingCITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/07/2021 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to review and provide direction on short-term and long- term Forrestal Reserve parking options. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1)Review short-term parking options for Forrestal Reserve during construction of the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center and provide staff direction; and, (2)Review long-term Forrestal Reserve parking options when the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center is operational and provide staff direction. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst, Recreation and Parks Department REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director, Recreation and Parks Department APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A.August 12, 2021, agenda and notes from meeting with Ladera Linda HOA (page A-1) B.August 25, 2021, agenda and notes from meeting with Ladera Linda HOA (page B-1) C.August 27, 2021, email from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills (page C-1) D.Public Comments (page D-1) E.Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: A solution for public parking at the Forrestal Reserve has been actively discussed but not resolved since the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project began with the approval of the Parks Master Plan update in October 2015. While not part of the park project, the question of where Forrestal visitors should park has been a topic of discussion at community meetings with homeowners’ associations (HOAs) and at public workshops. 1 This is because most Forrestal Reserve visitors currently park at Ladera Linda Community Center. Moreover, the City Council-adopted Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) designates public parking on Forrestal Drive before the entry gate to the Preserve and at the Ladera Linda Community Center parking lot (Attachment E). On August 20, 2019, the City Council approved a site plan for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project which included 54 parking spaces. At that meeting, the question came up regarding parking for the Preserve and the City Council directed Staff to not include Preserve parking within the park, but did not provide direction as to where Forrestal Reserve parking should be located. This direction to separate park and Preserve parking was re-affirmed on April 6, 2021, when the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 2021 findings regarding the Ladera Linda project which now includes 57 parking spaces. As a result, the City Council directed Staff to address the matter of Forrestal Reserve parking separately , and at its August 17 meeting, requested Staff bring this matter to the City Council on the September 7, 2021 agenda. This report will analyze six Forrestal Reserve parking options and their pros and cons. Additionally, due to the pending construction of the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Project (tentatively scheduled for early spring 2021 and expected to last 15 months), each option will also be evaluated as to whether it would be a viable parking option on a short-term basis (during construction) and on a long-term basis (post- construction). The following are the six options for the City Council’s consideration and direction: 1. Forrestal Reserve parking on-site at the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center 2. Forrestal Reserve and Portuguese Bend parking at the Gateway Park location 3. Forrestal Reserve parking beyond the existing Forrestal gate 4. Maintain and regulate existing on-street parking along Forrestal Drive near Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) intersection 5. Expand on-street parking by removing red curbing along Forrestal Drive 6. Explore pocket parking lots (5-7 spaces each) adjacent to other trailheads Staff recently met with representatives of the Ladera Linda HOA, which is the HOA located nearest to the Forrestal Reserve trailheads (Attachments A and B). Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills submitted an email on August 27 expressing the HOA’s view on each option (Attachment C). Excerpts from that email and meeting notes are included in the analysis of each option. In addition, the presidents of three other HOAs (Mediterranea, Seaview, and Palos Verdes Seacliff) located near Ladera Linda Park, were notified on August 27 via email of this meeting. 2 Current Forrestal Reserve Parking Situation Current Preserve parking within Ladera Linda Park (also used for park parking) outlined in red Current parking for the Forrestal Reserve is provided in several locations: • Within Ladera Linda Park: Approximately 80-90 combined total spaces on three lots are located on two levels for park and Preserve parking. Visitors park at the existing lots and generally walk back up a sidewalk adjacent to the main entry driveway to access Forrestal Drive and trailheads (some visitors use an unauthorized path along the adjacent slope). Estimates of as many as 70-80 spaces used for Preserve parking on weekends and 20 -25 on weekdays were reported during the height of COVID closures when open space use was extremely high. Recent estimates for usage are 40-50 cars on weekends and 10-15 on weekdays. • On Forrestal Drive below the gate: The upper part of Forrestal Drive at and below the gate was red curbed in 2019, but approximately 60 spaces are available on lower Forrestal Drive near Palos Verdes Drive South. • Parking in Ladera Linda neighbo rhood residential streets: Residents on Pirate Drive, Sea Raven Drive, and Phantom Drive recently applied for resident-only 3 permit parking status in 2021. These streets are all near the Park entrance, and Forrestal Reserve trailheads. The residential permit parking is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council at its November 2, 2021 meeting. • Beyond Forrestal Drive gate: Gates are typically kept closed unless there is an American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) soccer game or practice. This area is not open for Preserve parking. However, since 2001, there is designated equestrian parking beyond the gate that can be used with advanced notice to staff. Forrestal Reserve Parking Options Staff seeks direction from the City Council on both the following short- and long-term parking options, or a combination of options, as discussed below. 1. Forrestal Reserve Parking onsite at Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Parking Lot As mentioned previously, the Ladera Linda parking lot s are currently the main location for Forrestal Reserve parking. The site plan design for the new community center calls for a reduction from approximately 80 to 57 parking spaces. This number has been deemed sufficient to satisfy parking needs for Ladera Linda Park and Community Center , but raises the question as to where Forrestal Reserve parking should be located . Approximate area for Preserve parking (outlined in red) Short-Term/During Construction: A potential short-term option would be to work with the selected construction firm to assess whether temporary areas onsite could be identified and used for parking during construction. 4 Pros: • Temporary onsite parking lot would allow Preserve visitors to park near the trailheads. • MobileApp parking reservation system could be used to manage how many cars park onsite during construction. • Temporary parking spaces could be reconfigured during construction. • If possible, limit temporary onsite parking to no more than 25 spaces for Preserve access. • Reduces parking-related impacts to adjacent neighbors. Cons: • Using the existing lower field service gate would result in significant noise exposure to residences near the park entrance. • Using the main driveway would likely conflict with construction vehicles. • Visitors would be parking within or near a construction zone. • Preserve parking may conflict with construction staging areas. • Preserve parking may introduce liability concerns due to an active construction zone. Long-Term/Post Construction: Pros: • Would provide parking spaces a short walk from trailheads. • Supported by many Ladera Linda residents including the HOA. • Preserve visitors are familiar with accessing the Forrestal Reserve from the park. • Provides opportunity to move parking further from the Ladera Linda neighborhood and to shield neighbors from noise associated with parking. • Would pull traffic off the streets near homes, and into the park site. • Would reduce noise impacts to nearby homes (car alarms, doors slamming, etc.) • Would provide additional parking spaces that can be used for park events and activities when the Preserve is closed. Cons: • Parking for the new site would not be sufficient to accommodate both Preserve and park parking. • A significant re-design would be necessary, resulting in a reduction in open space and recreational park amenities including playgrounds and/or recreational fields. • Additional grading would be needed to expand the driveway if additional Preserve parking were located at the top terrace. • Additional expenses and delays to the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center project would be incurred. • Preserve and park parking may compete with one another especially when events or activities are scheduled. • Trail users may congregate at the top of the driveway close to homes. 5 Ladera Linda Resident Input: Excerpt from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills’ email (Attachment C): “The LLCC should have at least 70 spaces to accommodate Preserve parking on the weekends. This is a long-term requirement for when LLCC reopens. The LLHOA prefers to have parking within the LLCC for both the Preserve and the community center as a long term plan. The LLHOA supports the idea to maintain a parking area within the park footprint during construction if at least 25 spaces could be consistently available with access maintained via the current LL Park entrance driveway (not through the service gate to the fields out of the driveway). It was brought up by Elliot Levy after our meeting that perhaps the ParkMobile reservation system could be incorporated with the use of a small parking lot within the park during construction.” Summary of Ladera Linda Meeting Notes: • Support for this option • Preserve parking should have been included with original park plans. • Approximately 70 cars at peak for Community Center and Preserve , so concerned that 57 spaces would not be sufficient • Recommend full-time staff presence to address public use/access issues. Friday-Sunday from morning to night, including holidays • Solution to AYSO queuing • Gates to control access to Preserve in conjunction with secure park • Requested traffic study during peak use during AYSO (traffic study already proposed from Palos Verdes Drive South to Forrestal gate-scope would need to be extended beyond gate to address full impact of AYSO parking) 2. Forrestal Reserve and Portuguese Bend Parking at Gateway Park location In 2008, when the Preserve was formed, an approximately 25-acre area of the 424-acre Portuguese Bend property, then-named Gateway Park, was set aside to serve, among other things, as a trailhead with public parking and other public amenities for the Portuguese Bend Reserve. However, in 2015, the City Council decided not to proceed with a trailhead at this location and chose not to incorporate it into the City’s Parks Master Plan update (and removed the name Gateway Park but for purposes of this staff report, this area will be referred to as Gateway Park), primarily due to the following community concerns: • Neighborhood noise impacts • Recreational safety, particularly considering a drowning death and numerous rescues in July 2014 • Beach trespassing concerns • Rising attendance at the Preserve and beaches due to popularization on social media 6 • Doubts regarding effectiveness in relieving Del Cerro neighborhood congestion • Enforcement concerns • Safety concerns with visitors crossing Palos Verdes Drive South to access nearby beaches As shown below, Gateway Park was included as a possible parking option in a 2020 holistic parking analysis, but it was not approved at that time as an option by the City Council because of concerns regarding the timing of landslide remediation project. Gateway parking lot by Palos Verdes Drive South-outlined in red Additional Gateway Parking/Sandbox area-outlined in red 7 That said, this option would provide sufficient parking for approximately 20-25 cars in a dirt lot located on Palos Verdes Drive South near the entrance to Gateway Park and additional parking spaces could be provided within the park area (in or around the proposed detention basin as part of the landslide remediation project) at the toe of the Portuguese Bend Reserve. In considering Preserve parking as an option at Gateway Park, whether it be short- or long-term, proper fencing, directional signs, and staff presence would be implemented to ensure visitors are directed toward Portuguese Bend Reserve, not across Palos Verdes Drive South into neighborhoods and towards the ocean. Additionally, if the City Council choses to pursue this option, staff would consult with the City geologist for issues related to land movement and traffic studies would be performed to address traffic and circulation concerns on Palos Verdes Drive South leading into the parking area. Staff would recommend staffing the facility to manage public use and to charge for parking to reduce competition with the Abalone Cove Parking facility and to offset staffing costs. Short-Term/During Construction: Pros: • 50 or more parking spaces available. • Parking spaces would not be located adjacent to homes minimizing impacts to residents. • Supported by Ladera Linda residents and Del Cerro area HOAs • Proximity to Portuguese Bend, Filiorum, and Forrestal Reserves • Trail users would begin their experience walking uphill and end their hike downhill, a preference for most trail users. • Could serve as a primary entrance to the Preserve Cons: • Would likely require fencing and staffing resulting in a fiscal impact that is not currently budgeted. • Resistance expected from Portuguese Bend Club and residences seaward of PVDS. • Concerns about safety, trespassing, noise impacts, increased crowds, landslide movement, and fissures • Paid parking would be needed to reduce competition with Abalone Cove Parking. Long-Term/Post Construction: The pros and cons for long-term parking at Gateway Park are similar to the above for short-term parking. However, it should be noted that th e City is currently in the process of scoping the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project . When project construction is underway, Preserve parking at this site will likely not be feasible because the trailheads may be temporarily closed during construction unless temporary trails are 8 created to support on-going access. However, parking could be designed around the proposed detention basin as a long-term option after the project is completed. Ladera Linda Resident Input: Excerpt from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills’ email (Attachment C): “The LLHOA supports the ‘temporary’ use of Gateway Park as an entrance to the Preserve during construction. The LLHOA also supports the use of a traffic consultant to determine the safest use of parking at this site. We are concerned about queuing of vehicles along PVDS as people look for spots. During construction, not more than 40-50 parking places should be made available in Gateway Park for Preserve parking.” Summary of Ladera Linda Meeting Notes: • In favor of short-term option. Favor 40-50 total spaces. • In favor of long-term option if compatible with landslide mitigation project and traffic study. • Concerned that Gateway Park could block PVDS – Traffic study would be necessary for vehicle queuing and pedestrian access. • Encouraged safeguards to assure it does not become coastal parking • Staffing would be necessary • Signage needed to direct where visitors should go 3. Forrestal Reserve Parking beyond Forrestal Gate This option would consist of installing a second gate beyond the existing gate to accommodate approximately 20-25 cars to park between two gates. The existing gate could be moved further north from existing homes to reduce noise and visual impacts. The second gates would prevent visitors from driving to the end of Forrestal Drive, reducing opportunities for illegal dumping, vandalism and other unwanted act ivities. Existing red curbing would be extended to eliminate parking directly in front of the gate. Gates, fencing, staffing, and cameras would likely be necessary to ensure the security of vehicles and curtail unwanted access after dusk. A traffic study would be required. Equestrian access would remain behind the Forrestal Gate with advanced notice. 9 Parking beyond Forrestal Drive outlined in red-gates shown in yellow Short Term/During Construction: Pros: • Would allow for continued access to Forrestal Reserve trails during construction. • Would provide parking spaces a short walk from trailheads. • Provides opportunity to move parking further from the Ladera Linda neighborhood and to shield neighbors from noise associated with parking. • Trailhead amenities exist (drinking fountain and seating). • MobileApp parking reservation system could be used to manage how many cars park onsite during construction. Cons: • Not advisable due to proximity to construction site. • Noise associated with vehicles driving by residences. • Queuing of vehicles in front of gate before opening. • Parking spaces may be used by AYSO or soccer field activities rather than the Preserve users. • Trail users may congregate close to homes. Long-Term/Post Construction: Pros: • Nearest parking location to trailheads • Parking spaces not adjacent to residences especially if gates are shifted northward 10 • Staffing at Ladera Linda for new center is conditioned to be between 8 a.m. and dusk every day allowing for enhanced ability to lock gates and ensure security. • Open Space Management Staff currently open the gate at 7 a.m. to allow for access, a practice that could continue post construction. • Install trailhead gates and regulate gate hours similar to the Del Cerro area. • Removes competition with parking at the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center. Cons: • Safety, vehicle theft, security, and noise impact concerns expressed from Ladera Linda residents outlined in meeting notes (Attachments A & B). • Occasional overlap of AYSO and Preserve usage, especially if the second gate is required to be open for AYSO activity. • Parking cannot be more restrictive than parking for the Ladera Linda Community Center to avoid unintended competition between the two parking lots. • Increased cost to provide staff and surveillance cameras at the parking lot. • Queuing of vehicles before gate is open to the public. Ladera Linda Resident Input: Excerpt from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills’ email (Attachment C): “The LLHOA opposes parking beyond the gate at Forrestal for the Preserve.” Summary of meeting notes: • Neighborhood generally opposed to this option • Concern with specific location’s proximity to two nearby homes • Concern with maintaining security with parking behind the gate • Smash and grabs spilling into neighborhoods • Increased police presence needed • 24-hour staff presence needed • Queuing due to insufficient parking spaces • Noise impacts to the neighborhood • AYSO access presents an issue with the gate system 4. Maintain and regulate existing on-street parking along Forrestal near PVDS intersection This option would simply keep the lower section of Forrestal Drive available for parking. Hours could be restricted to 7 a.m. to one hour after dusk, similar to what was recently implemented in the Del Cerro area. This approach might not be well-received from homeowners in the area who rely on street parking for visitors. However, resident-only parking permits could be considered with allowances for guest parking , but conferring with the residents in that area would be recommended before making any changes. 11 Maintain existing red curbing on Forrestal Drive as shown in red Short Term/During Construction: Pros: • Maintains existing parking. • Helps maintain access to Reserve trailheads during construction . Cons: • Requires walking by an active construction site • Noise (radios, vehicles, and conversations) impacts to adjacent residences. • Change to hours may negatively impact neighbors. • .3-mile uphill walk to nearest trailhead • Vehicles circling the area and queuing for a parking space. Long-Term/Post Construction: The pros and cons for long-term parking are similar to the above short-term parking comments. Ladera Linda Resident Input: 12 Excerpt from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills’ email (Attachment C): “The LLHOA supports maintaining the current red curbs on Forrestal, with additional signage that indicates 7am to dusk parking similar to signs currently at the LLCC. The LLHOA supports no ‘on street’ public parking within the LL neighborhood during construction, with accommodations for parking permits for residents/guests. City staff should contact the three homeowners on Forrestal Dr. to determine what measures should be taken to control parking during construction.” Summary of Meeting Notes: • HOA supports continued parking in this location, and regulation to be considered as needed in communication with neighbors on Forrestal Drive • HOA supports no on-street public parking at all in Ladera Linda neighborhood (including Forrestal Drive during construction). Wants trailheads to remain open during construction. • Lack of sidewalk and pedestrian access will need to be considered during construction 5. Expand on-street parking by removing red curbing along Forrestal Drive The City red-curbed Forrestal Drive approximately 650 feet from the Forrestal gate in 2019 to improve quality of life concerns raised by adjacent residents. This made it ill egal for cars to queue up in front of the gate or at the upper section of Forrestal Drive, thereby reducing impacts to adjacent homes. This option would remove the red curbing on Forrestal Drive that was added in 2019 except for the area directly in front of the gate and near the PVDS intersection. 13 Majority of current red-curbing removed from Forrestal Drive Short-Term/During Construction: Pros: • Would increase parking spaces. • Located nearer to trailheads than existing spaces on Forrestal. Cons: • Increased impact on residents due to proximity to homes. • Parking and pedestrian activity next to the construction site and construction access driveway. • Vehicles circling the area and queuing for a parking space. • Safety, vehicle theft, and security concerns. • Reduced resident street parking. • Opposed by Ladera Linda residents Long-Term/Post Construction: Pros: • Proximity to trailheads. • Increased number of spaces. • Removes competition with onsite parking for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center. Cons: • Increased impact on residents, including noise due to proximity to homes. • Vehicles circling the area and queuing for a parking space. • Safety, vehicle theft, and security concerns. • Reduced resident street parking. • Opposed by Ladera Linda residents Ladera Linda Resident Input: Excerpt from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills’ email (Attachment C) “The LLHOA is opposed to removing any red curbs currently in place on Forrestal.” Summary of Meeting Notes: • Opposed to this option. • HOA supports no on-street public parking at all in Ladera Linda neighborhood (including Forrestal during construction). Wants trailheads to remain open during construction. • Lack of sidewalk and pedestrian access will need to be considered during construction 14 6. Explore pocket parking lots (5-7 spaces each) adjacent to other trailheads This option involves identifying or creating pocket parking lots by trailheads. Pocket lots would likely have 5-7 spaces. Short-Term/During Construction: Pros: • Would increase parking spaces. • Would disperse parking reducing demand at Ladera Linda. Cons: • Could introduce new negative impacts if placed within residential neighborhoods. • Limited number of opportunities. • Could draw visitors into residential areas resulting in unintended consequences. Long-Term/Post Construction: The pros and cons for long-term parking are similar to the above for short-term parking. Ladera Linda Resident Input: Excerpt from Ladera Linda HOA President Diane Mills’ email (Attachment C) “This does not seem practicable as these trailheads are embedded in residential or gated communities.” Summary of Meeting Notes: • Opposed to this option. • Concern with placing parking in residential neighborhoods. • Not many parking opportunities available. • Danger of advertising neighborhood parking locations. They already exist. • HOA recognizes concern with formalizing smaller lots within neighborhoods. • Would consider with resident-permit only ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Reduction in Demand The City has been engaged in an active and ongoing effort to disperse traffic away from certain residential areas located adjacent to heavily-visited Preserve areas, such as Del Cerro Park and Portuguese Bend Reserve. This effort was intended to reduce impacts on residents, alleviate traffic congestion, and protect natural resources . Usage is still allowed and encouraged, but visitors are encouraged through a variety of means to visit other Preserve areas that are not as impacted and have more substantial parking and amenities. This has been done by using search engine optimization techniques to direct 15 visitors to the City website, electronic signage, listserv messages, pages on the City website, and public interactions with Open Space Management Staff and the Park Rangers. This effort to lessen impacts in certain areas and shift visitors to more appropriate locations would minimize impacts on Ladera Linda area residents who will already be facing a high level of disruption in their daily lives during construction. Public Correspondence Recent public comments regarding Forrestal Reserve parking, including emails from Herb Stark, Elliot Levy, Don Bell, Diane Mills, and Susan Wilcox are attached to this report (Attachment D). CONCLUSION: Based on the above information, staff seeks City Council direction on both short-term and long-term parking options for the Forrestal Reserve. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Address only short-term parking options at this time. 2. Take other action, as deemed appropriate. 16 FORRESTAL PRESERVE PARKING DISCUSSION August 12, 2021 / 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. This virtual meeting will be from 1:30 p.m. to approximately 3:00 p.m. and is focused on parking solutions for the Preserve. A separate meeting will be scheduled to discuss the Ladera Linda project. Items generally not related to Preserve parking will noted for future discussions. This packet is intended to facilitate the meeting discussion. MEETING TOPICS: o Current Parking Conditions o Neighborhood Concerns o Potential Solutions (Brainstorming) o Placeholder for future meeting topics o Next Steps (action items for follow-up) CURRENT CONDITIONS: • The parking lot at Ladera Linda (LL) is currently used for both Preserve and Community Center and Park parking. There are approximately 75 spaces. • The Forrestal gate is opened to accommodate AYSO, overflow events, and/or authorized vehicles. • Forrestal Drive is red curbed (on both sides of the street) from the Forrestal gate down to the south park property line. • The proposed LL parking plan consists of 57 spaces and was designed not to include Preserve parking based on Council direction in 2018 and 2019. The Council directed staff to address Preserve parking separately. • The LL HOA recently submitted an application to the Public Works Department to establish a Residential Parking Permit program. • A Traffic Study for Forrestal (PVDS intersection to beyond the gate) will take place. A-1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS (residents to state and list concerns): General/Bigger Picture • Neighbors feel they have not been listened to • Distrust of staff and the park planning process • Feel burdened to provide primary source of recreational activity for East side of the City with Ladera Linda Park and Forrestal Reserve • Concerned with the park planning process, lack of holistic approach, and that the only Forrestal Reserve parking alternative left will be behind the Forrestal gate. • Inequity in the distribution of parking that is shouldered by Ladera Linda • Minimal Council discussion on Forrestal parking more focused on Del Cerro. What happens when parking shifts to other entry points • Ladera Linda/Forrestal Reserve is the only social or meeting spot on the east side Enforcement • Lack of enforcement (in Ladera Linda area and other areas within the City) • Lack of parking enforcement including after hours • Lack of enforcement to enforce their new Neighborhood Permit Parking Program • Lack of staff presence in and around Ladera Linda and Forrestal. • Signs are unenforceable Public Use • Mountain bikes on undesignated trails • E-bikes • Bonfires, campfires, smoking • Partying in isolated areas • Dog waste, littering, general litter • Illegal dumping especially at the end of the road • Afterhours use • Camping and unhouse individuals Parking • Concerned that parking may be placed behind Forrestal Gate • Parking beyond the gate on Forrestal should only be for AYSO games. • The park should accommodate Preserve parking. • Noise from visitors at their cars (car alarms, doors slamming, conversation, early morning and late-night noise) • Insufficient parking within the Ladera Linda parking lot • Confusion from public on parking lot hours of operation and inconsistent gate operation • The park, Preserve and AYSO parking should be discussed together. It's the same tactic that the staff tried with the parking for Del Cerro. At that time I spoke at a council meeting saying that parking for all of our preserves should be considered at the same A-2 time instead of doing each preserve separately. The Council agreed. Another suggestion I made way back then is that there should be a study conducted as to the maximum number of users that the trails can accommodate at the same time. This was never done. • When construction begins and the present park is closed, then the preserve should be closed because no parking accommodations have been made for the preserve. • Where do people park for the grand opening of the park? Crime • Increase in smash and grab crime (especially in isolated areas) • Smash and grab crime will spill over into residential neighborhoods Vehicular Movement • Excessive speed along Forrestal • Pedestrian safety • Vehicle turnover increased with more activity • Weekend traffic • Weekday traffic • Motorists looking for parking • Where will people park during construction • Vehicle queuing when AYSO does not open the Forrestal Gate in time for their games • Traffic study will not be completed in time. • Now is not the time to do a traffic study. It should be done when AYSO is in full season and the present park is open. Therefore, it should be conducted on a Saturday, while they are in full season. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS / BRAINSTORMING (ideas, suggestions, etc.): • Reduce demand on facilities • Reduce demand on facilities on weekends • Remove brown park sign from PVDS encouraging non-residents to turn onto Forrestal to access park and Preserve Additional Presence • Additional enforcement and parking enforcement presence • Additional presence at trailheads Parking • Enclose parking within third tier of new Ladera Linda park • Add stairs from proposed upper tier parking lot to Forrestal Drive for direct Preserve access A-3 • Look for alternative Forrestal Reserve parking areas away from Forrestal Dr. including Gateway Park Afterhours use • Allow parking from 6 a.m. – 9 p.m. only Public Safety/Crime • Surveillance cameras • Additional enforcement presence Gates • Trailhead gate • Automated gate • 2nd gate further down Forrestal Dr. to accommodate pedestrians NEXT STEPS (action items for follow-up): • Meet September 1 at 2 p.m. • Staff will further analyze and explore concerns and solutions and provide additional information 24 hours before next meeting. ADJOURN A-4 FORRESTAL PRESERVE PARKING DISCUSSION MEETING #2 August 25, 2021 / 4:00 p.m. This virtual meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. and is focused on the September 7 City Council Meeting Agenda Item to consider parking options for Forrestal Reserve. FORRESTAL RESERVE PARKING OPTIONS: 1.Forrestal Reserve parking internal to Ladera Linda Park parking lot Long-term parking plans: •Should have been included with original park plans. •Complete support from Ladera Linda HOA •Approximately 70 cars at peak for Community Center and Preserve •Concern 70 parking spaces may not be enough •Full-time staff presence to address public use/access issues. Fri.-Sun. Including mornings to night time hours (include peak hours including holidays). •Find solution to AYSO queuing •Gates to control access to Preserve in conjunction with securing park •Traffic study during peak use (already proposed) Short-term parking plans during construction: •More flexibility on weekends if enough parking spots can be offered. •HOA supports exploring this further if >25. •Sensitivity to noise in lower grass area. •Avoid service gate area. Use existing park entrance. 2.Forrestal Reserve and Portuguese Bend Parking at Gateway Park location •Support for shifting parking to Gateway during construction of Ladera Linda Park: 40-50 spaces •Gateway Park could block PVDS – Traffic study would be necessary for vehicle queuing and pedestrian safety •Safeguards to assure it does not become coastal parking •Concerns with road safety-Solution: traffic and engineering safety study •Staffing would be necessary •Signage for wayfinding and to influence where visitors go •Long-term and short-term after assessed and if compatible with landslide mitigation project. Forrestal could become more of a neighborhood access area. B-1 3. Forrestal Reserve parking beyond Forrestal Gate (w/2 gate system for parking plus trail access gate) Would include staffing and security cameras. Could be considered in conjunction with Gateway Park. Moved further down Forrestal. • Neighborhood generally opposed to this option • Concern with specific location proximity to two nearby homes • Security with parking behind the gate • Smash and grabs spilling into neighborhoods • Increased police presence • 24-hour staff presence • Queuing due to insufficient parking spaces • Noise impacts to neighborhood • AYSO access presents issue with gate system 4. Maintain and regulate existing on-street parking along Forrestal near PVDS intersection • Long-term: HOA supports continued parking in this location, and regulation to be considered as needed in communication with neighbors on Forrestal • HOA supports no on-street public parking at all in Ladera Linda neighborhood (including Forrestal) during construction. But trailheads should remain open. • Lack of sidewalk and pedestrian parking will need to be considered during construction 5. Expand on-street parking by removing red curbing along Forrestal Drive • HOA does not support this option for reasons stated above 6. Explore pocket parking lots (5-7 spaces each) adjacent to other trailheads • Concern placing parking in residential neighborhoods. Not much parking opportunities available. Danger of advertising neighborhood parking locations. • Pocket parking lots already exist • HOA recognizes concern with formalizing smaller lots within neighborhoods. • Consider w/resident permit only 7. Shuttle Opportunities • HOA feels there is no impact to LL neighborhood, but residents feel it is a waste of money. • Shuttle up Forrestal not supported or proposed • Gateway Park negates need for shuttle. • Shuttle Program is not specific to Forrestal parking and will be presented to the City Council on Oct. 5 B-2 8. Other topics/solutions for consideration: • Decreasing demand on park/reserve • Controlling access (managing use: direct the public where to go) • Additionally, consider temporary parking during Park construction B-3 August 27 Email From Ladera Linda HOA President Dear Council Members, The Ladera Linda Homeowners Association has met with city staff to discuss the parking situation at the Forrestal Preserve. We would like to advise you of our positions on the points discussed on August 25. 1. Adding parking to Ladera Linda Community Center (LLCC) plans: The LLHOA believes the LLCC should have at least 70 spaces to accommodate Preserve parking on the weekends. This is a long term requirement for when LLCC reopens. The LLHOA prefers to have parking within the LLCC for both the Preserve and the community center as a long term plan. 2. Gateway Park: The LLHOA supports the ‘temporary’ use of Gateway Park as an entrance to the Preserve during construction. The LLHOA also supports the use of a traffic consultant to determine the safest use of parking at this site. We are concerned about queuing of vehicles along PVDS as people look for spots. During construction, not more than 40-50 parking places should be made available in Gateway Park for Preserve parking. 3. Parking beyond the Forrestal Gate: The LLHOA opposes parking beyond the gate at Forrestal for the Preserve. 4. Maintain and regulate existing parking on Forrestal near the PVDS intersection: The LLHOA supports maintaining the current red curbs on Forrestal, with additional signage that indicates 7am to dusk parking similar to signs currently at the LLCC. The LLHOA supports no ‘on street’ public parking within the LL neighborhood during construction, with accommodations for parking permits for residents/guests. City staff should contact the three homeowners on Forrestal to determine what measures should be taken to control parking during construction. 5. Expand on street parking by removing red curb parking: The LLHOA is opposed to removing any red curbs currently in place on Forrestal. 6.Pocket parking lots: This does not seem practicable as these trailheads are embedded in residential or gated communities. 7. The LLHOA supports the idea to maintain a parking area within the park footprint during construction, if at least 25 spaces could be consistently available with access maintained via the current LL Park entrance driveway (not through the service gate to the fields out of the driveway). It was brought up by Elliot after our meeting that perhaps the ParkMobile reservation system could be incorporated with the use of a small parking lot within the park during construction. We thank the City staff for the meetings we have had with them to discuss the options. The suggestions we are making are in the interest of safety and security for our neighborhood. Thank you, Diane Mills, President LLHOA C-1 310-714-1167 dianebmills@gmail.com C-2 Herb Stark Email August 29, 2021 From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2021 11:37 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Today, Sunday, at 10 am there were 47 cars in the park’s parking lot. On the trail there was one dog off the leash and the owner did not care that there was a leash law. There were also indications of bikes on a trail that prohibited bikes. Forrestal beyond the gate continues to be a dog outhouse. Management by sign is a total failure. Again what is the function of the Oversight Organization and the Park Rangers? It certainly is not enforcing the rules. When the new park is completed there will be 57 parking spaces that include four charging stations and two handicap spaces leaving 51 open spaces. Presently there are 6 staff vehicles and two trailers in the parking area leaving 43 available spaces. Looks to me like there are no parking spaces available for any park activities? So what is the staff's plan to open up more spaces? I know, open up the gate. This is what staff have been driving towards for six years. What is the downside? The dumping of trash in the canyon, campfires at the end of Mainsail, and Vehicle Crime. The Lomita Sheriff has already said there is a correlation between trailheads and vehicle crimes. OH, Recreation and Parks says that they will assure these will not happen through enforcement. How is their track record so far? A total failure. OH, they need to hire more people. Over the last six years the residents have dragged Recreation and Parks into a workable solution. 1. Open limited parking for the Preserve and Park in the Park 2. Keep the Forrestal Gate closed to Preserve Parking 3. No parking on both sides of Forrestal below the gate that backs onto the residential housing down to the park property 4. Restricted parking with enforcement in the residential areas Herb Stark Rancho Palos Verdes D-1 Elliot Levy Email: 8/29/21 Hi all, Thanks for your time last week. Another potential solution to consider is incorporating the ParkMobile reservation system both in the Gateway lot and if a small parking lot is maintained within the park footprint during construction. It seems the advance reservations system has helped to alleviate issues at Del Cerro, and incorporating the system at Ladera Linda and Gateway would hopefully cut down on people circling the area looking for parking if they knew in advance that all spaces were full for the day. Of course this needs to be combined with enforcement, but I think it could be helpful. Thanks, Elliot City Manager Mihranian Response to Herb Stark August 25, 2021 On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 6:45 PM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Herb, Thank you for participating in this afternoon’s meeting. I appreciate all the feedback you and the others communicated to us, and will make sure it is accurately reported to the City Council for their consideration. Best, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian City Manager ___________________________________ D-2 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 email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. D-3 From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:17 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; vlaco5@cox.net; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com>; Susan Wilcox' <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Yo Aelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda for City-Ladera Linda HOA Meeting Tomorrow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Hi Ara, What you are telling me is that the objective of this meeting is not to address our concerns but to tell us what you are going to say to the council. That has been the problem for six years. It is not what the residents want but what the staff wants. You manipulate the data to fit your narrative so the council will vote for it and then use the council to validate your position. Herb On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 9:50 AM Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good morning Herb, I understand what you are saying, but want to make sure you and your neighbors have advanced notice of what Staff is planning on presenting to the City Council in response to their request. Ara D-4 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 email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. D-5 From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 5:56 AM To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; vlaco5@cox.net; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com>; Susan Wilcox' <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Yo Aelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda for City-Ladera Linda HOA Meeting Tomorrow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. What I see on your agenda is another fill the square meeting so staff can go to the city council meeting to say they had a meeting with the residents and then propose something that the residents have been against for over 6 years. The first meeting accomplished nothing. Herb Stark On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:54 AM Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good Morning Ladera Linda HOA members and neighbors, D-6 Attached is an agenda for our meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. As you may know, the City Council has requested staff bring forth Forrestal Reserve parking options. Staff would like to review options with the Ladera Linda HOA prior to the City Council meeting, together with HOA concerns and solutions expressed at the August 12 meeting. Staff would like to include the Ladera Linda HOA’s concerns and make sure the HOA’s voice is expressed/heard within the staff report. 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 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 D-7 to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website. > On Aug 27, 2021, at 2:57 PM, Matt Waters <mattw@rpvca.gov> wrote: > > Hi Diane, > > Thank you so much for following up with this email and for meeting with staff about this important topic. Your comments will be included in the September 7 City Council report. > > Sincerely, > > Matt Waters > Senior Administrative Analyst > ____________________________________________ > > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > Recreation and Parks Department > 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > www.rpvca.gov > mattw@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p – (310) 544-5291 f > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:28 AM > To: John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov> > Cc: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>; Susan Wilcox <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Jessica Vlaco <vlaco5@cox.net>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe7@gmail.com>; Yo Aelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Ed Hummel <ecarloshum@gmail.com>; Sylvia Maciá <llhoacommoutreach@yahoo.com>; dadscottmills <smills300@gmail.com> > Subject: Ladera Linda HOA response to Forrestal Preserve Parking > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. > > D-8 > Dear Council Members, > > > The Ladera Linda Homeowners Association has met with city staff to discuss the parking situation at the Forrestal Preserve. We would like to advise you of our positions on the points discussed on August 25. > > > 1. Adding parking to Ladera Linda Community Center (LLCC) plans: The LLHOA believes the LLCC should have at least 70 spaces to accommodate Preserve parking on the weekends. This is a long term requirement for when LLCC reopens. The LLHOA prefers to have parking within the LLCC for both the Preserve and the community center as a long term plan. > > 2. Gateway Park: The LLHOA supports the ‘temporary’ use of Gateway Park as an entrance to the Preserve during construction. The LLHOA also supports the use of a traffic consultant to determine the safest use of parking at this site. We are concerned about queuing of vehicles along PVDS as people look for spots. During construction, not more than 40-50 parking places should be made available in Gateway Park for Preserve parking. > > 3. Parking beyond the Forrestal Gate: The LLHOA opposes parking beyond the gate at Forrestal for the Preserve. > > 4. Maintain and regulate existing parking on Forrestal near the PVDS intersection: The LLHOA supports maintaining the current red curbs on Forrestal, with additional signage that indicates 7am to dusk parking similar to signs currently at the LLCC. The LLHOA supports no ‘on street’ public parking within the LL neighborhood during construction, with accommodations for parking permits for residents/guests. City staff should contact the three homeowners on Forrestal to determine what measures should be taken to control parking during construction. > > 5. Expand on street parking by removing red curb parking: The LLHOA is opposed to removing any red curbs currently in place on Forrestal. > > 6. Pocket parking lots: This does not seem practicable as these trailheads are embedded in residential or gated communities. > > 7. The LLHOA supports the idea to maintain a parking area within the park footprint during construction, if at least 25 spaces could be consistently available with access maintained via the current LL Park entrance driveway (not through the service gate to the fields out of the driveway). It was brought up by Elliot after our meeting that perhaps the ParkMobile reservation system could be incorporated with the use of a small parking lot within the park during construction. > > We thank the City staff for the meetings we have had with them to discuss the options. The suggestions we are making are in the interest of safety and security for our neighborhood. > > Thank you, > > Diane Mills, President LLHOA > 310-714-1167 D-9 > dianebmills@gmail.com Good morning Herb, I understand what you are saying, but want to make sure you and your neighbors have advanced notice of what Staff is planning on presenting to the City Council in response to their request. Ara 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 email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. D-10 From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 5:56 AM To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>; vlaco5@cox.net; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Elliot Levy <elliotlevy@gmail.com>; Judy Hildebrand <judbabe@aol.com>; Susan Wilcox' <swilcox@pvplc.org>; Don Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>; Yo Aelony <y.aelony@cox.net>; Amanda Wong <kiwi_esq@hotmail.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda for City-Ladera Linda HOA Meeting Tomorrow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. What I see on your agenda is another fill the square meeting so staff can go to the city council meeting to say they had a meeting with the residents and then propose something that the residents have been against for over 6 years. The first meeting accomplished nothing. Herb Stark On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:54 AM Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good Morning Ladera Linda HOA members and neighbors, Attached is an agenda for our meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. As you may know, the City Council has requested staff bring forth Forrestal Reserve parking options. Staff would like to review options with the Ladera Linda HOA prior to the City Council meeting, together with HOA concerns and solutions expressed at the August 12 meeting. Staff would like to include the Ladera Linda HOA’s concerns and make sure the HOA’s voice is expressed/heard within the staff report. Thank you, Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department D-11 katiel@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5267 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. As I expected, there is no plan to discuss the real solution - at least for the period of destruction and uglification. That is to plan now to close the Forrestal/Ladera Linda trailheads for many months. Why is this the taboo subject? Trails are regularly closed in other areas of the preserve for a variety of reasons. That this closure will be much longer just happens to be result of staff grandiose plans. And why is there no planned discussion of revising the flawed Ladera Linda design so that it can accommodate Preserve visitors? That is the vast majority of visitors to the Ladera Linda site now. Is there any plan to actually make the site compatible with current use? Or is the real plan to just increase the impact on the neighborhood? The last meeting, as Herb said, was a waste of time for nothing new was covered except to fill time by consolidating the issues (as if they are new and wondrous bits of fact) we have been voicing for years. That just demonstrated staff deafness to any of our concerns. Rather than get angry again by having to listen to no actual plans to aid the Ladera Linda Homeowners, I will pass! You are not including me in a report to City Council stating that we have been listened to or made an integral part of the staff recommendation to City Council. Staff already knows what they are D-12 going to recommend and have for months (or years). If there had not been a request from the City Council to air these concerns now, staff was already set to roll without any neighborhood participation (and that is just how they work now). Don Bell On Aug 25, 2021, at 5:55 AM, Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com> wrote: What I see on your agenda is another fill the square meeting so staff can go to the city council meeting to say they had a meeting with the residents and then propose something that the residents have been against for over 6 years. The first meeting accomplished nothing. Herb Stark On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:54 AM Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov> wrote: Good Morning Ladera Linda HOA members and neighbors, Attached is an agenda for our meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. As you may know, the City Council has requested staff bring forth Forrestal Reserve parking options. Staff would like to review options with the Ladera Linda HOA prior to the City Council meeting, together with HOA concerns and solutions expressed at the August 12 meeting. Staff would like to include the Ladera Linda HOA’s concerns and make sure the HOA’s voice is expressed/heard within the staff report. Thank you, <image002.png> Katie Lozano Senior Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department <image004.jpg> D-13 katiel@rpvca.gov Phone - (310) 544-5267 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Website: www.rpvca.gov <image006.png> <image008.png> 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. Susan Wilcox Email August 24, 2021 Hello Eric, John and David, I realize the most vocal residents in LL have expressed deep concern for any cars parking along Forrestal Drive "behind the gate" because of earlier dumping that occurred when the area was out of sight and underutilized. In our last zoom meeting with city staff, whom I’m copying, my neighbors pointed to a lack of parking in the LL Community Center overall plan and requested additional parking be provided. I believe it would be wasteful to pay for new parking spaces near the Community Center while not using existing roadway. The number of times extra parking is needed is very limited (likely on weekends only - - with rare exceptions an occasional weekday). This would be an expensive (and I think unnecessary) cost to provide parking and also could add to the drainage concerns of covering too much soil. Having considered the last zoom meeting's request for parking, I believe the primary concern about dumping can be controlled much more easily nowadays and to me does not represent a future obstacle: (1) there could be cameras to capture any activity of this type; (2) there is much more foot traffic in the area so it is not abandoned in the way it was previously; (3) there is a gate which would be D-14 closed to preclude any unreasonable hours during which dumping is more likely to occur. AND I believe there is a need (for this and other reasons) to have a full time position added for weekends only. I want to validate my neighbors' objection to the idea of dumping. Of course, i also do not want dumping to occur. But I believe it would be better addressed in a different way -- and I believe this way would ALSO assuage many other concerns of the community. I urge you to consider the following: Create a full-time position dedicated to monitoring the weekend activities at LL. The position would work three shifts of 12 hours starting at 10 a.m. onward on Friday, Saturday, Sunday. The position would be authorized to give parking tickets, address noise complaints, and monitor other safety and use concerns of the preserve and community center. These kinds of things are not needed during business hours M-F when that money would be wasted. The person is very much needed on weekends/evenings. I believe a dedicated full time position could easily be funded from the savings of NOT building additional parking inside the LL Community Center area, while making better use of existing infrastructure. I do not believe there is another way to provide the additional parking and security without such a position. I realize there is no way to accommodate all interests in any one plan. I do think it would go a long way to appeasing a wide range of residents by having a position dedicated to the site F/Sa/Su 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Respectfully, Susan Wilcox, Resident of Ladera Linda I do not have all email addresses and am not intentionally leaving out anyone from this note. Sent from my iPhone D-15