20220301 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 1, 2022
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
1
2
3
4
Description of Material
Email exchange between City Manager Mihranian and Gene Dewey,
Mickey Radich, and Jessica Vlaco, et al.; Email exchange between
Public Works Director Awwad and Kelvin Vanderlip;
Emails from: Carolynn Petru; Gene Dewey; Donald Bell; Benoit
Hochedez; Jim Hevener; Lenee Bilski; Patricia Stenehjem; Bill and
Marty Foster; Erika Rodriguez; Thomas and Susan Cyr; Diane Mills; Ed
Stevens; Elizabeth Sax; Jessica Vlaco
Email from Jessica Vlaco (See Item #1)
Emails from: Don Swanson; John Spielman
Email exchange between City Clerk Takaoka and Carol Mueller;
Emails from: Cassie Jones; Barbara Locke; Carol Mueller
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, February 28, 2022.**
Respectfully submitted,
~~ Terei"akaoka
L:ILATE CORRESPONDENCE\2022\2022 Coversheets\20220301 additions revisions to agenda.docx
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:44 PM
CityClerk
FW: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting February 28, 2022
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:43 PM
To: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>;
Jessica Vlaco <v1aco5@cox.net> <v1aco5@cox.net>; Edward Stevens <ezstevens@cox.net>; Diane Mills
<dianebmills@gmail.com>; martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>; Trang Nguyen <Tnguyen@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting February 28, 2022
Hi Gene, Mickey, Jessica, et. al.,
The City Council is in receipt of your emails expressing concerns with tonight's agenda items for the
Ladera Linda Community Park Project.
Copies of your emails will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence including this
response.
I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify the all-inclusive project budget described in the March 1 City
Council Staff Report that was requested by the Council last year.
The $18.7 project budget represents the total cost for the Ladera Linda Community Project dated
back to Day 1.
In other words, the project budget includes dollars already spent (including dollars spent for the
Fisher design), dollars that are committed to be spent as of February 15, 2022 (invoices to be paid,
work performed but not yet invoiced, and contracts already awarded), and dollars to be spent to
complete the project.
As stated in the staff report, as of February 15, 2022, the City has spent approximately $989,000 and
committed about $770,000 for a total of $1,759,000. The City anticipates spending an additional
$17,011,100 to finish the project (this includes contingency and includes approximately $1,000,000 in
debt service costs (interest and issuance costs)) for the proposed loan that is to be discussed as
Agenda Item No. 2 this evening. The project budget is summarized in the table below (which is taken
directly from the March 1 Staff Report):
1 /.
'PROJECTBUDGET
Soft Costs
Design Support Services During Constructior
Construction Inspection, Geotech Observatior
Moving Costs
Soft Costs Contingency (15%)
Total Soft Costs
Debt Service Costs
Debt Issuance
Interest Expense
Debt Issuance Contingency ( 10%)
Construction
Total Debt Service Costs
Hard Costs
Furnitures, Fixtures, and Equipment
Audio-visual
Electric Transformer and Feeder
Hard Costs Contingency (7.5%)
Total Hard Costs
Total Estimated Project Budget
Total Project-to-Date Spent & Committed
TOTAL PROJECTBUDGE.T
334,000.00
273,600.00
25,000.00
95,000.00
727,600.00
126,500.00
894,000.00
13,000.00
1,033,500.00
13,721,000.00
245,000.00
140,000.00
80,000.00
1.064,000.00
15,250,000.00
17,011,100.00
1,758,984.00
18,770,084.00
It is important to note that the project budget was reconciled to the estimates provided in October
2021 (without the loan interest) and the project budget is higher by about $361,000 because the
estimates today now include loan interest over a 10-year term. If the interest were excluded from
the estimates today or included in the October estimates, the project budget is lower by about
$668,000. In fact, the proposed construction cost is less than the estimated total construction cost by
approximately $560,000 when compared to the numbers reported in October 2021.
The following table compares the cost estimates reported in October 2019 to the proposed cost:
Estimated costs
1 Total Project-to-Date Spent & Committed
Escalation
Market vol a ti litv
Rolling shutter
Total
Debt services
Revised Total
October 19. 2021
16,095,000.00
550,000.00
100,000.00
1 .440,000.00
220,000.00
18,405,000.00
Today
15,977,600.00
1,758,984.00 .
17,736,584.00 !
1,033,500.00 1,033,500.00
19,438,500.00 18,770,084.00
Variances
(668,416.00)
(668,416.00)
Again, accounting for loan interest results in a higher cost, but if the loan interest is removed from the
project budget (which I don't think it should be if a loan is pursued), there is cost savings.
2
It is also important to note that if additional redesigning occurs (as some are requesting), including
reducing the square footage and/or building footprint, the project budget will likely increase when you
factor additional design consultant time, new construction documents, inflation, and the ongoing rise
in construction costs and materials.
I know this is not going to sway your position on this project, and that's not the intent of this response,
but to provide clarification for the public record.
Let me know if you have follow-up questions.
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?
1 llis e ,nail contains information belonqinq to the City of Rancho F'alos Verdes, which may he privik,9ecl, cuni'idential and/or protect:ecl from
,iisclosrffe. The intr,rrn;,,tinn is intenclecl only for use of the individual or entity narnrx1. Unauthorized dissemination, distrillution, (X is strictly prohibited. If
you 1·c•ccivcd this email in error, rn· are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender irnrnediately. Thank you for your assistance coope1·,1Uon.
DOWNLOAD
'iltfj
~ GETITON
~"'-Google Play
From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 4:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting February 28, 2022
3
Members of the City Council
The estimate of$ 18.77 mm for the Ladera Linda Park is a wakeup call to rethink this mega project. A 29 % increase
over the estimate of$ 14.6 MM given last year. Who doesn't think that before this edifice is completed it won't
increase another 30 %. This estimate gives the city council the opportunity to send this project back to staff to be
redesigned along the lines of what the majority of the residents have suggested.
Thank you,
Gene Dewey
4
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 6:56 AM
CityClerk
Re: Ladera Linda project drinking fountains are still missing dog-level bowls
From: Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:26 PM
To: Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda project drinking fountains are still missing dog-level bowls
Dear Ramzi,
Great news. Thank you for your detailed and complete reply. I am very happy to be wrong and I apologize for causing
this distraction.
Finn the wonder dog and I are happy and reassured that someone is looking out for us.
It's a lot taking on a project this big while you juggle all of the other capital projects. I wish you much strength and good
luck.
With best regards,
Kel Vanderlip
P.S. If it all seems too much for too much money I'll understand. We think Ladera Linda as-is is perfect.
On Feb 28, 2022, at 18:22, Ramzi Awwad <rawwad@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Kelvin,
Thank you for your email reminding us of the importance of including dog-level bowls as part of the
exterior drinking fountains in the Ladera Linda Community Park Project.
The construction documents do require exterior drinking fountains with dog level bowls. I have attached
one of the plan sheets that shows the requirements of the exterior drinking fountains for the project.
I've also copied the relevant portion below, where you will see that the drinking fountain is pet friendly
and includes a dog-level bowl. The specifications for the site drinking fountains (section 224713, Part
2.2.A.9) also require a "pet friendly fountain". The general notes you cited work together with the plans
and the specifications, so please rest assured that there will be dog level bowls.
1 I
3
I'm a dog lover myself with a German Shepherd that can easily overheat-so this is something near and
dear to my heart. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like any further information on
the fountains.
GYV34-PF
Rount1-•ln & installation Information
48" (1220) _____ _
If f~--~3
.._
51 _ __,_fl-'
:J"1" Js
[8~01 \
1.
I GENERAL NOTES:
t. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES [MMJ.
2:. STOP VALVE NOT PROVIDED.
"2_J .. "-4
[5801
5{}"
[1270]
BASE FLANGE
1140.~tffl~Q O;;TJ
P.I.P CONG BAS£
SUPPLIED ANCHORS
2" DIA DWV DRAIN
BOTH ENDS BY OT!-
PET FRIENDLY DRINKING FOUNTAIN WITHBOTTLE FILLER
2
.
0 . •
Sincerely,
~ GtflTON
F' Google Play
Ramzi Awwad
Public Works Director
rawwad@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310} 544-5275
OAD
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
3
I his c, rnail rne,.,,.;aqc contains infonrwtion lxrlonqinq to thP. City of Rancho Pc1los Vcrn.1cs, which may be privil<:>cJcd, cor1fid1,nl:i,.il and/or
prntcctecl from disclosure. The inforrnat:011 is intcnclcd only for use of the incliviclual or· entity namccl. Unauthorized dissernirwtion,
clistrir1ution, (Y co1:iy1n9 is strictly p:ohibitccl. If you received this email in error, 01· arc! not an intcndc,d recipient, please notify the sender
irnrnccliately. Th&1k you fur your assistance and cooperation.
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COVJD-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: Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project drinking fountains are still missing dog-level bowls
Dear City Council,
I suppose I will recover someday from the shock of seeing the cost of the Ladera Linda project reach
$18,000,000 (about $2,500 per sq. ft. of usable space), which will devour $13,000,000 from future
infrastructure maintenance funds. However, this is not the point of my email.
Currently, there is a dog-level drinking bowl on the fountain on Forrestal just past the drive-in entrance
to the facility. I was hoping this had become an "RPV gold standard" style public fountain, as we see
these in parks everywhere. They look something like this:
To this end I asked the Council to ensure that there will be dog-level drinking bowls to the new public
drinking fountains on the outside of the proposed buildings. I believe there will be 2 of these. I
understood that the Council liked this suggestion and had passed it on to Staff.
However, in reviewing the plans posted on the City's web site, I found this specification:
J -DRINKING FOUNTAINS
01 -WATER FOUNTAINS SHALL BE LOCATED COMPLETELY WITHIN
ALCOVES OR OTHERWISE POSITIONED SO AS NOT TO ENCROACH INTO
PEDESTRIAN WAYS. THE ALCOVE IN WHICH A WATER FOUNTAIN IS
LOCATED SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 32 INCHES IN WIDTH AND 18
INCHES IN DEPTH.
4
02 -THE BUBBLER SHALL BE ACTIVATED BY A CONTROL, WHICH IS
EASILY OPERATED BY A DISABLED PERSON SUCH AS A HAND-
OPERATED LEVER TYPE CONTROL LOCATED WITHIN 6 INCHES OF THE
FRONT OF THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN. THE BUBBLER OUTLET ORIFICE
SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 6 INCHES OF THE FRONT OF THE DRINKING
FOUNTAIN AND SHALL BE WITHIN 36 INCHES OF THE FLOOR. THE WATER
STREAM FROM THE BUBBLER SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY PARALLEL TO
THE FRONT OF THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN.
03 -ALL FOUNTAINS WILL COMPLY WITH HEIGHTS, CLEARANCES AND
PROTECTIONS AS REQ'D BY CBC 111SB.4.6. AT LEAST ONE FIXTURE
SHALL BE THE 'HI-LOW' TYPE.
There is no mention of dog-level bowls on these fountains. This must be an oversight.
Would you be so kind as to remind Staff that the City supports its dog walkers and favors dog-level
bowls on its park's drinking fountains? If it is impossible at this point to have dog-friendly drinking
fountains, would you consider cancelling this project?
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Kelvin Vanderlip
4105 Sea Horse Lane
5
GYVJ4-PF
R<J\,gl\.ln &. ln~t..,lld:«m nf1Jm1<J1H>11
CE!.E<t""-NOTl,5
·,a•O""'NS-ONSAR'EIN"'C•<CSIM"I
0 \
~
,.,.,~] ,,.~=,w~-o Af~
-
(• S-6 \OOUNTNG><OLESl'l
~_;:;,;;;;:;-,~:;7.T . .-T, T➔'-1·· '-""j ?"'~--·. t~· 1.·. : ",._.I--;------._,
l=•i -1,:1_; .. I;;~
] (
7
.JL . i
::i1~'f~11 ~ l~I .:=E:::==J . ,. f--r----', ~ J
'''i'°'
'
-i-?~1 -':"
·h,••Nsu?Pt.na .. ET _i.~:\•,4,, 1
<l£x10tF.COM<€ClJON -~/I \_ i1/'
.. fX:i>'f•VtTIWIJ0"€...,.C.N~o,
~~~-~oe:;_;: _, \ ... :;,~~~"
8.ASEF~
~
/J" ·-/ x·•. PET FRIENDLY
/ ~{~§ \ FOUNTAIN DETAIL
~ \
\\ ·---~-·<
-~--·-···-'-· ",..... I _I
., . .._ _____ ,.,
·--~-------
SUPPLIED ANCHORS
2" DIA OIW DRAIN TUBE, OPEN AT
BOTH ENOS BY OTHERS
PET FRIENDLY DRINKING FOUNTAIN WITHBOTTLE FILLER
PLANTING
AR[A
CONCRfT£HfA(J[R80RDfRSAI.LENGINlIR£D
1//XOFIBfRARtAS. r,p
POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE
HEADER CONTROL JOINTS
c e·-o· o.c. WEAR MAT PER ENGINEERED
WOOD FIBER MANUFACTURER
6 I ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER WI CONCRETE HEADER
IYr'ICN.ATAJl TfWIST/ONS
BlJYffNPLJWl/NGANDD.G..
PU,llnNCAN{)L.41111. I..J,M/"'11[/
O.G.
2" THICK OECOMPOSfD GRANITE
(UPP[RUFT)w/STA81LIZER
SATURATED AND ROLL TO
COMPAC71Qr-.•
r
'=ITaTEIEili§l§T§T'' ~,~
~111=1 I lJ.\ I l=l I E=TTT=-•' -WI&,,--~TJe='iii'__,
{)[COP.ATl'F.G'?..I~
0/FILTITIFAEl'IC
1er6R!JJ'ftOCIJG!GN{;
SU:1<£mOlf:S
:,.,,__:,-..,_Y :,-..,_y , IJ"[)££pffi111ALOCSTAX£,.SPAOM
;;c'->:2" ;,<~ ' """"' """"""'"'"
,· wrn COMP,cnco GeLJSH[O __,/ '1/),//\'~'«"-'«~ )::::;»)::::;~f:. """'"" '""'"'
,ccR[GM[ 8'5£ ,(:«'«'«'«'<!< /\.'0.'0.'<1/' Y:»/}y}y}y;0 :»/»JY,>::
COMP,O[O SUBGP<O[ -~'<1/_~~~~-0<..0<•/ ~~W'/;/A ,,v),,_'y'
7 I REDWOOD EDGING
CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE BOULDERS IN FlflD
UNDER DIRECTION or CITYS AUTHORIZED
R£PR£5£NTATI\,£.
CONTRACTOR SHALL HAIi[ ON SIT[ H[AVY
[QUIPM[NT SUITABLE FOR TRANSPORTING,
L/FnNG, ANO PLACING BOULDERS.
BOULDERS MA'ffi[ R[LOCA'iITJ AT OISCR[TION if
CITY'S AUTHORIZ[D R£PR£SENTATJV[ UNTIL
PLAC£1.1£NT 15 0££M[D ACCEPTABLE.
[DU/PMENT SHAU BE ON SITE FOR DURATION OF
BOULDER PLACEMENT.
Sff ARCHITECIS PAVING MATERIAL
SCH[DUL[ FOR SIZES.
2 I BOULDER PLACEMENT
REMOVE N~~;f'J
CONTRACTOR TO [XPOS£ ROOT
Fl.AR£ PF?!OR TO P/.Al>lTINC OR
DICCINC TR££ PIT.
IRRICA TION BUB!.ER
ON SURF"AC£
4• DIA. P[RF"ORA TrD PIP[
MRAPP[O IN SOCK
1-1/2" THICK ~g:_
OWO.
INS/0[ PIP[
;,
"""""""""" -
5 I mEE PLANTING DETAIL
S[CT!ON A-A
NO"TF; PRIOR TO Pl.ANTING CONT"FUCTOR 1$ TO PROVID[
P€Rcat.A TION 1£ST. 2· PER HOUR ON SECONO FILU/IIG.
mrr
S,;KC
'LAN
I I LOG BENCH
ROOD BUBB!.ffi
(IN$10C PVC PIPE}
ma:
"'""'
TRC£ R0078ALL
TREE MOlSTUR[ IIONITORfNG
PIP[ •/ BLACK C,'IP
(2) r DIA.X12'-0" LONG LOOGf: POI,£ PIN£
$TAK£$ 7R[AT r,/ C()f'P(R NAP~A"TF
M1$TALL IN BACKFILL SOIL d: fXT(ND .30• INTO
UNOISTIJRB[D SOIL. INSTALL STAKts IN SUCH A
WAYTIIAT~CANF1.£X
4" />CRF. PVC TR€.E /JOIST/JR£ MONITORING
PrP[ r,/ BLACK CAP (NOT FUR rRRIGA TION)
(4) PER 48" BOX AND GReATtR
(2) 24" & Jtr BOX
TYPICAL P£R TREE:
PLAN
;;~o.rrr I
=:AIN rca•rAKf I
4 I RECEPTACLE
N
N~
:;;,;, ~ ..
LADERA LINDA
COMMUNITY PARK PROJECT:
CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES:
ARCH!TECT .~~. 11
A•cv.:,,e:~:..~~:.e:••gn
CONSULTANTS
l/~~,.-1 KIA inc. ll'I ,' landscape
i ::it u d 10
a..
PLANTING
DETAILS
LP2.1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Catzilla <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1 :34 PM
cc
CityClerk; Cory Linder
Ladera Linda Community Park Project
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members -
We have finally come to the Moment of Truth! Please approve the construction contract for the long-waited Ladera
Linda Community Park.
There will always be those few who say it's too grand, too expensive, too "fill-in-the-blank," or try to derail the project
by conflating it with other issues, even up to the very last moment.
The truth is:
• A tremendous amount of time, effort and resources has been invested in developing a great plan for the
property;
• It will never be less expensive to build the project;
• Financing this favorable is not likely to be available again in our lifetimes;
• Residents have waited a very long time to have an attractive, modern community park on the south side of the
City; and,
• We have an obligation to invest in our infrastructure, including public gathering spaces and recreational
amenities that improve our quality of life and social well-being.
Please vote "YES" so that Ladera Linda Community Park can once again fulfill its promise to the community and proudly
serve the residents for decades to come.
I look forward to seeing the photographs from the ground breaking ceremony, complete with ill-fitting hard hats and
goofy gold spray-painted shovels, in the next issue of the City Newsletter.
Kind Regards,
Carolynn Petru
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 4:17 PM
CityClerk
FW: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting February 28, 2022
From: R. Gene Dewey <rgdewey@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 4:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting February 28, 2022
Members of the City Council
The estimate of$ 18.77 mm for the Ladera Linda Park is a wakeup call to rethink this mega project. A 29 % increase
over the estimate of$ 14.6 MM given last year. Who doesn't think that before this edifice is completed it won't
increase another 30 %. This estimate gives the city council the opportunity to send this project back to staff to be
redesigned along the lines of what the majority of the residents have suggested.
Thank you,
Gene Dewey
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 11 :22 AM
CityClerk
Gene Dewey; Mickey Radich; Ed Stevens; Amanda Wong; Bill Shurmer; Diane Mills; Ed
Hummel; Eliot Levy; Gary Randall; Herb Stark; Jack Fleming; vlacoS; Marty Foster; Yossef
YO Aelony; Kit Ruona; Home Bell
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting March 1, 2022
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear Council Members,
Even now, you still can put the brakes on this financially out of control project. Who among you would have agreed to
spend more than a potential $19 million dollars on a Ladera Linda Park and Neighborhood Center at the outset? How
concerned are you that the price tag is rapidly escalating into the need for the city to enter a financial deficit?
Can you find through the years this project has been under Staff control any attempt to consider an alternate of a less
expensive design or plan? Why is Staff given an unlimited budget?
Can you find through the years any effort by Staff to reduce the duration of park closure, alternate parking within the
site, or defined conditions to minimize local impacts?
Can you find any factual basis for the design? There never was a valid traffic or parking study. There never was a valid
user survey (except initiated by the LLHOA and that study found little interest in any use of a building and the preference
for a nice walking area.)
There never was a flagging silhouette erected so that all could see the scale of the vasty oversized building. (I remind
you that it will be larger and higher than your existing City Hall.)
I appeal to a discovery of common sense and fiscal responsibility among you tonight. Please bring to the city a suitably
sized building (like McTaggart Hall where you are sitting), a park with mature vegetation rather than a denuded field,
and true leadership for the future benefit of our community.
Sincerely,
Don Bell
Ladera Linda
1 I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear council members,
Benoit Hochedez <hochedez@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 10:22 AM
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
CityClerk; CC
Ladera Linda, time to cross the finish line
After years of discussions, the time has finally come to start building our new community center.
Please approve the construction plans and contract for the Ladera Linda Park project.
I can assure you that when, as a community, we all look back 5 or 10 years from now, none of us will regret that
decision. We certainly need better places to gather and interact in our community.
Congratulations to the city staff and others who have kept that project alive. I still cannot believe it took so long to get a
proper neighborhood park, but here we are ... Time to cross the finish line.
Benoit Hochedez
1 /.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Members of City Council
James Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:55 AM
CC; CityClerk
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Please Proceed With The Final Approval of Ladera Linda
I am writing in support of the Staff Recommendation on Item #1-the Ladera Linda Park Project.
The final approval of this Project should be unanimous given that Council unanimously approved the financing
package late last year, and the bids came in under budget. Yes, it is a lot of money, but doing nothing is not an option
and this Project is an investment in a Park and Community Center for the next 40-50 years.
DOING NOTHING IS NOT AN OPTION. Each and every Member of this Council for the past 8 plus years have said
repeatedly that doing nothing is not an option. The buildings received an F grade nearly a decade ago, and at this point
are both a health hazard and an attractive nuisance with overgrown shrubbery and dark areas where people up to no
good could hide. There is no way that everyone will ever be completely happy, but putting off this Project will only
create more discord and result in even higher costs.
IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THE CITY BE ABLE TO COMPLETE PROJECTS THAT SPAN MORE THAN ONE ELECTION CYCLE. The
City has been actively working on this Project for eight years and the City engaged in two full design efforts to address
the concerns of adjacent residents and balance the needs of the larger surrounding community including the many
newer families with kids. Council has approved the Plan for the Project twice, the Planning Commission unanimously
approved the CUP, the Finance Advisory Committee unanimously approved the financing plan which was then
unanimously approved by this Council in October. Believe it or not, the Ladera Linda Park project has been before the
Council over 20 separate times just since August 20, 2019, when the City Council (then consisting of Council Members
Alegria, Brooks, Cruikshank, Dyda and Mayor Duhovic) unanimously approved the Master Plan and directed Staff and
Johnson Favaro to develop detailed construction drawings.
POSTPONING THE PROJECT WILL ONLY INCREASE THE COST-GIVEN LOSS OF LOW-COST FINANCING AND ARA
MONIES. Certainly there have been improvements to the Project since August 2019, and I'm sure additional
improvements could be made, but at what cost in terms of time, money and discord in the community? Back in 2018
Richard Fisher put forward a plan that would have cost the City around $8 million. Now, four years later, the cost is 50%
greater and the City spent another $1 million dollars getting here, not to mention the cost of Staff time, Council time
and the time of interested residents. Most of the cost escalation has been due to general inflation and specifically a
huge increase in the cost of public construction. But, the good news is that the City was able lock in an incredibly low
interest rate loan, and also take advantage of ARA relief funds, so that the City could both afford the Project and
maintain its capital improvement fund. If Council fails to approve the Project now, I have no doubt that both of these
opportunities will be lost. Interest rates already are double the rate locked in by the City and only heading higher.
SCALING BACK THE BUILDING BY 10 OR EVEN 20% WILL NOT RESULT IN EQUAL COST SAVINGS. I've heard multiple
times that if we could just cut the building down by 10-20% we could save all that money. This simply is not true. First,
the building is only one component of the project and will not reduce the cost of the Park renovation. Second, much of
the expense associated with a building involve infrastructur: and other fixed costs. I believe the Architects indicated (
that a 10% reduction in size would likely translate to only 2% savings from the entire budget. This amount undoubtedly
would be spent just on the necessary redesign. Third, construction costs no doubt will only continue to increase.
A MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. Over the years, hundreds of residents have participated in forums,
attended meetings, written e-mails and came and testified at Council Meetings. And many of these supporters are
parents, who want a nice facility for their kids and for the future. When I talk to them, people say over and over that
they simply cannot believe that the City has not been able to bring this Project to completion.
Thank you all for your dedication and service to this Community. It is time to approve this Project and move forward.
Jim Hevener
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:04 PM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Mar. 1 Ladera Linda Agenda item
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:03 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Mar. 1 Ladera Linda Agenda item
March 1, 2022
Dear Mayor Bradley and Council members,
This plan has grown and grown, not necessarily the way the local residents want. You need to listen to the
wishes of those in Sea View and Ladera Linda communities who have expressed their wishes in the past. This
project went off on the wrong track when the Public Workshop attendees could only vote for Plan A or Plan B
as created by staff.
Please vote not to approve this project as presented today.
Council has asked Staff for an analysis of the "downside of saying NO" to Staff's recommendations and for
"holistic solutions" to citizen conflicts of interest. Once again, Staff's recommended action for Ladera Linda
contains neither.
Where are the Alternatives ?-I see none in this Report.
I agree with Mr. R. Gene Dewey -An almost 30% increase in the cost of this proposal is way too much !
Please be more fiscally responsible in these inflationary times.
Thank you for your service!
Ever vigilant,
Lenee Bilski
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
James O'Neill
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:09 PM
patsyanntoo@yahoo.com
CityClerk
FW: Budget for Ladera Linda Park
Thank you for contacting the City. Your email will be included in Late Correspondence for tonight's meeting.
Respectfully,
James O'Neill, MPM
Project
Manager, Public
Works Department
joneill@rpvca.gov
Phone -{310) 544-5247
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
LO D
~ GHITOO
p,:'JI"" Googfe Play
Th,s e rnail 1nessagc contains inforn1atio11 belonqinq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privilcqecl, confidential a11d/01· protected from
disclosure. The inforrnation is intenclecl only few use of the incliviclual or entity nc1rned. Unauthori,eci disserninc1tion, distrillution, u,-copying is strictly prnhibited. lf
you ,ccciveti this email in error-, or an, not an ,ntendocl recipient, please notify the sender irnmccl,,1tdy. Thank you fo1· your· assistance ancl cooper·,,1tion.
From: patricia stenehjem <patsyanntoo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:56 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Budget for Ladera Linda Park
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
after reading the report regarding the budget for Ladera Linda Park, I am appalled
by the amount being recklessly and irresponsibly allocated for a small neighborhood park. Please do not approve this
expenditure!
Respectfully,
Patricia Stenehjem
32215 Searaven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 /
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
James O'Neill
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:42 PM
martha foster
CityClerk
FW: LL
Thank you for contacting the City. Your email will be included in Late Correspondence and distributed prior to the start
of the meeting.
Respectfully,
James O'Neill, MPM
Project
Manager~ Public
Works Department
joneill@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310} 544-5247
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLO
'hl';f
.... t,4;ntON
"°"'.... Google Play
!his e,rnail rnessaqe contains information belonqing to the City of Rancho i'alos Verdes, which may be privile9ecl, confidenl:iiJI and/or prot,,ctccl front
disclosure. The information is intended only fo1· use of the individual or entity nnrnccL Unauthmizcd clissc:riinntion, cbtrir>ution, or cupyinq is strictly proilibit,)cl. If
you received thrs email in error, or are riot an intended recipient, please notify the sender irnrnecliately. Thank you for your assistance 2111cl cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:17 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: LL
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please reconsider responsibly.
The planned park is already so costly. The cost will amplify as time passes.
A smaller, more conventional park such as already seen in RPV would serve the community well. A more conventional
building would allow it to be secured with tried and true methods that will be hard to implement with the current plan.
We are documenting intrusion of the homeless in our neighborhood. The safety of our residents is the paramount
concern.
Many thanks /.
Bill and Marty Foster
LLHOA residents
Sent from my iPad
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
James O'Neill
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:42 PM
xicanacpa@yahoo.com
CityClerk
FW: Ladera Linda Park Project
Thank you for contacting the City. Your email will be included in Late Correspondence and distributed prior to the start
of the meeting.
Respectfully,
James O'Neill, MPM
Project
Manager, Public
Works Department
joneill@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5247
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD
'lfl1r
I hi'; 1~ mail rnessaqe contains information belon9ing to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privilec;ecl, confidential and/or prntcctecl fror:1
disclosure. The information is inte11d1xJ only for use of the individual m entity narnecL Unauthorized dissemination, clistrit>ution, or cupyinq is ',;trictly prohillitecl. If
you reccivecJ this email in error, or are not an int:endecl recip1e11t:, please notify the sender immediately. Th,,nk you for your assistance a11cl cooperation.
From: Erika Rodriguez <xicanacpa@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 5:10 PM
To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project
Dear City Council Members,
As a member of Pack 955, I fully support the Ladera Linda Project and look forward to using the facility primarily for Scout
activities. Our scouts and larger PV community will use this space respectfully and safely. I strongly oppose further delay
as it will lead to higher costs and further opposition
Thank you,
Erika Rodriguez
2809 San Ramon Dr.
1 I
310-344-9398
2
From:
Sent:
Suzy Cyr <suzy@seahorsestudio.net>
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:41 PM
To:
Subject:
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; CityClerk; CC
Ladera Linda Community Park
Dear Councilmember,
We are writing to express our support for the Ladera Linda Community Center project.
As you are well aware, this project has been in the works for nearly a decade and millions of dollars have
already been spent on it. As a taxpayer we expect-and indeed insist-that the city finish the process it started
so long ago and build what you as a council have approved. Additional delays at this late date are fiscally
irresponsible and just bad business practices.
With any public project, there will always be opposition but to let a small group of narrow-minded individuals
hijack this process is not an efficient, effective, or fair way to make progress. Again and again, the wishes of the
Ladera Linda neighbors have been met, only to see those wishes shift in order to further stall the project. To
bow to the demands of an angry minority sends a terrible message to the community and bodes ill for any future
projects of any size.
As we have said before, a city cannot be great without public amenities and this one is carefully conceived,
appropriate for the site, thoughtfully funded, and desired by the community.
Please finish this up for all of us taxpayers and residents.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thomas and Susan Cyr
Susan Summit Cyr
SeaHorse Studio
3672 Cliffsite Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
cell: 206-979-6564
www.facebook.com/SeaHorseStudio
www.SeaHorseStudio.net
/.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Le
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 8:05 AM
CityClerk
Fw: Ladera Linda Park Project
From: Diane Mills <dianebmills@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 8:04 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Eric
Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Project
Dear Council Members,
The Homeowners of Lad era Linda are alarmed that the cost of the project is escalating so rapidly.
We were concerned about the project when it was projected to cost $6-7 million dollars. Then the
price increased to $15 million, before the current inflation rates had come into effect, and now
the cost is $18.77 million. Will future inflation rates further inflate the costs of this project?
The residents of Ladera Linda are also concerned about the parking situation and the proposal of
opening up the gate on Forrestal during construction. I agree with the sentiment that if more
parking is provided, more people with come. We need to be able to control the amount of people
that are able to use the preserve so that there is minimal negative impact to the preserve itself
and to the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Diane Mills, President
Ladera Linda Homeowners Association
I.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 6:52 AM
CityClerk
Subject: Fw: I am Opposed to the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting March 1,
2022
Le
From: Edward Stevens <ezstevens@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:48 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: I am Opposed to the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting March 1, 2022
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am totally Opposed along with Mr. Gene Dewey to the Cost overrun of the Ladera Linda Park
Project before you have even started Construction.
I wholly agree with Gene that This estimate gives the city council the opportunity to send this
project back to staff to be redesigned along the lines of what the majority of the residents
have suggested.
Sincerely Ed Stevens
From: R. Gene Dewey [mailto:rgdewey@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 4: 11 PM
To: 'cc@rpvca.gov'
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan City Council Meeting Marchl, 2022
Members of the City Council
The estimate of$ 18.77 mm for the Ladera Linda Park is a wakeup call to rethink this mega project. A 29 % increase
over the estimate of$ 14.6 MM given last year. Who doesn't think that before this edifice is completed it won't
increase another 30 %. This estimate gives the city council the opportunity to send this project back to staff to be
redesigned along the lines of what the majority of the residents have suggested.
Thank you,
Gene Dewey
1 I.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:12 PM
CityClerk
FW: Proposed Ladera Linda Budget
From: Elizabeth Sax <saxhousel@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:05 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Ladera Linda Budget
Dear City Council,
I have read the staff report and proposed budget for the Ladera Linda
project and I feel that the price on the project is out of line with what we
asked for, need and want. As we all know, projects almost always get
completed at a higher cost than planned. I thought 14 million for the
project was high for our city to cover, the increase in cost to 18+million
dollars is not acceptable, not if you are to be responsible fiduciaries of
RPV funds.
I am in favor of freshening up the Ladera Linda community center, but we
don't need to spend 18+ million on the project. What is most important is
the land, where kids can play and enjoy the outdoors and everyone can
enjoy the view. It is not so much the structure that is important. The land
is precious and that is what we need to preserve. It doesn't have to be
fancy with elaborate landscaping, just clean, aesthetically pleasing and
safe. I suggest and hope that the project is put on hold until further
review of how we can cut costs whether by resizing/redesigning the
structure, and/or by forfeiting some of the landscaping and finishes.
1 /.
On a side note, I did not see silhouettes to show the size and scope of the
project which was made mandatory by the city of RPV when my family
did a remodel to our home, just a couple of blocks away. It is only right
that what is good for us residents, is good for the government as well.
We deserve that.
We have waited a long time to get the Ladera Linda project right ... to
move forward when we have learned in the nth hour that the price has
gone up substantially, when it was already highly expensive for the city,
would be fiscally irresponsible. I have confidence in all of you to do the
right thing and hold off till we can get it right: "Size, Scope, Cost and
Community Consensus".
All the best,
Elizabeth Sax
4022 Admirable Drive
RPV, CA 90275
2
From: vlaco5@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:48 AM
To:
Cc:
CC; David Bradley; Barbara Ferraro; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Ken Dyda
CityClerk
Subject: March 1 Agenda Items 1 and 2 (LADERA LINDA)
Dear Mayor Bradley, Mayor Pro Tern Ferraro and Council
Members, March 1, 2022
Regarding Ladera Linda agenda items 1 and 2, I have the following three comments.
1. Do not award the construction contract or approval the bank loan. The cost of this project has grown
to an unacceptable amount. In early designs produced by Fisher and Associates the estimated cost
that was being floated was around $7-9 million. And now a few years later the cost is going to be close
to double earlier estimates. The reason for this is the grandiose design of the building. Instead of a
modest building to support a low-key neighborhood park, this architect (with the endorsement of staff
and approval of council) has created this showpiece as the central feature of the park. Contrast that
with the low-key buildings at Hesse Park and Ryan Park. These buildings use the natural topography in
their locations so that there is very little visual impact on the parks and their natural beauty. In fact, in
many locations at Hess Park, you can't even see that there is any building on site. Instead of doing
something similar at Ladera Linda, you have chosen to make the building itself the star attraction. And
with the design (mostly glass walls for indoor/outdoor activities) and the removal of most of the
existing trees and shrubs to create an unobstructed view of Catalina from the building, it will most
certainly draw a lot of interest and crowds to our already impacted neighborhood.
This design does not fulfill council's promise to keep this a low-key neighborhood park. No matter how
many times that phrase is stated by staff in its quarterly newsletters doesn't make it true. The fact that
this tiny park (same size as Ryan Park which has a much smaller building and maintains tall mature
trees even though its views are also exceptional) is going to cost this much money and result in the city
taking out a loan to fund it, does not portend good things for the planned civic center project. Who
will really trust council to plan and spend wisely with Ladera Linda as a recent example of staff and
council oversight?
2. Do not vote on this item tonight. Delay the vote 30 days. Instruct staff to widely circulate
information to the larger RPV community about the total project cost and proposed bank loan. Only
those people who actively follow city council meetings and agendas would have a chance of knowing
how much this project is expected to cost the city. And these costs were not made public until the
staff report was published last week. Not a lot of time to ensure that the majority of RPV residents, for
whom this park is being built, are aware of what is being proposed at tonight's meeting.
1
Over the years, as our neighborhood has expressed concerns and raised issues regarding this planned
project, we have been reminded that this a park for all RPV residents. Shouldn't you therefore try to
do a better job of informing as many RPV residents as you can about the proposed costs and
financing? Staff put a message out over listserv and posted information on NextDoor but how many
people subscribe to these services? Was any notice mailed out to residents in RPV? Don't you think a
project of this magnitude warrants more widespread circulation of information?
And specifically with regards to the Listserv and NextDoor notices, the headline characterizes the
meeting tonight as a "Lad era Linda Park Discussion". That title seems a bit misleading to me. It is not
just a discussion. It is a request to approve an almost $19 million project with a large portion of it
financed by a bank loan. In the body of the notice (see screen shot below) staff mentions that council
will consider approving construction contracts and financing agreements, but they make NO MENTION
OF ANY DOLLARS to be spent or borrowed in connection with this project. They make no mention of
the revised project budget of $18. 77 million or the $8.0 million borrowing. Look at the way the notice
is worded. One might think that staff and council don't want the majority of residents to know this
information. If you are truly interested in transparency and full disclosure, don't you think you should
do a better job disseminating this vital information to the public? And don't you think it fair to publish
this information much more in advance of the meeting at which it will be voted on (a.k.a.
"discussed")?
Please delay this vote and insist that staff do more public outreach on this item, including mailing
notices to home addresses. Please include both total project costs and financing plans ($9.0 million of
debt) in all communications with your RPV residents.
3. Parking lot lighting. When council approved the lighting and security plan for the project, we were told
that staff would place a sample of the proposed 16 ft parking lot light at the existing park so that our
neighborhood could see what impact the lights might have on our views at night. We have not yet
been contacted as to the timing of this. We believed it would take place before construction
begins. As you already know, our residents are very concerned about the height and number of lights
proposed at this new park. Please tell me when this sample light will be erected at the site.
Thanks,
Jessica Vlaco
Ladera Linda resident
2
ck Reminder: ...
Ladera Linda
Community Park
Discussion March 1
Reminder: Tomorrow night, March 1,
the City Council will consider
approving financing agreements and
construction contracts for the Ladera
Linda Community Park Project These
topics will be discussed in two
separate agenda items. The
presentations will include an overview
of the construction contract, budget,
financing, and funding for the project.
The hybrid in-person/virtual meeting
will take place at 7 p.m. in McTaggart
Hall at Fred Hesse Jr. Community
Park and via Zoom with a limited
number of in-person attendees and
COVID-19 safety protocols in
place. Virtual participation is highly
encouraged. The meeting will be live-
streamed on the City website and
televised on RPVtv Cox 33/Frontier
FiOS 38.
Staff reports for these items are
3
From: James O'Neill
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:35 PM
donswanson@gmail.com
CityClerk
Subject: FW: CC Meeting 2.29.2022 -PVDS/PVDE Light
Thank you for contacting the City. Your email will be included in Late Correspondence and distributed prior to the start
of the meeting.
Respectfully,
James O'Neill, MPM
Project
Manager, Public
Works Department
joneil l@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5247
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLO
'lfl1t
i his e-mail message contains information helonginq to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileqecl, conridt,ntial and/or protected frorr1
ciisclosure, The information is intended only for· use of the individual CH' entity narnerL Unauthorized clisscrnination, distrit)ution, or copy\1q io strictly proiiibit(!CI. If
you received this email in errnr, or are not an inl\:mJecl recipi(,'nt, ple,ise notify tile sender immediately. Th,ink you fm your assistance ancl cooperation.
From: Don Swanson <donswanson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 9:00 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: CC Meeting 2.29.2022 -PVDS/PVDE Light
donswanson@gmail.com appears similar to someone who previously sent you email, but may not be that person. Learn why this
could be a risk
Dear City Council-
The light poles at PVDS/PVDE are an aesthetic failure.
The city just spent $1+ million of ratepayer undergrounding funds to remove four (4) poles at the PVDS city
border. Now, just months later, the City Council has the opportunity to remove six (6) taller, thicker, and indeed uglier
poles that negatively impact views. A more considerate design is needed at this highly visible gateway to our city.
1
• Electrifying the existing structures is the wrong move and difficult to undo.
• The alternative of adding a pole in the middle of PVDS seems dangerous.
• The illumination with multiple 30' poles seems over done.
A reasonable recommendation is to direct staff to:
1) Remove the existing poles now.
2) Consider illumination alternatives. Is a 30' pole actually required?
3) Allow evaluation of other traffic calming methods, including a roundabout.
This PVDS/PVDE intersection is the visual entrance to our great city with expansive ocean and open space views. Save
Our Coastline. Save Our Coastline Views.
Thank you.
-Don
PS: These opinions are not associated with my role on the IMAC.
Don Swanson
4135 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
James O'Neill
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:33 PM
John Spielman
CityClerk
RE: PVDS/PVDE Traffic Light
Thank you for contacting the City. Your email will be included in Late Correspondence and distributed prior to the start
of the meeting.
Respectfully,
James O'Neill, MPM
Project
Manager, Public
Works Department
joneill@rpvca.gov
Phone -(310) 544-5247
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
DOWNLOAD
'111,~
..._, Gtrncm
p-Google Play
Thi,; C\ mail mcssa(Jc contains infonnation bdon9i119 to the City of Rancho Palos V(\r<ks, which may be p,-ivilcQ1:eJ, conficlc\ntial and/or prot1,ctcd fn)ITl
cfr,;closure. The inforrnation is intended only for use of the individual or entity rwmcci. Unauthorized disseniim,Uon, distribution, or copyincJ is sb'ict:ly pror,ibitcd. If
you r~~ccived this cn1c1ll in error, or are not an intcnc1ed recipient, please notify the sender irnrncdir.te!y, Thank you for your dssist.diK.e and coopu-ation,
City Hall is open to the public during regular business hours. To help prevent the spread of COV/0-19, visitors are required
to wear face coverings and adhere to physical distancing guidelines. Some employees are working on rotation and may
be working remotely. if you need to visit City Hall, please schedule an appointment in advance by calling the appropriate
department and follow all posted directions during your visit. Walk-ups are limited to one person at a time. Please note
that our response to your inquiry could be delayed. For a list of department phone numbers, visit the Staff Directory on
the City website.
From: John Spielman <johnspielman@sent.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:45 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PVDS/PVDE Traffic Light
Dear City Council,
1 3
I recently read the staff report "Consideration and possible action to identify potential aesthetic
improvements to the traffic signal at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes
Drive East". As an RPV citizen and a member of IMAC, I encourage City Council to seriously consider
activating the traffic light as installed and then pursue Option 2 given in the report: "Direct Staff to pursue the
study of a roundabout as an alternative to a traffic signal". Better to let the staff spend time on a permanent
solution to the problem rather than on trying the beautify a traffic light. Why? Because:
• A roundabout at this intersection would slow and calm traffic entering RPV from San Pedro. There
would be ZERO vehicles speeding north west bound on PVDS to "make the light" at the intersection
with PVDS. All traffic would be required to slow to a safe 15 mph to navigate the roundabout.
• A roundabout at this intersection, with an attractive center piece (Bubbles?), would be much more
aesthetically pleasing than the existing, or an improved and more costly, traffic light.
• Everyone will save time with a roundabout in place. Vehicles making left turns from PVDE to PVDS or
PVDS (south east bound) to PVDE won't have to wait for a green light on a timer. Vehicles on PVDS
going straight through the intersection will not be frequently stopped by a red light designed to platoon
the traffic (but they will need to slow down to go through the roundabout).
• A roundabout will be safer for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. "The net result of lower speeds and
reduced conflicts at roundabouts is an environment where crashes that cause injury or fatality are
substantially reduced." https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/roundabouts.cfm
• If in the future RPV adopts additional roundabouts at the intersections of PVDS/Forrestal and
PVDS/Schooner, all of PVDS from San Pedro to Terranea will be stoplight-free, calm and convenient to
enter and travel on including when entering PVDS with a left turn. Even cars entering PVDS at
intersections without roundabouts (such as Conqueror Dr.) will benefit because they can enter with a
right turn and then do a U-turn at the next roundabout.
Perhaps the new traffic light hardware can one day be removed and sold on eBay to finance
something nice for the city. Here's an amateur rendition of how attractive the intersection could look
with a roundabout:
2
John Spielman
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good afternoon,
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 202212:18 PM
Carol Mueller; CC
CityClerk
Late Correspondence for City Council Meeting Tonight
There are items on this evening's agenda that are all very important topics to the community. As you can imagine it is
challenging to ensure topics are thoroughly vetted before the City Council with full opportunity for public participation.
As you noted correctly, a reorder of the agenda is at the Mayor and City Council's discretion and would be considered at
the time of the meeting.
Thank you.
Teri
From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 11:56 AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting Tonight
Your email response does NOT answer my question ... is it possible to get the EDCO issue/s moved up so it is earlier in
the evening for us elderly? Or are we back to leaving things of senior interest to so late we are long into a deep
snore? If I fall asleep and/or fall off the chair will someone come and help me back into the chair? Seems that it is
possible for the City Council Member/s to move up issues such as this. If the chose to do so ... Correct?
Carol Mueller
-----Original Message-----
From: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
To: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2022 10:51 am
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting Tonight
Good morning,
Your comments will be included as late correspondence in this evening's packet and will be posted on our City's website.
Teri Takaoka
City Clerk
From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 10:4 7 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting Tonight
•
Are ya all planning to leave the EDCO issue to end of meeting when most common sense Seniors are sound asleep ... l
remember when you scheduled such meetings early. But then that was when Ken Delong was still with us. Obviously,
the good ole days of common sense are gone forever ... Maybe Putin will come and take over!
Carol Mueller
-----Original Message-----
From: Do Not Reply@rpvca.gov <listserv@civicplus.com>
To: cmuell@verizon.net
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2022 9:31 am
Subject: City Council Meeting Tonight
City Council Meeting Tonight
Don't miss the City Council meeting tonight, March 1 at 7 p.m.
Meeting topics include financing agreements and construction contracts for the Ladera
Linda Community Park Project; and an update on the new traffic signal at Palos Verdes
Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East, including potential aesthetic design
alternatives, among other items.
2
The meeting will take place in McTaggart Hall at Hesse Park and via Zoom. Watch live at
rpvca.qov or on Cox 33/FiOS 38.
To participate in public comment virtually, complete a form at rpvca.qov/participate. Email
your comments on agenda items to cc@rpvca.gov .
If you are a person with a disability and need an accommodation to participate in
programs, services, activities and meetings, contact the City's ADA Coordinator/Risk
Manager at 310-683-3157, , 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90275, at least 48 hours in advance to request an auxiliary aid or
accommodation.
Dshare on Facebook Dshare on Twitter
Copyright 2019 Rancho Palos Verdes. All Rights Reserved.
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dshare via Email
Powered bv
Email not displaying correctly? \/}(;!w it in your browser .
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Friday, February 25, 2022 8:15 AM
CityClerk
FW: Organic Waste Disposal Issue
From: cassiej@aol.com <cassiej@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Organic Waste Disposal Issue
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons,
Thank you for your service. I have been following this subject and am fairly confident my home situation will be handled in
the standard manner. We use compost bins for compostable food and garden scraps and gave green waste hauled
weekly. We can deal with the addition of some food scraps to the green waste container if our provider can provide lids to
keep the raccoons and rats out. We currently put meat waste in the garbage disposal or non-recyclable can with a lid. It
can certainly go in the green waste with a lid ...
However, I own the Point Vicente Animal Hospital right below your offices and I have not been able to figure out what we
are to do with dog poop, cat poop and litter and uneaten dog and cat food. And certainly not in the quantities that we can
generate. Do you have a special designation for such waste or prefer it to go into the green waste? If so, we will need to
get a green waste container as our green waste is currently hauled off by our landscaping service. What are most
residential customers supposed to do with the same items? They are not really addressed in the staff report that I can
see, though I certainly could have missed it. Manure is discussed at length but not dog and cat poop and food disposal.
Please advise. There are other veterinary clinics in the City, I believe, and they might want to know the score here as
well. And, for that matter, what is the average household to do with it specifically? My clients may want to know!
Again, thanks for all you do. Sorry to be the one to bring up dog poop!
Sincerely,
Cassie Jones, DVM
Point Vicente Animal Hospital
Rancho Palos Verdes
1 t/;
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 9:50 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: organic recycling
-----Original Message-----
From: barbara <barlock4@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 6:40 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: organic recycling
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
My husband and I support the plan to start organic recycling in our city. We understand that there will be an increase in
our rates, however, we feel this is an important issue to address.
Barbara Locke
4332 Admirable Dr.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late Corr
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:12 PM
CityClerk; Ramzi Awwad; Lauren Ramezani
FW: 3.1.22 RPV Council Meeting
From: Carol Mueller <cmuell@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: 3.1.22 RPV Council Meeting
To Whom it may concern:
I am very tired this date, so I would like to submit the following as late correspondence to the above referenced meeting in
the event I am unable to attend.
I am wondering what does environmental state mandates have to do with altering certain parts of a Contract between
RPV and EDCO entered into competitively in 2009 and was to be valid through June, 2022? There seems to be a very
"close" relationship between EDCO and certain RPV employees. For years, I assumed it was incompetence, however, I
have come to suspect perhaps nefarious actions.
I am finding CA residents who are totally unaware of their city taking actions re SB 1383 as of this date. Why the rush in
the city of RPV? Perhaps a new EDCO/RPV contract should go out to bid. More than once, EDCO has declined to take
rate increases to their contract. As I recall, the current contract states if EOCO declines increases, they CANNOT come
back at a later date and reclaim.
Respectfully submitted,
CAROLEAN "Carol" MUELLER
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through
Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 1, 2022 City Council meeting:
Item No.
F
1
3
4
Description of Material
Email from: Constance Turner
Emails from: Christopher Yang; Herb Stark; Mickey Radich; The Smith
Family; Richard Ishibashi; Paul Funk; Walt Goede; Lois Karp; Svetlana
Red; Patricia Ott; Amanda Hartelust; Jay Fodor; Anthony & Lety
Todora; Craig Whited and Kelvin Vanderlip.
Emails from: John Spielman and Don Swanson
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Ramezani and:
Eva Cicoria and Ken Swenson
Email from: Ann Wong
Respectfully submitted,
ciuz;J;~
Teresa Takaoka
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2022\2022 Coversheets\20220301 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
City Clerk's Office,
Ken Rukavina
Monday, February 28, 2022 8:00 AM
CityClerk
Ara Mihranian
FW: (External):Fwd: RPV _ View Ordinance
RPV_Zoning Ordinance View_Agenda Report.pdf
The email below is late correspondence for Item Fon tomorrow's CC agenda.
Ken
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development
t;ef!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.
a... GETITON
~ Google Play
From: Constance Turner <Constance.Turner@sce.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 3:06 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Ken Rukavina <krukavina@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: (External):Fwd: RPV_View Ordinance
Ordinance 657, Page A1
1
Gentlemen:
Southern California Edison does not construct for view or aesthetics and that includes substation fencing and shrubbery.
Our facilities are under not only the Franchise Agreement with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes but also the California
Public Utilities Commission, Homeland Security and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Our fencing and
shrubbery as well as other protective items, are installed to protect our system.
I just wanted to clarify our Edison opposition to any ordinance that would impose aesthetic requirements with utilizing
rate payer dollars and not meeting the requirements of the State and Federal governing bodies of the electric utility.
Once again, we install fencing and shrubbery for the protection and reliability of our system and not for views.
Thanks.
Connie
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Constance Turner <conniecet@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Constance Turner
Subject: (External):Fwd: RPV _ View Ordinance
liP3:U#I.J~M l§IM411W•Ul4MOM ldlt§;t.j illilliillilttiiti•1 iiUffliOM§Edii&i
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Constance Turner <conniecet@aol.com>
Date: February 27, 2022 at 1:36:18 PM PST
To: Constance Turner <conniecet@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: RPV_View Ordinance
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Impact all fences, hedges, etc.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, February 24, 2022 9:37 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Ladera Linda
From: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 9:36 AM
To: email.christopheryang@gmail.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda
Dear Mr. Yang,
Thank you for your email and for sharing the results of your Facebook poll regarding
the City's policy on bikes, scooters, and skateboards and their potential use at Ladera
Linda. Your email will be included as late correspondence for the March 1 City Council
meeting. Please feel free to forward me any additional survey information.
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
From: Christopher Yang <email.christopheryang@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 9:19 PM
1 /.
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda
Dear City Council,
Thank you for agreeing to reconsider the park policy banning bicycles, scooters and tricycles (which I understand is being
reviewed on March 15). Given that you are about to discuss Ladera Linda on March 1, I wanted to pass along the results
of an informal poll taken on Facebook amongst a group of 'PV Parents'. The results of the poll came after asking the
following question:
If RPV builds a new park at ladera Linda, should children be given a space to ride bikes, scooters and skateboards?
237 individuals : 'yes'
38 individuals : 'yes+ skatepark'
0: 'no'
***
Here's a link to the poll, for your reference:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pvparents/posts/1034594607268043
***
'Yes of course':
Christopher Yang
Teresa Yang
Michelle Woo
Lauren Follmar
Vita Ungaro
Elyse Williams
Mark Resnick
Terra Seraina
Paola Cusi
Jennifer Catrina Fahimian
Wei Wei
Reto Swica
Cindy Boger
Gabby Saavedra
Terri Buono Shepherd
Reena Mahajan
Angela Panetta
Masayo Sodeyama
Jill Juliano Pupich
Diana Woo
Ramona Rebeck
Patty DiBernardo
Valerie Sieger-Beranek
Sarah Doty
Meg Moore
Sandy Chen Yang
Nicole Kiselicka-Sickmiller
Aisha Enriquez
Heidy Valiente
Alice Chou
Mellisa Ramirez
2
Raphael Ziegler
Patty Mattera
Ji Eun Choi
Jamilette De Leon
Donna Villaescusa
Kathy Corbett Johnson
Nicole Cordova Lyttle
Amelia Bacher
Kelly McKeever Jones
Gloria Alvarez Sanchez
Stacey Soto
Janice Nayebdadash
Kimberly Fugelsang
Erica Mangham
Karina Murguia
Samantha Mastellos Pinter
Shibvouhn Lopez
Raena Hawkins
Michael Keuler
Kathy Austin Schuricht
Nancy Nancy
Kelsey Wolleat Amalfitano
Rhonda Graham Treatch
Stefani Goldenberg
Linda Bui
Lissa Vickers
Joan Benjamin Brown
Heidi Puskar
Karen Battle Cabrera
Traci Jo
Cindy Damon
Amber Yu
Soowon Lee
Heidi Hyun
Courtney Leigh
Kandis Wannamaker
Vicki Croucier
Amber Johnson Wimberly
Janine McKenna
Sandi Gordon Sartini
Juliette Ortega
Marla Dahbura Munro
Dale McCracken Ward
Cathy Gardner
Debra L. Eastwood
Marcia Luce
Ida Zhang
Tory McCarthy O'Leary
Stefani Strategos Turner
Tracy Schrier
Tina Birch Creighton
Sherry Winner-La Maison
Shauna Rhoades
Thu Lan Kim
Dominic Aung
Yazmin Rodriguez
Tami Wick
Natalie Van
3
Genevieve Friend Land
Liz Parker Satterthwaite
Priyanka Sharma
Georgina Gomez-Pattison
Jason Friedman
Jordan Sarka
Olivia Siciliano
Kyle Irvin
Danielle G. Eanet
Lorena Tassi
Sandra Kenworthy
Sharon Ross Mangrum
Sky Kym
Dana Ed
Candice Hanson
Rhonda Rafijah
Allison Warner Schmitz
Kelly Lee
Jude Lee
HuPerkins Christa
Ek Ek
Shannon Gruber Kilcullen
Darren Magana
Diana Cortese
Danielle Hamilton
Shawna Egbert Christensen
Victoria Russell Koehler
Kathleen Tubridy
Lori Chappell
Karin Morger
Nicole Miller Ticknor
Megan Walsh Pearce
Traci Black
Jeff Wilcox
Caroline Perry
Ellen Lee
David Cao
Heather Chamberlain Smith
Jill Moran
Joanna Good
Laura Polen Robinson
Jamie Cohen Schnel
Andrea Lee Schreiner
Katherine Skaggs
Tanuja Nagar Karthikeyan
Lou Rudd
Mahnaz Ahangar Khatib
Junee Bug
Joe Meza
Michelle Enriquez
Katrina Garnreiter St. Louis
Kimberly Sumich Lisica
Michelle Miwa Shintani
Chris Glaneman
Christina Oh
Heather Haddon Matson
Dawn Mikkelsen Rapoport
Sarote Tabcum Jr.
4
Jennifer Rodriguez
Laura Wallace
Rosa Correa Romero
Denise Al-Alam
Patricia Bhrad
Aisha Aikoye
Frank Baker
Banh Pa
Jennifer Haley
Delia Garcia-Rembao
Maria Kazan
Michele Reif-Gregory
Phoebe Ma
Kimberly Deziel
Rebecca Haeri Misa
Jenay Michou Rouimi
Alex Afshar
Maria Margarita Ibarra-Kohn
lkumi Nishimura
Dara Elterman Henry
Pernilla Gunner Rossel
Alicia Nunn
Mark Anel
Catherine Lee
Quynh Vo Hanser
Yvette Gallardo D'Elia
Brooke Sigler
Camilla Hwang
Joanna Juretzek
Angelique Hasse Lyle
Lori Chong Eurich
Anna Gromski
Coleen Lowry Sabia
Erin N. Brady
Kacie Clemens Carbone
Lea C. Chung
Julie Goff Lasry
Teresa O'Sullivan
Ayda Akalin
Steven Kan
Ruriko Takiguchi Okuno
Victoria Chung
Mike Tsucalas
Rick Buxter
Kimberly Johnson Ryan
Helen Brooks
Christiana Whallon
Kim Wu
Katie Capri
Hoai Nguyen
Lilli Ana
Anna Griffin Sudeth
Ashley Bryant
Michelle Povinelli
Emily Chan
Le Hoang Phuong Huong
Jaime McGory
Nicole Eberhardt Pelner
5
Liz Juneau
Julia Volonakis
Janice Pon-Ishikawa
Paul DiCarmine
Marissa Wilhelm
Annemarie Laskey Corey
Erin Eileen
Christine Ann Kruse
Heather Ann Baker
Tiffany De Witt
Carly Capper
Jessica KissVm
Nicole Comess-Williams
Neda Zeim
Michelle Stefani
Julie Sevilla
Meredith Weiss
Paris Shoghi
Benoit Hochedez
Becky Cohu
Helen Kim
Heidi Yao
Grace An
Leah Hendrickson
June Chapin
San Geeta
Nicole Michelle
Jonathan Young
Rachel Suh Liao
Derek Chung
Emily June Wilcox
Amar Joshi
'Yes, and a skatepark too':
Shanna Thompson Zareski
Sarah Doty
Gwen Morgan-Beazell
Chris Chessmore Wolf
Janice Nayebdadash
Nancy Nancy
William Moore
Parul Gaur
Christina DeMoss
Ida Zhang
Tina Birch Creighton
Lorraine Mira
Bonnie McLean Gambino
Michelle Drehman Jongkind
Jordan Sarka
Andy Shen
Kianna Modir Shapiro
Anna McDougall
Delanie Sinton
Lora Wiltshire Simpson
Randy Burg
Jeff Wilcox
Ellen Lee
6
Katherine Skaggs
Joe Meza
Rosa Correa Romero
Michele Reif-Gregory
Jenay Michou Rouimi
Mark Anel
Yvette Gallardo D'Elia
Jessica Pellegrino Martinez
Michelle Zahn Hines
Stephanie Klein
Ham Fam
Megan Crum
Kiran Hashmi
Leah Hendrickson
Carlos Tadeo Ortega Otero
**
I submit these results not in an attempt to 'short-circuit' or circumvent the planning process, which to my understanding
has already been finalized, but to highlight the consensus among families in the community that there are not enough
safe spaces on the Hill for children to ride their bicycles and scooters that are free from vehicular traffic.
Thank you
7
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, February 24, 2022 11:10 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: March 1, City Council Meeting
LL Parking Lots Rev B.pdf; Ladera Linda Forrestal Reserve Parking.pdf
From: Herb Stark <ptl 7stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 11:08 AM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: March 1, City Council Meeting
Regular Business Item 1 Ladera Linda Park Project
Ladera Linda Park Reserve Parking
The proposed contract has a construction operational plan outlining the time that construction can occur to
minimize the impact of construction on the residents living near the park.
What staff has not addressed is the operational plan for Forrestal Reserve parking during and after
construction. For years, Recreation and Parks staff has considered Reserve parking as not related to the
park. This is totally false. From the perspective of the residents living near the Reserve trail heads they are
connected. Even the city's website on the Forrestal Reserve refers to the park's amenities.
Before city council approval of the construction contract staff must provide the council and residents with an
operational plan for the Forrestal Reserve Parking during construction and after the park is completed.
Forrestal Reserve Parking During Construction
A month of tracking of the parking in the park shows that there is adequate parking during construction for
Reserve parking in the lower part of Forrestal, including weekends, when subtracting out park staff and the
paddle tennis players which would not be available during construction.
Attached is an update on the parking in the Ladera Linda Park. This is a follow up to the initial report which
was sent to the City Council and is attached for reference.
The data covers a period of one month from January 22 nd through February 24 th , 2022.
Forrestal Reserve Parking After Construction
The peak usage of the parking for Reserve visitors appears to be between 9 am and 10:30 am. Using the
staff's overly optimistic usage chart to justify the large planned facility, it shows no park usage on Sunday's
from 9 am to 10 am and from 20 to 50 people on Saturdays attending programs at the park. This would mean
at the most about 25 cars during this time.
I
Assuming the peak number of cars experienced during the monitoring period between 9 am and 10 am on
Saturdays, you could expect to see a combined count of about 95 cars. With 54 spaces available in the park,
worst case, the overflow of 41 cars would have to park on the lower part of Forrestal. There are presently over
60 available spaces. This is without opening up the Forrestal gate.
During the week there will be adequate parking for both park and Reserve visitors. The only potential conflict
would be on Saturdays between 9 am and 10:30 am.
During peak times under extreme conditions, some Reserve visitors might be forced to park across the street
on Trump Way and have to cross PV Drive South. Some on the City Council expressed the concern this might
be a safety issue. Residents have been crossing PV Drive South to access the trails below Trump National
Golf Course for years. Why now is the Council concerned about crossing PV Drive South?
When establishing parking for the Preserve, whether Del Cerro or Ladera Linda, Council should be guided by
three principles.
1. Provide open public access to the Preserve
2. Maintain the quality of life and safety of the residents
3. There is no requirement to provide special parking for Preserve visitors
Opening up the Forrestal gate represents a potential threat to the quality of life and safety of the residents of
Ladera Linda considering that, depending on the spacing of the cars, there could be close to 300 spaces
available. This would triple the number of cars going up and down Forrestal with all the noise, safety and
congestion on Forrestal and at the intersection of Forrestal and PV Drive South.
It was said that Cory Lender, speaking at the quarterly Land Conservancy workshop, stated that the Forrestal
gate would be opened on the weekends and be limited to 50 cars. The question is how is he going to limit the
number of cars when the gate is open for AYSO games?
He also stated that the gate would be open from 7 am to sunset. The question was asked, what if a car is
behind the gate after sunset. Mr. Lender stated that the car could be towed. Considering the present policy of
leaving the Ladera Linda park gate open if there is a car left in the parking lot after closing time, this policy if
followed for the Reserve parking would open up the Forrestal area to the dumping of trash, illegal parties and
fires.
No, the best solution is to keep the Forrestal gate closed and direct the Reserve visitors to park on the lower
portion of Forrestal.
Which brings up the issue, what is the city's plan to implement the closing of the park and the handling of the
Reserve visitors? To date no one has provided a transition plan to the residents.
Council should direct staff to implement the following plan:
1. Two weeks before the closing, signs should be placed at the entrance to the park and in the
parking lots stating that the park would be closed on such a date and that Reserve street parking would
be available on the lower portion of Forrestal.
2. The day before the closing, temporary signs would be placed on the lower portion of Forrestal
designating parking areas.
3. Restricted parking signs would also be placed in front of the three homes on Forrestal.
2
4. On the day of the opening, Park Rangers would be stationed at Pirate and Forrestal to direct traffic
and prevent parking in the residential areas. They would be stationed there from 7 am to sunset for the
duration of the construction period.
The question that needs to be answered is:
Who does the Council serve? It certainly is not the residents.
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
3
Ladera Linda Parking Lots
Number of Cars**
Date Time Day Cars Parked
1/22/22 10:30 AM Saturday 51
1/23/22 10:00 AM Sunday 46
1/24/22 9:30 AM Monday 27
1/24/22 10:00 AM Monday* 41
1/25/22 10:20 AM Tuesday 16
1/26/22 10:11 AM Wednesday 26
1/27/22 10:10 AM Thursday 25
1/28/22 10:41 AM Friday 23
1/29/22 9:47 AM Saturday 55
1/30/22 10:05 AM Sunday 43
1/31/22 10:33 AM Monday 30
2/1/22 10:30 AM Tuesday 23
2/2/22 10:14 AM Wednesday 21
2/3/22 10:30 AM Thursday 26
2/4/22 10:52 AM Friday 20
2/5/22 10:30 AM Saturday 72
2/6/22 9:53 AM Sunday 51
2/9/22 9:23 AM Wednesday 25
1/10/22 9:48 AM Thursday 19
2/11/22 10:36 AM Friday 17
2/12/22 10:02 AM Saturday 59
2/13/2022 9:40 AM Sunday 35
2/14/22 9:40 AM Monday 30
2/16/22 10:10 AM Wednesday 27
2/17/22 9:40 AM Thursday 16
2/19/22 10:12 AM Saturday 72
2/20/22 10:12AM Sunday 47
2/21/22 10:15 AM (1lMonday 45
2/22/22 10:45 AM Tuesday 22
2/23/22 10:19AM Wednesday 11
2/24/22 10:03 AM Thursday 18
Tennis
NC***
NC***
NC***
NC***
NC***
8
NC***
0
9
6
11
4
4
8
0
10
11
0
4
3
10
10
6
8
4
10
10
8
3
0
2
*Event at Park
**In the totals are cars of people playing paddle tennis
and city staffs personal cars which will not be there
during construction.
***Not Counted
****Based upon Staff's 24 ft. per space (50)
*****California minimum, 18 ft. per space (67)
(1l Holiday
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Ladera Linda Parking Lots
Minimum California Standard Spaces*****
Staff Available Forrestal Parking Spaces ****
> ro
~
::::i ....,
ro
V)
>
I
> * > > > > > > > > > >
I
> ro ro > ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
"O "O ro "O "O "O "O ~ "O "O "O "O "O "O
C C "O VI VI ~ ·;:: C C VI VI ~ ·;::
::::i 0 C QJ QJ LI... ::::i :::s 0 QJ QJ LI...
V) ~ 0 :::s C :::s ....,
V) ~ :::s C :::s
I-"O .c ro I-"O .c ~ QJ I-V) QJ I-s s
10:30 AM I 10:00 AM I 9:30 AM I 10:00 AM I 10:20 AM I 10:11 AM I 10 :10 AM I 10 :41 AM I 9:47 AM I 10:05 AM I 10 :33 AM I 10:30 AM I 10:14 AM I 10:30 AM I 10:52 AM
1;22;22 I 1/23/22 I 1/24/22 I 1/24/22 I 1/25/22 I 1/26/22 I 1;21;22 I 1/28/22 I 1/29/22 I 1/30/22 I 1/31/22 I 2;1;22 2/2/22 2/3/22 2/4/22
■ Cars Parked
Ladera Linda Parking Lots
Minimum California Standard Se.aces*****
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
~ "O "O "O "O ~ "O "O "O "O ~ "O "O "O "O "O
C VI ~ ·;:: C C VI ~ C C VI V) V) :::s :::s QJ LI... :::s :::s 0 QJ ::::i :::s 0 QJ QJ '-....,
V) C :::s ....,
V) ~ C :::s ....,
V) ~ :::s C :::s ro "O .c ro "O .c ro I-"O .c V) QJ I-V) QJ I-V) QJ I-s s ...... s
10:30 AM I 9 :53 AM 19:23 AM 9 :48 AM 10 :36 AM 10:02 AM 9 :40AM 9 :40 AM 10:10 AM 9 :40AM 10:12 AM 10:12 AM 10 :15 AM 10 :45 AM 10 :19 AM 10 :03 AM
2/5/22 2/6/22 2/9/22 1/10/22 2/11/22 2/12/22 /13/202 2/14/22 2/16/22 2/17/22 2/19/22 2/20/22 2/21/22 2/22/22 2/23/22 2/24/22
■ Cars Parked
Ladera Linda Forrestal Reserve Parking
Over the years the city and the residents of Ladera Linda have developed a reasonable
approach to the Forrestal Reserve parking, maintaining the quality of life of the
residents. Unfortunately, this approach will no longer be feasible starting in February or
March of this year when the park is scheduled for reconstruction.
The present system directs all Reserve parking into the Ladera Linda parking lots,
restricts parking in the upper isolated portions of Forrestal to prevent the dumping of
trash in the canyons, illegal parties, vehicle crime, fires and prohibits parking along
Forrestal adjacent to residential homes to reduce noise.
With the closing of the park for reconstruction there is both a near term and a long term
problem of what to do with the Reserve parking. Figure 1 is the recorded parking use
during a typical period of time. Peaks of just over 70 cars have been recorded including
both park and reserve visitors. In developing the usage chart two counts were made
approximately 30 minutes apart with the higher count recorded.
The Parks and Recreation staff has consistently pushed to open the Forrestal gate to
Reserve parking. At the last City Council meeting the Council agreed, during
construction, to open the gate on weekends, rejecting staff's recommendation to create
a parking lot on a major portion of Forrestal at a cost of $80,000 plus the cost of security
cameras, staff and staff accommodations.
Opening the gate on weekends will have the potential of causing major traffic and safety
problems on Forrestal and at the intersection of Forrestal and PV Drive South, once it
becomes know that there is essentially unlimited parking at the Forrestal Reserve
trailheads. Even under the generous spacing of Staff there would be a tripling of the
available parking spaces. See table below.
Upper Forrestal Parking
Number of Parking Spaces
vs Length of Space
Designation Length (ft.) Parking
Oriqinal Estimate 15 300
State Minimum 18 250
Ryan Park 20 225
Staff Forrestal 24 188
Long term, Parks and Recreation's recommendation that was approved by the City
Council assumed no Reserve parking in the park's parking lot and therefore provided
only 54 parking spaces. As you can see from figure 1 that during peak weekend trail
usage, 9 am to 11 am, all the spaces would be occupied by Reserve users unless the
Forrestal gate is opened.
Opening up the Forrestal gate brings with it the potential for dumping of trash in the
canyons, illegal parties, vehicle crimes, and fires, along with the addition of increased
traffic, crime and noise.
There is an alternative to opening of the Forrestal gate, parking on the lower portion of
Forrestal. See Figure 2.
Parks and Recreation staff has rejected this option on two grounds.
First, any overflow parking would be forced to park on Trump Way where hikers would
have to cross high trafficked PV Drive South to get to the trailheads. What staff is not
aware of is that people are already parking on Forrestal and crossing PV Drive South to
get to Marylyn Ryan Park and the trails. Also hikers have been seen parking in the
Ladera Linda Park and hiking down Forrestal. Local residents hike down to the trails
below Trump National, crossing PV Drive South.
If you look at the numbers in Figure 1 you will see that very few cars if any would be
forced to park on Trump Way.
The second objection is that hikers would be force to perform a u turn in the middle of
the street or block traffic, double parking waiting for a space to open up.
Here again referring to the parking plan there is ample parking to accommodate the
present number of hikers when you subtract the tennis players and staff that would not
be at the park during construction. Even in the rejected staff plan they assumed a
turnaround at the gate and in the proposed plan it would be at Forrestal and Pirate.
The choses are clear, the opening of the Forrestal gate would more than triple the traffic
on Forrestal, open up the area to the dumping of trash in the canyons, illegal parties,
vehicle crime, safety issues, noise and fires.
Or the proposed plan which in affect limits the number of vehicles to the present level of
hikers, keeping the traffic contained to the lower portion of Forrestal away from the
residential areas. The one disadvantage is that the hikers would have to hike up
Forrestal to get to the trailheads.
The question is who is the City Council serving? Right now it is not the
residents.
Remember nature abhors a vacuum. If you provide more parking more hikers will
come to fill it.
Date
1/22/2022
1/23/2022
1/24/2022
1/24/2022
1/25/2022
1/26/2022
1/27/2022
1/28/2022
1/29/2022
1/30/2022
1/31/2022
2/1/2022
212/2022
2/3/2022
2/4/2022
2/5/2022
2/6/2022
70 -..
Ladera Linda Parking Lots
Number of Cars••
Time Dav Cars Parked
10:30 AM Saturdav 51
10:00 AM Sunday 46
9:30AM Mondav 27
10:00 AM Monday• 41
10 :20AM Tuesdav 16
10:11AM Wednesday 26
10:10 AM Thursday 25
10:41 AM Fridav 23
9:47 AM Saturday 55
10 :05 AM Sunday 43
10 :33 AM Monday 30
10:30AM Tuesday 23
10:14 AM Wednesday 21
10:30 AM Thursday 26
10:52 AM Fridav 20
10:30 AM Saturdav 72
9 :53AM Sunday 51
·--····-----···-·-···· ·-..__ ...•.. -
Tennis
NC ***
NC**"
NC .. *
NC* ..
NC0 *
8
NC* ..
0
9
6
11
4
4
8
0
10
11
--·-··--·-·
*Event at Park
**In the totals are cars of people playing paddle tennis
and city staff's personal cars which will not be there
during construction .
***Not Counted
*'**Bas ed upon Staff's 24 ft . per space (50)
**'**California minimum , 18 ft. per space (67)
Ladera Linda Parking Lots
~inimum Califo!nia St~~dard ~pac_e~•-~•*•
60 _, _____ _
Staff Availabl e Fo rr esta l Parki ng Spaces• .. ,
50 i-
E -,I 11: .• iT11 _, J ,1,1_1 ,l ,1 -1
I ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ j ~ l ~ ' ~ ! ~ ~ ' ~ I ~ . ~ ! ~ I ~ ~ ' J I I I I · 1 1 : 1 I '1 ! ~ ! · I , 1 : 1 1 I I ' J I I !~!~ o g i ~ ~,]•u_.~1 a o ~; ~ .c"·,u. ~1 J:I ~ I ~ l ~ ~ ~ I ~ • j ~ ! ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ ; I ! i l i ! I ' f ~ ! I ' ' I i ' I I
/10 :3 0 AMl110:00 AM 9:30 AM '10 :00 AM;I0:20 AM 10 :11 AM 'l0:10 AM 10:4 1 AM' 9:47 AM ;10:0S AM 10:33 AM10:30 AM'.10:14 AM '!0:30 AM'l0:52 AM ,10:30 AM 9:S3 AM j
i ' I ' ' 'I . I I !
i/22/202'l)./23/202'}/./24/202'lJ./24/20VJ/25/20VJ./26/202"lJ./27/202"lJ./28/2027/-/29/202-iJ./30/202'lJ./31/20222/l/202212/2/2022j2/3/2022l2/4/2022 2/5/2022!2/6/2022f
■ Car:s Par ke d
Figure 1 Trailhead Parking
Figure 2 Trailhead Parking Layout
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:33 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Actual Cost of The New Ladera Linda Park
From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:32 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Actual Cost of The New Lad era Linda Park
Why is our Staff so reluctant to show our residents the true cost for the
new Ladera Linda Park? In the past, Staff also resisted telling the City
Council what the current estimated costs were, by saying that they were
too busy to figure out the cost increases from the three year old estimate
of $14.6 million and they said they did not want to tip off prospective
bidding contractors.
Now that the Staff has the final bids, the cost has increased to $18.77
million and possibly more. This week's City Manager's Weekly
Administrative Report, as well as any previous one, fails to mention that
the new Park will cost $18.77 million.
I think that it is unconscionable that you, our City Council, as well as
our Staff has acted this way and refused to tell our residents what the
current costs were. This is a big disservice to all of our residents and a
waste of our taxpayers dollars. They will find out, too late, after you
approve this Item at this next meeting. I'm sure that if they were
informed in a timely manner, there would be resistance to spending that
much of our taxpayers money on this project.
1 I.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 7:27 AM
CityClerk
Fw: Council Meeting: 03/01/22 -Item #1 Ladera Linda Park
From: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 5:36 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council Meeting: 03/01/22 -Item #1 Ladera Linda Park
The following are my comments from the Recommendation Council
Action list:
Recommendation #1:
Based on the surprising latest cost estimate for this project I strongly
recommend that this project be cancelled and a more cost effective park
be approved and built. This project will drain our City's financial resources
and put our City in $8 million worth of debt. Our City faces 2 other very
large proposed projects, namely, the Portuguese Bend Landslide
mediation project ($30 to 40 million or more) and a new Civic Center
Project ($40 to 140 million or more) that will further drain our financial
resources and put us in considerably deeper debt. Since its inception
our city has never had any debt, but now we will begin a new chapter
that will involve debt and added debt. They call that deficit spending.
I know that the Staff is highly optimistic that we will receive $30 million
plus from the federal government for the Portuguese Bend Landslide
project, but there is no guarantee that we will ever receive any such aid
and the true cost for all of that work is unknown. Based on the cost of the
new Ladera Linda park, Staff's estimates for this project could be way off
base and who knows what complications could arise during its
1
construction to increase it even further. It is more important to
remediate the Landslide than it is to have a $18.77 million Ladera Linda
Park.
Based on the $18.77 million cost for a 6,790 sq.ft. building for the new
Ladera Linda Park, I can only imagine what the cost of a new Civic Center
will be. A few years ago, there were estimates of anywhere from $40
million to $140 million dollars and based on Ladera Linda it could be even
higher. Our city does not want or need a $140 plus million Civic Center
that will put us in debt forever. We do not want deficit spending running
rampant in Rancho Palos Verdes. I remember quite clearly at a City
Council meeting last year when our Public Works Director, when
questioned, stated that the $14.6 million was an "all in" estimate.
Recommendation #3:
It is not necessary to give Johnson/Favaro another $384,000 for design
support services during construction. Johnson/Favaro has already
received over $1 million from our City. The City has hired a Project
Manager and our Project Manager should be capable of handling all of
the support services during construction instead of donating another
$384,000 to Johnson/Favaro.
Recommendation #7:
I recommend that the City Council reject the project budget of $18.77
million for Ladera Linda Park. This project is too expensive and I
recommend it be cancelled. Nowhere did I read that this price is a total
"all in" price and therefore it can even go higher. This report does not
describe, in any detail, a complete cost breakdown. I don't see any
descriptive breakdowns for lighting, cameras, security, playgrounds,
fencing and many other necessary items. This Staff report is a prelude for
major cost increases in the $18.77 million price tag.
Recommendation #8:
I recommend that the City Council reject the appropriation of $13.71
million. This project is too expensive and I recommend it be cancelled.
2
After reading the Staff report it seems to me that Johnson/Favaro is
our new Project Manager instead of the independent one
supposedly hired by our City. Why is Johnson/Feraro involved with all of
the activities that a Project Manager should handle; like hours of work,
days worked, special instructions to bidders and all of those things
mentioned in the Staff report? We have already paid them over $1
million. For What? Throughout the contract I don't see our Project
Manager mentioned at all, who should certainly be capable of handling
all of these issues.
Liquidated Damages of $2,000 per day are peanuts when compared to
an $18. 77 million contract. The contractor can delay the project for 90
days and the penalty would only be $180,000. This makes no sense.
There are similar items throughout the contract that favor the contractor
over the City.
I think this project is a money pit and I ask you, the City Council, to
cancel this project and come up with a reasonable replacement
that costs less than half its price and hire a Project Manager at the
beginning. This existing project will cost much more by the time it is
completed and put our City $8 million in debt that we have never
experienced before since our founding. We have the Portuguese Bend
landslide and a new Civic Center ahead of us that will significantly
increase our debt.
02
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
RPV Council,
Nina Smith <ninansteveca@yahoo.com>
Thursday, February 24, 2022 3:28 PM
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; CC; CityClerk
Ladera Linda Community Center
Please approve the Ladera Linda Project! It has been a long time in the process and will benefit
everyone in our community. I am looking forward to taking some classes there and getting together
with neighbors. The time is NOW! Costs are not going to get less. As a community, we need a
beautiful place on this side of the hill to have activities/meetings/classes. Thank you for getting this
approved,
The Smith Family
3652 Coolheights
RPV ca 90275
1 /.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Richard Ishibashi < rtishibashi888@gmail.com >
Sunday, February 27, 2022 3:59 PM
cc
CityClerk
Support for Ladera Linda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Honorable City Council,
I support the approval of the Lad era Linda Project. I look forward to this improvement of our community.
Thank you.
Richard Ishibashi
rtishibashi888@gmail.com
cell: (310) 935-5048
1 ' ,
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Paul Funk <pfunky@dslextreme.com>
Sunday, February 27, 2022 1 :02 PM
CC; CityClerk
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Full support for Ladera Linda Community Center project!
Hello, Councilmembers ...
I wanted to express my full support for your approval of the Construction Plans
and Construction Contract to begin work on the wonderful Ladera Linda
Community Center project.
This 7-year effort has finally come to a head, and members of the community at
large (not just Ladera Linda) are in full support of the plan to build an
appropriately-sized and beautiful Community Center building and grounds. This
will be the crown jewel of all parks in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I urge you to unanimously approve the hard work done by your Staff and the
architects and other associated firms, and pass the funding measure to get this
project started as soon as possible.
Thank you for your patience and diligence throughout this laborious process. I
look forward to a favorable decision to begin construction.
PAUL FUNK
President
Los Serenos de Point Vicente
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 9:49 AM
CityClerk
FW: Ladera Linda Support
From: Walter Goede <waltgoede@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 8:32 PM
To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; CC
<CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Walt Goede <waltgoede@gmail.com>
Subject: Ladera Linda Support
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I urge the council to provide final funding approval for the Lad era Linda project I have lived in this area since 1976 and
visit the Ladera Linda property often and used to attend classes and other activities at this location. I have attended
many of the meetings on this project over the past 6 years and have been dismayed by the actions of the few who have
worked so hard to cancel or derail this project. This facility is needed by the community and I urge you to not delay final
approval any longer.
Walt Goede
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
From: Lois Karp <jlkarp@cox.net>
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 11 :22 AM
CityClerk
FW: Agenda item #1 Ladera Linda Community Park
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 11:13 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda item #1 Ladera Linda Community Park
Honorable Mayor and City Council
This is the culmination of a highly anticipated and long-awaited decision to formally move forward on the construction
of Ladera Linda Community Park. As an Eastside resident I thank you for your patience and focus and know that our
community will be well served for decades with this wonderful addition to the parks and recreation facilities of Rancho
Palos Verdes. Please vote YES!
Lois Karp
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Svetlana Red <svetik_i7i@yahoo.com>
Monday, February 28, 2022 11 :38 AM
David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; CC; CityClerk
Ladera Linda Park
My name is Svetlana Nefedova, our family lives in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am writing to support the Ladera Linda
Community Center Project. My family and friends go to the park quite often. Also we have used the park and the
Discovery Room for Cub Scouts. My son is a proud Wolf Scout. We need this Park.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Svetlana
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, February 28, 2022 11 :40 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Ladera Linda Project
LC
From: Patricia Ott <pattyo@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 11:40 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Project
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing to encourage you to approve the construction plans and contract for the Ladera
Linda Community Park Project. I would like you to approve Ladera Linda Community Park
plans, specifications, and construction document and award a construction contract to AMG
& Associate. Let's get this project underway. It has been in the making for many months now
and I feel the community would benefit from this project greatly so I believe it's time to vote
and move this project forward.
Thank you for your time and effort with this and all matters.
Patty Ott
Hightide Dr.
RPV
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello,
Amanda Hartelust <amandahartelust@yahoo.com>
Monday, February 28, 2022 12:07 PM
cc
CityClerk
Ladera Linda
I have a son who is in cub scouts and our den uses Ladera Linda facilities to have our monthly meetings. I support the
Project and look forward to using the facility for Scout activites. I strongly oppose further delay as it will only lead to
higher cost and further opposition. This is a community space that has enriched the lives of many children, including my
own.
Thank you for reading,
Amanda Hartelust
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members and Staff,
Jay Fodor <jayfod61@gmail.com>
Monday, February 28, 2022 12:26 PM
CC; CityClerk; David Bradley; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro
Support To Move Forward with Ladera Linda Community Center Project
As the leader of the Los Sere nos de Point Vicente hiking program, I am in full support of the city moving forward with
the new facility at Ladera Linda. The beautiful building designed by Johnson Favaro will be a tremendous improvement
over the current building. Even though we will be losing our dedicated Discovery Room, the meeting room with display
cases and the enhanced outdoor teaching areas in the design will allow the docents of Los Serenes to continue our
support of the city in their educational outreach goals.
Thank you,
Jay Fodor
Los Serenos de Point Vicente
2nd Vice President
Chairman, Grants Oversight Committee
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anthony Todora <atodora1@yahoo.com>
Monday, February 28, 2022 12:31 PM
CC; Ken Dyda; John Cruikshank; Eric Alegria; Barbara Ferraro; CityClerk; David Bradley
Ladera Linda Community Park Project Final Approval March 1
We support the final actions that are under consideration in Tuesday's city council meeting. It's been a long time
coming, and we look forward to enjoying this incredible facility when it opens to the public.
Anthony & Lety Todora
Crownview Dr.
RPV
1
\.
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 1 :18 PM
CityClerk
FW: Letter to the City Council Regarding Ladera Linda
Ladera Linda Letter to City Council for 2022-02-27.docx
From: Craig Whited <craigwhited@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:16 PM
To: David Bradley <david.bradley@rpvca.gov>; Barbara Ferraro <barbara.ferraro@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda
<Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Alegria@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Letter to the City Council Regarding Ladera Linda
Dear Members of the City Council
I have been the President of the Mediterrania Home Owners Association for over two years and fully
support the final Ladera Linda project plan.
Last year the Mediterrania HOA Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of supporting the then
current Ladera Linda Park Project Plan and Design in front of the City Council. The City Council
approved both the plan and the financing, and the Public Works Department moved forward and
secured competitive bids.
Now is the time to vote to approve the final construction plans, contract for this Project, and authorize
the expenditure of the necessary funds. We need to join together and give this project its final
endorsement so that it can be built and enjoyed by our community.
Thank you.
Craig R. Whited
President -MHOA
1
\.
Craig R. Whited
31145 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, 90275
H-310/541-5272 & Cell-310/947-1840
February 27, 2022
Mayor David Bradley
Mayor Pro Tern Barbara Ferraro
Councilman Eric Alegria
Councilman John Cruikshank
Councilman Ken Dyda
Dear Members of the City Council
I have been the President of the Mediterrania Home Owners Association for over two
years and fully support the final Ladera Linda project plan.
Last year the Mediterrania HOA Board of Directors voted unanimously in favor of
supporting the then current Ladera Linda Park Project Plan and Design in front of the City
Council. The City Council approved both the plan and the financing, and the Public
Works Department moved forward and secured competitive bids.
Now is the time to vote to approve the final construction plans, contract for this Project,
and authorize the expenditure of the necessary funds. We need to join together and give
this project its final endorsement so that it can be built and enjoyed by our community.
Thank you.
Craig R. Whited
President -MHOA
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 1 :53 PM
CityClerk
FW : Ladera Linda project drinking fountains are still missing dog -level bowls
From : Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca .gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda project drinking fountains are still missing dog -level bowls
AUTION: This email ori inated from outside of the Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dear City Council,
I suppose I will recover someday from the shock of seeing the cost of the Ladera Linda project reach $18,000,000 (about
$2,500 per sq. ft . of usable space), which will devour $13,000,000 from future infrastructure maintenance funds.
However, this is not the point of my email.
Currently, there is a dog -level drinking bowl on the fountain on Forrestal just past the drive -in entrance to the facility. I
was hoping this had become an "RPV gold standard" style public fountain, as we see these in parks everywhere. They
look something like this :
To this end I asked the Council to ensure that there will be dog-level drinking bowls to the new public drinking fountains
on the outside of the proposed buildings. I believe there will be 2 of these . I understood that the Council liked this
suggestion and had passed it on to Staff.
However, in reviewing the plans posted on the City's web site, I found this specification:
J -DRINKING FOUNTAINS
1
\.
01-WATER FOUNTAINS SHALL BE LOCATED COMPLETELY WITHIN
ALCOVES OR OTHERWISE POSITIONED SO AS NOT TO ENCROACH INTO
PEDESTRIAN WAYS. THE ALCOVE IN WHICH A WATER FOUNTAIN IS
LOCATED SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 32 INCHES IN WIDTH AND 18
INCHES IN DEPTH.
02 -THE BUBBLER SHALL BE ACTIVATED BY A CONTROL, WHICH IS
EASILY OPERATED BY A DISABLED PERSON SUCH AS A HAND-
OPERATED LEVER TYPE CONTROL LOCATED WITHIN 6 INCHES OF THE
FRONT OF THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN. THE BUBBLER OUTLET ORIFICE
SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 6 INCHES OF THE FRONT OF THE DRINKING
FOUNTAIN AND SHALL BE WITHIN 36 INCHES OF THE FLOOR. THE WATER
STREAM FROM THE BUBBLER SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY PARALLEL TO
THE FRONT OF THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN.
03 -ALL FOUNTAINS WILL COMPLY WITH HEIGHTS, CLEARANCES AND
PROTECTIONS AS REQ'D BY CBC 1115B.4.6. AT LEAST ONE FIXTURE
SHALL BE THE 'HI-LOW' TYPE.
There is no mention of dog-level bowls on these fountains. This must be an oversight.
Would you be so kind as to remind Staff that the City supports its dog walkers and favors dog-level bowls on its park's
drinking fountains? If it is impossible at this point to have dog-friendly drinking fountains, would you consider cancelling
this project?
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Kelvin Vanderlip
4105 Sea Horse Lane
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 10:41 AM
CityClerk To:
Subject: Fw: PVDS/PVDE Traffic Light
Late corr
From: John Spielman <johnspielman@sent.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:45 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PVDS/PVDE Traffic Light
Dear City Council,
I recently read the staff report "Consideration and possible action to identify potential aesthetic
improvements to the traffic signal at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes
Drive East". As an RPV citizen and a member of IMAC, I encourage City Council to seriously consider
activating the traffic light as installed and then pursue Option 2 given in the report: "Direct Staff to pursue the
study of a roundabout as an alternative to a traffic signal". Better to let the staff spend time on a permanent
solution to the problem rather than on trying the beautify a traffic light. Why? Because:
• A roundabout at this intersection would slow and calm traffic entering RPV from San Pedro. There
would be ZERO vehicles speeding north west bound on PVDS to "make the light" at the intersection
with PVDS. All traffic would be required to slow to a safe 15 mph to navigate the roundabout.
• A roundabout at this intersection, with an attractive center piece (Bubbles?), would be much more
aesthetically pleasing than the existing, or an improved and more costly, traffic light.
• Everyone will save time with a roundabout in place. Vehicles making left turns from PVDE to PVDS or
PVDS (south east bound) to PVDE won't have to wait for a green light on a timer. Vehicles on PVDS
going straight through the intersection will not be frequently stopped by a red light designed to platoon
the traffic (but they will need to slow down to go through the roundabout).
• A roundabout will be safer for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. "The net result of lower speeds and
reduced conflicts at roundabouts is an environment where crashes that cause injury or fatality are
substantially reduced." https://safety. fhwa. dot. gov/provencountermeasures/roundabouts. cfm
• If in the future RPV adopts additional roundabouts at the intersections of PVDS/Forrestal and
PVDS/Schooner, all of PVDS from San Pedro to Terranea will be stoplight-free, calm and convenient to
enter and travel on including when entering PVDS with a left turn. Even cars entering PVDS at
intersections without roundabouts (such as Conqueror Dr.) will benefit because they can enter with a
right turn and then do a U-turn at the next roundabout.
Perhaps the new traffic light hardware can one day be removed and sold on eBay to finance something nice
for the city. Here's an amateur rendition of how attractive the intersection could look with a roundabout:
1
John Spielman
2
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, February 28, 2022 9:37 AM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: CC Meeting 2.29.2022 -PVDS/PVDE Light
LC
From: Don Swanson <donswanson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 9:00 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: CC Meeting 2.29.2022 -PVDS/PVDE Light
donswanson@gmail.com appears similar to someone who previously sent you email, but may not be that person. Learn why this
could be a risk
Dear City Council-
The light poles at PVDS/PVDE are an aesthetic failure.
The city just spent $1+ million of ratepayer undergrounding funds to remove four (4) poles at the PVDS city
border. Now, just months later, the City Council has the opportunity to remove six (6) taller, thicker, and indeed uglier
poles that negatively impact views. A more considerate design is needed at this highly visible gateway to our city.
• Electrifying the existing structures is the wrong move and difficult to undo.
• The alternative of adding a pole in the middle of PVDS seems dangerous.
• The illumination with multiple 30' poles seems over done.
A reasonable recommendation is to direct staff to:
1) Remove the existing poles now.
2) Consider illumination alternatives. Is a 30' pole actually required?
3) Allow evaluation of other traffic calming methods, including a roundabout.
This PVDS/PVDE intersection is the visual entrance to our great city with expansive ocean and open space views. Save
Our Coastline. Save Our Coastline Views.
Thank you.
-Don
PS: These opinions are not associated with my role on the IMAC.
Don Swanson
4135 Palos Verdes Drive South
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
1
Enyssa Momoli
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, February 28, 2022 12:59 PM
CityClerk
Subject: FW: Discussion re Organics Recycling Ordinance and Notice of EDCO rate increase
LC
From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:55 PM
To: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Discussion re Organics Recycling Ordinance and Notice of EDCO rate increase
Dear Lauren,
We interpret your response to be "No" to our inquiry (below) as to whether other companies, other
systems, were investigated as alternatives to Edco, for example Dyrt Labs, that might be both more
environmentally friendly and more cost efficient. Please confirm.
Another question: Was consideration given to including in the organics recycling ordinance a waiver
for residents who compost our own organics? Didn't RPV encourage that behavior and provide
incentives in the form of compost bins? (We never took advantage of that, but have and use both
compost bins and a vermiculture bin.)
Eva Cicoria and Ken Swenson
From: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>
Date: February 17, 2022 at 2:02:34 PM PST
To: Eva Cicoria <swensonsathome@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Notice of EDCO rate increase
Dear Eva,
Thank you for your email regarding organic waste recycling. I'm the City's Recycling Coordinator. Your email will be
included as correspondence received when the item is presented to the City Council on March 15, 2022.
I wanted to also share that in addition to providing organic waste collection and recycling to residential (single and multi-
family) dwellings in the City, EDCO will provide extensive public outreach and education material, will monitor compliance,
conduct site visits and recordkeeping, will operate a new fleet of near "zero-zero" engine trucks utilizing renewable natural
gas, and will provide mulch for residents and City usage. EDCO operates in close to two dozen cities in Southern
California and has the knowledge, tools and resources to assist the City with SB 1383 implementation and compliance.
If you have any further comments, or questions, please feel free to contact me by phone or email.
Thank you.
Thanks
1
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works
t:1~ City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV CA 90275
Laurenr@rpvca.gov
http://www. rovca.qov
Due to the current surge of the COVID-19 Omicron Variant, Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall will be closed to walk-in
visitors through February 28, 2022, unless further notification is provided. Several members of the City's workforce are
being asked to work remotely during this time. Inquiries will continue to be reviewed on a daily basis. Please be patient
with us as there may be delays or minor inconveniences in responding to your inquiry. For a list of department phone
numbers, visit the Staff Directory on the City website.
From: Eva Cicoria <swensonsathome@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 4:22 PM
To: CC <CC@rovca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Subject: Notice of EDCO rate increase
We received the Notice regarding SB 1383 and wonder whether other companies, other systems, were
investigated as alternatives to Edco. In particular, we are aware of a local business, Dyrt Labs that may be less
expensive and better environmentally than the Edco system.
As discussed in the Notice, under California SB 1383 counties and cities are now required to arrange for the
segregation and composting food of wastes from residences and businesses, as opposed to putting that waste
into regional landfills. The goal of SB 1383 is to reduce methane in the atmosphere. Methane (CH4) is 84%
more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a contributor to global warming and climate change. Methane is a
significant by-product of decomposition of food waste in landfills.
Many local jurisdictions seek to contract this responsibility to third party waste haulers at taxpayer expense.
Such haulers charge significant sums per resident or business to transport this waste as much as a hundred
miles away, resulting in a very inefficient solution that raises taxes on the local community and, ironically,
contributes to the greenhouse gas problem through the transportation of the waste for such long distances. In
Rancho Palos Verdes, EDCO rates will go up 15.6% for every single-family residential household, with another
increase in 2023 for inflation, which could be another significant increase.
We are supportive of the requirements and purpose of SB 1383, but there may be a better solution for our
city. A local business-Dyrt Labs, lnc.-provides through sale or lease after a significant free evaluation period
what are known in the industry as "in-vessel" (self-contained) composting systems. These systems operate at
a low cost with minimal personnel, compost quickly and are environmentally sound, produce compost that
can be used locally, and keep the solution and the business local. These systems have been in use for a
number of years outside of the U.S., and are gaining traction here as laws change on the disposal of organics.
The customer has the option to operate the system itself or to contract for operation.
Realistically, this does not mean no increase in cost to residents. Segregation of the waste and short distance
hauling to the in-vessel location is still required, and there would be the system acquisition or lease costs
(after the free evaluation period) and operating costs. However, discussions with the local owner of Dyrt Labs
2
will show that an in-vessel system will save the city-or more properly, its residents-significantly over the
EDCO hauling solution, starting in the very first year. And our city can keep its business local and also have the
compost product available locally.
We do not have any financial or ownership interest in Dyrt Labs, Inc. The owner happens to be our neighbor
and we believe the solution his company offers may be better environmentally as well as reduce the cost for
taxpayers.
We urge the City to contact Dyrt Labs and give meaningful consideration to the in-vessel option.
3
Enyssa Momoli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, February 28, 2022 11 :37 AM
CityClerk
FW: organic trash collection
From: AW <annnwong@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 11:29 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: organic trash collection
Please advise on how to keep trash bins from acquiring odor and bacteria, attracting critters to the
area.
Will these be composting bins or just the plastic ones we have currently.
Thank you.
1