The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment B Pt 2Final Design Alternatives -#3 Slope = 15-18% max H bridge = 8` KAiv%ikNlrelre,% k�irek+ --------- ,--- -------- T--- ---- -.---------- T r r r-------T-wrrrTrrl�cc ---, --------- -------- -- ------------- --------------------- --------------- -------- ------- I --------------------- -------- -------------------- -- -- - -------- --------� I ---� I --------------------- ---- - --- ------------------------ - --- ---- --------------- --- I �, ; ` - -------- -------------------------- --- C-- --- — ----------'('- --- --- ---^'K --- --------- ------ o _ _ -------- __ I..,, --� Av y+r xraR arm niaMals n am r arau ttao trap o�v�rrneT �, � �b4 � mx � iICV iia 1 sw lot � OVUM x s w"as- € nnr a..ea r „r eidre�r� ., ' rg tifil sasr zt sr. ^rs2 at .fr r WNW M_ -_DRAFT SUBMITTAL ALTERNATIVE 3 - 18% MAX �-AIL- � CITY OF 9ANCH4 PALOS VERUE5 ' f71JP:NY'$i�3� RIPGR TRA' p PROVEMENT PROJECT om XX _�M�-�Mft 5Ht TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE ��... 74 Final Design Alternatives -#4 Slope = 15% max H bridge = 7' P. In I -1 - '- - - 11- -1- ---------T--------,---------------------,-----------r-------- -,----- -1vuTrj C- -rug T1 -cis ------ ----,---------- - - - - - - - - - -------- --- ----------- ---------------- -----� --- - - - - - - - -------- -------- -------- -------- -------I -------- -------- — M4—+--- ", ------ ---------------- --79— — -- — — — — — -------- -------- -------- -------- -------i F-- -- -------- —--- —— ---------------- .. --- -' - . --- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------! .. --------- -------- ---- ---- — -- ----------- ------ E ,. — --- -------- -------- -------- — — — — — — — ------� _ ellLL99!! y i -------------------- -------- --------------- y — --- -------- -------- -------- 1 --------- � a � t L �-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --- -- — --- --- ---�--- --- — --:yr---r-- ------- IM . ...... ......... ......... O4 � 5 Mr SF^'.!. p� GEr a?et 4:FPSRLFr Yri' d}t.11G4 Fg_m f5' tY t}S!6 f5L �A G.yG LT b347� � , ALV §6t+� T __ }.... ' R# X87:. $ 451 3. = 9 9QT DRAFT SUBMITTAL ALTERNATIVE 4 - 18% KM 5UNK'rVPF IRt46� TR*i'sl- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT �sw fl �_ CITY Of RANCHO P.ALOS VERDES _5FIt � n "CRAM PLAN AND PROFILE 75 ..... _._ _._.. -4- -XI {'or wens re. III :' SR .Xx4xi J � ffA 9NeR) •.. � 4 , � Na SiT� J R YT fix�W '•. M IfIO'� � 6L'Bn83f, t J GCY Y !f L GfX .e I ri Y aFiA.9A w x Ar ; SM w�a E 1. A0. a4xi314�� 4-oc,�afsm x ,r ery )' .FA4ifhm �dJ �ry jj�� i s 5xt a{a:ai C.OV Y3YL ..w.... It's,qpc iOM rwyt 3xR N�axai x �' 3c, t on xxa4 ur nu, T vsr r; sr s.sux - "• ti"-rro nc can s omrrIJ t �61i'x�>.y ._ sa aa+r`� pq q Alt 1: 18% Max, H=15' 3 zigs Alt 2: 15% Max, H=13' Longer path Alt 3: • • • f 5ame path, .. bridge height Alt 4: 15% Max, H=T Longer path 76 A I OLIS 79 ' Yb? OGnx4%#Ay' S 3 s F�xRIRi v r , Alt 1: 18% Max H=15' 3 z g Recap Slope,path, bridge height - - --- - ----- - - - f' A�' GIU iMSVf� S r A� r j - , Fit p.� °air�rn "ss ✓ 1 E � � � F l' r'�� F ► x , Alt 2: 15% Max H=13' Longer path !) ' r��" f 1"aar: ' "ocvsis�me.x no"ci s yr `3 Alt 3: 15-18% Max, H=8' Same path, lower bridge height Si Wf6 • 6D 6M1! ... r - sn weKu _ -: oc.anr ,� -- - ..... .........._ _._._ .... ...... s _ _ SM Alt 4: 15% Max, H=7' Longer path i if4 GA�#�AY # 80 I 0*0000066060 a a f� E I ti fit AY I -.4 oil a a ell m :l Construction Budget $300,000 including 10% contingency Must haves - bridge, Area 2 retaining walls and guardrail/fence, drain pipe, trailhead Variable's -Trail width, Area 1 retaining walls, slope Option 1- Simple design, minimum railing and walls, 4' wide dirt trail $270,000 Option 2 - 8' wide trail, walls, railing, 18% grade $325,000 Option 3 -10' wide trail, walls, railing, 15% grade $365,000 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Preliminary Cost Estimate - Alt 1 KOA Project 45974 Item Description Qty Unit Unit Cost Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2 Construction Survey 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3 Stormwater Best Management Practices 1 LS $ 1,500 $ 1,500 4 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $ 4,000 $ 4,000 5 Unclassified Excavation and Site Grading 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 6 Keystone Wall with Geogrid 2900 SF $ 25 $ 72,500 7 Wood Railing Fence 550 LF $ 10 $ 5,500 8 Retaining wall 750 SF $ 50 $ 37,500 9 Wrought Iron Fence Detail "A" 68 LF $ 30 $ 2,040 10 Wrought Iron Fence Detail "B" 120 LF $ 30 $ 3,600 11 Pilaster 1 EA $ 4,000 $ 4,000 12 Bridge and Bridge Abutment 1 LS $100,000 Pilaster $100,000 13 Drainage structure 4 EA $ 5,000 $ 20,000 14 N-12 Drainage pipe 262 LF $ 50 $ 13,100 15 lHydroseed I 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000 16 Landscaping 1 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 13,100 15 Hydroseed 1 TOTAL $ $316,740 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Preliminary Cost Estimate- Alt 3 KOA Project #5974 Item Description Qty Unit Unit Cost Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2 Construction Survey 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 3 Stormwater Best Management Practices 1 LS $ 1,500 $ 1,500 4 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $ 4,000 $ 4,000 5 Unclassified Excavation and Site Grading 1 LS $ 30,000 $ 30,000 6 Keystone Wall with Geogrid 3500 SF $ 25 $ 87,500 7 Wood Railing Fence 745 LF $ 10 $ 7,450 8 Retaining wall 750 SF $ 50 $ 37,500 9 Wrought Iron Fence Detail "A" 68 LF $ 30 $ 2,040 10 Wrought Iron Fence Detail "B" 120 LF $ 30 $ 3,600 ' 11 Pilaster 1 EA $ 4,000 $ 4,000 12 Bridge and Bridge Abutment 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 13 Drainage structure 4 EA $ 5,000 $ 20,000 14 N-12 Drainage pipe 262 LF $ 50 $ 13,100 15 Hydroseed 1 LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000 j 16 Landscaping 1 LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000 TOTAL $ 333,690 In A RECAP • Area 1: Slope (15%, 18%) Bridge Height (over/under 10') Trail Width (8"1 10') • Area 1 Retaining Walls (Keystone, Wood) • Area 2 Retaining Walls/ Landscaping (Green walls) • Cost 24 m What's Next? • Final Public Comments / Feedback • comments at this meeting • correspondence to Staff • Prepare Final Design Plans, Specification and Estimate by June 16 • Environmental Approval • city council Approve for Bid • Proceed to constructoon Award and constructoon :. Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project WMT,fT3ff-=- r--,,,;#,r,-,unit y Outreach o0eeting May 6, 2015 Discussion w Le"IN Lauren Rarnezani From: Lauren Ramezani Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM To: (Sunnyside HOA president) (ckmeisterheim@gmail.com); Anna McDougall; Bob Laman; Charlene O'Neil; Clarinda Kotowski; Hal Winton; Jay Jones ; Jean Longacre; Jeanne Laman; John DeGirolamo; Lorraine Kirk; Madeline Ryan; patpoddatoori@yahoo.com; Sandra Sandoval; Sharon Yarber; Sherree Greenwood; Sunshine Subject: Meeting #3 Summary Attachments: Public Outreach Mtg #3 Summary on 5-6-2015 final.pdf, Sunnyside Trail Meeting 3 PP final 20150506.pdf Good morning, Attached please see a summary of the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement project community outreach meeting #3. Attached is also a copy of the PowerPoint presented at that meeting. Additionally, I have received a few emails regarding "stampede barriers" on the entrance/exit to the trail. Yes, there are plans to have a post to deter loose animals from proceeding unattended through the trail exits at both Sunnyside Ridge and PVDE. If you have any comments on this project and/or meeting summary, please let me know by e-mail or in writing by end of the day on Monday May 18tH Finally, staff plans to present a staff report to the City Council on July 7, 2015 for approval of the final plans for competitive bidding. Please mark your calendars. If there are any changes to this date, I will notify you in advance. Thank you. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 320-544-5245 LaurenE@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.&ov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks ***** IL RANCHO PALO VERDES Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Community Outreach #3 — May 06, 2015 Miraleste Intermediate School Meeting Summary On May 6, 2015, staff and KOA Corporation, City's consultant, met with approximately seven (7) interested trail users, neighborhood residents and equestrians, who have been involved in the evolution of the design from the start of the project. The purpose of this third public outreach meeting was to present refined design and cost saving options for the Sunnyside Ridge trail project (SSR) and to obtain feedback on the community's preference. The four (4) alternative designs for the canyon segment, Area 1, we discussed in detail and the design for the segment between the two houses adjacent to Sunnyside Ridge Road, Area 2, was presented and discussed. Questions about the various components of the design were answered and votes were taken to gauge the participant's preferences. The meeting was very productive and provided valuable information that gave sufficient direction for the design to be completed. As a result of the meeting, the significant components will be as follows: Canyon Segment (Area 1): 1. Alternative 1, with the fewest number of switch -backs is strongly supported by the public. This alternative generally has a grade of 18%, with 5% at the switch -backs. It also has the fewest number of bends and the bridge will be up to 15 -feet above the stream -bed. The alternative is also the lowest cost. 2. The width of trail will generally be 8 -feet, however, will be widened to up to 10 -feet wherever that can be achieved without requiring any additional retaining wall area. The marginally narrower trail will allow for a reduction in the total retaining wall required and will be less imposing. This approach also reduces cost while allowing for ample trail width. 3. A visually appealing 50 -foot span bridge will be used to cross the stream -bed, although the possibility of using a shorter span will be investigated providing it doesn't trigger permitting requirements from the Resource Agencies. The bridge tread surface will be dirt. The retaining walls in the canyon, which are required to provide a relatively level tread for the 8 -foot width, will be constructed using either, or a combination of, a wood type retaining structure or segmental block (Keystone type, similar to adjacent property on 2477 SSRR). The bridge is anticipated to be a manufactured welded steel truss bridge. The abutments will be concrete with a "PV Stone" type fagade. The bridge, and width between abutments, will allow the trail to be constructed without encroaching into the "blue line stream" at the bottom of the canyon, thus avoiding a significant, and costly, environmental study and mitigation effort. Page 11 Typical Keystone Wall installation Typical Wood retaining structure 4. The railing in the canyon to be 2 -rail round treated wood rail (similar to other RPV locations). Typical wood railing in RPV (location is on PUDE) 5. The trail surfacing to be native soil. Area Adiacent to Two Homes (Area 2) 1. A new retaining wall will be constructed on 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road (the lower side of the trail) on private property along the west side of the property. This wall will be stepped and be about 7-8 feet high at the highest point, however, a maximum height of less than 2 -feet will be visible from the trail at the slope area. P,. 12 •s 2. The existing driveway curb/retaining wall at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road (higher side of the trail) will be supported in place using underpinning. This will effectively create a wall on the higher side ranging in height from 2 -feet to a maximum of 7-8 feet. 3. Both walls will have handrails installed on top, which will match the design of existing hand rails elsewhere on each of the two properties. 4. Provision will be made for a narrow planter area immediately adjacent to the 2477 SSRR wall and creeping fig type material will be planted, with temporary irrigation. This will create a green wall in a couple of years, completely hiding the wall. 5. The grade of the trail will be relatively flat for the majority of the distance and increase to 20% grade for the last —60 -feet. Construction Cost Engineer's estimates for two of the alternatives based on 10 -foot wide trails were presented, both of which were over -budget. The Target construction cost including a 10% contingency is $300,000. Modifications to the design based on the decisions made at the meeting are likely to make reasonable savings, which should result in receiving construction bids within the budget. An Additive Alternate Item for the Area 1 retaining wall will be included in the bid package to allow for some flexibility in awarding a suitable project that will meet budget requirements. The design is scheduled to be completed by mid-June and an accurate Engineer's estimate of probable cost will be developed, all of which will be presented to City Council for approval. The bid documents will then be completed and the project will go out to bid with a timeline of constructing the trail this year. If anyone has any additional comments, please make them in writing to Lauren Ramezani and send them to laurenr(o-).rpvca.gov by Monday, May 18, 2015. Thank you. RPV Public Works Page 13 91 Lauren Ramezani From: Lauren Ramezani Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:44 PM To: 'SunshineRPV@aol.com' Cc: momofyago@gmail.com; pvpha2010@gmail.com; Doug Willmore; Michael Throne; pvpasofino@yahoo.com Subject: RE: latest status. Re: "Sunnyside Ridge Trail" restoration project Good afternoon Sunshine, Below please find the answers to your various questions. Your questions are in red. So, which trail -HYPE. in the CRITERIA does the proposed "average" grade meet? Due to the very steep grades involved, the proposed Sunnyside Trail in this project lies along an atypical alignment. The trail design needs to consider the various tradeoff factors involved including trail guidelines, usability, constructability, and cost. The current trail incorporates various slopes including an initial 20% grade on the south end, tapering to a nearly flat grade, and in the canyon itself, 18% grades along the runs, and 5% at the switchbacks. The trail "prism" and tread dimensions exceed the minimum as noted in the Western States Trail Foundation guidelines. The trail grade variously meets the requirements of the Types 1, 5 and 6 guidelines. The "average" grade could be reduced by adding runs and switchbacks, however those longer alternatives were not recommended at the last public meeting. The Western States Trail Foundation guidelines are silent on applications where switchbacks are required. We referred to the Federal Highway Administration/ US Forest Service guidelines to develop the trail cross section, and switchback grades and radius recommendations. Exactly which "Resource Agencies" have a potential interest in this proposal? The Agency of most concern is a Federal resource agency - the Army Corps of Engineers, who are involved with so-called "blue line" streams, one of which is shown at the bottom of the canyon. The last project recently completed in Rancho Palos Verdes took about 5 years to route through the various agencies, including the Army Corps, for permit approvals. What is going to keep the dirt from washing away? When it does, who is going to put it back? Has anybody investigated the anti-skid surface made of crushed walnut shells imbedded in dirt colored paint? The bridge tread surface, and the entire trail, will be subject to erosion, especially with significant equestrian traffic. Recent public input recommended a dirt trail surface at the bridge. Other options are available, including wood, steel, plastic (HDPE planks), concrete, asphalt, stones, gravel, and anti-skid surfacing. However changing the surface treatment would affect the cost of the project. (oops, the decision is now 8 -foot for sure?) To reduce the cost of the project, an 8 foot wide trail will be constructed in the canyon at the steep slope areas. Where feasible, it will be widened to 10 feet. What is the matter with a plain old concrete facade? It will match the new storm drain outlet A concrete facade, or other finish, is feasible. However, recent projects completed in the City with plain concrete or other surfaces were not acceptable, and were finished with a PV Stone type material (Blackhorse Road retaining wall. and Terranea retaining wall on PVDS). Again, which "resource agencies" are threatening to delay this project? 92 An Army Corps of Engineers review and permit, and environmental review requirements, will likely take several years to complete. Will the private property owner be responsible for the integrity of this wall in perpetuity? The retaining wall noted will become the property of the private property upon completion and acceptance. Mince the. orloinal ,gant application "concept" came in at .$1.65,000.00 over budget, who is really expecting that this grandiose ati'air to e% cr happen? With the cost reduction design guidelines developed at the last public meeting, the project estimate will come within budget. "Additive Ahcrnate"? An "Additive alternate" is a contract term used in construction contracts to signify an alternate design method or material. In this case, we will have an option between a lower cost wood retaining structure (where feasible), and a more costly Keystone -type retaining wall. Note that a Keystone -type wall will be specified for the larger wall sections and steep embankments. Where a short (i.e. less than 2 feet) retaining structure is needed, a wood structure will be specified. If construction bids and budget allow, the wood structure can be replaced with a Keystone -type wall as an "Additive Alternate". Thank you. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works L__" City of Roncho Polos Verdes 3t0-544 524.5 Laurenr a7r pvca. ;ov NY. vca. ov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks ***** From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:35 AM To: Lauren Ramezani Cc: momofyago@gmail.com; pvpha2010@gmail.com; Doug Willmore; Michael Throne; pvpasofino@yahoo.com Subject: latest status. Re: "Sunnyside Ridge Trail" restoration project Hi Lauren, I tried to make my questions very specific. You are the designated communications "gatekeeper". Is it reasonable for me and other interested parties to expect to see some specific answers before your Staff Report is presented to the City Council? ...SUNSHINE In a message dated 5/19/2015 9:37:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, LaurenR6a rpvca.gov writes: 1 hank you. i will share it with Ron and chuck. Lauren Ramezani 93 Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 10-544-5245 i_aure�nrCZD pv_ca fp -_' www.rpvca. ov __.__..._,. .9.... _. ****The City has anew web and email domain. I have anew email address. Please update your records. Thanks ***** From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:42 PM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: "Sunnyside Ridge Trail" restoration project Scroll on down for comments and questions from SUNSHINE. subject: FW: document in word Date: 5/14/2015 10:33:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: Laurenit cr rpvca.gov Reply To: To: sunsilincrPYdW,aol.cOtn Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Community Outreach #3 — May 06, 2015 Miraleste Intermediate School Meeting Summary For starters, Staff has still never figured out how this project tits into the RPV "Trails Network Ilan. Communications with the public have been tedious and confusing. 'Phis is not the Sunnyside Midge Trail. That is CTP SECTION FIVE. F8. The area of this proposed work is described in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan as A28, the Sunnyside Segment of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. This is an isolated situation only in so far as it was an existing trai 1 when the RPV General Play was approved, it was designated a CATEGORY IV trail in the Trails Network Plan update of 1993 and it has since been decimated by Sta:fl's lack of implementation of these primary documents. The possibility ofrestoring this trail segment is being facilitated by an RPV General Fund Budget Agjustlnent of %465,000,00 with the hope of recouping up to $300,000.00 from an LA County grant. I think this is pretty outrageous given that tell years ago the restoration/rerouting would have cost less than $10,000.00 in actual construction. The decision has been made. The taxpayer dollars will be spent. The discussion is down to "spent on what?" I am rather in favor of the current proposal because the same design and specifications can be •A 21 applied to several other trail segments which the CTP indicates need "improvement". Maintaining CATEGORY 1 trails is a whole other issue. [_.et's get this prof ct done right and then move on. On May 6, 2015, staff and KOA Corporation, City's consultant, met with approximately seven (7) interested trail users, neighborhood residents and equestrians, who have been involved in the evolution of the design from the start of the project. (Notice the dropout rate from the first meeting.) The purpose of this third public outreach meeting was to present refined design and cost saving options for the Sunnyside Ridge trail project (SSR) and to obtain feedback on the community's preference. Once again, (lie public was told what the work will be. The four (4) alternative designs for the canyon segment, Area 1, we discussed in detail and the design for the segment between the two houses adjacent to Sunnyside Ridge Road, Area 2, was presented and discussed. Questions about the various components of the design were answered and votes were taken to gauge the participant's preferences. The only "vote" I heard was about the four Area 1 Alternatives. To put it bluntly, only Alternative #1 was ever both reasonable and cost effective. Area 2 was described as "This is what will be." No questions. No answers. No votes. The meeting was very productive and provided valuable information that gave sufficient direction for the design to be completed. The photos from the drone were a lot of fun. As a result of the meeting, the significant components will be as follows: Carryon SelZment (Area 1); Alternative 1, with the fewest number of switch -backs is strongly supported by the public. (Because the other alternatives were outlandish/unreasonable/intrusive.. choose a term.) This alternative generally ("Generally" is not an Engineering term) has a grade of 18%, with 5% at the switch -backs. So, which trail TYPE in the CRITERA does the proposed "average" grade meet? It also has the fewest number of bends and the bridge will be up to ("up to" is not very specific) 15 -feet above the stream -bed. The alternative #1 is also the lowest cost. Well, duh. Less work, less cost. The width of trail will generally be 8 -feet, however, will be widened to up to 10 -feet wherever that can be achieved without requiring any additional retaining wall area. Actually, the presentation was for a 10 foot wide trail tread throughout with no consideration for the trail prism width for any particular trail TYPE. The marginally narrower trail will allow for a reduction in the total retaining wall required and will be less imposing. This approach also reduces cost while allowing for ample trail width. Another "well, duh". Define "ample" trail width. Two people strongly supported keeping the proposed 10 foot trail tread width. What I heard the consultant say was that narrowing the bridge to 8 feet would be a substantial cost saving and that narrowing the trail tread width could be included in the bid alternatives. What I did not hear was any discussion about narrowing the trail prism. That would be a cost saving. A visually appealing ("visually appealing" is an opinion, not a specification) 50 -foot span bridge will be used to cross the stream -bed, although the possibility of using a shorter span will be investigated providing it doesn't trigger permitting requirements from the Resource Agencies. Exactly which "Resource Agencies" have a potential interest in this proposal? bridge tread surface will be dirt. What is going to keep the dirt from washing away? When it does, who is going to put it back? Has anybody investigated the anti-skid surface made of crushed walnut shells imbedded in dirt colored paint? retaining walls in the canyon, which are required to provide a relatively level tread for the 8 -foot width, (oops, the decision is now 8 -foot for sure?) will be constructed using either, or a combination of, a wood type retaining 95 0 5� structure or segmental block (Keystone type, similar to adjacent property on 2477 SSRR). I did not hear any objection to the recommended Keystone type retaining structures. 10 years ago the RPV Director of Public Works nixed the proposed Sutter wall made of railroad ties because even treated wood would not last long enough. e bridge has been selected is aRtiGipated to be a manufactured welded steel truss bridge. The abutments will be concrete with a "PV Stone" type fapade. What is the matter with a plain old concrete facade? It will match the new storm drain outlet. e bridge, and width between abutments, will allow the trail to be constructed without encroaching into the "blue line stream" at the bottom of the canyon, thus avoiding a significant, and costly, environmental study and mitigation effort. One would think that now that the Sunnyside Storm Drain project has been completed, the storm water runoff from just three houses would no longer constitute a "blue line stream". Seriously, unless it is raining or someone is illegally emptying a swimming pool, the bottom of Greenwood Canyon is an arroyo Seco. There are no fish or frogs to be saved. Again, which "resource agencies" are threatening to delay this project? yai:.1.. z ':.,.. "t!rJi' i yl !i;al U!'ocd retaining sitr acture The railing in the canyon to be 2 -rail round treated wood rail (similar to other RPV locations). And, not so similar to the fencing on the bluff top and not so similar to the new fencing along the Salvation Army roadway frontage and Ryan Park, The RPV Coastal Vision Plan has certainly not given us a "community aesthetic". The trail surfacing to be native soil. "dirt" is just fine as long as it is graded so that it drains without eroding. Area Adiacent to Two Homes (Area 2) A new retaining wall will be constructed on 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road (the lower side of the trail) on private property along the west side of the property. This wall will be stepped and be about 7-8 feet high at the highest point, however, a maximum height of less than 2 -feet will be visible from the trail at the slope area. Will the private property owner be responsible for the integrity of this wall in perpetuity? I strongly suggest that this wall be installed on City property. Simple risk management. The existing driveway curb/retaining wall at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road (higher side of the trail) will be supported in place using underpinning. This will effectively create a wall on the higher side ranging in height from 2 -feet to a maximum of 7-8 feet. The City approved the construction of the now existing curb/retaining wall with a clear understanding of the existence of the easement. Both walls will have handrails installed on top, which will match the design of existing hand rails elsewhere on each of the two properties. I do believe the term in the RPV Municipal Code is Balcony Railing. Such is not now required on the 2477 wall. The property owner at 2477 made it perfectly clear from day one that he does not want to look through a balcony railing. Such a railing on top of the City's wall should be located where it is not visible from 2477. Check the MC. The Consultant's presentation did not illustrate what sort of railing is being proposed. 4. Provision will be made for a narrow planter area immediately adjacent to the 2477 SSRR wall and creeping fig type material will be planted, with temporary irrigation. This will create a green wall in a couple of years, completely hiding the wall. And, whatever foliage will be maintained so that it does not encroach on the trail prism. •e 5. The grade of the trail will be relatively flat for the northerly portion of Area 2 and increase to 20% grade for the southernly last -60 -feet. How about... The new Area 2 trail tread will be graded such that storm water runoff will be controlled to the bottom of Greenwood Canyon. The storm water run-off from the 2477 hardscape will also be accommodated. Construction Cost Engineer's estimates for two of the alternatives based on 10 -foot wide trails were presented, both of which were over -budget. The Target construction cost including a 10% contingency is $300,000. Modifications to the design based on the decisions made at the meeting are likely to make reasonable savings, which should result in receiving construction bids within the budget. Since the original grant application "concept" came in at $165,000.00 over budget, who is really expecting that this-randiose affair to ever happen? An Additive Alternate Item for the Area 1 retaining wall will be included in the bid package to allow for some flexibility in awarding a suitable project that will meet budget requirements. "Additive Alternate"? The design is scheduled to be completed by mid -,lune and an accurate Engineer's estimate of probable cost will be developed, all of which will be presented to City Council for approval. The public really should have the opportunity to comment on a design which does not include a lot of terms like "in general", "relatively", '`marginally", -up to", "visually appealing" and such. The bid documents will then be completed and the project will go out to bid with a timeline of constructing the trail this year. Seems to me, that is what the public was told in 2014. If anyone has any additional comments, please make them in writing to Lauren Ramezani and send them to laurenr(a_), ivca.gov by Monday, May 18, 2015. As I am writing.. that is the day after tomorrow. ... SUNSHIN F. 310-377-8761 Thank you. RPV Public Works Lauren Ramezani Sr. Public I'l oaks City gf'Rancho Pulos Verdes 310-544-5245 l,aurenr r Lyca gov 97 Lauren Ramezani From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:35 AM To: Lauren Ramezani Cc: momofyago@gmail.com; pvpha2010@gmail.com; Doug Willmore; Michael Throne; pvpasofino@yahoo.com Subject: latest status. Re: "Sunnyside Ridge Trail" restoration project Hi Lauren, I tried to make my questions very specific. You are the designated communications "gatekeeper". Is it reasonable for me and other interested parties to expect to see some specific answers before your Staff Report is presented to the City Council? ...SUNSHINE In a message dated 5/19/2015 9:37:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, LaurenR@rpvca.gov writes: Thank you. I will share it with Ron and chuck. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5245 Laurenr@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks ***** From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:42 PM 1 To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: "Sunnyside Ridge Trail" restoration project Scroll on down for comments and questions from SUNSHINE. Subject: FW: document in word Date: 5/14/2015 10:33:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: LaurenRCna rovca.gov Reply To: To: sunshinerpv@cvaol.com Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Community Outreach #3 — May 06, 2015 Miraleste Intermediate School Meeting Summary For starters, Staff has still never figured out how this project fits into the RPV Trails Network Plan. Communications with the public have been tedious and confusing. This is not the Sunnyside Ridge Trail. That is CTP SECTION FIVE.., F8. The area of this proposed work is described in the RPV Conceptual. Trails Plan as A28, the Sunnyside Segment of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. This is an isolated situation only in so far as it was an existing trail when the RPV General Plan was approved, it was designated a CATEGORY IV trail in the Trails Network Plan update of 1993 and it has since been decimated by Staff's lack of implementation of these primary documents. The possibility of restoring this trail segment is being facilitated by an RPV General Fund Budget Adjustment of $465,000.00 with the hope of recouping up to $300,000.00 from an LA County grant. I think this is pretty outrageous given that ten years ago the restoration/rerouting would have cost less than $10,000.00 in actual construction. The decision has been made. The taxpayer dollars will be spent. The discussion is down to "spent on what?" I am rather in favor of the current proposal because the same design and specifications can be applied to several other trail segments which the CTP indicates need "improvement". Maintaining CATEGORY I trails is a whole other issue. Let's get this project done right and then move on. On May 6, 2015, staff and KOA Corporation, City's consultant, met with approximately seven (7) interested trail users, neighborhood residents and equestrians, who have been involved in the evolution of the design from the start of the project. (Notice the dropout rate from the first meeting.) The purpose of this third public outreach meeting was to present refined design and cost saving options for the Sunnyside Ridge trail project (SSR) and to obtain feedback on the community's preference. Once again, the public was told what the work will be. •• 21 The four (4) alternative designs for the canyon segment, Area 1, we discussed in detail and the design for the segment between the two houses adjacent to Sunnyside Ridge Road, Area 2, was presented and discussed. Questions about the various components of the design were answered and votes were taken to gauge the participant's preferences. The only "vote" I heard was about the four Area 1 Alternatives. To put it bluntly, only Alternative #1 was ever both reasonable and cost effective. Area 2 was described as "This is what will be." No questions. No answers. No votes. The meeting was very productive and provided valuable information that gave sufficient direction for the design to be completed. T'he photos from the drone were a lot of fun. As a result of the meeting, the significant components will be as follows: Canyon Segment (Area 1): Alternative 1, with the fewest number of switch -backs is strongly supported by the public. (Because the other alternatives were outlandish/unreasonable/intrusive... choose a term.) This alternative generally (`Generally" is not an Engineering term) has a grade of 18%, with 5% at the switch -backs. So, which trail TYPE in the CRITERA does the proposed "average" grade meet? It also has the fewest number of bends and the bridge will be up to ("up to" is not very specific) 15 -feet above the stream -bed. The alternative #1 is also the lowest cost. Well, duh. Less work, less cost. The width of trail will generally be 8 -feet, however, will be widened to up to 10 -feet wherever that can be achieved without requiring any additional retaining wall area. Actually, the presentation was for a 10 foot wide trail tread throughout with no consideration for the trail prism width for any particular trail TYPE, The marginally narrower trail will allow for a reduction in the total retaining wall required and will be less imposing. This approach also reduces cost while allowing for ample trail width. Another "well, duh". Define "ample" trail width. Two people strongly supported keeping the proposed 10 foot trail tread width. What I heard the consultant say was that narrowing the bridge to 8 feet would be a substantial cost saving and that narrowing the trail tread width could be included in the bid alternatives, What I did not hear was any discussion about narrowing the trail prism. That would be a cost saving. A visually appealing (`visually appealing" is an opinion, not a specification) 50 -foot span bridge will be used to cross the stream -bed, although the possibility of using a shorter span will be investigated providing it doesn't trigger permitting requirements from the Resource Agencies. Exactly which `Resource Agencies" have a potential interest in this proposal? ie bridge tread surface will be dirt. What is going to keep the dirt from washing away? When it does, who is going to put it back? Has anybody investigated the anti-skid surface made of crushed walnut shells imbedded in dirt colored paint? e retaining walls in the canyon, which are required to provide a relatively level tread for the 8 -foot width, (oops, the decision is now 8 -foot for sure?) will be constructed using either, or a combination of, a wood type retaining structure or segmental block (Keystone type, similar to adjacent property on 2477 SSRR). I did not hear any objection to the recommended Keystone type retaining structures. 10 years ago the RPV Director of Public Works nixed the proposed Sutter wall made of railroad flies because even treated wood would not last long enough. he bridge has been selected is aRtisipated to be a manufactured welded steel truss bridge. The abutments will be concrete with a "PV Stone" type fagade. What is the matter with a plain old concrete facade? It will match the new storm drain outlet. e bridge, and width between abutments, will allow the trail to be constructed without encroaching into the "blue line stream" at the bottom of the canyon, thus avoiding a significant, and costly, environmental study and mitigation effort. One would think that now that the Sunnyside Storm Drain project has been completed, the 100 41 storm water runoff from just three houses would no longer constitute a "blue line stream". Seriously, unless it is raining or someone is illegally emptying a swimming pool, the bottom of Greenwood Canyon is an arroyo seco. There are no fish or frogs to be saved. Again, which "resource agencies" are threatening to delay this project? Typical Keystone Wall installation typical Wood retaining structure The railing in the canyon to be 2 -rail round treated wood rail (similar to other RPV locations). And, not so similar to the fencing on the bluff top and not so similar to the new fencing along the Salvation Army roadway frontage and Ryan Park. The RPV Coastal Vision Plan has certainly not given us a "community aesthetic". Typical wood railing in RPV (location is on PVDE) The trail surfacing to be native soil. "dirt" is just fine as long as it is graded so that it drains without eroding. Area Adjacent to Two Homes (Area 2) 101 A new retaining wall will be constructed on 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road (the lower side of the trail) on private property along the west side of the property. This wall will be stepped and be about 7-8 feet high at the highest point, however, a maximum height of less than 2 -feet will be visible from the trail at the slope area. Will the private property owner be responsible for the integrity of this wall in perpetuity? I strongly suggest that this wall be installed on City property. Simple risk management. 2. The existing driveway curb/retaining wall at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road (higher side of the trail) will be supported in place using underpinning. This will effectively create a wall on the higher side ranging in height from 2 -feet to a maximum of 7-8 feet. The City approved the construction of the now existing curb/retaining wall with a clear understanding of the existence of the easement. 3. Both walls will have handrails installed on top, which will match the design of existing hand rails elsewhere on each of the two properties. I do believe the term in the RPV Municipal Code is Balcony Railing. Such is not now required on the 2477 wall. The property owner at 2477 made it perfectly clear from day one that he does not want to look through a balcony railing. Such a railing on top of the City's wall should be located where it is not visible from 2477. Check the MC. The Consultant's presentation did not illustrate what sort of railing is being proposed. 4. Provision will be made for a narrow planter area immediately adjacent to the 2477 SSRR wall and creeping fig type material will be planted, with temporary irrigation. This will create a green wall in a couple of years, completely hiding the wall. And, whatever foliage will be maintained so that it does not encroach on the trail prism. 5. The grade of the trail will be relatively flat for the northerly portion of Area 2 rnajeF4y Gf+he dista Ge and increase to 20% grade for the southernly last -60 -feet. How about... The new Area 2 trail tread will be graded such that storm water runoff will be controlled to the bottom of Greenwood Canyon. The storm water run-off from the 2477 hardscape will also be accommodated. Construction Cost Engineer's estimates for two of the alternatives based on 10 -foot wide trails were presented, both of which were over -budget. The Target construction cost including a 10% contingency is $300,000. Modifications to the design based on the decisions made at the meeting are likely to make reasonable savings, which should result in receiving construction bids within the budget. Since the original grant application "concept" came in at $165,000.00 over budget, who is really expecting that this grandiose affair to ever happen? An Additive Alternate Item for the Area 1 retaining wall will be included in the bid package to allow for some flexibility in awarding a suitable project that will meet budget requirements. "Additive Alternate"? The design is scheduled to be completed by mid-June and an accurate Engineer's estimate of probable cost will be developed, all of which will be presented to City Council for approval. The public really should have the opportunity to comment on a design which does not include a lot of terms like "in general", "relatively", "inarginally", "up to", "visually appealing" and such. The bid documents will then be completed and the project will go out to bid with a timeline of constructing the trail this year. Seems to me, that is what the public was told in 2014. 102 If anyone has any additional comments, please make them in writing to Lauren Ramezani and send them to laurenrgKpvca.gov by Monday, May 18, 2015. As I am writing, that is the day atter tomorrow. ...SUNSHINE' 310-377-8761 Thank you. RPV Public Works Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative analyst- Puhlic FVorks City c?f'Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5245 Laurenrgrpvca. gov www.rpvca.gov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks * * * * * 103 Lauren Ramezani From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 6:42 PM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: "Sunnyside Ridge Trail" restoration project Scroll on down for comments and questions from SUNSHINE. Subject: FW: document in word Date: 5/14/2015 10:33:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: LaUrenRr(�rpvca.gov To: sunshiner v(ei).aol.con1 Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Community Outreach #3 — May 06, 2015 Miraleste Intermediate School Meeting Summary l' or starters, Staff has still clever figured out how this project fits into the RPV Trails Network Plan. Communications with the public have been tedious and confusing. This is not the Sunnyside Ridge Trail. That is CTP SECTION FIVE:. F8. The area of this proposed work is described in the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan as A?8, the Sunnyside Segment of the Palos Verdes t,00p TraiI. 'I"his is an isolated situation only in so far as it was an existing trail when the RI' V General Plan was approved, it was designated a CATEGORY IV trail in the Trails Network Plan update of 1993 and it has since been decimated by Staff's lack of implementation of these primary documents. The possibility of restoring this trail segment is being facilitated by an RPV General Fund Budget Adjustment of $465,000.00 with the hope of recouping up to $300,000.00 from an LA County grant. I think this is pretty outrageous given that ten years ago the restoration/rerouting would have cost less than $10,000.00 in actual construction. The decision has been made. The taxpayer dollars will be spent. The discussion is down to "spent on what?" I ani rather in favor of the current proposal because the same design and specifications can be applied to several other trail segments which the CTP indicates need "improvement's. Maintaining CATEGORY I trails is a whole other issue. Let's get this project done right and then move on. On May 6, 2015, staff and KOA Corporation, City's consultant, met with approximately seven (7) interested trail users, neighborhood residents and equestrians, who have been involved in the evolution of the design from the start of the project. (Notice the dropout rate from the first meeting.) The purpose of this third public outreach meeting was to present refined design and cost saving options for the Sunnyside Ridge trail project (SSR) and to obtain feedback on the community's preference. Once again, the public was told what the work will be. ' mi The four (4) alternative designs for the canyon segment, Area 1, we discussed in detail and the design for the segment between the two houses adjacent to Sunnyside Ridge Road, Area 2, was presented and discussed. Questions about the various components of the design were answered and votes were taken to gauge the participant's preferences. The only "vote" 1 heard was about the four Area 1 Alternatives. To put it bluntly, only- Alternative X741 was ever both reasonable and cost effective. Area 2 was described as "This is what will be." No questions. No answers. No votes. The meeting was very productive and provided valuable information that gave sufficient direction for the design to be completed. The photos from the drone were a lot of fun. As a result of the meeting, the significant components will be as follows: Canyon Segment (Area 1): Alternative 1, with the fewest number of switch -backs is strongly supported by the public. (Because the other alternatives were outlandish/unreasonable/intrusive... choose a term.) This alternative generally ("Generally" is not an Engineering term) has a grade of 18%, with 5% at the switch -backs. So, which trail TYPE in the CRITERA does the proposed "average" grade meet? It also has the fewest number of bends and the bridge will be up to ("up to" is not very specific) 15 -feet above the stream -bed. The alternative #1 is also the lowest cost. Well, duh. Less work, less cost. 2. The width of trail will generally be 8 -feet, however, will be widened to up to 10 -feet wherever that can be achieved without requiring any additional retaining wall area. Actually, the presentation was for a 10 foot wide trail tread throughout with no consideration for the trail prism width for any particular trail TYPE. The marginally narrower trail will allow for a reduction in the total retaining wall required and will be less imposing. This approach also reduces cost while allowing for ample trail width. Another "well, duh". Define "ample" trail width. Two people strongly supported keeping the proposed 10 foot trail tread width. What I heard the consultant say was that narrowing the bridge to 8 feet would be a substantial cost saving and that narrowing the trail tread width could be included in the bid alternatives. What I did not hear was any discussion about narrowing the trail prism. That would be a cost saving. 3. A visually appealing ("visually appealing" is an opinion, not a specification) 50 -foot span bridge will be used to cross the stream -bed, although the possibility of using a shorter span will be investigated providing it doesn't trigger permitting requirements from the Resource Agencies. Exactly which "Resource Agencies" have a potential interest in this proposal? The bridge tread surface will be dirt. What is going to keep the dirt from washing away? When it does, who is doing to put it back? Has anybody investigated the anti-skid surface made of crushed walnut shells imbedded in dirt colored paint? The retaining walls in the canyon, which are required to provide a relatively level tread for the 8 -foot width, (oops, the decision is now 8 -foot for sure?) will be constructed using either, or a combination of, a wood type retaining structure or segmental block (Keystone type, similar to adjacent property on 2477 SSRR). I did not hear any objection to the recommended Keystone type retaining structures. 10 years ago the RPV Director of Public Works nixed the proposed Sutter wall made of railroad ties because even treated wood would not last long enough. 105 The bridge has been selected +s aRtis+pated to be a manufactured welded steel truss bridge. The abutments will be concrete with a "PV Stone" type fapade. What is the matter with a plain old concrete facade? It will match the new storm drain outlet. The bridge, and width between abutments, will allow the trail to be constructed without encroaching into the "blue line stream" at the bottom of the canyon, thus avoiding a significant, and costly, environmental study and mitigation effort. One would think that now that the Sunnyside Storm Drain project has been completed, the storm water runoff from just three houses would no longer constitute a "blue line stream". Seriously, unless it is raining or someone is illegally emptying a swimming pool, the bottom of Greenwood Canyon is an arroyo seco. There are no fish or frogs to be saved. Again, which "resource agencies" are threatening to delay this project? vpi, <31 Keystone \Mall nstall �tn r 1"ypical Wood retaining structure 4. The railing in the canyon to be 2 -rail round treated wood rail (similar to other RPV locations). And, not so similar to the fencing on the bluff top and not so similar to the new fencing along the Salvation Army roadway frontage and Ryan Park. The RPV Coastal Vision Plan has certainly not given us a "community aesthetic". Typical wood railing in RPV (location is on PVDE) 106 5. The trail surfacing to be native soil. "dirt" is just fine as long as it is graded so that it drains without eroding. Area Adiacent to Two Homes (Area 2) A new retaining wall will be constructed on 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road (the lower side of the trail) on private property along the west side of the property. This wall will be stepped and be about 7-8 feet high at the highest point, however, a maximum height of less than 2 -feet will be visible from the trail at the slope area. Will the private property owner be responsible for the integrity of this wall in perpetuity? I strongly suggest that this wall be installed on City property. Simple risk management. 2. The existing driveway curb/retaining wall at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road (higher side of the trail) will be supported in place using underpinning. This will effectively create a wall on the higher side ranging in height from 2 -feet to a maximum of 7-8 feet. the City approved the construction of the now existing curb/retaining wall with a clear understanding of the existence of the easement. 3. Both walls will have handrails installed on top, which will match the design of existing hand rails elsewhere on each of the two properties. I do believe the term in the RPV Municipal Code is Balcony Railing. Such is not now required on the 2477 wall. The property owner at 2477 made it perfectly clear from day one that he does not want to look through a balcony railing. Such a railing on top of the City's wall should be located where it is not visible from 2477. Check the MC. The Consultant's presentation did not illustrate what sort of railing is being proposed. 4. Provision will be made for a narrow planter area immediately adjacent to the 2477 SSRR wall and creeping fig type material will be planted, with temporary irrigation. This will create a green wall in a couple of years, completely hiding the wall. And, whatever foliage will be maintained so that it does not encroach on the trail prism. 5. The grade of the trail will be relatively flat for the northerly portion of Area 2 majority ef the distaRGe and increase to 20% grade for the southernly 4s -60-feet. How about... The new Area 2 trail tread will be graded such that storm water runoff will be controlled to the bottom of Greenwood Canyon. The storm water run-off from the 2477 hardscape will also be accommodated. Construction Cost Engineer's estimates for two of the alternatives based on 10 -foot wide trails were presented, both of which were over -budget. The Target construction cost including a 10% contingency is $300,000. Modifications to the design based on the decisions made at the meeting are likely to make reasonable savings, which should result in receiving construction bids within the budget. Since the original grant application "concept" came in at $165,000.00 over budget, who is really expecting that this grandiose affair to ever happen? An Additive Alternate Item for the Area I retaining wall will be included in the bid package to allow for some flexibility in awarding a suitable project that will meet budget requirements. "Additive Alternate"? 107 The design is scheduled to be completed by mid-June and an accurate Engineer's estimate of probable cost will be developed, all of which will be presented to City Council for approval. The public really should have the opportunity to comment on a design which does not include a lot of terms tike "in general", "relatively", "marginally", "up to-, "visually appealing" and such. The bid documents will then be completed and the project will go out to bid with a timeline of constructing the trail this year. Seems to me, that is what the public was told in 2014. If anyone has any additional comments, please make them in writing to Lauren Ramezani and send them to laurenr a;rpvea. ov by Monday, May 18, 2015. As I am writing, that is the day after tomorrow. ...St_INSHINE 310-377-8761 Thank you. RPV Public Works Lauren Ramezani Sr. Public: 14"arks Cin, ol'Rancho I' do.s Fer ch,,s 310-544-5245 Laurenr(a),rpvca.gov_ www.rpvca.gov * * *The City has a new web and email domain. I have anew email address. Please update your records. 'I"hanks ****I` Ki Lauren Ramezani From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 8:05 PM To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; momofyago@gmail.com Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; raymadelin@gmail.com; rjvaleri@cox.net; melcolbert@aol.com; cmoneil@aol.com; wildman312@cox.net; juan.starkmann@npsups.com; ed.pilolla@pvnews.com; Ron Dragoo; Lauren Ramezani; pvpra.president@gmail.com Subject: Re: More about Sunnyside trail traffic control infrastructure Okay, if you think a 'stampede' barrier is needed at the north end of the Sunnyside Canyon trail, then ask for it. What I saw from the Power Point was a gradual switchback to PVDE, then a very short jaunt behind the barricade to the Deadman's Curve bend. We should always think 'Safe' when riding our horses, either seasoned or young and inexperienced. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline From: "SunshineRPV@aol.com" <SunshineRPV@aol.com> To: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net-, amcdougall1@yahoo.com; raymadelin@gmail. com; rjvaleri@cox.net; melcolbert@aol.com; cmoneil@aol.com; wildman312@cox.net; juan.starkmann@npsups.com; ed.pilolla@pvnews.com; rond@rpvca.gov; laurenr@rpvca.gov; pvpra.president@gmail.com Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:07 AM Subject: More about Sunnyside trail traffic control infrastructure Hi Madeline, The difference is that none of the examples you site introduce the trail onto an arterial highway at a notoriously dangerous place. It is not called Deadman's Curve for no reason. am not proposing a "stampede barrier" at Sunnyside Ridge Road. ...S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 5/15/2015 9:48:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pvpasofino@yahoo.com writes: Well, we do not have 'stampede' barriers at Martingale (quite steep) leading onto Martingale Drive; there aren't 'stampede' barriers in Rolling Hills at Lower Willow Springs Trail where it dead ends @ Chuckwagon (very steep), Upper Willow Springs Trail where it dead ends @ Caballeros, again very steep; not one at Si's Trail either where it enters Crest Road. There are probably others. I like not having any obstructions at the entrance to or from trails. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline 1 109 From: "SunshineRPV@aol.com" <SunshineRPV@aol.com> To: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; amcdougal11@yahoo.com; raymadelin@gmail.com, rjvaleri@cox.net; melcolbert@aol.com; cmoneil@aol.com; wildman312@cox.net; juan.starkmann@npsups.com Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:15 AM Subject: Sunnyside news. Trail traffic control infrastructure EM The RPV CTP calls for motor vehicle barriers in a lot of places. I am surprised that it does not at Sunnyside, A28. Given the proposed 10 or 8 foot wide trail prism, a removable, locked down post would be appropriate at Sunnyside Ridge Road . Such a post would not deter a runaway horse from popping out into PV Drive East traffic lanes. Given the blind nature of the trail/roadway intersection, think a stampede barrier would be appropriate at the north end of the trail connection. Have you heard that the Sunnyside Project can't fit onto the RPV City Council's Agenda until July? That gives us more time to dig deeper into the details of this proposal. Send your requests for more details to Lauren laurenr(a,rpvca.gov . Even though she is not an Engineer, she has the job of providing answers. Copying Chuck cstephan(ia,koacorp.com gives him a heads up about our concerns. The design which goes out to bid needs to be as good as we can make it. Then we should replicate it to improve the trails in other places like Dodson Canyon , Adams Canyon and Colt Canyon . Keep pushing. This work has to be done sometime in 2016 or we lose the grant. ... S 310-377-8761 Subject: Ile: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Date: 5/13/2015 7:04:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: p_vpasormo(ci vahoo.com To: n7<mofj_ ua:�mail,cum, SunshineRPV uail conn laurenrr cipvca,gcv, beachjake4isbcglobal.net CC: c5tehhan a,( �� icorp.com, russr eh��p��nitage ct�m jegnlongacre c ao coin ceanl a r ve�v eo I aargvea.gov, nicolej a rpvca.gov, rondn�pr vea.aov I like the idea of a post, just to keep motorized vehicles out of there, not so much for 'runaway' horses. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline Subject: RE: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Date: 5/13/2015 5:19:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: momot Lagwii-gmail.com To: SunshineRPV (c aol.com, laurenr{h)rnvca.gov, beachjake,"asbcglobal.net CC:eSTPphanQr)koac .eom, runs(a�cheapvinta coin, wpasotino(awahoo.com, jeanlon acre!�.aol.corn seanlnrpvea.gov, coryl(a)rpvca.gov nicolejCc�rpvea.gov, -p----g - 110 I thought the concern at the trailhead at the street could be addressed by simply putting a post in the middle of the trail with enough room to walk around it. Very easy and cheap. Sent from my Venzon'vVireless 4G LTE snicartphone 111 Lauren Ramezani From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 11:07 AM To: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; raymadelin@gmail.com; rjvaleri@cox.net; melcolbert@aol.com; cmoneil@aol.com; wildman312@cox.net;juan.starkmann@npsups.com; ed.pilolla@pvnews.com; Ron Dragoo; Lauren Ramezani; pvpra.president@gmail.com Subject: More about Sunnyside trail traffic control infrastructure Hi Madeline, The difference is that none of the examples you site introduce the trail onto an arterial highway at a notoriously dangerous place. It is not called Deadman's Curve for no reason. I am not proposing a "stampede barrier" at Sunnyside Ridge Road. ...S 310-377-8761 In a message dated 5/15/2015 9:48:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pvpasofino@yahoo.com writes: Well, we do not have 'stampede' barriers at Martingale (quite steep) leading onto Martingale Drive; there aren't 'stampede' barriers in Rolling Hills at Lower Willow Springs Trail where it dead ends @ Chuckwagon (very steep), Upper Willow Springs Trail where it dead ends @ Caballeros, again very steep; not one at Si's Trail either where it enters Crest Road. There are probably others. I like not having any obstructions at the entrance to or from trails. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline From: "SunshineRPV@aol.com" <SunshineRPV@aol.com> To: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; raymadelin@gmail.com, rjvaleri@cox.net; melcolbert@aol.com; cmoneil@aol.com; wildman312@cox. net; juan.starkmann@npsups.com Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:15 AM Subject: Sunnyside news. Trail traffic control infrastructure Hi all, The RPV CTP calls for motor vehicle barriers in a lot of places. I am surprised that it does not at Sunnyside, A28. Given the proposed 10 or 8 foot wide trail prism, a removable, locked down post would be appropriate at Sunnyside Ridge Road . Such a post would not deter a runaway horse from popping out into PV Drive East traffic lanes. Given the blind nature of the trail/roadway intersection, I think a stampede barrier would be appropriate at the north end of the trail connection. 1 112 Have you heard that the Sunnyside Project can't fit onto the RPV City Council's Agenda until July? That gives us more time to dig deeper into the details of this proposal. Send your requests for more details to Lauren laurenr(a)rpvca.gov . Even though she is not an Engineer, she has the job of providing answers. Copying Chuck cstephankoacorp.com gives him a heads up about our concerns. The design which goes out to bid needs to be as good as we can make it. Then we should replicate it to improve the trails in other places like Dodson Canyon , Adams Canyon and Colt Canyon . Keep pushing. This work has to be done sometime in 2016 or we lose the grant. ... S 310-377-8761 Subject: Re: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Date: 5/13/2015 7:04:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: pYRasofina i,yahoo.com To: III omofvaao�),gmai1.com, SunshineRPV@twI.com, Iaurenr@)rnvca.gov, beachiake@sbeglobal.net CC: estenitGun @ikoacorp.com, runs &`cheapvintage.com, jcanlonaacre�aol.com, seanl�`rpvca.�ov, corylnrnvca.gov, nicoIeJ,@rPvca.gov rondOa r vca.gov I like the idea of a post, just to keep motorized vehicles out of there, not so much for 'runaway' horses. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline Subject: RE: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Date: 5/13/2015 5 19:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: momofaeo a;l cnn To: SunshineRlurenrci Weaol,com, la`gjvv a_goy, beachh�a_i e' ssbe,tlobal.net CC:es, tenh ui�crhoacoip.eom, rus5,� ehcapyintaze oom, mPasofino'i4yahoo com, jeanlongacre6)aol.eom, seanl(c�rpvca.gov, eoEyi@rpvea.eov, nieolei a�rpvca•Qov, r(md t rpwr gov I thought the concern at the trailhead at the street could be addressed by simply putting a post in the middle of the trail with enough room to walk around it. Very easy and cheap. Sent fro i',ny, Venzon Wie'C ss 4G II -TE smartp cane 113 Lauren Ramezani From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:41 AM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: Re: Meeting #3 Summary Good Morning, Lauren As you know, and as I mentioned at the last meeting, I do not agree with the extensive excavation exposing Mr. Padatoori's wall. I cannot support the Area 2 proposal for the following reasons: 1. There should only be one residence involved in the restoration of this trail and that is 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road, Mr. DeGeralomo. 2. The liability risks of damage to Mr. Padatoori's property and Mr. DeGeralamo's property is something the City should consider when such excavation and removal of walls is being considered. In other words, Mr. Padatoori's wall should be left untouched. 3. I still think the 'green' wall could be built within the easement (eastside) and, if, as you say, the wall on Mr. Padatoori's side would be only 7'-8' with ironwork couldn't a wall built in the easement be the same height, and not the 15' Mr. DeGeralomo claims? Please refer to Page 2 of your Summary and the Keystone Wall Illustration, #1. The similarities of this illustration and the existing trail are uncanny. Why not consider this very workable solution to the existing trail? Thank you for your summary and pursuing the CC approval for bids. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline From: Lauren Ramezani <LaurenR@rpvca.gov> To: "(Sunnyside HOA president) (ckmeisterheim@gmail.com)" <ckmeisterheim@gmail. com>; Anna McDougall <Amcdougall1 @yahoo.com>; Bob Laman <robert.laman@dslextreme.com>; Charlene O'Neil <CMOneil@aol.com>; Clarinda Kotowski <ckotowski@sbcglobal.net>; Hal Winton <winton4jesus@juno.com>; Jay Jones <j1000@cox.net>; Jean Longacre <jeanlongacre@aol.com>; Jeanne Laman <Bojay@dslextreme.com>; John DeGirolamo <jdegirolamo@me.com>; Lorraine Kirk <Irne@sbcglobal.net>; Madeline Ryan <PVpasofino@yahoo.com>; "patpoddatoori@yahoo.com" <patpoddatoori@yahoo.com>; Sandra Sandoval <pvpra.president@gmail. com>; Sharon Yarber <momofyago@gmail. com>; Sherree Greenwood <beachjake@sbcglobal.net>; Sunshine <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:14 AM Subject: Meeting #3 Summary Good morning, 1 114 Attached please see a summary of the Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement project community outreach meeting #3. Attached is also a copy of the PowerPoint presented at that meeting. Additionally, I have received a few emails regarding "stampede barriers" on the entrance/exit to the trail. Yes, there are plans to have a post to deter loose animals from proceeding unattended through the trail exits at both Sunnyside Ridge and PVDE. If you have any comments on this project and/or meeting summary, please let me know by e- mail or in writing by end of the day on Monday May 18th Finally, staff plans to present a staff report to the City Council on July 7, 2015 for approval of the final plans for competitive bidding. Please mark your calendars. If there are any changes to this date, I will notify you in advance. Thank you. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works L". City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5245 Lauren r rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks ***** 115 Lauren Ramezani From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:36 AM To: Lauren Ramezani Cc: pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; ebmendenhall@aol.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; russ@cheapvintage.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com Subject: Sunnyside Meeting Summary Re: FW: document in word Hi Lauren, Thank you so much for sending me your Meeting Summary in old Microsoft Word. This makes it so much easier for we not computer techies to insert and send you comments and questions as they relate to each of your statements. FYI, I am still offended by how frequently you use the word "will". None of this will happen exactly as currently proposed. The devil is in the details which have not yet been produced. ...S 310-377- 8761 In a message dated 5/14/2015 10:33:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, LaurenR@rpvca.gov writes: Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Community Outreach #3 — May 06, 2015 Miraleste Intermediate School Meeting Summary On May 6, 2015, staff and KOA Corporation, City's consultant, met with approximately seven (7) interested trail users, neighborhood residents and equestrians, who have been involved in the evolution of the design from the start of the project. The purpose of this third public outreach meeting was to present refined design and cost saving options for the Sunnyside Ridge trail project (SSR) and to obtain feedback on the community's preference. The four (4) alternative designs for the canyon segment, Area 1, we discussed in detail and the design for the segment between the two houses adjacent to Sunnyside Ridge Road, Area 2, was presented and discussed. Questions about the various components of the design were answered and votes were taken to gauge the participant's preferences. The meeting was very productive and provided valuable information that gave sufficient direction for the design to be completed. 116 As a result of the meeting, the significant components will be as follows: Canyon Segment (Area 1): Alternative 1, with the fewest number of switch -backs is strongly supported by the public. This alternative generally has a grade of 18%, with 5% at the switch -backs. It also has the fewest number of bends and the bridge will be up to 15 -feet above the stream -bed. The alternative is also the lowest cost. The width of trail will generally be 8 -feet, however, will be widened to up to 10 -feet wherever that can be achieved without requiring any additional retaining wall area. The marginally narrower trail will allow for a reduction in the total retaining wall required and will be less imposing. This approach also reduces cost while allowing for ample trail width. A visually appealing 50 -foot span bridge will be used to cross the stream -bed, although the possibility of using a shorter span will be investigated providing it doesn't trigger permitting requirements from the Resource Agencies. The bridge tread surface will be dirt. The retaining walls in the canyon, which are required to provide a relatively level tread for the 8 -foot width, will be constructed using either, or a combination of, a wood type retaining structure or segmental block (Keystone type, similar to adjacent property on 2477 SSRR). The bridge is anticipated to be a manufactured welded steel truss bridge. The abutments will be concrete with a "PV Stone" type fapade. The bridge, and width between abutments, will allow the trail to be constructed without encroaching into the "blue line stream" at the bottom of the canyon, thus avoiding a significant, and costly, environmental study and mitigation effort. 06 , y t +Fiya (.ypical Keystone Wall in:•ur:{ ation typical Wood retaining structure The railing in the canyon to be 2 -rail round treated wood rail (similar to other RPV locations). 2 117 z. �. �= ii _ i4 ...-V i i:,a! wood railing in RPV (location is on PVDE) The trail surfacing to be native soil. Area Adiacent to Two Homes (Area 2) 1. A new retaining wall will be constructed on 2443 Sunnyside Ridge Road (the lower side of the trail) on private property along the west side of the property. This wall will be stepped and be about 7-8 feet high at the highest point, however, a maximum height of less than 2 -feet will be visible from the trail at the slope area. 2. The existing driveway curb/retaining wall at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road (higher side of the trail) will be supported in place using underpinning. This will effectively create a wall on the higher side ranging in height from 2 -feet to a maximum of 7-8 feet. 3. Both walls will have handrails installed on top, which will match the design of existing hand rails elsewhere on each of the two properties. 4. Provision will be made for a narrow planter area immediately adjacent to the 2477 SSRR wall and creeping fig type material will be planted, with temporary irrigation. This will create a green wall in a couple of years, completely hiding the wall. 5. The grade of the trail will be relatively flat for the majority of the distance and increase to 20% grade for the last —60 -feet. Construction Cost 3 118 Engineer's estimates for two of the alternatives based on 10 -foot wide trails were presented, both of which were over -budget. The Target construction cost including a 10% contingency is $300,000. Modifications to the design based on the decisions made at the meeting are likely to make reasonable savings, which should result in receiving construction bids within the budget. An Additive Alternate Item for the Area 1 retaining wall will be included in the bid package to allow for some flexibility in awarding a suitable project that will meet budget requirements. The design is scheduled to be completed by mid-June and an accurate Engineer's estimate of probable cost will be developed, all of which will be presented to City Council for approval. The bid documents will then be completed and the project will go out to bid with a timeline of constructing the trail this year. If anyone has any additional comments, please make them in writing to Lauren Ramezani and send them to laurenr(a-rpvca.gov by Monday, May 18, 2015. Thank you. RPV Public Works Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative ,analyst- Public 11"orks City of'Runcho Polos T erdes 310-544-3245 I. aurenr ( rpv ci,,.,go\: w,\ �.,v.rp��c �.go 119 ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks -1 * * * * From: Lauren Ramezani Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:28 AM To: Sunshine Subject: document in word Hope this works better. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5245 Laurenr@ pvca.gov www.rpvca.,ov ****The City has a new web and email domain. I have a new email address. Please update your records. Thanks * * * * * E 120 Lauren Ramezani From: Russell Greenwood <beachjake@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:05 PM To: Lauren Ramezani; Jean Longacre; Madeline Ryan; Charlene O'Neil; Anna McDougall Subject: Fw: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Attachments: ATT00001.pdf On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:58 AM, "SunshineRPV@aol.com" <SunshineRPV@aol.com> wrote: Hi Sheree, Missed you. Hope you and Russ are all well. At the Sunnyside Meeting #2, Jean Longacre brought up the concept and the need for "stampede barriers" where trails come up a steep grade and open right onto a paved roadway. There was not much discussion and based on what was presented at Sunnyside Meeting #3, Staff and the Consultants didn't "get it". Thanks for bringing it up, again. You are right. It is a very inexpensive safety feature. Since I broke my right wrist, I can't draw the way I used to. Attached is a scribble showing the way the fencing should be at the trail and roadway junction. Personally, I hate to have to stop and open gates. We all just get to wait and see what Lauren says has been decided. Then, we all get to wait and see what the City Council approves to be bid on by the construction contractors. It really is not all that bad of a solution to Staff's past mistakes. In fact, now that it has been designed, Staff should be looking for funding to do the same improvements between Rockinghorse Road and Golden Spur Lane. (CTP A25.) It sounds like Staff could use some input on what to do with the roadside trail the rest of the way to the RPV RHE boundry. The time is right for reminders about an anti-skid surface on the driveway and the PASS HORSES QUIETLY sign. ...S 310-377-8761 121 U - V "-)1 vim- t t4.N 1 L- i V-) ) fvV 122 Lauren Ramezani From: Russell Greenwood <beachjake@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:52 PM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: Re: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Russ and I are in favor of " Stampede Barriers" for Sunnyside Ridge Trail improvements. This would make safety a priority especially for new or young riders. The barriers could be at entrance and exit sites or a short distance before. This beautiful trail can have many happy safe memories. Thank you Sherree Greenwood On Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:03 PM, Russell Greenwood <beachjake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:05 PM, Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> wrote: I like the idea of a post, just to keep motorized vehicles out of there, not so much for 'runaway' horses. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline .. From: momofyago <momofyago@gmail.com> To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; laurenr@rpvca.gov; beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; russ@cheapvintage.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanIongacre@aol.com; seanl@rpvca.gov; coryl@rpvca.gov; nicolej@rpvca.gov; rond@rpvca.gov Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:19 PM Subject: RE: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" I thought the concern at the trailhead at the street could be addressed by simply putting a post in the middle of the trail with enough room to walk around it. Very easy and cheap. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Date: 05/13/2015 8:52 AM (GMT -08:00) To: laurenr@rpvca.gov, beachjake@sbcglobal.net 123 Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com, russ@cheapvintage.com, pvpasofino@yahoo.com, jeanlongacre@aol.com, momofyago@gmail.com, seanl@rpvca.gov, coryl@rpvca.gov, nicolej@rpvca.gov, rond@rpvca.gov Subject: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Hi Sheree, Missed you. Hope you and Russ are all well. At the Sunnyside Meeting #2, Jean Longacre brought up the concept and the need for "stampede barriers" where trails come up a steep grade and open right onto a paved roadway. There was not much discussion and based on what was presented at Sunnyside Meeting #3, Staff and the Consultants didn't "get it". Thanks for bringing it up, again. You are right. It is a very inexpensive safety feature. Since I broke my right wrist, I can't draw the way I used to. Attached is a scribble showing the way the fencing should be at the trail and roadway junction. Personally, I hate to have to stop and open gates. We all just get to wait and see what Lauren says has been decided. Then, we all get to wait and see what the City Council approves to be bid on by the construction contractors. It really is not all that bad of a solution to Staff's past mistakes. In fact, now that it has been designed, Staff should be looking for funding to do the same improvements between Rockinghorse Road and Golden Spur Lane . (CTP A25.) It sounds like Staff could use some input on what to do with the roadside trail the rest of the way to the RPV RHE boundry. The time is right for reminders about an anti-skid surface on the driveway and the PASS HORSES QUIETLY sign. ...S 310-377-8761 124 Lauren Ramezani From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 7:05 PM To: momofyago; SunshineRPV@aol.com; Lauren Ramezani; beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; russ@cheapvintage.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; Sean Larvenz; Cory Linder; Nicole Jules; Ron Dragoo Subject: Re: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" I like the idea of a post, just to keep motorized vehicles out of there, not so much for 'runaway' horses. "May the Trails be with you..." Madeline From: momofyago <momofyago@gmail.com> To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; laurenr@rpvca.gov; beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; russ@cheapvintage.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; seanl@rpvca.gov; coryl@rpvca.gov; nicolej@rpvca.gov; rond@rpvca.gov Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:19 PM Subject: RE: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" I thought the concern at the trailhead at the street could be addressed by simply putting a post in the middle of the trail with enough room to walk around it. Very easy and cheap. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Date: 05/13/2015 8:52 AM (GMT -08:00) To: laurenr@rpvca.gov, beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com, russ@cheapvintage.com, pvpasofino@yahoo.com, jeanlongacre@aol.com, momofyago@gmail.com, seanl@rpvca.gov, coryl@rpvca.gov, nicolej@rpvca.gov, rond@rpvca.gov Subject: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Hi Sheree, Missed you. Hope you and Russ are all well. 125 At the Sunnyside Meeting #2, Jean Longacre brought up the concept and the need for "stampede barriers" where trails come up a steep grade and open right onto a paved roadway. There was not much discussion and based on what was presented at Sunnyside Meeting #3, Staff and the Consultants didn't "get it". Thanks for bringing it up, again. You are right. It is a very inexpensive safety feature. Since I broke my right wrist, I can't draw the way I used to. Attached is a scribble showing the way the fencing should be at the trail and roadway junction. Personally, I hate to have to stop and open gates. We all just get to wait and see what Lauren says has been decided. Then, we all get to wait and see what the City Council approves to be bid on by the construction contractors. It really is not all that bad of a solution to Staff's past mistakes. In fact, now that it has been designed, Staff should be looking for funding to do the same improvements between Rockinghorse Road and Golden Spur Lane . (CTP A25.) It sounds like Staff could use some input on what to do with the roadside trail the rest of the way to the RPV RHE boundry. The time is right for reminders about an anti-skid surface on the driveway and the PASS HORSES QUIETLY sign. ...S 310-377-8761 126 Lauren Ramezani From: momofyago <momofyago@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:19 PM To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; Lauren Ramezani; beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; russ@cheapvintage.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jean longacre@aol.com; Sean Larvenz; Cory Linder; Nicole Jules; Ron Dragoo Subject: RE: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" I thought the concern at the trailhead at the street could be addressed by simply putting a post in the middle of the trail with enough room to walk around it. Very easy and cheap. Sent from iny° Verizon Wireless 4G (.,'i t; sinartphone -------- Original message -------- From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Date: 05/13/2015 8:52 AM (GMT -08:00) To: laurenr@rpvca.gov, beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com, russ@cheapvintage.com, pvpasofino@yahoo.com, jeanlongacre@aol.com, momofyago@gmail.com, seanl@rpvca.gov, coryl@rpvca.gov, nicolej@rpvca.gov, rond@rpvca.gov Subject: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Hi Sheree, Missed you. Hope you and Russ are all well. At the Sunnyside Meeting #2, Jean Longacre brought up the concept and the need for "stampede barriers" where trails come up a steep grade and open right onto a paved roadway. There was not much discussion and based on what was presented at Sunnyside Meeting #3, Staff and the Consultants didn't "get it". Thanks for bringing it up, again. You are right. It is a very inexpensive safety feature. Since I broke my right wrist, I can't draw the way I used to. Attached is a scribble showing the way the fencing should be at the trail and roadway junction. Personally, I hate to have to stop and open gates. We all just get to wait and see what Lauren says has been decided. Then, we all get to wait and see what the City Council approves to be bid on by the construction contractors. It really is not all that bad of a solution to Staff's past mistakes. In fact, now that it has been designed, Staff should be looking for funding to do the same improvements between Rockinghorse Road and Golden Spur Lane. (CTP A25.) It sounds like Staff could use some input on what to do with the roadside trail the rest of the way to the RPV RHE boundry. The time is right for reminders about an anti-skid surface on the driveway and the PASS HORSES QUIETLY sign. ...S 310-377-8761 127 Lauren Ramezani From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Ramezani, winton4jesus@juno.com Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:43 PM Lauren Ramezani CC; Doug Willmore; SunshineRPV@aol.com Re: Meeting #3 Summary ATT00001.htm In response to your requests for comments on the Sunnyside Ridge project for a trail across Greenwood Canyon the following are my comments on what I learned of the decicions reached at the last project meeting at Miraleste school recently. I am Hal Winrton and I have attended the Sunnyside Ridge Project meetings to do with the trail work to be done across Greenwood canyon with grant and RPV funding. I am Rolling Hills RHCA trails consultant for 10 years and a USFS volunteer with over 20 years experience with Trail Boss work. I have headed up building and maintaining many trails etc on the Angeles Nat'l Forest. At the last public input mtg it was indicated by what was prsented there, that a bridge across the canyon bottom would likely avoid having a long project delay study by agencies. That has not been a problem in Rolling Hills equestrian trails where we have repeatedly used drain pipes of approriately large diameters using adjacent dirt to build or replace dirt only stream crossings. It is of course much less expensive than steel bridges in every case. Reinforcement of the upstream banks can be had with quickcrete cement bags against heavy runoffs. In Rolling Hills trails we have never had a failure of these devices except when in much earlier times pipes were of far too small diameter in heavy runoff storms. Cheap solutions do not last very long. IMO, the Sunnyside Ridge project and Greenwood Cyn crossing could save a lot of funding by using the native dirt in Greenwod Cyn and a relatively less expensive large diameter plastic re-inforced pipe as I have recommeded and have had installed in Rolling Hills for the last decade against storm runoffs. Another signifcant example can be seen in the RHE Nature Trail out of Georgeff Nature Preserve. A large pipe was installed to replace a washed out BSA ford there which is at the vulnerable lower elevation end of a major PVP canyon. Major trail washouts have occuered when inadequate storm runoff methods existed. The Rolling Hills and Georgeff Preserve solutions should be enough proof that adequate pipes at stream crossigs are effective and more cost effective and money well spent solutions. IMO, also the question needs to be addressed, that if Rolling Hills and Georgeff Nature Preserve can put in pipe crossings instead of bridges why is RPV and/or its project consultant so concerned that the government agencies would significantly hold up the Sunnyside Ridge project? I believe that is an untenable position for RPV tp take and bares more in depth consideration. The 50 foot bridge is "estimated" to cost $100,000 and the pipe drain solution would cost a fraction of that amount and eliminate a lot of material transport, hauling, erecting and maintenance in the canyon bottom vs one large more than adequate pipe. Also using only redicrete cement bags as crossing re-inforcing materials eliminates the need for cement bridge abutments. The cost savings with a pipe approach should be obvious Me e • After attending the meeting sessions one could get the opinion that the RPV staff and consultant firm have their accumulative minds already made up on the solutions to areas 1 and 2 already. However if a way to save on cost of the project is still in consideration instead of lessening trail width and retaining walls integrity, the big ticket item on the project is the bridge crossing and the pipe abutment solution could afford considerable costing ease. The agencies holding back the project timing is apparently a weak argument since other communties and reserwes are in recent years employing embankment with plastic pipe crossings. I hope that the RPV staff plans to go in the direction to spend grant monies wisely and not spend it on uneccesary more expensive soultions which might be deemed wasteful and might show lack of fidicuary responsiblity I hope the RPV staff does not go forward without proper investigation of all factors in this projects decision making process. I think the agencies are not that hard to deal with from other experinces and besides the existing Greenwood Cayon runoff basin/pipe has considerably mitigated the blue stream concerns for the Greenwood canyon already. I would plan to bring this matter up again at the future RPV city council approval meeting if the RPV staff can not satisfy my questions before then. Yours sincerely, Hal Winton, RH Trails Consultant, AC 100 Co -RD, ANF Vol 12 & 2013 Vol of the Year, CTUC/NFA Please note: message attached Return -Path: <LaurenR@rpvca.gov> Received: from mx07.vgs.untd.com (mx07.vgs.untd.com [10.181.44.37]) by maildeliver0l.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABLXKYAFAJPMGQS for <winton4jesus@juno.com> (sender <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>); Thu, 14 May 2015 10:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Authentication -Results: mx07.vgs.untd.com; DKIM=NONE Received -SPF: Pass Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail- by2on0132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.132]) by mx07.vgs.untd,com with SMTP id AABLXKX97AUA98X2 for <winton4jesus@juno.com> (sender <LaurenR@rpvca.gov>); Thu, 14 May 2015 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BL2PR05CA0030.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.226.30) by CY1PR05MB1884.namprd05.prod.outlook. com (25.162.167.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.154.19; Thu, 14 May 2015 17:14:30 +0000 Received: from BNIAFFO11FD007.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::153) by BL2PR05CA0030.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:c04::30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.160.19 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 14 May 2015 17:14:30 +0000 Authentication -Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 100.32.119.35) 129 Lauren Ramezani From: Robert Laman <robert.laman@dslextreme.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:02 PM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail meeting #3 feedback Lauren, My additional feedback following meeting #3 is provided below. Please circulate to all interested parties. I was able to provide a meeting summary to a couple of my neighbors. These neighbors and others may be waiting to provide their feedback until they receive the electronic copy of the presentation and your meeting summary. Bob Laman Following meeting #3 on May 6th, I remain convinced that pedestrians and equestrians will be most comfortable using the trail together if the trail is implemented with a width of 10 feet, as originally proposed. was unable to locate any recommendations for a narrower width for a mixed use trail. I did find the following recommendations: "Trail designers often look to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) design guidelines as the standard for multi -use trail widths. AASHTO recommends a minimum of 10 feet for multi -use trails; however, where heavy use is anticipated, a 12 to 14 -foot width is recommended." http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolboxitrail-building-and-desi n/�designing-for-user-type/ "For facilities subject to the AASHTO guidelines, match the clear bridge width to the width of the shared -use trails that lead up to them. Then add an additional 2 feet (0.6 meter) on each side (AASHTO 1999). This extra width gives all trail users the minimum horizontal shy distance from the railing or barrier. It also provides maneuvering space when trail users encounter others who have stopped." http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational trails/publications/fs publications/07232816/paizel0.cfm The subject of trail surface was discussed extensively in meeting #2, but was barely mentioned in meeting #3. The proposed trail surface is "native soil." We know from experience on other trails that it only takes a few horses to churn a dirt surface trail into mud following a rain. With a "native soil" surface, it is important that equestrians avoid using the trail following rain to prevent trail damage and the resulting maintenance. 130 Lauren Ramezani From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:32 PM To: Doug Willmore; CC; Lauren Ramezani; Jowell@transtalk.com Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; Ara Mihranian; mthrone@rpvca.gov, Cory Linder Subject: RPV infrastructure score card Attachments: D M Criteria July 4, 2012.doc MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, RPV Infrastructure Committee, Staff and interested parties RE: Status of TRAILS on the 2014 Infrastructure Score Card The more I learn, the more concerned I become about the "A" score for trails development and maintenance. This impacts the future budget and the Capital Improvements Plan. While we are all waiting for the RPV Trails Network Plan to be updated, the existing Plan is not being implemented. Since Larry Still retired, the RPV Maintenance Superintendent of the month has not been provided with a directive to maintain the existing CATEGORY I trails. They are deteriorating, badly. Attached is the universal TRAILS DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 which the RPV City Council has adopted. This one page master document includes all of the footnotes which were not shared with the public at the Sunnyside Project workshops. Maybe not even the consultant. It took the Western States Trail Foundation more then a decade to create and vet this communications tool. It is really a shame that RPV's Staff does not have the skills or the interest to use this CRITERIA to plan for preserving and enhancing public trails here in this portion of the Peninsula's trails network. The PV Loop Trail Project has requested that this primary trail around The Hill be maintained as at least a TYPE 5 trail. The PV Loop Trail Relay of 2015 produced many examples of trails in RPV which need attention. Who is in a position to do something about that? 131 Lauren Ramezani From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 8:52 AM To: Lauren Ramezani; beachjake@sbcglobal.net Cc: cstephan@koacorp.com; russ@cheapvintage.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; momofyago@gmail.com; Sean Larvenz; Cory Linder, Nicole Jules; Ron Dragoo Subject: Sunnyside. About "stampede barriers" Attachments: stampede barrier-0663.pdf Hi Sheree, Missed you. Hope you and Russ are all well. At the Sunnyside Meeting #2, Jean Longacre brought up the concept and the need for "stampede barriers" where trails come up a steep grade and open right onto a paved roadway. There was not much discussion and based on what was presented at Sunnyside Meeting #3, Staff and the Consultants didn't "get it". Thanks for bringing it up, again. You are right. It is a very inexpensive safety feature. Since I broke my right wrist, I can't draw the way I used to. Attached is a scribble showing the way the fencing should be at the trail and roadway junction. Personally, I hate to have to stop and open gates. We all just get to wait and see what Lauren says has been decided. Then, we all get to wait and see what the City Council approves to be bid on by the construction contractors. It really is not all that bad of a solution to Staff's past mistakes. In fact, now that it has been designed, Staff should be looking for funding to do the same improvements between Rockinghorse Road and Golden Spur Lane. (CTP A25.) It sounds like Staff could use some input on what to do with the roadside trail the rest of the way to the RPV RHE boundry. The time is right for reminders about an anti-skid surface on the driveway and the PASS HORSES QUIETLY sign. ...S 310-377-8761 132 u V-11 v�, V4\ 1A- 'Y -j i y V Tc o" 133 Lauren Ramezani From: Russell Greenwood <beachjake@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 2:31 PM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail improvements - Safety Gate or narrowing yz � P�a°1�i•c1. w,x^,a�,�i�.�m'aw�set�7� ,:e�rtry�-tancr.htx�k'nth:�.on.rtg�x..h.�r.•U};iEfiAw�a.'ttir++ti . �.xwv ur:ow�_-urrt+Y�«:�«�'{ka usCdr..hlisr,¢�k5}F§�t4G�'edAit�'8s�41£�u�tz�'bi2�46�4�,�" �e• -Yu--ae - '� `k -:.� f' _ '«a•¢ -w ry. « a= - fab-4�?s.'iaFk 1Eel • w Fdw Est •i.,., Tc,+ Hvlp "El r"MI, Hi Lauren, If this gate was permanately affixed and open inward, this could be an area the horse could stop before exit to street. Please call me if you have any questions. From Sherree Greenwood 310-626- 3445or email. TKS i 134 Lauren Ramezani From: momofyago <momofyago@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 1:41 PM To: Katie Lozano; Ara Mihranian; Lauren Ramezani Subject: Preserve mtg wednesday Katie and Lauren, Why are the preserve mtg. and the Sunnyside Ridge trail mtg. the same night and on opposite sides of the Hill, no less? One of the meetings should be rescheduled. Can't you guys coordinate a bit better? Sent frons nir Verizon Wireless 4G LTE sn-iaitphone 135 Lauren Ramezani From: Rodney Briggs <briggsrod@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 1:18 PM To: Lauren Ramezani Subject: Sunnyside trail project Attachments: IMG_7370.JPG; ATT00001.txt; IMG_7371.JPG; ATT00002.txt; IMG_7375.JPG; ATT00003.txt; IMG_7376.JPG; ATT00004.txt; IMG_7377.JPG; ATT00005.txt Lauren. I am sending you17 photos in the sunny side trail project in several batches. As we discussed the other day. The trail outlet proposed for pvde is extremely dangerous. Please call me at 3108335517 as soon as you receive all photos. 136 �M MAW,yA11 f IIa 137 cis IIa 137 rm S" �,YI• Ma- 'fi 1 `4