Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_11_18_04_Peafowl_Census_UpdateCITY OF TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCI MEMBERS FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Staff Coordinator: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITYJ OPMENT DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 18, 2014 2014 PEAFOWL CENSUS REPORT CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE ~ Ara Mihranian, Deputy Community Development Directo ~ Daniel Pitts, Code Enforcement Officer RECOMMENDATION Review the June and October 2014 Peafowl Census Reports and direct Staff to prepare a Peafowl Trapping Program for Council review in early 2015. BACKGROUND Since 2000, Staff has been monitoring the City's peafowl population in response to periodic public concerns regarding problems caused by Peafowl such excessive noise, damage to private property (i.e. yards, roofs, vehicles, etc.), and excessive animal waste. The following is a summary of actions that have occurred since 2000. • On October 10, 2000, the City Council enlisted the professional services of Dr. Francine Bradley of U.C. Davis to study the City's peafowl population and to provide recommendations to manage the population. • Between October 2000 and January 2001, Dr. Bradley conducted community workshops and field visits to observe the City's peafowl presence, flock behavior and to conduct a population count. A total of 134 peafowl were counted in the Crestridge (also referred to as Ridgcrest), Portuguese Bend, and Vista Grande neighborhoods. • On February 20, 2001, the City Council, as recommended by Dr. Bradley in her Peafowl Population Assessment (see attachment), adopted a Peafowl Management Plan to reduce the City's peafowl population. The Management Plan consisted of a City-sponsored demonstration project to trap and relocate up to 50 peafowl in the Crestridge (Ridgcrest), Portuguese Bend and Vista Grande neighborhoods. 4-1 2014 PEAFOWL CENSUS REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE2 • The 2001 trappings resulted in 19 peafowl being trapped and relocated, ratherthan the planned 50 peafowl, due to routine sabotage to the traps by peafowl enthusiasts. • In 2008, the City Council enlisted the services of Ms. Michele Palmer, a graduate of U.C. Davis who assisted Dr. Bradley in 2000, to conduct a peafowl census. According to the Fall 2008 Peafowl Population Assessment (see attachment), at the time, the City's peafowl population grew by 53% with the majority of the growth occurring in the Vista Grande neighborhood (there were 89 birds counted in this neighborhood an increase of 60 birds from the 2000 census). This was primarily associated with the abundance of food, prime habitat and lack of predatory animals in the area. • On May 5, 2009, the City Council, in response to public complaints and the increase in the peafowl population as described in the Fall 2008 Peafowl Population Assessment by Ms. Palmer, directed Staff to: 1) prepare an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of and interference with efforts to trap and relocate peafowl, and 2) develop a program to reduce the peafowl population. • On May 19, 2009, Ordinance No. 488 was adopted amending Chapter 6.04 of the RPVMC prohibiting the feeding of and interference with efforts to trap and relocate peafowl. • On June 16, 2009, the City Council authorized the reduction of peafowl in the Vista Grande area by approximately 60 birds because this area experienced a peafowl increase of 207% since the 2000 census. • Between August 14, 2009 and January 15, 2010, Mike Maxey of Wild Life Services trapped and relocated 71 peafowl birds in the Vista Grande neighborhood. • On November 2-3, 2011 and April 18-19, 2012, a peafowl census was conducted in the following five neighborhoods: Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande, Crestridge, Sunnyside, and Monte Verde. This census revealed a reduction in the peafowl population compared to past census reports. In light of this, no City-sponsored trappings occurred during this time period. This past year, the City has experienced an increase in resident complaints regarding peafowl. The majority of the complaints appear to be coming from the Vista Grande neighborhood. In response, a census report was conducted in June and October of this year to monitor the City's peafowl population trend. The City Council is being asked to review the Census Reports and, if warranted, direct Staff to prepare a Peafowl Trapping Program for Council consideration and implementation in 2015. DISCUSSION The following discussion summarizes the two censuses conducted by Animal Pest Management Services Inc. in June and October of this year in the following five neighborhoods: Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande, Crestridge, Sunnyside Ridge, and Grandview. The censuses were both performed in the early morning hours and the peafowl were counted as they roosted in the trees, on top of roofs and along the street. 4-2 2014 PEAFOWL CENSUS REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE3 June 2014 Census Data On June 5 and 6, 2014, the two (2) day peafowl census performed in the five neighborhoods resulted in an overall count of 133 birds consisting of 52 birds in Portuguese Bend, 37 birds in Vista Grande, 17 birds in Crestridge, 19 birds in Sunnyside Ridge, and 8 birds in Grandview. October 2014 Census Data On October 20 and 21, 2014, the two (2) day peafowl census performed in the five neighborhoods resulted in an overall count of 305 birds consisting of 7 4 birds in Portuguese Bend, 71 birds in Vista Grande, 50 birds in Crestridge, 90 birds in Sunnyside Ridge, and 20 birds in Grandview. Peafowl Comparison Census Data For purposes of comparing the 2014 data with past data, the June and October 2014 censuses, which were conducted over a two-day period, are being reported as an average since the previous years involved 4-day census results. The table below provides a breakdown on the peafowl counts for each of the five studied neighborhoods since peafowl census began in 2000. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2000, 2008, 2011-12, & 2014 PEAFOWL CENSUS DATA SUMMARY 2011-12 to Geographical Area 2000 2008 2011-June October Average 2011-12 to 2014 12 2014 2014 2014 2014 Percentage Comparison Comparison Portuguese Bend 67 75 70 52 74 63 -7 -10% Vista Grande 29 89 40 37 71 54 +14 +35% Crestridge 38 30 27 17 50 34 +7 +26% Sunnyside Ridge 0 11 25 19 90 55 +30 +120% TOTAL 134 205 162 125 285 206 44 +27% (4 neighborhoods) Monte Verde n/a n/a 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Grandview n/a n/a n/a 8 20 14 n/a n/a TOTAL 134 205 165 133 305 219 54 +33% (6 neighborhoods) Based on an average of the June and October 2014 census results, a comparison of the census results reveal that for the four neighborhoods (Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande, Crestridge, and Sunnyside Ridge) that have been surveyed in 2011/12 and 2014, the peafowl population has moderately increased from 162 birds to 206 birds, an increase of 44 birds or 27%. However, of concern is that from June 2014 to October 2014, there has 4-3 2014 PEAFOWL CENSUS REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE4 been a significant increase of 160 birds, or 128%, in the four neighborhoods surveyed. According to Animal Pest Management Services, the large increase between June and October 2014 can be attributed to a large procreation that occurred in early summer coupled with the drought which is likely forcing more peafowl into neighborhoods to search for a water source. City-Sponsored Peafowl Trapping In light of the significant increase in peafowl population between June and October of this year in the surveyed neighborhoods combined with a recent increase in resident complaints, City Staff believes that trapping and relocating peafowl in targeted neighborhoods, similar to 2000 and 2009, may now be warranted. If the City Council agrees, Staff will prepare a trapping program for the City Council's consideration in early 2015. As part of this program that will be presented to the City Council, Staff will obtain a cost proposal and scope of work from the vendor, Wildlife Services (Mike Maxey), who performed City-sponsored trappings in the past. Additionally, Staff will confirm the optimal time of the year to effectively trap peafowl. While Staff was informed by the Census tracker (Animal Pest Management) that March through April is the most optimal time to trap as the peafowl tend to migrate during this time period, Staff intends to confirm this with Wildlife Services (the City's previous trapper). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Comments Aside from correspondence between residents (primarily from the Vista Grande and Crestridge neighborhoods) and City Staff regarding peafowl issues (see attached correspondence), Staff has not provided any City wide public notification of this item or the idea of possible trapping. If the City Council directs Staff to prepare a Trapping Program, Staff will provide public notification to the targeted neighborhoods, which at this time appear to be the Vista Grande and Crestridge neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Direct Staff to not prepare a Trapping Program at this time but to continue monitoring citizen complaints and provide educational information about co-existing with peafowl to residents in peafowl neighborhoods. 2. Direct Staff to not prepare a Trapping Program at this time but to conduct another peafowl census during Spring 2015 to determine if there are further changes in the peafowl population. 4-4 2014 PEAFOWL CENSUS REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CC MEETING PAGES ATTACHMENTS: • June 2014 Animal Pest Management Census Report • October 2014 Animal Pest Management Census Report • 2000 Peafowl Population Assessment (Dr. Bradley) • 2008 Peafowl Population Assessment (Ms. Palmer) • May 9, 2009 City Council Staff Report • Public comments 4-5 June 2014 Peafowl Census Report Animal Pest Management November 18, 2014 City Council Meeting 4-6 Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. _____ ... ,_Q!l:!';~~J.(.V',.;r:•),••,;,\'>."i~ , "Ji Urban Wildlife Professionals ~G4 Phone 800.344.6567 Fax 909.590.1435 I . . June 20, 2014 City of Rancho Palos Verdes C/O Matt Waters 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Peafowl Census Monitoring -June 2014 Dear Mr. Waters: Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. performed a two (2) day peafowl census on June 5 and 6, 2014 in designated areas in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, specifically Crestridge, Grandview, Portuguese Bend, Sunnyside Ridge and Vista Grande. The census was performed in the early morning hours at sunrise. The peafowl were counted as they roosted in the trees, on top of roofs and along the street. In order to avoid duplicate counting of the peafowl, as soon as they left their original roosting location the counting stopped. The peafowl were observed roosting in the pine trees, sitting on roofs, walking along the streets and foraging on the lawns. In each area of the city, there were streets that showed concentrated populations of peafowl. The streets listed below in the tables represent only the streets where peafowl were counted. The areas of highest concentrations were observed in the Portuguese Bend, Sunnyridge, and Vista Grande areas. The areas of highest population in Portuguese Bend were found on Sweetbay, and Tangerine/Lime Tree, and in the Vista Grande area, Trailriders showed the highest density of peafowl. The Sunnyridge area peafowl were spread out on Sunnyside Ridge, Headland, and Bronco. : .: . ·. 06/05114 · ·.06106114 We3.therConditions ·· ·· . ·•.Gle~:i! 'Cleitt. ,. 1 · '.# 9fJ>eafo:Wl .. #. 9f Peafowl M!i.le Female r Male· Female Crestridge Road 2 6 2 6 Middlecrest Road 3 5 3 6 Robinview Lane Scotwood Drive 5 11 5 12 Totals 16 17 Corporate Office Orange Counly Riverside County 13655 Redwood Court, Chino, CA 91710-5516 23170 Del Lago Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653•1306 PMB 446 •31855 Date Palm Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 •3100 For Over 25 Yuars, Helping To Make Our World Greener. www.animalpest.com 9 4-7 ' .· . .· 06/0S/14 06/06/14. . Weather Conditions ···;Clear · ... .. stfeetName .· ·.Male···• i'Ferrfale Male . Female ·· Pinecrest Drive Flambeau Road Grayslake Road 5 2 4 Whitestone Road 1 7 2 4 Totals 8 6 PORTUGUESE 'BE:ND AREA. . 06/Q6/itf ···overcll$t Cinnamon Lane 4 5 2 Clove Tree Place 2 Fig Tree Road Kumquat Lane Narcissa Drive 4 2 7 4 Penner Tree Drive 5 3 Pomegranate Road 1 Sweet.Bay Road 11 6 10 2 Tangerine Rd/Lime Tree Ln io. 4 6 3 37 15 33 12 Totals 45 52 . WeiithehC6nwHon&' \ : , 1,.;; .•Cl~ar:: · · . , 1. ' c.()v¢rcast · .·,·.·. i) ···.·.·• .>:<. / , ... ·. : :;·:::#DofW.eaf'9w1;: .. 1 .L#.ot.~eafo:Wl ·.· Street:Nanie · ,·. · ···· .•.Male·~< :ll'.~111aie 1· M:aie' ·Fefuille .. Bronco Drive 0 4 4 Headland Drive 4 3 4 3 Mustang Road Rocking Horse Drive Stallion Road 0 2 2 Sunnyside Ridge Road 3 3 3 3 Surrey Lane 7 12 7 12 Totals 19 19 RPV-June2014 2 10 4-8 . . ···06/Q$/l4 ()6/06/14 WeatJier Conditions· Cli!at · '•, Overc11st StreetName Mare····· ···Female•·· Male . Fem11Je Ambergate Drive 2 Beechfield Drive Birchman Drive Brookford Drive 3 6 3 5 CertaDrive Cherty Drive Eddinghill Drive 4 Hazelridge Drive Hedgewood Drive 2 Kings Harbor Drive Larkvale Drive 2 Rothrock Drive San Nicolas Drive Trailriders Drive 3 21 4 10 10 27 11 23 Totals 37 34 Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. recommends peafowl census monitoring twice per year, in March/April and August/September. Should trapping be necessary, it should be performed in March -April and September -October. The first trapping period, March -April, is the most optimal time as the peafowl are migrating in from the surrounding areas. Thank you for allowing Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. to perform the peafowl census for your city. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me at (800) 344-6567. Sincerely, / ,/ 0 .~~'\crv..____ Kevin Bowman Vice President -Operations Urban Wildlife Biologist KB/hn RPV -June 2014 3 11 4-9 October 2014 Peafowl Census Report Animal Pest Management November 18, 2014 City Council Meeting 4-10 Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. Urhtm V?i/dlde Professional> October 22, 2014 City of Rancho Palos Verdes C/O Daniel Pitts 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Via e-mail: danielp@rpv.com RE: Peafowl Census Monitoring -October 2014 Dear Mr. Waters: Phone 800.344.6567 Fax 909.590.1435 Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. performed a two (2) day peafowl census on October 20 and 21, 2014 in designated areas in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, specifically Crestridge, Grandview, Po1tuguese Bend, Sunnyside Ridge and Vista Grande. The census was performed in the early morning hours at sunrise. The peafowl were counted as they roosted in the trees, on top of roofs and along the street. In order to avoid duplicate counting of the peafowl, as soon as they left their original roosting location the counting stopped. The peafowl were observed roosting in the pine trees, sitting on roofs, walking along the streets and foraging on the lawns. In each area of the city, there were streets that showed concentrated populations of peafowl. The streets listed below in the tables represent the streets where peafowl were counted. The areas of highest concentrations were observed in these areas: Portuguese Bend (throughout), Sunnyside Ridge (Sunnyside Ridge Road), Crestridge (Middlecrest), and Vista Grande (Trailriders Drive). CRESTRIDGE AREA 10/20/14 Weather Conditions Overcast #of Peafowl Street Name Male Female Crestridge Road 3 6 Meadowdale Middlecrest Road 2 14 Robinview Lane Scotwood Drive 5 20 Totals 25 Corporate Office 13655 Redwood Court, Chino, CA 91710-5516 Orange County 23170 Del L1go Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653•1306 Riverside County PMB 446 •31855 Date Palm Drive, Cathedral City, CA 92234 •3100 10/21/14 Clear #of Peafowl Male 4 4 - - 8 25 Female s 12 - - 17 For Over 25 Years, Helping To Make Our World Greener. www.animalpest.com 4-11 GRANDVIEW AREA 10/20/14 10/21/14 Weather Conditions Overcast Clear #ofPeafowl #of Peafowl Street Name Male Female Male Female Pinecrest Drive -3 -1 Flambeau Road -7 -7 Grayslake Road 1 -1 - Whitestone Road - - - - 1 10 1 8 Totals 11 9 PORTUGUESE BEND AREA 10/20/14 10/21/14 Weather Conditions Overcast Clear #of Peafowl #of Peafowl Street Name Male Female Male Female Cinnamon Lane 2 2 2 2 Clove Tree Place 1 3 1 2 Fig Tree Road -- - - Kumquat Lane ---- Narcissa Drive 6 2 5 2 Pepper Tree Drive 1 -2 - Pomegranate Road ---- Sweet Bay Road 7 3 7 4 Tangerine Rd/Lime Tree Ln 5 6 4 5 22 16 21 15 Totals 38 36 SUNNYSIDE RIDGE AREA 10/20/14 10/21114 Weather Conditions Overcast Clear #ofPeafowl #of Peafowl Street Name Male Female Male Female Bronco Drive - - -- Headland Drive 5 7 7 5 Mustang Road -- - - Rocking Horse Drive --- - Sol Vista 3 8 4 7 Stallion Road ---- Sunnyside Ridge Road 7 17 7 13 Surrey Lane - - - - 15 32 18 25 Totals 47 43 RPV -Oct 2014 2 4-12 VISTA GRANDE AREA 10/20/14 10/21/14 Weather Conditions Overcast Cle~r #of Peafowl #of Peafowl Street Name Male Female Male Female Ambergate Drive - - - - Beechfield Drive 1 -1 - Birchman Drive ---- Braidwood -1 1 1 Brookford Drive 2 5 3 4 Certa Drive ---- Cherty Drive ---- Eddinghill Drive ---- Golden Meadow -2 -- Hazelridge Drive -7 -5 Hedgewood Drive ---- Kings Harbor Drive ---- Larkvale Drive ---- Rothrock Drive ---- San Nicolas Drive -1 -- Trailriders Drive 1 18 2 17 4 34 7 27 Totals 37 34 Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. recommends peafowl census monitoring twice per year, in March/ April and August/September. Should trapping be necessary, it should be performed in March -April and September -October. The first trapping period, March -April, is the most optimal time as the peafowl are migrating in from the surrounding areas. Thank you for allowing Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. to perform the peafowl census for your city. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me at (800) 344-6567. Sincerely, Kevin Bowman Vice President -Operations Urban Wildlife Biologist KB/hn RPV -Oct 2014 3 4-13 2000 Peafowl Population Assessment Dr. Bradley November 18, 2014 City Council Meeting 4-14 Peafowl Population Assessment Report for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Francine A. Bradley, Ph.D. Extension Poultry Specialist University of California, Davis 4-15 Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the citizens and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, and San Pedro. So many individuals generously shared information and insight. The patient and thorough field work of Avian Sciences senior, Claire Gallagher, is gratefully acknowledged. 11 4-16 Table of Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Background from city staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Summary of site visits -concerns expressed by residents . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Summary of public meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Assessment of peafowl population numbers, territories, and "hot spots" 7 Spread of peafowl on the Palos Verdes Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Communication with staff at adjacent municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Peafowl's current impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Availability of adoptive homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 I. Appropriate flock size for each community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 II. Procedures for immediate reduction of peafowl numbers . . . . . 16 III. Long term management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Appendix A -Photographs Appendix B -Maps 111 4-17 Introduction The Blue or Indian Peacock (Pavo cristatus) is native to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and southern Nepal. None of the species and subspecies of peafowl are native to the Americas (Woodard, Vohra, and Denton, 1993). Visitors to the world's great museums, palaces, and estates will find peafowl. The birds may be depicted in tapestries, paintings, and sculptures or they may be truly life-life, wandering the grounds. Both forms of the bird, live and depicted, are found in such exclusive sites because of their historic association with mortals of prominence and with immortal deities. The peafowl's presence is no less limited in the great books, starting with the Bible (Bergmann, 1980). While many may be familiar with the peafowl in art and legend, fewer may realize that in their native lands, peafowl have often been seen as sport animals or as a nuisance due to their overabundance (Wright, 1920). Thanks to the culinary introduction by Hortensius the orator, young peacocks became prized banquet fare in the Roman period (Goldsmith, 1866). lll 4-18 Historical Background Locals have differing opinions as to the advent of peafowl on the Peninsula. It is generally agreed that the Vanderlip Family owned the first peafowl. At least two stories are told as to the source of those original birds. One version is that east coast friends of the Vanderlips sent the birds west. A second version holds that the first peninsula peafowl came from the peafowl flock that Elias "Lucky" Baldwin kept at his Rancho Santa Anita in what is now Arcadia. This opinion seems to be supported by references made to a letter written by Frank Vanderlip, Jr. in 1979 to the Las Candalistas charitable organization. In that letter he is said to have written that he recalled his father lunching with Lucky Baldwin in 1924 and his father complaining that Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) was too quiet. Baldwin said he could fix that and the next day sent 6 peafowl from his ranch. The definitive answer was provided by Mrs. John Vanderlip. Her father-in-law, Frank Vanderlip bought 365 acres on the peninsula around 1912. According to peninsula historian Fink ( 1966), Vanderlip organized a syndicate to develop the peninsula and the negotiations were finalized in the fall of 1913. He built the first house on the peninsula (the house where Mrs. Vanderlip continues to reside) in 1916. Mr. Vanderlip made trips to Santa Catalina and the Wrigley Family. Wrigley's daughter became quite fond of Frank. On one of his birthdays, she gifted him with 16 peafowl (Vanderlip, 2000). So, the source of the birds was not from the east, neither eastern Los Angeles County (Arcadia), nor the eastern United States. Rather the peafowl came from the west, across the sea from Santa Catalina. Historians report that Mr. Vanderlip was a passionate aviculturalist and that he maintained 500 avian varieties in runs (flight pens) that covered 4 acres of his property. It is further reported that in later years, all of Mr. Vanderlip's collection was gifted to the Wrigley family, forming the breeding stock for their bird farm on Catalina. It is noted, however, that the only birds not given to the Wrigleys, were the peafowl (Fink, 1966). This would make sense ifthe original peafowl came from Wrigleys and Catalina. The Wrigleys would have no need for peafowl stock and Mr.Vanderlip might have feared offending the family by returning what he had received as a gift from them in the first place. Ill 4-19 Background from City Staff Senior Administrative Analyst reported that in 1998 her office received just a few calls related to the peafowl. She said the calls escalated dramatically in 1999. Staff members have identified five regions within the city as peafowl population centers. These regions are: Portuguese Bend Vista Grande Crestridge/Ridgescrest (hereafter referred to as Crestridge) Grandview Marymount College area Of the five regions known to have peafowl, most complaints are received from Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande and Crestridge. 1ll 4-20 Summary of Site Visits and Concerns Expressed by Residents Site visits -Portuguese Bend, October 20, November 12 and 26, 2000 Residents of Portuguese Bend are representative of most RPV citizens in terms of their opinion of the peafowl. Of the residents interviewed, more considered the number of birds to be a negative, rather than positive, aspect of the community. Several individuals had high levels of frustration with the birds. One individual has purchased a dog for the sole purpose of chasing the peafowl. While a number of individuals said they had dogs to keep away the birds, all of those with large dogs admitted that after a week, the dogs gave up trying to chase the peafowl. The only resident whose dog remained very aggressive to the peafowl, was an individual with a small, feisty, and "yappy" canine. Many residents were not at home during our visits, but there were indications in their yards that they were attempting to discourage the birds (tarped fountains, spikes on patio railings, etc.). A smaller number of residents favored the status quo. These individuals enjoy the birds and do not see them as a nuisance. There is a great deal of open space in this area. Open fields, private lanes, backyards and lots not visible from the street, all provide hiding and nesting areas for the birds. The presence of other livestock, especially horses, provides for feed spillage and open feed storage areas that provide "stolen" nutrient supplies for the peafowl. Site visits -Vista Grande, October 20 and November 25, 2000 The residents we spoke with universally agreed that the birds were too numerous and supported relocation of some, if not all of the birds. They were frustrated with the destruction caused to their roofs, plants, and walkways. Over and over we heard of the need to replace roofs and we observed ravaged yards and walkways permanently stained and/or discolored. Homeowners have utilized a variety of techniques to discourage the birds, including yard sprinklers timed to go on during birds' peak feeding times, dogs, roof sprinklers, and shortening tree height in an attempt to reduce roosting spots. Numerous residents reported their suspicions that the birds were being fed at the corner of Eddinghill and Trailriders. While basically a typical suburban neighborhood, the terraced nature of many of the Vista Grande properties offers a good deal of peafowl habitat. In attempts to prevent soil erosion, property owners have planted the steep hillsides with vegetation that has become quite thick. While these slopes are not easy for humans to navigate, they provide no obstacle to the peafowl in search of a nesting or hiding area. 111 4-21 Site visits -Crestridge, October 21, November 10 and 25, 2000 Everyone we spoke with viewed the peafowl as a problem. Methods used to discourage the birds included the aforementioned techniques, plus throwing anything and everything at the birds. We actually saw two vehicles purposefully attempt to hit peafowl crossing the road. While interviewing one citizen, we counted 28 peafowl in three pine trees in the individual's yard (5360 Middlecrest). Although the lots in this region are significantly smaller than in Portuguese Bend, there are numerous protected "open spaces." That is, ravines and water drainage areas, with lush habitat. 111 4-22 Summary of Public Meetings The meeting held on October 19, 2000 for the residents in the Portuguese Bend region was educational and civilized. Participants included recent (late 1990s) and long term (1950s) residents. Several of the latter group were able to recall when the peafowl were restricted to the Vanderlip Estate. Residents complained that the birds scream between April and September, destroy new plant growth and new plantings, break tile roofs, soil roofs with droppings, preclude seeding lawns (must by more expensive sod instead), make sleeping at night impossible due to birds landing on roof and screaming), prevent families from having their children play on lawn due to profuse droppings, and necessitate radical tree pruning and removal in attempts to eliminate roosting sites. Many pointed out that the City's list of suitable plants was not useful. They agreed that the peafowl might not "enjoy" certain plants, but said they would greedily "sample" most anything until they found it was not to their liking. Residents were clearly distressed by the number of birds. One individual declared she would prefer having skunks to the peafowl. She said she was forced to run her air conditioning all night, to drown out the peafowl screams. Only one couple in attendance were pro- peafowl. They said they had actually moved to RPV because of the presence of the peafowl and of wildlife such as skunks and squirrels. While these individuals said they found the birds "amusing," they admitted that the birds were a legitimate nuisance to others. Unfortunately the meeting held on October 20, 2000 in the Silver Spur area had a very different and negative tenor. The citizens who attended this meeting were predominantly Crestridge and Vista Grande homeowners. Of the twenty plus in attendance, two individuals and one couple were very pro-peafowl. One resident said she purchased her home because of the peafowl and hates to see them thinned. Another said he likes the birds and volunteered to help with relocating some of the birds to the Wildlife Waystation. The wife in the pro-peafowl couple said she loves the birds, but thinks thinning the population is acceptable since currently people are killing them. Her husband attributed the problem to a lack of open space. The remainder of the crowd felt there were too many birds and favored thinning to complete removal. Their complaints included: noise, droppings, agitation of pets, potential for health problems, destruction of ornamentals and vegetables, birds walking into homes, people who feed the birds, and the hostility created between neighbors because of the birds (including threats of physical harm). Those disturbed by the birds have tried a variety of deterrents, including water guns with 50 feet trajectory, deer repellants, and bamboo stakes with white string around plantings. These same individuals had ideas about other solutions and wanted to know about the feasibility and efficacy of: collecting the eggs, egg auction, and caponization of peacocks. 111 4-23 Assessment of Peafowl Population Numbers, Territories, and Hot Spots Portuguese Bend The populations were surveyed on November 12 and 26, 2000. Four distinct flocks were identified and described. The potential for a fifth flock exists. The largest flock is Clovetree Place/Cinnamon Lane. The 34 birds roost in the pines at 11 Cinnamon Lane, at the juncture of Clovetree Place and Cinnamon Lane (see Figures Al ,2,3, 4,5,6, and 7 in Appendix A). The resident at 11 Cinnamon stocks feeders with chicken feed for the peafowl. During the morning hours the birds feed in an open pasture and at 3 Clovetree (see Fig. AS), on their way to 6 Clovetree (Fig. A9& 10). At 6 Clovetree they preen on the back patio of the residence. The flock at Sweetbay Rd. is the second largest. At anyone time 19 fowl were observed near 30 and 31 Sweetbay Fig. A 11,12, &13). A few of these birds may be strays from Clovetree/Cinnamon, but at least 15 reside predominantly along Sweet bay. Daytime activity for the birds includes rather random dispersal along Sweetbay towards Peppertree Lane. The birds return down Sweetbay in an equally random fashion during the afternoon. The birds roost in the large pines at 32 Sweetbay (Fig. Al4&15). Approximately 10 birds make up the flock on Limetree Lane. It was difficult to survey the birds in this region due to the steep hills, thick underbrush, and limited views of residences Fig. Al6&17). No preferred roosting site was observed. The flock at Thyme Place is made up of 8 birds. Thyme Place begins at the juncture with 5 Cinnamon Lane. Birds were seen roosting in the large pines at 5 Cinnamon. They roost in the eucalyptus behind the terminus of Thyme Place (Fig. A18&19). The residents at 8 Thyme Place (Fig. A20) do not specifically feed peafowl, but feed songbirds. They admitted that the peafowl find plenty to eat in their yard. A total of 9 birds was observed feeding in a pasture at Vanderlip and Narcissa (Fig. A21) during the first count. The birds could not be found during the second count and it was suspected that they were up Vanderlip Rd., a private road to which we did not have access. The Portuguese Bend flocks tended to stay in their own sections of the region. The counts made on the two dates were nearly identical, differing by one or two birds. Not including the numbers for the presumed Vanderlip Rd flock, we counted 67 birds. Given the abundant habitat present for hiding and the areas we could not enter, it is our opinion that there are 70-80 birds or more in Portuguese Bend. 111 4-24 Vista Grande The populations were surveyed on November 25, 2000. Two main flocks were observed. The larger flock, estimated at 24 , centers its activity around Eddinghill and Trailriders. The birds in this flock roost in the large pines along Trailriders Drive. More precisely, they roost at the property line of 28310 and 28318 Trailriders (see pines on the right hand side of Fig. A22), near the intersection of Trailriders and Ambergate Drives. During the day they move down the hill, divide into smaller flocks, and then reassemble at dusk. The birds frequent the residences along Ambergate, Larkvale, Hedgewood (Fig. A23), Eddinghill, Trailriders, Blythewood, and Golden Meadow Drives. The most activity centers around Eddinghill and Trailriders. The suspicion of residents that there are feeding stations at Eddinghill and Trailriders is probably accurate. The birds seem more attached to this spot, for no apparent reason, than any other part of the neighborhood. The smaller flock of approximately 5 peafowl, roosts in the large pines on Brookford Drive (see pines at rear of Fig. A24). During the morning the birds make their way down Brookford Drive, perching on roofs and balconies (Fig. A25&26). The birds spend the rest of the day up the hill in the backyards of Braidwood Drive homes. Crestridge The populations were surveyed on November 10 and 25, 2000. The largest flock in this neighborhood consists of28 birds that roost in 3 pine trees at 5360 Middlecrest (see pines at rear of Fig. A27). In the morning the birds leave the roosting area and meander down the hill. They either head directly down the road or cross the ravine and follow the crest of the hill. Most morning activity is centered around 53 50 Middlecrest (Fig. A28,29, & 30) until 9:30 AM. After that the birds move (Fig. A31,32, & 33) to 5330 Middlecrest (Fig. A34). After 11 AM the number of observable peafowl decreases. They are probably preening and sleeping in area backyards. A vehicular survey revealed that this flock divides into three during the day. These smaller groupings consisted of 13 peafowl at 53 50 Middlecrest (driveway, roof, and landscaping); 9 peafowl at 5417 Middlecrest (front yard); and 2 peafowl on roof admiring their reflections in the windows of28879 Crestridge (Fig. A35 & 36). In the late afternoon (~3:35 -4:35 PM) 18 birds can be observed in yard of 5350 Middlecrest (patio, fountain, vegetation, roof, front door). By 4:45 PM the three groups have merged back into one large, loose flock of29 located between 5330 and 5350 Middlecrest. Several residents reported that the birds are being fed at 5330 Middlecrest. In addition, there are two peacocks in the Middlecrest area that remain separate from the large flock in the day and appear to roost at a different location. There is a flock of 8 birds in the Scotwood Drive area. In all, 38 birds were counted in Crestridge. 111 4-25 Grandview No site visits were made to the Grandview area. Only one complaint about peafowl in this area has been registered with City Staff. That one resident on Lightfoot Place reported seeing birds for a few years, but has seen more since August 2000. Marymount College area No site visits were made to the Marymount College area. Again, only one resident registered a complaint about peafowl. The resident is from Seaclaire Drive. 1ll 4-26 Spread of Peafowl on the Palos Verdes Peninsula Pre-1913 there is no evidence that any peafowl were on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Peafowl are not native to this continent, so there would have been no indigenous birds and there is no documentation of any being kept by the area's early residents. The period between 1913 and 193 7 encompasses the time that Frank A. Vanderlip was involved with the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Sometime in this period, he became the owner of the area's first peafowl. Long term residents of Portuguese Bend indicate that in 1960 the only peafowl on the Peninsula were at the Vanderlip Estate. Residents of equal tenure in the Crestridge area, report that in 1960 there were peafowl at what they refer to as the cut flower farm at the Shultz Ranch. Mr. Stephen Shultz (2000) has indicated that the flower farm was actually operated by tenants, the first of those being the Yoshioka Family. Mr. Shultz points out that neither his family, nor the tenants, "kept peafowl," but rather that the flower farm provided a "walk through breakfast and lunch" for the birds coming down Johns Canyon Road. One Portuguese Bend resident recalled that sometime after 1960, the Mayor of PYE, Roessler, wanted to have peafowl in his city. H.F.B. Roessler was Mayor of PYE from1940-1965 (Heslenfeld, 2000), so it can be assumed that the peafowls' advent to PYE occurred between 1960 and 1965. By 1976 the peafowl were in the Portuguese Bend Community. Vista Grande residents remember no peafowl in their region in the 1960s, but many remember the advent of a few peafowl by 1985-90. One resident remembers seeing the occasional bird in 1974. In 2000 San Pedro residents, in the area northeast of Palos Verdes Shores Golf Course and southeast of San Pedro Park, report that there is a flock of 12 peafowl on Grandeur Drive. They indicate that birds are seen in the canyon above Mermaid Drive. A three year resident on Grenadier in the South Shores area of San Pedro says peafowl were present when he arrived. He feels the numbers have increased recently. From the little written history on the topic of the peafowl, supplemented with the oral history we were able to collect, our theory as to the spread of peafowl on the Peninsula is as follows. Prior to Frank A. Vanderlip's arrival on the Peninsula in 1913, the area had no peafowl. Sometime between 1913 and 1927, Vanderlip acquired the peafowl. An accomplished aviculturalist, Mr. Vanderlip managed all his birds. It is recorded that he had acres of flight pens on his property. Before his death, he sent his avian collection, all but the peafowl, to the Wrigleys on Santa Catalina. Undoubtedly his heirs had less interest in the birds than did Vanderlip. It was probably after his death, that the birds started to roam. The birds' territory first appears to have expanded into Johns Canyon (circa. 1960). It is alleged that PYE Mayor Roessler wanted to have peafowl in his city; we guess that he had some peafowl physically moved to PYE in the 1960-65 period. From PYE the lll 4-27 birds had an easy trip to Vista Grande, where they were first seen~ 1974. Long term residents of Portuguese Bend, report that aside from the peafowl at the Vanderlips, they did not see any birds until 1978. Those birds most likely came directly down from the Vanderlip estate. Why did it take so long for the birds to make the short trip? Our only thought is that their leaving the estate might have coincided with a decrease in attention by the caretaker(s) at the Estate (possibly, a case of aging and decrease in activity). After 1988 the birds arrived in Crestridge; this was probably an expansion of the birds that had taken up residence in the Johns Canyon area. Peafowl are now in the South Shores region of San Pedro. It seems most likely that they spread from Portuguese Bend. 111 4-28 Communications with Staff at Adjacent Municipalities In the late 1970s/early 1980s the City of Palos Verdes Estates (PYE) realized that they had a peafowl problem. The City Council held numerous meetings on the subject and decided to zone two areas for peafowl. Those two regions are Lunada Bay and Malaga Cove. The number of peafowl to reside in each area was set at 22 birds, with no minimum number specified. The specific document was drafted by former City Manager, Gordon Seaburg around 1982. Originally PYE contracted with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to annually canvas the populations. If an area's population exceeded the maximum number, the city would trap birds on city property. They used cage traps with cat food and relrnated the birds to a hill in PY. PYE staff eventually found a couple of reputable recipients, ranchers in Hemet and Paso Robles. They can relocate somewhere under 100 birds to these locations. One current problem for PYE is that the SPCA no longer offers field services to count animals. County Animal Control has that charge, but lacks the resources to do it. PYE is considering having the Boy Scouts count the birds. No counts have been done in four years. PYE residents estimate that there are currently 60 birds in Lunada Bay and 40 in Malaga Cove. Staff verified 30 birds in one resident's yard. PVE police officers currently do the trapping, still using wire cage traps and cat food. They report that it is slow and inefficient. They are constantly trapping and trap 2-3 birds per week. PYE police have trouble with some residents disrupting the trapping process. They let birds out of the traps or scare birds away from the traps. City reports numerous law suits over the years that have revolved around the birds (Dreiling, 2000). Lynn Carlin with the San Pedro District Office of the City of Los Angeles, confirms that at least one resident has called to complain about peafowl in 2000. This is the first com plaint received, at least in the last three years (2000). Peninsula residents and RPV staff believe that peafowl are protected in Rolling Hills Estates (RHE). I reviewed a document provided by their Community Services Director, Andy Clark, to RPV staff. Highlighted in the RHE Municipal Code was 9.04.060 Wild birds -Protection. I am puzzled if this is actually the basis used for the "hands off' attitude with respect to the peafowl in RHE. As repeatedly stated in this report, peafowl are NOT wild birds. In my opinion, the wording of this municipal code does not apply to peafowl. I was unable to speak with Mr. Clark, as he was on holiday. The City of Rolling Hills (RH) does not have anyordinance protecting the peafowl. However, residents are encouraged not to interact with the birds and the City circulates materials intended to help residents who do not like the birds, to discourage the birds from visiting their property. I was unable to discuss the matter with the RH City Manager, but he did communicate with RPV City Manager Evans and indicated that they do not think they have a peafowl problem. Peafowl's Current Impact lll 4-29 Property damage attributed to the peafowl includes: roofs, vegetation, autos, and pavers/brick walkways. We observed countless yards where plantings were decimated and some where all landscaping had been killed. We also saw the permanent stains and discoloration on walkways and brick paths. Peafowl were frequently seen on roofs and we heard report after report of residents having to replace roofs. We were also told of damage to auto paint jobs. It is common knowledge that the birds can destroy roofs and their penchant for gazing at their reflection in a windshield is also well known. We have no reason to doubt residents' claims of roof and auto damage. Erosion is a well known problem along the Southern California coast. We saw significant evidence in Crestridge and Portuguese Bend of erosion caused by the birds. Erosion was common in areas that they used as "trails," or in areas where they scavenged for food. Nuisance complaints revolved around noise, fecal material, and emotional distress. Peafowl gained popularity on estates and ranchos, not only for their plumage, but for the early warning call they gave when strangers approached. Unfortunately, their scream is made throughout the breeding season, whether or not human intruders are present. Peafowl are large birds and consequently, their droppings are large. Organic evidence of the birds was seen all over RPV -on roofs, patios, decks, lawns, and walkways. The emotional distress that the birds cause some residents is real. Traffic disruption definitely occurs because of the birds crossing public roadways. Traffic stoppage at the Eddinghill and Trailriders intersection is not uncommon. Several residents reported that the presence of peafowl in a neighborhood, decreases the property value in that neighborhood. We were unable to speak to any real estate agents who could confirm that for us. Certainly for a homeowner who does not like the birds, what s/he feels is the value of the property would decline if peafowl are present. We did hear ofresidents who sold their homes, accepting defeat in their battles with the birds. However, we also heard directly from residents who said they specifically bought in RPV because of the presence of peafowl and other animal life. We heard numerous accounts of renters leaving RPV because they could not cope with the peafowl. We have no reason to doubt these accounts. If actual property owners sell and move because of the birds, there would be even more reason for someone without equity in the property to relocate. The presence of the birds definitely contributes to neighborhood discord. Unfortunately, we were first hand witnesses to most acrimonious behavior when neighbors on opposite sides of the issue were in the same area. Homeowners frequently were reluctant to express their opinions, for fear of retribution from neighbors with opposing views. 111 4-30 Availability of Adoptive Homes At one of the community meetings, several residents showed support for relocating trapped peafowl to the Wildlife Waystation. Located at 14831 Little Tujunga Canyon Rd. in the Angeles National Forest, Wildlife Waystation has provided homes for lions, tigers, primates, bears, foxes, exotic birds, raptors, wolves, llamas, coyotes, native wildlife, and other animals. In researching the facility, I found out that the California Department of Fish and Game ( CDF &G) temporarily closed Wildlife Waystation on April 8, 2000. Several violations were alleged and the facility was prohibited from taking in any new animals. On December 7, 2000 I visited with Lt. Marvin Ehee of CDF &G. He told me that the Waystation had numerous problems, but that the more serious problems have been corrected. Evidently, the main violation was discharging animal waste into a canyon and stream. Lt. Ehee felt that within the next 2 weeks, that would no longer be a problem. He anticipated that the Waystation would get their Conditional Rehabilitation Permit back on January 1, 2001. When I questioned him about the Waystation's ability to provide homes forthe peafowl, he replied that the Waystation did not need any special permits for the peafowl since they are domestic animals. He said the only concern would be the contribution to overall numbers and the accompanying waste production. On December 13, 2000 I spoke with Martine Collette, the founder of Wildlife Waystation. She said they had taken birds from the Peninsula before when Los Angeles County SPCA did the trapping. She reported that the Waystation is still under a cease and desist order. When that is lifted, they would have no problem taking the birds. In addition, we located a poultry fancier in Riverside County who currently breeds peafowl. She has empty flight pens and would be willing to provide homes for more birds. We also have entree to 4-H poultry families in Southern California who are able to provide homes for additional birds. When working with other municipalities, we have experienced success in locating suitable adoptive homes, by running advertisements in certain publications. Those responding are interviewed to ascertain their bird experience and ability to adopt the fowl we are relocating. lll 4-31 Management Plan Our actual bird counts were 67 (Portuguese Bend), plus 29 (Vista Grande), plus 38 (Crestridge), for a total of 134 peafowl. We estimate that there are probably 70-80 in Portuguese Bend. Although we did not count in Grandview or Marymount College area, to have complaints, we would estimate that there are a minimum of 5 birds in each area. Including those birds likely to exist, but not actually counted, the total increases to 157. This should still be seen as a conservative estimate. As mentioned before, the Peninsula is rich in habitat that provides excellent hiding spaces. In addition, some birds may never have emerged from private backyards during the periods of our visits and therefore, were never counted. Usually a much stronger term than "nuisance" is used to describe the peafowl. However, the legal definition of nuisance, an activity causing unreasonable and substantial interference with another's quiet use and enjoyment of property (Hamilton, 1992), seems to describe the birds' relationship with many residents of RPV. It should be noted that according to the Los Angeles County Code -Animals, it is a misdemeanor for the owner of an animal to fail to control his/her animal. That includes allowing the animal to run at large on any street, public place, etc. and allowing the animal to enter in and remain on the private property of another (see Title 10.32.040). Therefore, if anyone claimed ownership of the peafowl on the Peninsula, that individual would be in violation of the County Code and would be required to properly control the birds on his/her property. It is peculiar, that just because no one claims ownership of the birds, RPV property owners have inflicted upon their property damages that they would normally be protected against. Why is there a problem? There are several answers. The first is that no one is responsible for the birds and no one can nor attempts to control their movements. In addition, most of the areas where complaints are common, are neighborhoods where all property is either private homes or public thoroughfares. Therefore, since the birds belong to no one, they are constantly trespassing. As mentioned in the Historical Background section of this report, peafowl have traditionally been maintained by the wealthy with large estates upon which the birds can wander. In their native lands, overpopulation of the birds has been addressed by hunting. Residents' suggestions to control the population by use of the following methods would be ill advised and/or illegal. Caponization of the peacocks would involve a surgical procedure to remove the testes of each male. In addition to being labor intensive, this would result in males that no longer have male plumage. Addition of a male sterilant to feed should not be considered. It would be impossible to control what creatures consumed the feed and what predators consumed the subsequently feminized peacocks. This tactic could have disastrous consequences relative to other animals in the food chain. At least one resident has offered to have the peafowl relocated to her/his property. Due to the birds' penchant for wandering, this would not be an appropriate plan, unless that individual has vast, completely confined flight pens. What is an appropriate number of birds for RPV? In terms of bird welfare and private property lll 4-32 rights, the peafowl should not be wandering at will. It is recognized that a good number ofRPV residents view the birds as a community attribute and would be adamantly opposed to their removal. If complete removal were approved, could it be achieved? It would take a tremendous outlay of funds and people power to attempt complete removal of the birds. Given that most complaints come from Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande, and Crestridge, reduction in flock size in all three areas should be pursued. Specifically the largest flocks at Clovetee Place/Cinnamon Lane (34 birds) and Sweetbay (19) in Portuguese Bend, the flock at Eddinghill and Trailriders (24 birds) in Vista Grande, and the Middlecrest flock (28 birds) in Crestridge should be targeted (Appendix B). Recognizing that 1 unwanted peafowl in a private yard is a legitimate nuisance, removal of as many birds as can be trapped and relocated is advised. Preference should be given to removal of the peahens. Sinceone peahen can lay 30 eggs per season, the potential for one pair of peafowl to quickly repopulate an area is great. Some residents expressed concerns about the legality of trapping the birds. Again, these are not native birds. They are domestic fowl. The appropriate authorities have been contacted and there are no statutes that would apply. We have successfully trapped and relocated numerous peafowl in the past, with no harm to the birds. Any having concerns relative to this issue should be referred to California Penal Code, Sec. 597b-General Animal Cruelty. Excellent trapping sites have been located in all three areas with large peafowl populations. Residents have volunteered their yards as trapping sites. Trapping should begin as soon as possible, preferably before the spring breeding season. Prior to trapping any birds, adoptive homes would need to be confirmed. Any new adoptive homes would need to be investigated. It is suggested that all those accepting birds, fill out an "adoption form" that the City can keep on file. This will help address the concerns of residents who feel the birds will be trapped and killed. A long term management plan for the Palos Verdes Peninsula peafowl must include several components. All residents need to cooperate in terms of removing items that will attract the birds. These include, but are not limited to, pet food left outside, bird feeders, and exposed livestock feed. Any efforts to locate nests and render eggs unhatchable would have positive population control results. Eggs should not merely be removed from the nests, as this will only encourage the peahen to lay additional eggs. Rather, the hatchability of the eggs should be reduced to zero. This can be achieved by inserting a long nail into the egg, addling contents, removing nail and returning egg to the nest. There is no question that routine trapping will be required. We suggest that the city sponsor the construction of the first traps and trapping. Neighbors can observe the proper way to humanely trap and catch birds. Birds should be relocated to approved adoptive homes. Residents whose neighborhoods are not selected for initial trapping, may construct their own traps. This demonstration model technique is the typical training method used by University of California Cooperative Extension to introduce new practices. Finally, all municipalities on the Peninsula must work together. It is futile for one city to attempt to reduce bird numbers, if an adjacent municipality does not also have a compementary plan. lll 4-33 References Bergmann, Josef, 1980. The Peafowl of the World. Surrey, England: Saiga Publishing, Ltd. Carlin, Lynn, 2000. Personal communication. Los Angeles City Council, District Office, San Pedro. Dreiling, Commander Dan, 2000. Personal communication. Palos Verdes Estates Police Department. Goldsmith, Oliver, 1866. A History of the Earth and Animated Nature. London. Hamilton, Neil D., 1992. A Livestock Producer's Legal Guide to: Nuisance, Land Use Control, and Environmental Law. Des Moines, Iowa: Drake University Law School. Heslenfeld, Marion, 2000. Personal Communication. Public Library, Malaga Cove. Fink, A., 1966. Time and the terraced land. Berkeley: Howell North Books. Shultz, Stephen, 2000. Personal communication. Vanderlip, Mrs. John, 2000. Personal communication. Rancho Palos Verdes. Woodard, A., Vern Denton, and Pran Vohra, 1993. Commercial and ornamental game bird breeders handbook. Blaine, Washington: Hancock Publishers Ltd. Wright, Lewis, 1920. Illustrated Book of Poultry. London. ll1 4-34 2008 Peafowl Population Assessment Ms. Palmer November 18, 2014 City Council Meeting 4-35 Peafowl Population Assessment for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Fall 2008 Michele Palmer Animal Sciences Department University of California, Davis 4-36 Introduction The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) contacted the University of California, Davis (U.C. Davis) in the fall of 2008. The City indicated that they wanted a census conducted in areas of the City known to have established Peafowl populations. At the recommendation of Dr. Francine Bradley, the City entered into an agreement with Michele Palmer to conduct the census. Michele Palmer is a graduate of the U.C. Davis and participated in the City's 2000 Peafowl census as a member of Dr. Francine Bradley's team. She has an extensive background in poultry and is currently an employee of the Cooperative Extension Poultry Unit at U.C. Davis. Materials and Methods Based on locations studied for the 2000 Peafowl Census and complaints made to City Staff, the areas designated for study were Portuguese Bend, Vista Grande, Crestridge, Sunnyside Ridge, and Bay Ridge. The Peafowl located in each area were counted a total of four times. Each area was surveyed on two different dates at both sunrise and sunset in order to obtain the most accurate count possible. Bird numbers are reported for heavily populated areas on each street and as a total for the neighborhood. Area Portuguese Bend Vista Grande Crestridge Sunnyside Ridge TOTAL Summary of Census Results 2000 & 2008 Peafowl Census Data Peafowl Census Peafowl Census Increase(+)/ Data 2000 (*) Data 2008 Decrease (-) 67 75 8 29 89 60 38 30 -8 0 11 11 134 205 71 % Increase(+)/ Decrease (-) 12% 207% -21% NIA 53% * Numbers from 2000 census done by Dr. Francine A. Bradley, Cooperative Extension Poultry Specialist, UC Davis. Detailed Census Results by Area Peafowl tend to feed in the early mornings and late evenings at the feed source closest to their roost site. Peafowl were found to also feed in the residents' yards as well as foraging in the general area. During the day, Peafowl headed for the open areas of the four different neighborhoods. 4-37 Portuguese Bend The population in Portuguese Bend was observed on December 5th and December 14th, 2008. There are four distinct flocks in the area. The largest flock is on Sweetbay Road and consists of approximately 27 birds. The majority of the birds roost at 32 Sweetbay Road and 26 Sweetbay Road. The rest are scattered throughout the street from the comer ofNarcissa Drive to Pepper Tree Drive. There are two flocks on Cinnamon Lane. The first flock is at 5 & 7 Cinnamon Lane and consists of a minimum of 20 birds. The birds roost in pine trees in the front yards. This flock was difficult to count due to the pine tree's location behind a fence and the presence of other trees blocking the view of the roosting site. The second flock roosts at 11 Cinnamon Lane and consists of approximately 17 birds. Birds roost in the large pine tree in the front yard. The fourth flock in the Portuguese Bend area is located on Lime Tree Lane and consists of approximately 11 birds. This flock was difficult to survey due to steep hills, dense brush and limited views and access. This was also the case in the previous census done by Dr. Francine Bradley in late 2000. Due to the difficulty in accessing the area, no specific roost site was observed. All four flocks have remained in approximately the same place since 2000. The peafowl population in the Portuguese Bend area has grown by approximately 8 birds in the past eight years. It is believed that predatory animals that have access to or live in the general area have kept the population stable. Vista Grande The population in the Vista Grande area has tripled in the past eight years. Birds in the Vista Grande area were observed on December ih and December 13th. The largest population of birds roost at 28318 Trailriders Drive and consists of approximately 61 birds. The birds roost in the two large pine trees between the driveways of 28318 and 28310 Trailriders Drive. The second flock in the Vista Grande area is on Brookford Drive and consists of approximately 23 birds. In 2000 the population was 5 birds. The birds roost in the pine trees that line the street. There are 5 single males that are in the area as well. They are at 7019 Lofty Grove, 2819 Lobrook Drive, and 28313 Plainfield Drive. These were not identified as roost sites in the 2000 census. It is believed that the population in the Vista Grande area has increased this dramatically due to the lack of predatory animals in the area. Crestridge The population in Crestridge was observed on December 61h and December 14th, 2008. There are 3 flocks located in the Crestridge area. In the 2000 census the largest flock was located at 5360 Middlecrest Road. During the 2008 Survey, no birds were observed actively roosting at this site. 4-38 However, there are now two flocks on Middlecrest Road. The largest flock is at the end of the road between 5204 and 5200 Middlecrest Road. It was difficult to obtain an accurate count of this flock. The pine trees in which the birds roost are between driveways. Also, the driveways are at different elevations so there is limited views and access to the pine trees. There are a minimum of 18 birds in this flock. The second flock is located at 5325 Middlecrest Road. There is a total of 5 birds that roost in 2 pine trees at the street's edge. There are a few other birds scattered along Middlecrest Road and up and down the water drainage area. There is a flock of 5 birds on Scottwood Drive. In all the minimum number of birds observed in the Crestridge area is 30. Sunnyside Ridge Road There is one flock consisting of 11 birds located at 2563 Sunnyside Ridge Road. The birds roost in a large tree in the backyard of the residence. During the day birds disperse in the neighborhood or the sloping hill that backs up to Sunnyside Ridge Road. Bayridge Road The Bayridge Road area was visited three times and no birds were observed. Summary All birds tended to feed in the early morning and late evening at the nearest feed source closest to their roost site. Birds were found to also feed in the residents' yards. During the day birds headed for open areas within the neighborhoods. Also, birds headed to the horse trails, backyards, and corral areas in Portuguese Bend. There are many trees in the spaces between the streets, however, no active roosting sites were observed in the horse trails and horse barn areas. Due to limited access to potential peafowl habitat, the numbers presented in this report represent the MINIMUM number of birds in the requested areas. Because of the rich habitat, inaccessible areas and birds not leaving fenced yards, there are undoubtedly many more birds that were not observed and counted. 4-39 May 9, 2005 City Council Staff Report November 18, 2014 City Council Meeting 4-40 CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS \ GARY GYVES, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST )~~t(_ MAY 5, 2009 THE CITY'S PEAFOWL POPULATIO~ (; CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER ~ RECOMMENDATION Provide Staff with direction regarding the City's peafowl population. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City's peafowl population has increased by an estimated 53% over the last eight years as detailed in Exhibit A and on page 3. Staff has received an increasing number of peafowl related complaints from residents concerned with and agitated by the steadily growing peafowl population. Common complaints consist of excessive noise due to bird calls, birds walking on rooftops, excessive animal waste and damage to yards, gardens, roof tops and automobiles. The City's FY08-09 Budget and Proposed FY09-10 Budget do not contain an appropriation for wildlife trapping. Based on information provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control (Animal Control) and assumptions made by Staff, it would cost approximately $33,000 to trap 71 peafowl, which would reduce the number of peafowl to the 2000 census level. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2000 the City entered into a contract with the University of California Davis for Dr. Francine Bradley, poultry specialist, to study the peafowl population in the City and to provide recommendations to manage the population. At the February 20, 2001 meeting, as recommended by Dr. Francine Bradley, the Council adopted a peafowl management plan to reduce the City's peafowl population. The management plan consisted of a City sponsored demonstration project to trap and relocate up to 50 peafowl and the creation of a team of volunteers to assist residents with too many 4-41 THE CITY'S PEAFOWL POPULATION May 5, 2009 2 of 5 peafowl on their property. The volunteers would assist the residents with trapping and relocation of the peafowl as demonstrated by Dr. Francine Bradley. The four largest flocks targeted for the trapping and relocation by Dr. Bradley were located in the Vista Grande area at Eddinghill Drive and Trailriders Drive, in the Ridgecrest community on Middlecrest Road and in the Portuguese Bend area on Cinnamon Lane and Sweetbay Road. Although Dr. Francine Bradley planned to trap up to 50 peafowl, only 19 were actually trapped and relocated. Based on a recent conversation with Dr. Bradley, peafowl enthusiasts routinely sabotaged the traps, which resulted in only 19 of the planned 50 peafowl being trapped. In addition, the volunteers that were trained to assist residents with trapping and relocation were ultimately unsuccessful due to: (1) the difficulty of setting up the large and complex traps, (2) the required patience and attention required to successfully trap the peafowl, (3) the difficulty of finding homes for the peafowl, and (4) if a home was found, the logistical problems associated with transporting the peafowl. DISCUSSION 2008 Peafowl Census At the recommendation of Dr. Francine Bradley, the City entered into an agreement with Michele Palmer to conduct the City's 2008 Peafowl Census (2008 Census). Michele Palmer is a graduate of U.C. Davis and participated in the City's 2000 Peafowl Census (2000 Census) as a member of Dr. Francine Bradley's team. Ms. Palmer has an extensive background in poultry and is currently an employee of the Cooperative Extension Poultry Unit at U.C. Davis. The 2008 Census Report is attached as Exhibit B. A copy of the 2000 Census Report has also been attached as Exhibit C. A summary of the 2000 and 2008 Census data by geographical area is detailed in the chart below. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 2000 & 2008 PEAFOWL CENSUS DATA SUMMARY Geographical 2000 Peafowl 2008 Peafowl Increase(+)/ % Increase(+)/ Area Census Data Census Data Decrease (-) Decrease (-) Portuguese Bend 67 75 8 12% Vista Grande 29 89 60 207% Crestridge 38 30 -8 -21% Sunnyside Ridge 0 11 11 NIA TOTAL 134 205 71 53% As detailed above, the City's peafowl population has increased by an estimated 53% over the last eight years. Most of this increase (45%) has occurred in the Vista Grande area of the City. It is believed that the population in the Vista Grande area has 4-42 THE CITY'S PEAFOWL POPULATION May 5, 2009 3 of 5 increased this dramatically due to the abundance of food, prime habitat and lack of predatory animals in the area. Although a new flock consisting of approximately 11 birds has established itself on Sunnyside Ridge Road on the East side of the City, the populations in the Portuguese Bend and Crestridge areas of the City have remained relatively stable. Due to limited access to potential peafqwl habitats, the census data presented above and in the attached reports represent the minimum number of birds in the City. Due to the census takers inability to access potential habitat areas in both 2000 and 2008, there are undoubtedly more birds that were not observed and counted. Resident Complaints Staff has received an increasing number of peafowl related complaints from residents concerned with and agitated by the steadily growing peafowl population. As expected based on the census data, most of the complaints are from residents living in the Vista Grande area of the City. Common complaints consist of excessive noise due to bird calls, birds walking on rooftops, excessive animal waste and damage to yards, gardens, roof tops and automobiles. Staff has also received numerous complaints from residents in the Crestridge and Sunnyside Ridge areas of the City. Interestingly enough, Staff does not recall receiving a complaint from residents living in the Portuguese Bend area of the City in over 18 months. It is Staff's belief that the residents living in the Portuguese Bend area have become accustomed to the peafowl. Although Staff has received an increasing number of complaints, it is believed that more complaints would have been received if it was not widely known that the City currently has a hands off policy towards peafowl and all other wildlife. Although the City has no formal policy concerning peafowl, when possible, Staff attempts to educate residents that feeding peafowl and other wildlife is a violation of the City's Municipal Code. In an attempt to assist residents, Staff provides information on helpful suggestions to discourage peafowl from visiting private property, which is also available on the City's website. These suggestions range from the types of plants to avoid for landscaping and known peafowl-deterrents such as lawn sprinklers and the presence of dogs. Many residents have pointed out the futility of these measures due to the overabundant number of peafowl in their area. Peninsula Cities -Peafowl Programs/Policies Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV): The City of RPV does not have a trapping and relocation program for the City's peafowl population, or any other type of wildlife. However, the City does provide interested residents with traps and a video detailing how to trap the birds. If the resident is successful, the trapped bird can be picked up by the Animal Control or picked up by a person interested in adopting peafowl. Although the list is short, Staff maintains a database of people looking to adopt peafowl. Unfortunately, as stated above, it is extremely difficult and time consuming to trap peafowl. If residents have been trapping peafowl, they are not informing Staff of their success. Therefore, Staff believes that it is extremely rare for residents to successfully trap peafowl. 4-43 THE CITY'S PEAFOWL POPULATION May 5, 2009 4 of 5 Palos Verdes Estates (PVE): The City of PVE has a peafowl trapping and relocation program that is administered by a member of their public work's department. The peafowl trapping is performed by the public work's employee on an overtime basis only. There are three peafowl flocks in PVE and the city tries to maintain the population of each flock at 21 birds. Based on an annual census, the public work's employee will trap excess peafowl and house them in a 40' by 40' pen located adjacent to PVE City Hall until an appropriate home can be found. The initial cost to PVE to reduce each of the three flocks to the desired number of 21 birds is unknown. However, the ongoing program cost for FY0?-08 was approximately $9,000, which includes the annual census, overtime pay to trap excess peafowl (>21 birds for each flock) and peafowl food. Since the City of RPV has 10 known peafowl flocks, this ongoing cost would undoubtedly by much higher in RPV. Rolling Hills (RH): The City of RH does not have a "city sponsored" trapping and relocation program for the city's peafowl population. In addition, the City of RH does not provide any assistance (e.g. traps) to its residents for trapping peafowl. Rolling Hills Estates (RHE): The City of RHE does not have a "city sponsored" trapping and relocation program for the city's peafowl population. However, like RPV, RHE does provide interested residents with traps. If the resident is successful, the trapped bird is picked up by Animal Control. Prior to capture, RHE obtains a commitment from a peafowl recipient who will immediately (within 24 hours) pick up the bird from the animal shelter. RHE adopted an ordinance allowing peafowl trapping by residents a few years ago. However, the ordinance excludes trapping within two HOA boundaries (Dapplegray Lanes HOA and Stawberry Lane HOA). In 2005, a census accounted for approximately 218 peafowl within these two HOA's boundaries. ALTERNATIVES 1. The creation of a one-time City sponsored trapping project to reduce the number of peafowl to a desired level. 2. The creation of an ongoing City sponsored trapping program to reduce and maintain the number of peafowl to a desired level. 3. No action by the City. Continue hands-off practice. FISCAL IMPACT The City's FY08-09 Budget and Proposed FY09-10 Budget do not contain an appropriation for wildlife trapping. Therefore, if implemented as a City initiative, a peafowl trapping and relocation program would represent an expansion of City services. Staff contacted Animal Control to request a cost estimate for peafowl trapping. A representative from Animal Control informed Staff that they do not provide cost 4-44 THE CITY'S PEAFOWL POPULATION May 5, 2009 5 of 5 estimates, but could perform the work based on a rate schedule of $75.51 an hour for a worker (trapper) and $11.87 for each bird per day for housing. The peafowl would be housed at the Carson Animal Shelter until a suitable home could be found. Animal Control will not euthanize peafowl unless the bird is injured. Although the rates charged by Animal Control are known, it becomes extremely difficult to estimate the cost to trap and relocate peafowl. As stated above: (1) the traps are large and difficult to set up, (2) peafowl enthusiasts will undoubtedly sabotage the traps, (3) patience and attention are required to successfully trap peafowl, and (4) it is often difficult to find and transport peafowl to suitable homes. Based on the cost information above, and the assumption that it would take 5 hours to catch each bird and 7 days to find a suitable home, it would cost approximately $33,000 to trap 71 peafowl, which would reduce the number of peafowl to the 2000 census level. This cost assumes that the City would not be responsible for transporting the peafowl. Additional costs would be incurred on an annual basis if the Council chose to maintain each of the City's 1 O flocks at a desired level. Exhibits: Exhibit A -2008 Peafowl Flock Locations I Census Data Summary Exhibit B -2008 Census Report Exhibit C -2000 Census Report 4-45 _J s 0 LL <( w c.. co 0 0 N <( 1- (() I >< w 4-46 Public Comments November 18, 2014 City Council Meeting 4-47 Daniel Pitts From: Joel Rojas Sent: To: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 8:25 AM Daniel Pitts Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Peacocks OK. good. Thanks. We can discuss when we meet today at 3. From: Daniel Pitts Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 8:18 AM To: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Peacocks Joel, Good morning. Yes, while I did not observe many in "the tree" I counted numerous Peafowl on Trailriders and Eddinghill, along with many birds migrating to a house on Hedgwood right before dark last night. D. From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 8:11 AM To: Daniel Pitts Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Peacocks Daniel Were you able to drop by this neighborhood yesterday evening to observe this? Joel From: Inga Lurie [mailto:ingelel@cox.net] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 6:08 PM To: Susan Brooks; Joel Rojas Cc: Ara Mihranian; Daniel Pitts; Carolynn Petru Subject: Re: Peacocks Please be sure they check the lawns on Trailriders between Eddinghill and Ambergate. Many of the birds congregate on these lawns prior to heading for the tree. Also, they are on the roofs of the houses there. I was there yesterday just after the sun was down, but before it was too dark. Inga From: Susan Brooks Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 2:05 PM To: Joel Rojas 1 4-48 Cc: Inga Lurie ; Ara Mihranian ; Daniel Pitts ; Carolynn Petru Subject: Re: Peacocks Fantastic! Thanks. Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787{cell) ~ !ill L'.='.j Sent from my iPhone ~' ~ On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpv.com> wrote: Susan Now that it's going to get dark earlier, I'll see of one of code enforcement officers can go out and check this out at dusk. Joel From: Susan Brooks Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 7:48 AM To: Inga Lurie Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: Re: Peacocks Ok Inge. I'm forwarding this to Joel. Perhaps he can see to someone checking in on these critters at dusk when they're most concentrated. Thank you for your patience. Susan Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) ~ ~ Sent from my iPhone 2 4-49 ~ CJ1 On Nov 2, 2014, at 11 :28 PM, Inga Lurie <ingelel@cox.net> wrote: Hi there, Just wanted to let you know I went down to Trailriders and Eddinghill at dusk today, and what a sight! There must have been at least thirty or forty birds of varying sizes all heading to the big tree as it got dark. I took some pictures and video on my phone (not too good at it) and can do more if and when I need to. won't bother you with this anymore since I am sure you have plenty of other more important things going on. However, I will wait to hear from you and if you need any further input from me please let me know. Thank you again for your concern. Best, Inga From: Susan Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 2:51 PM To: Inga Lurie Subject: RE: Peacocks Inge, Joel assured me that they were going to address this issue and get back to me. I said if there was no action on this matter, I'd bring it before council in a "Future Agenda Item." That would be the time to come and make a one minute presentation. All it does it give Council enough info to agree to agendize the matter. However, I'm attempting to see if Staff can just agendize it because it's an ongoing situation for many years and updates are required. If you can get a video, that would be awesome. Furthermore, RPV does not pride itself as being in "Peacock Alley." Each city has its own set of underlying principles. I don't recall preservation of Peacocks as being on the RPV Top Ten list. We can address this later. Lets see what staff comes up with next week. Best, Susan Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 541-2971 3 4-50 From: Inga Lurie <ingelel@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2014 2:18 PM To: Susan Brooks Subject: Re: Peacocks Thank you, Susan. Part of the problem is WHEN they are being assessed. During the day they wander all over. The other huge problem is that they all seem very young. I am not seeing as many of the older birds anymore. There is a large tree on the corner of Eddinghill and Trailriders where they gather at dusk. Would it help for me to come to a Council meeting? I have never been to one and am not sure how it is run. I will try to take some pictures at dusk, but you almost need a video camera to depict it accurately. It will be interesting to see what the reassessment says. Thanks again. Best, Inga From: Susan Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 10:28 AM To: Inga Lurie Subject: Re: Peacocks It will be ok, Inge. We need to get a reassessment and if it doesn't come by Tuesday. I'll make it a future agenda item to bring it forward. There's a lot of pressing city issues, right now. Best, Susan Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) ~ Sent from my iPhone 0 . On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Inga Lurie <ingelel@cox.net> wrote: 4 4-51 Dear Susan, Thank you so much for your response. You are the only Council member that has responded. Best, Inga From: Susan Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 12:31 AM To: Inga Lurie Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: Re: Peacocks Inge. I have requested staff address this matter for Council. You're message resonates with me and others. What a mess. Regards, Susan Susan Brooks Councilwoman, Mediator Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) ~ ~ El Sent from my iPhone ~; El On Oct 31, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Inga Lurie <ingelel@cox.net> wrote: Dear Mr. Pitts, The challenge is more the city's than it is mine. If you do not do something at this time the consequences may be dire. The census sounds good, but it will only help if it is conducted accurately. Someone needs to go to the tree at the corner of Trailriders and Eddinghill just before dark or just after dawn to get an accurate count of the peafowl. Our yard is just a small sample of what is going on. Inga Cherman-Lurie 5 4-52 From: Daniel Pitts Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 7:56 AM To: Inga Lurie Cc: Joel Rojas ; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks ; Brian Campbell ; Anthony Misetich ; Ara Mihranian ; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: Peacocks Inga, Good morning. I am sorry to hear about the continued challenges you are having with the Peafowl. We recently conducted another census and are in the process of analyzing these numbers and preparing the various reports for both the City Council and public alike. This information should be public by next week sometime. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Cordially, Daniel Pitts. From: Inga Lurie [mailto:ingelel@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 11:37 PM To: Daniel Pitts Cc: Joel Rojas; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Ara Mihranian; Carolynn Petru Subject: Re: Peacocks This is what we had in our backyard this afternoon!!!! How would you like to have this everyday? It doesn't even show the mother and four smaller chicks which were also on the back patio. I don't think this demonstrates a decrease in the peacock population. These are all young birds ready to procreate again. Please do something!!!! I would appreciate a response to this e-mail. Inga Cherman-Lurie From: Daniel Pitts Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 8:00 AM To: Inga Lurie 6 4-53 Cc: Joel Rojas ; Jerry Duhovic ; Jim Knight ; Susan Brooks ; Brian Campbell ; Anthony Misetich ; Ara Mihranian ; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: Peacocks Inga, Good morning. Thank you for your email and your concerns. We will look into your suggestions. Again, the City is currently not trapping the peafowl. As we progress into 2015, and as more studies are conducted, if our alliance professionals communicate there has been a significant increase in a dedicated area and suggest trapping, we will take these recommendations to the City Manager and City Council for consideration. I believe we provided you with the most recent census report several email communications back, however please find it attached herein. Cordially, Daniel Pitts Code Enforcement Officer From: Inga Lurie [mailto:ingelel@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:46 PM To: Daniel Pitts Cc: Joel Rojas; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Ara Mihranian; Carolynn Petru Subject: Re: Peacocks Dear Mr. Pitts, I would be interested in receiving a copy of your most recent census including the locations where they were taken. As far as your letter below is concerned, you are repeating many of the things you stated in your previous letter. I have never mentioned the "noise" the birds make. To me this is not the issue. Rather, it is the continuous destruction they cause, as well as the fact they are 7 4-54 multiplying like rabbits. Also, I am sure your "census" is taken during the day, and this is when the birds are dispersed all over the neighborhood. Why not have someone take a census early in the morning or at dusk when they gather in their roosts? Finally, I do not wish to have your sympathy just your attempt to resolve this problem. Cordially, Inga Cherman Lurie From: Daniel Pitts Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:31 AM To: ingelel@cox.net Cc: Joel Rojas ; Carolynn Petru ; Jerry Duhovic ; Jim Knight ; Susan Brooks ; Brian Campbell ; Anthony Misetich ; Ara Mihranian ; Carolynn Petru Subject: RE: Peacocks Dear Inga Cherman-Lurie Good morning. I'm very sorry to hear about the continued peafowl- related problems you're experiencing, including, noise, and damage to your property, as also reported by some of your neighbors. While the City seeks to mitigate the impact of peafowl in a number of ways, including an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of peafowl and the posting of peafowl-related information on the City's website, the City does not have an ongoing trapping or relocation program. Nor does the City reimburse residents for damages to private property caused by peafowl, since the City does not own the birds. A professional peafowl census was recently conducted. Results of the census will be provided to the City Council and I can provide you with a copy as well. We are not discounting your claims of sightings in the Los Verdes area, however, historically this specific area has not seen a great enough increase to warrant a census in that area. 8 4-55 That being said, if we continue receiving calls in that vicinity, we will include these in our 2015 census. The other streets that you referenced such as, Trailriders, Braidwood, and Eddinghill are considered to be in our Vista Grande area. These streets were part of our most recent 2014 census. In regards to the City taking peafowl trapping action, please know that twice in the past thirteen years, following professional peafowl censuses, the City has engaged the services of a professional trapper to trap and relocate a select number of birds. A third census was performed in late 2011 and 2012 which did not indicate an overall increase in peafowl numbers, so no follow-up trapping was recommended at that time. The most recent census conducted earlier this year 2014, did not indicate an overall increase in peafowl numbers, so no follow-up trapping was recommended at this time as well. The City has, and will always provide world class service to our residents while working within our annual budgets. The removal of such birds can be very costly to the City. We will continue to work with our residents and trapping alliance partners in tandem, to ensure that we are gathering the most accurate information so we may better serve our community. In closing, and as a reminder, residents also have the option, at their expense, to contact a professional trapper who may be able to assist with trapping on private property, but not in the public right of way. The trapper the City used most recently is Mike Maxey of Wildlife Services. He is very experienced with peafowl, is familiar with the Palos Verdes area, and can humanely trap and relocate peafowl. Mr. Maxey can be reached at 626-827-2282 or at peacockpro@yahoo.com. Again, my sympathies on the problems you're dealing with and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Thank you. Cordially, Daniel Pitts, CCEO 9 4-56 Code Enforcement Officer City of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Inga Lurie [mailto:ingelel@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:30 PM To: Daniel Pitts Cc: Carolynn Petru; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Subject: Peacocks Dear Mr. Pitts, Thank you for your response to my previous letter. You spoke of recent census taking, but you failed to consider the Los Verdes area. This morning, once again, we had four young male and four young female peahens in our yard. This adds up to another potentially large population increase, and that was just in our yard. On October 16th, the PVNews published a political cartoon addressing the situation. Many of our neighbors have confirmed that they called City Hall and were referred to lists of plants that the birds didn't eat as well as the name of a trapper to come out at their own expense. This lip service is no longer acceptable. The situation is clearly out of hand. During the day the birds wander the neighborhood, often in packs. However, at dawn or a dusk they can be found, primarily, in two neighborhood trees. One tree is on Braidwood, and, according to Kathy Tyndall, more than twenty birds can be found there. Another tree is at the corner of Eddinghill and Trailriders. I have seen large numbers of birds in that area at dusk. If just these two populations 10 4-57 could be managed it would be a huge improvement. We have added a motion detector sprinkler to our backyard, but this does not solve the long term problem, plus we need to turn it off when the gardner comes or when someone uses the yard. Not only that, but it uses precious water. It is time for the city to take some responsibility for the peacocks. If Palos Verdes Estates can do it, so can Rancho Palos Verdes. Don't wait until it is too late. Cordially, Inga Cherman-Lurie 11 4-58 Daniel Pitts From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Pitts, Inga Lurie <ingelel@cox.net> Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:30 PM Daniel Pitts Carolynn Petru; Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich Peacocks Thank you for your response to my previous letter. You spoke of recent census taking, but you failed to consider the Los Verdes area. This morning, once again, we had four young male and four young female peahens in our yard. This adds up to another potentially large population increase, and that was just in our yard. On October 16th, the PVNews published a political cartoon addressing the situation. Many of our neighbors have confirmed that they called City Hall and were referred to lists of plants that the birds didn't eat as well as the name of a trapper to come out at their own expense. This lip service is no longer acceptable. The situation is clearly out of hand. During the day the birds wander the neighborhood, often in packs. However, at dawn or a dusk they can be found, primarily, in two neighborhood trees. One tree is on Braidwood, and, according to Kathy Tyndall, more than twenty birds can be found there. Another tree is at the corner of Eddinghill and Trailriders. I have seen large numbers of birds in that area at dusk. If just these two populations could be managed it would be a huge improvement. We have added a motion detector sprinkler to our backyard, but this does not solve the long term problem, plus we need to turn it off when the gardner comes or when someone uses the yard. Not only that, but it uses precious water. It is time for the city to take some responsibility for the peacocks. If Palos Verdes Estates can do it, so can Rancho Palos Verdes. Don't wait until it is too late. Cordially, Inga Cherman-Lurie 1 4-59 Daniel Pitts From: Sent: To: Subject: Marilyn <mfinklestein@hotmail.com> Friday, August 08, 2014 1:42 PM Julie@rpv.com; Daniel Pitts; Matt Waters Petition re: peafowl problems: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes We would like to add our names to the petition and list of concerned residents of San Nicolas Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes, regarding the unbalanced proliferation of the peafowls over the last several months. Aside from the noise, sleep deprivation, the droppings, the destruction of our plantings, we have noticed peafowl pecking at car tires and at the exterior body of vehicles. We hope that there will be a concerned effort to reduce the population of these peafowl. Marilyn and Jerry Finklestein s 1 4-60 Daniel Pitts --------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Matt Waters Sent: To: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:57 AM Daniel Pitts Subject: Attachments: FW: UPDATE: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Feed i n_nesti ng_peefowls_i by _res id ents_RPV .J PG Daniel- FYI From: Kam Kalantar [mailto:kalantar@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:28 AM To: Matt Waters Cc: Grace H Lee; kalantar@cox.net Subject: RE: UPDATE: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Mr. Waters, As discussed before we would like to report to you that the house 28301 San Nicolas Drive (in front of our house) has continued to shelter and protect these birds. If you remember a few weeks ago I reported to you that myself and others have had a number of discussions with them, asking them to discontinue feeding peafowls in front of their house, which has led to shifting the environment out of balance in an excessive fashion that has started affecting many neighbors deleteriously. I thought they agreed to do so, but I am not sure any more. We request that you kindly communicate with them (28301 San Nicolas Drive, Mr. and Ms. Schreiner) and to examine the status. Many thanks for your attention and for the intervention. Sincerely l<am Kalantar & Grace Lee From: Matt Waters [mailto:MattW@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:38 AM To: Kam Kalantar Subject: RE: UPDATE: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Mr. Kalantar I'm very sorry to hear about the continued peafowl-related problems you're experiencing, including the impact on your children's sleep and the damage to your screens and property. Attached is an information sheet on discouraging peafowl. While the City seeks to mitigate the impact of peafowl in a number of ways, including an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of peafowl and the posting of peafowl-related information on the City's website, the City does not have an ongoing trapping or relocation program. Nor does the City reimburse residents for damages to private property caused by peafowl, since the City does not own the birds. A professional peafowl census is currently underway. Results of the census will be provided to the City Council and I can provide you with a copy as well. Twice in the past thirteen years, following professional peafowl censuses, the City has engaged the services of a professional trapper to trap and relocate a select number of birds. A third census was performed in late 2011 and 2012 which did 1 4-61 not indicate an overall increase in peafowl numbers, so no follow-up trapping was recommended at that timi;;. A professional peafowl census is being performed this week. Results of the census will be provided to the City Council. Residents also have the option, at their expense, to contact a professional trapper who may be able to assist with trapping on private property, but not in the public right of way. The trapper the City used most recently is Mike Maxey of Wildlife Services. He is very experienced with peafowl, is familiar with the Palos Verdes area, and can humanely trap and relocate peafowl. Mr. Maxey can be reached at 626-827-2282 or at peacockpro@yahoo.com. Again, my sympathies on the problems you're dealing with and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Finance and Information Technology 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv mattw@rpv.com -(310) 544-5218 p-(310) 544-5291 f From: Kam Kalantar [mailto:kalantar@cox.net] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 7:34 AM To: Matt Waters Subject: FW: UPDATE: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Importance: High Dear Mr. Waters -At 5 AM my children and I were awakened by the loud noises of the peacocks on our roofs and decks. Today is the first day of the summer vacation for RPV children, and many may feel tired and devastated, as they could not sleep enough because of the peacocks. It is 7:30 AM now, and over the past 2 to 3 hours the birds have continued to be loud and to disturb the residents. Many neighbors and other residents are unhappy and frustrated with the current situation and lack of intervention by the City. Our screen doors have been attacked and damaged by these birds, there are holes and tears. Car roofs of the residents have been scratched and dented. Backyards and plants have been damaged. (residents have been documenting some of the incidents via photography and witnesses). The situation has increasingly become more serious, and some of us are short of considering next steps including legal proceedings if the City authorities do not assist the residents. I ask you to kindly escalate this request and to support the residents and families. Sincerely 2 4-62 To: Mr. Matt Waters City of Rancho Palos Verdes CIO Matt Waters 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 mattw@rpv.com Tel: 310-377-0360 Re: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Mr. Matt Waters, We have been privileged to live in Rancho Palos Verdes and have enjoyed watching and supporting the beautiful peafowls in this great peninsula. Over the past 6-8 months, however, we, the majority of the neighbors and residents in this area, have encountered an unprecedented problem with sudden proliferation and accumulation of peafowls. The recent problem may stem from the pattern of proactively feeding these animals by some residents. As a consequence of this and maybe other factors, there have been a sudden increase in the number of peacocks and peahens including large birds walking and flying in and around our houses and on the street. These birds, some of them quite large and dynamic, have been exceptionally loud, recently even during early morning hours and late evening hours, causing disturbance for the sleep of residents including children. The backyards and front areas of many houses have experienced worsening sanitation status with large amounts of droppings and feces of the birds, the removal of which has become a major challenge for most residents. The plants and gardens have been damaged more frequently by these birds. Their recently more than usual and more frequent walking on the roofs of the houses by these birds has led to unpleasant apprehension of the residents. The safety of small children and house pets including small dogs may have been jeopardized as some of these birds have exhibited bold behavior of attacking mode over the past several months. There have been cases of damage to the roofs of the cars by these birds. Some tiles in some roof areas of the houses may have been displaced when larger birds walk over the roofs. Some of the larger birds have been striking over the glass doors and large windows, which creates unpleasant noises and which may eventually lead to damages and other incidents. We support the coexistence with these magnificent birds as long as the balance is restored and ask the City to reinforce the pre-existing policies to this direction including to regulate feeding and accommodating these animals by unauthorized people. We ask you and your colleagues in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to kindly help us with this emerging problem. For years we have loved and admired peacocks and peahens in Rancho Palos Verdes, and we are indeed proud of them. The unprecedented situation of the past several months, however, is exceptional and has progressed relatively fast and exponentially with untoward consequences and potential hazards that have caused significant suffering for the majority of the residents in this area. We ask that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes help bring the old balance back to this neighborhood with co-existence of peafowls and resident habitants. We look forward to your support and thank City of Rancho Palos Verdes in this regard. Sincerely Kam Kalantar (310-686-7908) and Grace Lee (310-686-7908) 28224 San Nicolas Drive Ken and Judy Getzin (310)377-3496 28207 San Nicolas Drive 3 4-63 Gaye Hayakawa 28203 San Nicolas Drive Dzung and Helen Lam 28212 San Nicolas Dr 310-544-0883 Don Owen (310) 612-9426 28315 San Nicolas Drive Rostam Khoshsar (310-377-5947) 28117 Ella Road This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete. or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. 4 4-64 Daniel Pitts From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Kam Kalantar < kalantar@cox.net> Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:58 AM Daniel Pitts; Matt Waters; Julie Peterson 'Grace H Lee'; 'Inga Lurie'; kalantar@cox.net RE: Updates: 12 signatories: Re: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes [re peafowls in central San Nicolas Drive area] High Dear Mr. Pitts, Ms. Peterson, and Mr. Waters, Enclosed please find the most recent list of signatories of the petition, which was originally submitted to you on 5/29/2014. It now includes 12 (twelve) signatories representing 12 homeowner families, likely representing 35-45 RVP residents. We look forward to timely interventions by City officials. Sincerely Kam & Grace Petition signed by residents of Rancho Palos Verdes living in the central San Nicolas Drive area and vicinity. First submitted to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on 5/29/2014 at 3:26 PM Updated signatories as of 7/16/2014 at 7:00 AM: 12 (twelve) homes and families (see the list of signatories below). To: Mr. Daniel Pitts Mr. Matt Waters Ms. Julie Peterson City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 danielp@rpv.com and mattw@rpv.com and JulieP@rpv.com Tel: 310-377-0360 Re: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Mr. Daniel Pitts and Mr. Matt Waters, We have been privileged to live in Rancho Palos Verdes and have enjoyed watching and supporting the beautiful peafowls in this great peninsula. Over the past 6-8 months, however, we, the majority of the neighbors and residents in this area, have encountered an unprecedented problem with sudden proliferation and accumulation of peafowls. The recent problem may stem from the pattern of proactively feeding these animals by some residents. As a consequence of this and maybe other factors, there have been a sudden increase in the number of peacocks and peahens including large birds walking and flying in and around our houses and on the street. These birds, some of them quite large and dynamic, have been exceptionally loud, recently even during early morning hours and late evening hours, causing disturbance for the sleep of residents including children. The backyards and front areas of many houses have experienced worsening sanitation status with large amounts of droppings and feces of the birds, the removal of which has become a major challenge for most residents. The plants and gardens have been damaged more frequently by these birds. Their recently more than usual and more frequent walking on the roofs of the houses by these birds has led to unpleasant apprehension of the residents. The safety of small children and house pets including small dogs may have been jeopardized as some of these birds have exhibited bold behavior of attacking mode over the past several months. There have been cases of damage to the roofs of the cars by these birds. Some tiles in some roof areas of the houses may have been displaced when larger birds walk over the roofs. Some of the larger birds have been striking over the glass doors and large windows, which creates unpleasant noises and which may eventually lead to damages and other incidents. We support the coexistence with these magnificent birds as long as the balance is restored and ask the City to reinforce the pre- existing policies to this direction including to regulate feeding and accommodating these animals by unauthorized people. We ask you 1 4-65 and your colleagues in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to kindly help us with this emerging problem. For years we have loved and admired peacocks and peahens in Rancho Palos Verdes, and we are indeed proud of them. The unprecedented situation of the past several months, however, is exceptional and has progressed relatively fast and exponentially with untoward consequences and potential hazards that have caused significant suffering for the majority of the residents in this area. We ask that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes help bring the old balance back to this neighborhood with co-existence of peafowls and resident habitants. We look forward to your support and thank City of Rancho Palos Verdes in this regard. Sincerely 1 Kam Kalantar (310-686-7908) and Grace Lee (310-686-7908) 28224 San Nicolas Drive 2 Ken and Judy Getzin (310)377-3496 28207 San Nicolas Drive 3 Gaye Hayakawa 28203 San Nicolas Drive 4 Dzung and Helen Lam 28212 San Nicolas Dr 310-544-0883 5 Don Owen (310) 612-9426 28315 San Nicolas Drive 6 Rostam Khoshsar (310-377-5947) 28117 Ella Road 7 Gabriel and Tola Miro 28208 San Nicolas Drive 310.377.0560 8 Jeff and Pam Woo 28347 San Nicolas Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 310 265 9303 9 Koeppel Family 28321 San Nicolas 310 377-9823 10 Esther & Sandy Abramowitz 28367 San Nicolas Dr 310-377-6027 11 Martin and Linda Herman 28070 Ella Road 2 4-66 310-541-3373 12 Inga Cherman-Lurie and Henry Lurie 6742 Birchman Drive 310-377-5987 PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND TEL. HERE. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete. or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. 3 4-67 Daniel Pitts From: Daniel Pitts Sent: To: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:18 AM 'majoneslaw@aol.com' Subject: RE: peacocks Correction, the C.C. meeting is the 13th of November. Thanks, Daniel Pitts. From: Daniel Pitts Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 7:59 AM To: 'majoneslaw@aol.com' Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian (aram@rpv.com) Subject: RE: peacocks Ms. Maggie Jones, Good morning. Yes, we surveyed the same five areas we have surveyed over the last several years. Braidwood was part of our most recent census that occurred on October 20 & 21st, There were 2 female and 1 male spotted within those two days. We are currently working on making this newest information available to the public via our website. City Staff is bringing this topic forward to City Council on November 17th. We will be discussing census results and asking for direction from Council if trapping is needed. Please feel free to speak and communicate your position at this council meeting. Thank you, Daniel Pitts, CCEO Code Enforcement Officer 1 4-68 From: majoneslaw@aol.com [mailto:majoneslaw@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:14 PM To: Daniel Pitts Subject: peacocks Hi Daniel! Apparently there was a survey done with RPV residents recently regarding the peacock problem? I was never surveyed and for the record I do not find them a problem. We moved here 4 years ago and knew our street had peacocks. We thought and still do think its a good thing. What is the subject of the upcoming hearing? Any response you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks Maggie Jones 28035 Braidwood Dr. 2 4-69 Daniel Pitts From: Sent: To: Subject: Daniel Pitts Monday, August 11, 2014 3:43 PM 'Marilyn' RE: Petition re: peafowl problems: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes Thank you. We have added your contact information to our records. Daniel Pitts From: Marilyn [mailto:mfinklestein@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 1:42 PM To: Julie@rpv.com; Daniel Pitts; Matt Waters Subject: Petition re: peafowl problems: A Request by Concerned Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes We would like to add our names to the petition and list of concerned residents of San Nicolas Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes, regarding the unbalanced proliferation of the peafowls over the last several months. Aside from the noise, sleep deprivation, the droppings, the destruction of our plantings, we have noticed peafowl pecking at car tires and at the exterior body of vehicles. We hope that there will be a concerned effort to reduce the population of these peafowl. Marilyn and Jerry Finklestein s 1 4-70 Daniel Pitts From: Daniel Pitts Sent: To: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:54 PM 'Linda Herman' Subject: Mrs. Herman Good afternoon. RE: Peafowl problems In regards to your question, I reached out to Matt Waters the City's previous peafowl representative for some clarification and insight. It appears that not every street was surveyed, only concentrated areas that were reported to the City in the years past. Your specific neighborhood and street San Nicolas was loosely surveyed. As you may or may not be aware, the Code Enforcement Division only recently assumed the role as the City's peafowl representatives approximately two weeks ago. We were not involved in any previous communications regarding the firm conducting this survey, or sightings reported by the public. That being said, based on this most recent 2014 census report, City Staff is not recommending trapping at this time. In the meantime, residents also have the option, at their expense, to contact a professional trapper who may be able to assist with trapping on private property, but not in the public right of way. The trapper the City used most recently is Mike Maxey of Wildlife Services. He is very experienced with peafowl, is familiar with the Palos Verdes area, and can humanely trap and relocate peafowl. Mr. Maxey can be reached at 626-827-2282 or at peacockpro@yahoo.com. Again, my sympathies on the problems you're dealing with and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Cordially, Daniel Pitts From: Linda Herman [mailto:lhermanpg@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:06 PM To: Daniel Pitts Subject: RE: Peafowl problems Dear Mr. Pitts, 1 4-71 Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer. Can you clarify which border streets encompass Vista Grande and Grandview? I can identify the other areas because they are named after a major cross street but do not know which neighborhoods are viewed as Vista Grande and Grandview. Are we in one of those areas? I thought Grandview was off of Silver Spur and would appreciate clarification for Grandview. Thank you again, Linda Herman From: Daniel Pitts [mailto:danielp@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:01 AM To: Linda Herman Subject: RE: Peafowl problems Dear Linda Herman, Good morning. I'm very sorry to hear about the continued peafowl-related problems you're experiencing, including, damage to your screens and property, as reported by some of your neighbors. While the City seeks to mitigate the impact of peafowl in a number of ways, including an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of peafowl and the posting of peafowl-related information on the City's website, the City does not have an ongoing trapping or relocation program. Nor does the City reimburse residents for damages to private property caused by peafowl, sirice the City does not own the birds. In regards to complaints we have received involving feeding the peafowl, please be advised Code Enforcement Officer Julie Peterson has investigated and has sent a notice of violation letter to the neighbor that was reported. We will continue to monitor this situation for compliance and take additional action as needed. A professional peafowl census was recently conducted. Results of the census will be provided to the City Council and I can provide you with a copy as well. (Attached is the most recent census results). Twice in the past thirteen years, following professional peafowl censuses, the City has engaged the services of a professional trapper to trap and relocate a select number of birds. A third census was performed in late 2011 and 2012 which did not indicate an overall increase in peafowl numbers, so no follow-up trapping was recommended at that time. The most recent census conducted this year 2014, did not indicate an overall increase in peafowl numbers, so no follow- up trapping was recommended at this time as well. Residents also have the option, at their expense, to contact a professional trapper who may be able to assist with trapping on private property, but not in the public right of way. The trapper the City used most recently is Mike Maxey of Wildlife Services. He is very experienced with peafowl, is familiar with the Palos Verdes area, and can humanely trap and relocate peafowl. Mr. Maxey can be reached at 626-827-2282 or at peacockpro@yahoo.com. Again, my sympathies on the problems you're dealing with and please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Thank you. Cordially, Daniel Pitts, CCEO Code Enforcement Officer City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 4-72 From: Linda Herman [mailto:lhermanpg@cox.net] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 8:41 PM To: Daniel Pitts Subject: Peafowl problems To RPV City Officials My husband and I recently signed on to a petition regarding the proliferation of peafowl in our neighborhood but have felt it also necessary to send a personal email regarding this issue as their numbers have increased significantly over the past few years to the point where they are more than just a nuisance. We have the only tall pine on Ella Road and several settle on its branches at various time, squawking and despoiling our immediate area as well as the general neighborhood. We have seen 6 or 7 at one time walking down the sidewalk. They are most definitely loud and disturbing. We are certainly open to a limited few in the area but feel the time has come for the City to take some action to reduce the number of peafowl. If they can be caught and be relocated, that would be the best action. However, we leave it up to our City officials to determine the best way to handle limiting the number of peafowl in this RPV neighborhood. Thank you, Martin and Linda Herman 28070 Ella Road RPV 3 4-73