Loading...
20140930 Late Correspondence (Adj. Reg. - Interviews)TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CrTYOF HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tomorrow's Adjourned Regular meeting (Interviews): Item No. 1 Description of Material Emails from: Acting City Manager Petru; Eva Cicoria; John Wessel; Judith B. Herman Respectful5'itted, ~dk~/ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140930 additions revisions to adjourned reg agenda (lnterviews).doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mayor & City Council - Carolynn Petru Monday, September 29, 2014 11:45 AM cc Michael Throne; Andrea Vona (avona@pvplc.org) IMAC Candidates and recent emails As you know, several emails came in over the last few days regarding the current recruitment for the IMAC. Concerns were raised about some of the applicants being advocates for off-road bicycles trail use issues in the Preserve. While the Council will certainly consider a number of issues in selecting who will serve on the Committee, I just wanted to clarify one point. The City does not have responsibility for maintaining trails in the Preserve. Rather, per the Management Agreement, the Land Conservancy has this responsibility. Therefore, the trails that the IMAC would be considering as part of the City's infrastructure responsibilities are those located outside of the Preserve. However, it's possible that the Committee could consider infrastructure issues related to how the trails outside the Preserve physically connect to those located within it. I hope that clarification is helpful. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! CP 1 I From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: cicoriae@aol.com Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:31 PM cc IMAC Capture_of_RPV _ TAX_FB_post_pl.JPG; Capture_of_RPV _ TAX_FB_post_p2.JPG Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro-tern Knight and Council Members Brooks, Campbell and Misetich, I am writing 1) to alert you to a defamatory Facebook post, 2) to reiterate and provide support for former Mayor Ann Shaw's concerns regarding an applicant to the IMAC, and 3) to caution you regarding what has the potential to hijack the IMAC. The Facebook Post I have learned of a Facebook page for a "Rancho Palos Verdes and Peninsula Taxpayers Association" that recently posted a letter from Ann Shaw to City Council wherein former Mayor Shaw cautio"ned Council regarding her concerns as to whether a particular applicant to the IMAC would be an appropriate choice. The posted letter had the IMAC applicant's name redacted. The Facebook post charged former Mayor Shaw with conducting a "smear campaign" against this applicant. I have taken a screen shot of the Facebook post for your reference. Ann showed courage in sharing with City Council information she believed to be pertinent to the Council's decision- making process, and I am concerned that the Facebook post may have a chilling effect on community members genuinely attempting to contribute to our community's betterment. While it is clear to me that the post is not credible, I cannot assume that others will see it that way. I wonder who is behind this "Association." Do they know anything at all about what transpired during PUMP proceedings, or is the entire thing motivated by ill will? The reference in the post to three members of City Council suggests that there is some ill will, and other posts on the page suggest animosity behind the Association itself. I assume that whoever is behind the "Association" is reading this. Perhaps they have the courage to reveal themselves and answer these questions. Support for Former Mayor Shaw's Concerns Former Mayor Shaw's l_etter was nothing more than an honest effort to provide City Council with information that might enable you to fill the seats on the IMAC with the most. qualified applicants. It certainly wasn't an attempt to "smear" the applicant--"smear" being defined as "an untrue story about a person that is meant to hurt that person's reputation." Her letter is neither untrue nor meant to hurt the applicant's reputation. I served on the Public Use Master Plan Committee with Ann between 2006 and 2008. There were several variables that came together on the PUMP Committee to render it nearly impossible to have a fair and open hearing on trail issues. The mountain bike lobbyists on that Committee were not mere stakeholders seeking an opportunity to share knowledge about their user group and work collaboratively to find solutions to problems when conflicts arose among competing interests. They were driven to achieve a particular outcome and, in so doing, minimized or blatantly denied others' concerns when 1 /. those concerns threatened their desired outcome. For example, when safety concerns were raised, those concerns were denied with statements such as "I've been riding there for years and never had a problem," "I hardly ever see anybody else out there," or "I have been teaching others to ride responsibly for 20 years." I knew otherwise. I had seen otherwise. When trail sustainability concerns were raised, the Committee was told to defer to the ex-officio member, who we were told was the trail expert. We were not told that he was (and continues to be) also a long-time mountain bike lobbyist. He invariably made light of these concerns. This single-minded drive to reach a specific result over all other community concerns was dramatically exemplified by the Brown Act violation referred to in former Mayor Shaw's letter. In that case, after considerable public testimony and photographic evidence reflecting the truth about the conduct and the conditions in the Preserve, at the October 17, 2007 meeting of the PUMP Committee, a majority of the Committee members voted in favor of a motion adopting a proposal to designate a few trails in what is now Portuguese Bend Reserve pedestrian or equestrian/pedestrian and to close off, temporarily, an area that had been highly degraded by mountain bikers in order to give that area a chance to recover. This was a dramatic turn of events because for months a majority of the PUMP members had voted in favor of multi-use trails. One member of the PUMP Committee (another mountain bike lobbyist who is also an IMAC applicant) was so incensed by the vote that he stomped out of the room. Subsequently, PUMP Committee members who were opposed to the vote that undermined their plan met at a PUMP Committee member's house on a Saturday without notifying other PUMP members and, during and subsequent to this secret meeting, contacted still other members of the Committee to solicit support for overturning the October 17 vote, thereby running afoul of the Brown Act. Through this behavior, they were successful in overturning the vote at the subsequent PUMP meeting October 30, 2007. Looming Threat to IMAC I mentioned above that several variables came together on the PUMP Committee to render it nearly impossible to have a fair and open hearing on trail issues. I see potential for IMAC to be plagued with some of the same problems as the PUMP Committee. The PUMP Committee was heavily stacked with members who had a particular agenda. They weren't all mountain bikers, but they were allies known in advance to support the mountain bikers' agenda. The outcome of the PUMP Committee, which was a nearly universal multi-use trail system without regard to safety or trail sustainability, was essentially pre-determined by the makeup of the Committee. Before we ever heard public testimony about the incidence of injuries or close calls on the trails or had any discussion regarding safety issues, trail sustainability, risks to habitat, or costs associated with that type of system, a majority of the PUMP members leaned toward multi-use and many of them were intractably committed to multi-use. Looking at the list of applicants to the IMAC so far you have at least three who are allies in support of the type of high impact trail use that is both unsafe and destructive, including two former PUMP Committee members who were and continue to be very vocal lobbyists for mountain bikers. Is there an effort underway to stack the IMAC? Or is this merely coincidental? Either way I am concerned. There are overarching interests in City infrastructure decisions, including those impacting parks and trails, that are shared by the broader community, such as safety, fiscal responsibility, transparency, fairness, environmental sustainability, and maintaining the semi-rural, scenic surroundings that we have now. I would hope that you will evaluate prospective IMAC appointees with these considerations in mind, taking into account applicants' knowledge of matters related to 2 infrastructure as well as the likelihood that they will maintain an open mind as they attempt to determine what recommendations to make for the well-being of the community at large. Sincerely, Eva Cicoria 3 Rancho Palos, Verdes and Peninsuh1 Taxpayers AssociaUon Copied below is last v.1eeKs public smear letter to th,e city council by Ann Sha'li\', former mayor in RPV and current hea,d of the PV Seniors. Shaw claims to be umayor emeritus" V1lhich :iS an honorary UUe that She has not been awarded* Shaw is trying ta prevent a local resident from being appointed to a ne\V ,city commission by launching one her frequent sn1ear campaigns. This i;s typ;Jca1 behavior by Shav.1 who has herself been recently accused of violating the Brown Act 'Nith RPV councilperson Susan Brooks~ Anthony MiseUch and Jim Kntght while undermining RPV1s mayor Jerry Duhovic in June. (email by Shaw): Dear tv1embers of the Council, I am concerned about one of th:e applicants you wm be interv:iewing for the lf·..1AC committee on Tuesday night, {nam.e deleted}. (name deleted) and I served together for !'No years on the PUt"1P committee. (name deleted) sjngular purpose during that time was to promote trail usage for mountain bikes_ He championed the cause of having all trails n1u1ti-use, i.ew bikes, hikers and horses .. The sad fact. h0\,.1evec is that if mountain bikes are on a trait pedestrians and equestrians are afraid to use the trail because of abuses by some mountain bikers. There Vlas also an unfortunate incident W'hen several members of the PU"-'1P cam,mittee \Jtho \~1 ere supporters of mountain bike usaget including (name deleted):, got together outside of the PU~.;1P committee in clear violation of the Brown Act. I hope you nave many qual.ified applicants for this important committee as it is I hope you have many qualified applicants for this important committee as it is in important issue for the City's future_ Your choices should be individuals who are interested in the infrastructure of RPV and are not solely interested in his or her O\\fn agenda~ Ann Shaw, tv1ayor Emeritus Like Comment Share ttJ 4 people like this. ,Debra Jenkins-Littleton Vl/'ow ~: ·) ~=~ '1 ';1 • ·:: L~•·ke _IL 1 >-~· $-,, t..:·~ ~ ~ x .. *'*.· f \ . ~· Ranc,ho Palos Verdes and Peninsula Taxpayers Associatifon The honorary title she mistakenly uses has not been awarded that we know of. 22 Like Steve Schwab Carson. 2 ; ..... , ~.) ~.· ·.-,. ~~ Lir;:e 61 t ' Rancho Palos Verdes and Peninsula Taxpayers AssociaUon \'olunteers -should get better treatment than this from the self-styled political elites in Rancho Palos Verdes. V'''<-f=j -, ir ~ ~ ~-'" Like From: Sent: To: Subject: wesselj@cox.net Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:09 PM cc IMAC committee members To: City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes From: John Wessel Subject: IMAC candidate interviews Recently I noticed that the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) will address trails issue, presumably including Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. I have concerns about Committee member selection, given their potential impact on Preserve management. Member selection can be critical to the success or failure of an advisory group. I served on the PUMP Committee where several members were advocates for mountain biking activities that violated the intent of the Preserve. The Preserve is, first and foremost, a nature preserve. Some members were straightforward, others were indirect in showing strong biases that were inconsistent with their obligations to the Preserve. When advisory bodies include groups with strong interest that conflict with the principal mission, conflict arises, progress is delayed and recommendations can be inappropriate or harmful. Since some IMAC applicants may be advocates for potentially damaging activities, which include mountain biking, it is important for City Council to recognize that they may not be suitably objective candidates. If there are strong reasons to select a candidate whose advocacy may not be beneficial to the Preserve, for example, if they are the only available expert on infrastructure issues such as storm drains, sewers, power lines, traffic, or trails, then City Council should also select a counter-balancing candidate who is a strong environmental advocate. At the beginning of PUMP, the interests of some committee members, and the trails expert relied on by PVPLC, were not clear. All members claimed to be supportive of the environment. A number proved otherwise. Some were undisclosed representatives of the mountain biking community. Given community concern with the state of the Preserve and the PUMP, representatives of the Audubon Society, the Native Plant Society, and the Sierra Club testified about the negative impact of mountain biking and trail proliferation. (The mountain biking community was a strong supporter of adding trails and opening access of all trails to mountain biking. It contradicted the need to minimize habitat disruption by trails.) This leads to the warning that advocates often conceal affiliations. In-depth vetting is necessary for IMAC if their responsibility includes Preserve issues. The committee should be composed of objective individuals who are not predisposed to or sponsored by outside non-environmental interests. Their motivation should be environmental stewardship first, then safety and user experience. Proponents of recreations that aggravate damage or endanger visitors to the Preserve should be excluded. If there are not enough objective candidates available for IMAC, then I reluctantly suggest PVPLC assume responsibility for Preserve trails recommendations. My reluctance is based on the fact that the PVPLC's 1 /. volunteer trails consultant is responsive to mountain biking trails concerns. Many trails built under his supervision, by mountain biker volunteers, are engineered for high speed biking. Although I respect their consultant's trail engineering expertise and his dedication to Preserve trails, I consider high speed mountain biking trails inappropriate for a nature preserve. If PVPLC takes on this responsibility, it would be necessary for them to obtain objective guidance from other sources. The second problem is that this would be an additional responsibility for PVPLC, which should devote most efforts to environmental restoration. I have read letters to City Council from two others who served on PUMP. They have been highly intelligent environmental advocates. I concur with their recall of PUMP proceedings and share their concerns. Unfortunately, one of them, Ann Shaw, has been publically attacked and disparaged for her advice, by anonymous sources. Sincerely yours, John Wessel Rancho Palos Verdes 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Judy Herman <judyherman@cox.net> Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:16 PM cc avona@pvplc.org Infrastructure Committee To: The Hon. Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro-tern Knight and Council Members Brooks, Campbell and Misetich I think you should be aware of the possibility that a special interest group is attempting to stack the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) with members who will support their special agenda. Some of the candidates for the Committee are passionate mountain bikers who have shown by their previous actions on the PUMP Committee and elsewhere that they are devoted to tailoring trails in the Nature Preserve for bikers, heedless of the safety and peace of mind of other users and the danger to the habitat. The bike lobby, unlike others who would like to enjoy the trails, is backed by a rich and powerful international organization: The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). Bikes are big business. The U.S. alone saw $5.8 billion worth of bicycle sales in 2013. IMBA's worldwide network includes 35,000 individual members in over 30 countries, more than 200 corporate partners, about 600 retailer shops and nearly 50 full- time staff members. IMBA lobbies all levels of government to create bike-friendly policies and legislation and it offers consultation on bike-friendly trail design. One of the candidates for IMAC, Kurt Loheit, has traveled around the country as the IMBA's Trail Resource Director. In 2004, he was inducted into the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame in recognition of his years of service in designing trails for mountain bikers. In 2010, Troy Braswell, another IMAC candidate, said about Mr. Loheit, "When cyclists in Rancho Palos Verdes were on the verge of being completely shut out, Kurt stepped forward to put us on the right course. He guided us from a disorganized bunch of ignorant bikers to a band of pretty effective CORBA PV warriors." What's wrong with making trails "bike friendly" or being a "warrior" for off-road bikers? All user groups have acknowledged that excessive speed by bikers, especially around blind curves, erodes soil and endangers hikers, equestrians, dogs, habitat, wildlife and bikers themselves. Yet, during the time Mr. Loheit served as trail advisor to PVPLC, trails were built with berms and banks that aid high-speed cycling around turns. While on the PUMP Committee, Mr. Braswell advocated for having a "bicycle skills area" in the Nature Preserve. Presumably, such an area would help bikers learn to increase their speed in making tight turns, not something compatible with enjoying and preserving nature. Please keep candidates' personal agendas in mind when interviewing them for this influential committee. Thank you. Sincerely, Judith B. Herman 1 /.