The URL can be used to link to this page

20151020 Late CorrespondenceCITY OF tiRANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2015 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Email from Senior Engineer Countryman to City Council Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and John Freeman; Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Jim Moore; Email exchange between Recreation and Parks Director Linder, Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and Frank Shen; Emails from: Frank Shen; Dean Huang; Ann Hoang; Arlene Calof; Noel Park 2 Email exchange between Recreation and Parks Director Linder and Don Reeves Respectfully su 'tted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, October 19, 2015**. W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20151020 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Melissa Countryman Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:40 PM To: CC Subject: FW: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights Attachments: view pic jpg Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Please see forwarded message below. Thank you, Melissa Countryman Senior Engineer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310.544.5256 melissac@rpvca.gov www.rpyca.aov_ WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM MEL.ISSAC@RPV.COM TO MELISSAC@RPVCA.GOV From: pacific[mailto:pacificgrounds@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 4:40 PM To: Traffic Subject: FW: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights To the Council, Please see the original a mail that I sent in to the City. To re -iterate, I have been conducting my own "traffic study" - for the last 15 years ! I have NEVER seen an incident at said intersection! We are not morons here, we can figure things out for ourselves. This is just wasted time and money. Time and money that could be invested in solving a SERIOUS and real problem- the race track called Palos Verdes Drive East. ( I could solve this problem for you virtually over night- and very inexpensively.) Placing a ridiculous stop sign at this intersection is just that- RIDICULOUS. My tiny bit of "peek a boo" view (see pic) is precious to me and adds to the value and marketability of my house. A ugly stop sign right in the middle of it will cost me money in my property value. And not to mention that I have a manicured to perfection, strip of Tifgreen bermuda grass putting green that I do not want a ugly metal pole stabbed into. This city has enough signs! It would be nice if you would consider the desires of the RESIDENTS. If you would like to visit my house and see what I am griping about, I would be happy to accommodate you. Sincerely, I 1 Tim Valot 31211 Floweridge Dr. R.P.V, Ca. 90275 310-505-2206 From: pacificgrounds@hotriiiil.(:oiii To: traf€icru)rpvca.gov Subject: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:35:23 -0700 From: pacificgrounds@hotmail.com To: raffic@rpvca.gov Subject: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:32:56 -0700 Hello, I am sorry for being late, I was out of country. This e mail is in firm opposition to the idea of placing a stop sign on front of my house at 31211 Floweridge Dr. R.P.V. See attached photo taken from my living room sofa. The proposed stop sign would be placed directly in line with what precious little view that we have. (see attached pic from our living room) We cant have any more view obstructed as it will affect our property value. We have lived there for 15 years and have never seen a traffic accident at this intersection. A stop sign is NOT required here by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, placing a stop sign here will actually INCREASE both noise and pollution for us. Cars travelling UP Floweridge will have to accelerate after stopping a the sigh - thus increasing both pollution and noise. There are many contractors (like myself) who live in this area and they drive diesel powered pickup trucks. These trucks are very noisy, especially on acceleration, AND addiionally, they create much more diesel soot and pollution as they accelerate- especially considering they will still have cold engines. And the same applies to the down hill traffic, just a bit less. And lastly, to boot, the stop sign would be placed right in the parkway of my house that I have planted with pristine putting green grass. All in all, this is a REALLY BAD idea. If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT! Sincerely, Tim Valot 31211 Floweridge Dr. R.P.V, Ca. 90275 310-534-4070 M I From: Doug Willmore Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:32 PM To: John Freeman; CC Cc: 'Les Chapin'; 'Jim Moore'; 'Noel Park' Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park views Agreed, John! From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:23 PM To: Doug Willmore; CC Cc: 'Les Chapin'; 'Jim Moore'; 'Noel Park' Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park views Doug, Agreed. Five years ago the park proposal was for two dog parks, a skate board park, basketball courts, and tennis courts. We've come a long way since that picture was taken. I hope we will end up with an equally beautiful park this year using drought resistant plantings and xeriscaping. John From: Doug Willmore [mailto:DWillmore@rrsyca.goy] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:06 PM To: John Freeman <irfree@cox.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.,gov> Cc: Les Chapin <les.alice 2cox.net>; Jim Moore <idmo88 gmail.con»; Noel Park <noelparkone2IZmail.com> Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park views John, One of the important factors in your photo that is missing today is water. The landscaping in your beautiful photo requires lots of water (and periodic mowing) to stay that beautiful. Doug From: John Freeman [mailto:irfreepcox,net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:50 PM To: CC Cc: Les Chapin; Jim Moore; Noel Park Subject: Lower Hesse Park views Dear Mayor Knight and City Council members: Perhaps you've driven past Lower Hesse Park in the last few weeks in preparation for the council meeting tomorrow night. Yes, it needs some improvement. But I thought you might like to have a view of what Lower Hesse Park and the ocean looked like several years ago. Please see attached. I took this picture five years ago and it reminds me what we are tr r ng to preserve and protect. P.S. I have larger higher resolution copy of this picture suitable for framing — at no cost. Let me know if you are interested! Thank you, John Freeman, President Pacific View Homeowners Association www. pa losverdes.com/paci f icview "Working Together for a Better Neighborhood" From: Matt Waters Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:51 AM To: 'Jim Moore' Cc: Daniel Trautner; Cory Linder; Sean Larvenz; Matt Waters Subject: RE: Hesse Trails Hi Jim, Thanks for the email and I assume I'll see you at tonight's meeting. I understand that gophers remain an issue and they will be addressed as this project moves forward. We will certainly take into account the placement of stones and their impact on mowing efficiency during future, more finalized designs assuming the plan is approved. Thanks also for the background on the early history of Lower Hesse Park's development. I certainly remember Ron Rosenfeld and Paul Bussey very well from that time. I believe from a following email that the dollar estimate for the rock/drainage area has been lowered from $142,000 to $87,000. Even the lower figure is still an estimate based on a conceptual design and could well be adjusted as the project moves along. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Matt From: Cory Linder Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 8:03 AM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Sean Larvenz <SeanL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Hesse Trails FYI From: Jim Moore [mailto:Idmo88@gmaii.com�] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:04 PM To: Cory Linder Subject: Hesse Trails Cory, !. Golphers. I spoke too soon. On or near the trails are new mounds, on the outside edge of the Trails Park and on both sides of the sidewalk there are mounds up to the Hesse Park. 2. Mowing the fields. The crew continued Thurs AM with two mowers and two weed wackers and I do not know how long they stayed, but they are finished today, Friday. In my judgement, they could mow the fields in half the time if the stones were moved to a single area, like the drainage path.. To work around the stones takes much time and weed whackers.The mowers occasionally hit a stone. 3. Hesse Parks. Upper Hesse was dedicated in 1981 or 82 as HESSE PARK, an active park. The Lower park was dedicated in 1998 or 99 as HESSE PARK TRAILS, a passive park. The first work with the city was in 1996 with Ron Rosenfeld and Paul Bussey. LAND IMAGES, a Landscape Architecture, the Principal is Tom 1 Lockett, who worked with Shelby Jordan and myself to develop the preliminary design.The City did hire Land Images to prepare the working drawings for the Trails. My message is that there are two dedicated parks related to Hesse and those should be shown on your Master Plan. We are now working to modify and update the Hesse Park Trails. I do have a very complete history of this development, if you would ever want or need the information. 4. Just a reminder, I will complain about the expense of work proposed for the drainage path, $142,000 as unnecessary. It has been in place as is for 47 years. Jim From: Matt Waters Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:38 AM To: Teresa Takaoka Cc: Cory Linder Subject: FW: Lower Hesse Park security Hi Teri - Please include as late correspondence: Lower Hesse Park Improvements - Thanks -Matt From: Matt Waters Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:36 AM To: frankshenl@aol.com; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park security Dear Frank, Please send me the email you mentioned below and I will make sure it is included for Council's consideration as part of late correspondence. I will also include this email exchange well. Sincerely, Matt Waters From: frankshenl@aol.com [mailto:frankshenl@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:29 AM To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.g_ov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.eov> Subject: Re: Lower Hesse Park security Matt: This is not the email I am referring. That was the email I and Mr. Freeman first sent to the management. I will email it to you again and please confirm that email will be in the report as well. Please confirm. am not happy for the for the development at all while the parking lot and picnic tables are right across street in front of our houses. Of course you say you care, but you still recommend Plan #2. This is how you care by putting the parking lot and picnic tables in front of our houses. You, the Mayor, councilmen do not live across the street from their houses. Thanks, 1 Frank -----Original Message ----- From: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.aov> To: frankshenl <frankshenlaaol.com>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.govv> Sent: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 9:10 am Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park security Dear Frank, The email string you refer to, including Director Linder's response and John Freeman's email, was attached to the Staff Report (see attached/page 31-32) that went to the City Council. Please let me know if you are referring to a different email and I can still send that to Council as part of late correspondence. Yes, Option 2 is staff's recommendation. Take care and please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Matt Waters Senior Administrative Analyst City of Rancho Palos Verdes Recreation and Parks Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www, pa l os ve rd a s. co m/rpv mattw@rpvca.aov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL AND IF I AM IN YOUR CONTACTS, SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM mattw@rpv.com TO mattes@rpvcagoov M,)ke From: frankshenl@aol.com [mailto:frankshenl@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 11:53 PM To: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvcagov> Subject: Re: Lower Hesse Park security Cory: Thanks for attaching my email to you. However, why didn't you attach my email Mr. Freeman forward to you for the Major and councilmen to see? Are you recommending Plan 2, is that right? Frank -----Original Message ----- From: Cory Linder <CoryL0)rpvca.gov> To: frankshenl <frankshenlnaol.com> Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@'-nvca.gov> Sent: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 7:31 am Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park security Mr. Shen: We will incorporate security measures when we ultimately get into the design and construction phase. Unfortunately, after checking with DPW, speed humps are not allowed (or safe) on steep grades such as Locklenna. We will do everything we can in working with the community to design and build a park that is safe and maintained. Thank you for your participation. CORY Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:00 PM To: Cory Linder Subject: Fwd: Lower Hesse Park security Cory: This is Frank Shen, we have met at the meeting on September 14, 2015. I am not pleased that the Lower Hesse Park will be developed like planned. This will increase traffic, accident, litters, graffiti, crime, etc. And we are at the gate. However, as we discussed that if the development will continue, please confirm that a multiple security cameras will be installed around the game, Winport, etc. as you agreed. Please also install traffic bumps on Locklenna for the safety because it will be more cars speeding to the park. Thanks, Frank From: John Freeman rmaiIto:jrfrec`r@cox.net ] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 10:50 AM To: Cory Linder (CoUL�ir 1,rpvca.goy) <CoryLgrpvca.gov>; Nicole Jules (nicole' rnvca.gov) <nicole` ,rpvca Dov>; Ron Dragoo(RonD@rpvca. og_v) ERonD cr,rpvca. og_y>; Ara Mihranian (AraM(i rpvca.gov) <AraM@rpvca,gov>; Nancie Silver (n ancies@Epvca.goy) <nancies;@rpvca. > >; Matt Waters (maltw �,,[pvca.nov) <mattes{ rgyca. ;ov? Cc: Jim Moore (jdmo880a ggjWl.com) <idmo88@_amai1.corn>; Noel Park (noels dcorvette.coin) cnoel@jdcoivette.com>; Les Chapin (les.alice@cox.net) <les,alice(ct�cox.net> Subject: Lower Hesse Park security At our meeting yesterday, I mentioned the concern about security and the possibility of video cameras at the parking entrance and nearby for Lower Hesse Park. Attached is an email I received from a resident, Mr. Chen, who lives directly across from that parking entrance and the short dead-end street, Windport Dr., expressing his concerns. Please keep that in mind as part of the committee consideration and proposal for Lower Hesse Park. I'm sure it will be brought up at the community outreach meeting now scheduled for Monday, September 141H Thank you, John Freeman From: frankshenl@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:45 AM To: Matt Waters; Cory Linder Subject: Fwd: Lower Hesse Park Attachments: IMG_0358.JPG; IMG_0359.JPG; IMG_0360.JPG; IMG_0860.JPG Matt: Please confirm that my email below will be in the report for everyone to see. Thanks, Frank -----Original Message ----- From: frankshenl <frankshenl@aol.com> To: jim.knight <jim.knight@rpvca.gov>; susan.brooks <susan.brooks@rpvca.gov>; brian.campbell <brian.campbell@rpvca.gov>; jerry.duhovic <jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov>; anthony.misetich <anthony.misetich@rpvca.gov>; CoryL <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; cc <cc@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 9:02 pm Subject: Fwd: Lower Hesse Park Dear Mayor and Councilmen; This is Frank Shen, a RPV resident. I have been having serious concerns about the Lower Hesse Park development, safety, etc. I have been talking to Pacific View Neighborhood Watch group. Below is my email to Mr. John Freeman. I am asking you to reconsider this development. Thanks, Frank Shen -----Original Message ----- From: frankshenl <frankshen1Qaol.com> To: jrfree <drfree cox.net> Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2015 10:47 am Subject: Fwd: Lower Hesse Park Hi, John, Would you please forward my email to all the Pacific View Neighbors. Thanks, Frank Pacific View Neighbors: Although the dog parks, sport courses, picnic tables are not here yet, we have already had plenty things happened here. * Graffiti on the street (attachment) * Beer bottle in front of our houses * Litters in our backyard * Smell of marijuana from the street at night * More rubberies around, #108 and counting... * Cars parked on the street, speed off after midnight * People hide into the shrubberies * Several months ago, my wife saw several police cars caught 4-5 teenagers right around the Park entrance * I placed a large TV for large item pickup. Within 10-15 minutes, it was gone. When EDCO was here, they thought I was joking. Someone is watching. Do you want more? If the development is here, it will be more for sure. We have friends on the hill, who were robbed while the couple went out for dinner for a little more than one hour. The robbers know when you are home and when you are not if they want to rob you. They disabled the fancy "Security" system, broke the double pane windows, 5-10 minutes, they were gone. The "Security" system is useless. The crime bulletins are coming more and more, it is #108 now. Do you want more? I am sure if we have improvement of lower park other than more greens, it bring more, I hate to say. I would like to know who would like more? wonder why the City At least install cameras around Hesse Park or the Peninsula which have a few entrances. This is a perfect place for robbers with not much safety improvements at all. Burglars are finding our place is an easy target, are laughing at us... Being with more and more crimes in PV, I agree that we need improvement on more GREENS like the photo below, it also has better Feng Shui, other than this, it will bring more traffic to Lucklenna and Verde Ridge, more noise, more litters, more graffiti , more drugs, more crime... Do you want more of those? And the area will still look brown. This is a peaceful and quiet places which has been for 30 years, let's have more greens and stay like this for at least another 30 years. If anyone wants to have picnic tables, go to upper Hesse Park, there are plenty. This is the kind of place that we would like to live in. No dog parks, no sports courses!!! No picnic tables! It has been at least for 30 year, let's keep this for at least anther 30 years! Please let me know your opinion. Thanks, Frank 0 View of Lower Hesse Park and Hesse Park Trails �.�' _ �, �_,t � r` �� ~k, � �'a. ' ,� ~•. �� i � ��M1 • �"r� X �•r I .i I,. �� 4 • - � � � -� �. - � �� , i - � r r r F '�. '�. �, „ ` + YF � t 0 � N � .' y a�� f � 1 I c 4 �, � 1� _ • , e � . •, 9 .� 1 �� X_• / ..�� \. .� �;�.._� ,, a. -^ 1 - _ �� _ + +' • "�x r � r 1 r+ rn w t R r1 li 1.. �A < "�x I From: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:25 PM To: CC Cc: Arlene Calof Subject: Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Dear Councilmen, Here is yet another resident on Lower Hesse park neighborhood fully agree with my suggestion. Dean Sent from my iPhone On Oct 19, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Arlene Calof <arlenecalof&mail.com> wrote: Dean, I agree 100% with your suggestions to the city council concerning plan 2. I hope this what they will decide on. I feel that It is definitely the only way to go. Arlene Calof On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Dean Huang <h dean_ huang@hotmail.com> wrote: My dear Neighbors, I have received emails from several neighbors expressing that "they agree with me 100%". May I kindly ask those of you who agree with my sup-aestions to the citv council send me a short note if you agree? I will then send the total number to the city council to let them know OUR opinion. We really don't want all the available fund spent on a unnecessary and unwanted "remodeling" and then let the park go downhill AGAIN. We want them to maintain the beauty of replanted Lower Hesse Park! Regards, Dean Huang From: h dean huangga,hotmail.com To: irfree@cox.net Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:47:41 -0700 Hi, John, Thank you for working so hard for all of us at Pacific View, especially appreciate that you sent us the info regarding the upcoming City council meeting in which the city council members will vote for the decision of Lower Hesse Park. I know you and the other three gentlemen have worked very hard to communicate with City regarding the plan, and without doubt it is a much better plan than the previous version, due to your communication. I only have some concerns and I have sent an email to address my opinion in a hope to have them fine tune the option 2 plan. CC you my email to City Council, fyi. Regards, Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: h dean huang-@hotnmail.con7 To: cc@rpyca.gov Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:50:42 -0700 Ke: Option 2 of Lower Hasse Park which will be discussed on 10/20 meeting next weep Dear Mayor and Counci linen, I like to express my sincere appreciation for your service to our city, first. Without your dedicated service to the city, we wouldn't be enjoying and living in this beautiful neighborhood. The reason 1 am writing to you is regarding the improvement plan which will be discussed in the next Tuesday's council meeting. I like the option 2 plan, except: 1. The current Lower Hosse Park parking is adequate and well positioned in the center of the 12ark but the plan is to move it west and expand it. From my observation in the last 15 years, not many people have used the current small Lower Hesse Park parking lot, except a few times two cars parked together doing "whatever they were doing", and they left right away when I jogged pass them. Now the plan is to expand the parking lot and move it close to Locklenna right above our (lower Locklenna) houses. The current parking .lot is well designed with an appropriate size and situated in a good location, why do we need to spend these precious city funds unnecessarily, when we already have a good parking lot? Previous versions of plans did not call for moving and expanding the parking lot, why now? 2. The existing picnic area with 4 picric benches are much better located, in the center of (lie park, than what the new plan calls for, Over the past 15 years, I have not seen many people used these picnic benches. I can only remember seeing one couple, and then in another case, a son and a father eating takeout there, that's it. But ]..have seen teenagers come in cars sitting there smoking "whatever they were smoking" at nights a few times. In another incident was a homeless lady who was drying her full load of clothes from her car (I remember the face of the lady because she looks like a very nice lady. I feel very sorry for her even up to now, 5 years later.) A month ago, I saw a man driving a BMW 5 series sedan, wandering around there, apparently homeless because he had a full car load of "stuff" and I bumped into him again sleeping at a parking lot at PV Drive south. My question is, do we need to move and expand the parking lot'? 37he park has deteriorated so much due to the lack of maintenance, not due to poor original planning. I think the first phase landscape designer did a very good job on the holistic design. The new plan is like doing a "remodeling" add-on. I heard from my neighbors when I served as a Neighborhood Watch role, we need more green, more plant on existing park, not to spend money moving things around. The money should be spent on future upkeep, getting rid of most gophers and incredibly many snails. Honestly, I have not seen so many gopher holes in any other area like bower Hesse Park in my whole life. Please save some funds to keep the planted vegetation ALIVE. The park was beautiful with flowers back in 1999! Thank you! Regards, kl. Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dean Sent from my iPhone Dean Sent from my iPhone 3 From: ANN HOANG <anniehoang99@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:28 PM To: CC Cc: John Freeman Subject: Lower Hesse Park Comments for October 20, 2015 at Council Meeting Dear Sir/Madam: My name is Ann Hoang. The Lower Hesse Park is right behind of my property. My back yard, dining room, living room and bed room window are facing to Lower Hesse Park. I am very glad that the park is in City's plan of repair and improvement. However, this new landscape design and improvement will have some impacts to our Pacific View Residents, especially to my home. Here are some Issues of Concerns: 1) Picnic Grove/Area will invite visitors from outside for gatherings, parties: * This will cost the Street Parking Issues. Even the City proposes 20-25 parking at Lower Hesse Park, but it is not guaranteed that they would park at designed area. * Will Increase Traffic to the neighborhood, this is not safe for our kids in the community to play outside of our home. * Loitering and Disturbing of resident neighborhood with noise from talking, screaming and loud music. We come home from a long day at work, we need a place to relax/rest, sleep and enjoy a family time. * Litters, Trash and Food left over etc ... from the picnic will bring the wild animals and insects to the park. * Cooking, BBQ may cause fire hazard. * More people coming can result to more Crimes in the area. 2) Native plants/Landscape buffer: work well for many landscaping and wildlife habitat plantings. Low maintenance landscaping methods. However, our concern is Native plants produce nectar, pollen, and seeds that serve as food for native birds, butterflies, bees, and other wildlife. Our son is seriously allergic to pollen and dust, we are worried these native plants will cause aggravate to his allergy. We urge the city to consider our concerns and prevent the problems rather than be faced with multitude of issues. If possible, would the City consider other alternative plan instead of the Picnic G rove/Area? In addition, please consider City's proposal in the event that there is no budget in the future to maintain additional security, camera and environmental clean-up, we want to alleviate any future problem. ** Other concerns: will City allow group camping at the park? What the park operation hour? Thank you very much Respectfully Ann From: Arlene Calof <arlenecalof@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 6:48 PM To: CC Subject: Lower Hesse Park I agree COMPLETELY with the suggestions made by Dean Huang concerning Plan 2 for Lower Hesse Park. This would be a perfect plan for the park and the only way to go for many reasons. Thank You ------Arlene Calof From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmai l.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:34 PM To: John Freeman Cc: LeslieChapin; Jim Moore; CC; Doug Willmore Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park views Amen! On Oct 19, 2015 5:23 PM, "John Freeman" <arfree ,cox.net> wrote: Doug, Agreed. Five years ago the park proposal was for two dog parks, a skate board park, basketball courts, and tennis courts. We've come a long way since that picture was taken. I hope we will end up with an equally beautiful park this year using drought resistant plantings and xeriscaping. ,John From: Doug Willmore [mailto:DWillmore r vca. ov] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:06 PM To: John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>; CC <CC@,rnvca.gov> Cc: Les Chapin <les.alice cox.net>; Jim Moore <jdmo88 cl:gmail.com>; Noel Park <noel arkone n ai 1. cone Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park views John, One of the important factors in your photo that is missing today is water. The landscaping in your beautiful photo requires lots of water (and periodic mowing) to stay that beautiful. Doug I I. From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:50 PM To: CC Cc: Les Chapin; Jim Moore; Noel Park Subject: Lower Hesse Park views Dear Mayor Knight and City Council members: Perhaps you've driven past Lower Hesse Park in the last few weeks in preparation for the council meeting tomorrow night. Yes, it needs some improvement. But I thought you might like to have a view of what Lower Hesse Park and the ocean looked like several years ago. Please see attached. I took this picture five years ago and it reminds me what we are t!yinq to preserve and protect. P.S. I have larger higher resolution copy of this picture suitable for framing — at no cost. Let me know if you are interested! Thank you, John Freeman, President Pacific View Homeowners Association www.12alosverdes.coM/pacificview "Working Together for a Better Neighborhood" From: Cory Linder Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:52 PM To: dreeves895@aol.com Cc: CC; Doug Willmore; Ed Pilolla Subject: RE: Hypocrisy or Scam? Attachments: Preserve Table.PNG Mr. Reeves, City Manager Doug Willmore asked me to provide you the breakdown of the Preserve costs. The table is attached and can also be found in the most recent staff report being presented tonight to Council. Neither Mr. Willmore nor I were here during the creation of the original plans for the Preserve but we are working on meeting the needs of the residents and the Preserve by using the resources we have and moving forward. We are striving to create efficient management and operations of the Preserve, along with our partners, while providing a safe and clean environment for recreation and the habitat. If you have any questions or comments, just give me a call. THANKS, CORY CORY A. LINDER, Director Department of Recreation and Parks City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310.544.5260 From: Don [mailto:dreeves895@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:20 PM To: CC Cc: ed.pilolla@pvnews.com Subject: Hypocrisy or Scam? Another $189,000 for the Preserve. It has been awhile but the last time I tried to get a total annual Preserve budget from city hall it came out at almost $500,000 per year but it was obvious that not all costs were included. For discussion purposes lets say the annual cost is now $700,000 to $800,000 although some say more like $1,000,000. That would be at least 6 times the cost promised/lied to by Dye, Stern, the PVPLC, etc. but "What difference does it make"? Well, if one reads the original City Plan before some have attempted to emasculate it, open space was intended to at least address the active needs of our youth and the taxpayers - we know what these folks think about our youth. It is also obvious that the folks mentioned as well as others like Long and there current surrogates needed the SDUF to pay for the Preserve and will continue to push for a revocation of the Sunset. It does not appear that anyone including the current city manager (the last one's position was transparent) or the press has the backbone to demand a full accounting of what the current Preserve costs vs what the original intent was or at least advertised. Some will say "The Law of Unintended Consequences" but this is more of a plan by those who really do not put the taxpayers first. Don Reeves dreeves895@aol.com Pre-seirve E. �.. ........... Annual ............................................. ................. Ar-Muffinstfr. i ; '< CITY OF RANCHO PAIJOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2015 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 20, 2015 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Email exchange between Senior Engineer Countryman and Rochelle Krieger; Email from Tim Valot 1 Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and John Freeman; Email exchange between Public Works Deputy Director Jules and John Freeman; Emails from: H. Dean Huang; Jaime Oaxaca; John Freeman 2 Emails from: Eva Cicoria; Shari Neale; Andrea Vona; Barbara Ailor Respectfully witted, Carla Morreale W:WGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20151020 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Melissa Countryman Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:32 PM To: 'thebunnyl@cox.net' Subject: RE: Proposed Yield Sign Traffic Control for Coolheights Dr at Floweridge Dr Good afternoon Ms. Krieger, You're very welcome. After reviewing the analysis and all of the public comments received, the Traffic Safety Committee recommended the installation of Yield sign traffic control, rather than Stop sign traffic control, for this location. If the Council approves the implementation of the Yield sign traffic control at this location, it is recommended that this intersection continue to be monitored to see if any additional measures are needed. Thank you, Melissa Countryman Senior Engineer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310.544.5256 melissac@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM MELISSAC@RPV.COM TO MELISSAC@RPVCA.GOV -----Original Message ----- From: thebunnyl@cox.net [mailto:thebunnyl@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 7:59 PM To: Melissa Countryman Subject: Re: Proposed Yield Sign Traffic Control for Coolheights Dr at Floweridge Dr Hi Melissa, I thought it was going to be a STOP sign, not a yield sign. What happened? Thank you for all the information you sent to me. Rochelle Krieger ---- Melissa Countryman <MelissaC@rpvca.gov> wrote: > Good afternoon Ms. Krieger: D. > This is a courtesy notification to inform you that the item proposing the implementation of Yield sign traffic control for Coolheights Dr at Floweridge Dr, in congruence with the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee, is scheduled for review by the City Council at its upcoming meeting on Tuesday, October 20th. The meeting will be held at 7pm in the Council Chambers at Hesse Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV, and will also be televised on local RPVTV Ch. 33 and the City's website. The full report will be available on the City's website at the following location by this Friday, October 16th: > http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-Agendas > Please let me know if you have any questions. > Thank you, > Melissa Countryman > Senior Engineer > City of Rancho Palos Verdes > Public Works Department > 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > 310.544.5256 > melissac@rpvca.gov<mailto:melissac@rpvca.gov> > www.rpvca.gov<http://www.rpvca.gov/> > WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS, PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM MELISSAC@RPV.COM<mai Ito: ME LISSAC@RPV.COM> TO MELISSAC@RPVCA.GOV<maiIto: MELISSAC@RPVCA.GOV> From: pacific <pacificgrounds@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 4:40 PM To: Traffic Subject: FW: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights Attachments: view pic jpg To the Council, Please see the original a mail that I sent in to the City. To re -iterate, I have been conducting my own "traffic study" - for the last 15 years 11 have NEVER seen an incident at said intersection! We are not morons here, we can figure things out for ourselves. This is just wasted time and money. Time and money that could be invested in solving a SERIOUS and real problem- the race track called Palos Verdes Drive East. ( I could solve this problem for you virtually over night- and very inexpensively.) Placing a ridiculous stop sign at this intersection is just that- RIDICULOUS. My tiny bit of "peek a boo" view (see pic) is precious to me and adds to the value and marketability of my house. A ugly stop sign right in the middle of it will cost me money in my property value. And not to mention that I have a manicured to perfection, strip of Tifgreen bermuda grass putting green that I do not want a ugly metal pole stabbed into. This city has enough signs! It would be nice if you would consider the desires of the RESIDENTS. If you would like to visit my house and see what I am griping about, I would be happy to accommodate you. Sincerely, Tim Valot 31211 Floweridge Dr. R.P.V, Ca. 90275 310-505-2206 From: pacificgrounds@hotmail.com To: traffic@rpvca.gov Subject: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:35:23 -0700 From: pacificgrounds@hotmail.com To: raffic@rpvca.gov Subject: Stop sign opposition Floweridge & Coolheights Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:32:56 -0700 Hello, I am sorry for being late, I was out of country. This a mail is in firm opposition to the idea of placing a stop sign on front of my house at 31211 Floweridge Dr. R.P.V. See attached photo taken from my living room sofa. The proposed stop sign would be placed directly in line with what precious little view that we have. (see attached pic from our living room) We cant have any more view obstructed as it will affect our property value. We have lived there for 15 years and have never seen a traffic accident at this intersection. A stop sign is NOT required here by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, placing a stop sign here will actually INCREASE D. both noise and pollution for us. Cars travelling UP Floweridge will have to accelerate after stopping a the sigh - thus increasing both pollution and noise. There are many contractors (like myself) who live in this area and they drive diesel powered pickup trucks. These trucks are very noisy, especially on acceleration, AND addiionally, they create much more diesel soot and pollution as they accelerate- especially considering they will still have cold engines. And the same applies to the down hill traffic, just a bit less. And lastly, to boot, the stop sign would be placed right in the parkway of my house that I have planted with pristine putting green grass. All in all, this is a REALLY BAD idea. If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT! Sincerely, Tim Valot 31211 Floweridge Dr. R.P.V, Ca. 90275 310-534-4070 From: Doug Willmore Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 11:41 AM To: John Freeman; CC Cc: Michael Throne; Cory Linder Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project -- council agenda October 20, 2015 Hi John, Thanks very much for the suggestions. A couple of comments: (1) We will develop a detailed project construction schedule in the contract negotiations with proposed contractor. We don't do that prior to selecting a possible contractor, because the contractor usually has very useful and specific suggestions to the construction schedule. (2) We will create a structure that provides more information to the public regarding construction status and progress. Thanks for your input. Doug From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:25 AM To: CC Cc: Carla Morreale Subject: Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project -- council agenda October 20, 2015 Dear Mayor Knight and City Council members: As part of your deliberations for the upcoming City Council meeting (Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project), please consider these additional suggestions regarding the implementation phase of the Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project. My concern is that if, or once the park plan is approved, there aren't any city staff procedures in place to keep the council and keep the public informed about the progress of the project. The implementation phase will last months, perhaps over a year until completion. What is or will be the process to allow the council and public oversight of the process? What are the major milestones and dates? What is behind and what is on schedule? What are the issues that could causing delays or needing attention? Here are some suggestions for staff: Prepare an overall project milestone "timeline plan" showing dates over next year or two • Identify milestones requiring Council approval • Finalize Capital budget, issue RFP • Select vendor etc. • Monitor work in progress • Identify open action items and who is responsible to correct and complete This is basic Project Management 101, but without some sort of monthly or quarterly public and council progress reports, how can we ensure good oversight and transparency of the project? I've seen the Public Works Projects webpage (http://www.rpvca.gov/412/Public-Warks-Projects) , but it appears to mainly provide project overviews with little in month to month actual progress reporting. We need a go -to place to find out what Progress or problems exist on a project. Some ideas would be to 1. Direct staff to proactively create a separate addendum to the Weekly Administrative Report on a monthly or quarterly basis that specifically highlights this and other active projects. 2. Or alternatively create a separate Monthly/Quarterly Administrative Report devoted just to projects. 3. Or expand the Project website pages for operational projects. If departments have their own live tracking documents, then it should be easy to create links or copy/paste those documents into a project progress webpage. The purpose of these suggestions is not to create more staff work, but to provide more open communications and transparency of existing work in progress. Please consider this as part of your deliberation on the Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project and direct Staff to implement. This can be another step in RPV's transparency goals. Thank you. John Freeman, President Pacific View Homeowners Association www.palosverdes.com/pacificview "Working Together for a Better Neighborhood" From: Nicole Jules Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:37 PM To: John Freeman Cc: CC; Cory Linder; Matt Waters; Nancie Silver; Ron Dragoo; Ara Mihranian; Les Chapin; Jim Moore; Noel Park Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project, Open action item Greetings John, Iteris will be updating their line of sight analysis this week. Nicole Department of Public Works 310-544-5275 From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 11:45 AM To: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Nancie Silver <NancieS@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Les Chapin <les.alice@cox.net>; Jim Moore <jdmo88@gmail.com>; Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com> Subject: Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project, Open action item Hi Nicole, At our joint Staff/HOA committee meetings on the Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project, one of the open action items assigned to you which we discussed several times was this one (see page 33 of the October 20, 2015 Staff Report): Open action items from MND: #33 Speed study measurement at lower Locklenna Lane. Nicole Jules has still not completed the study. #33 — Speed tubes have not been placed on Lower portion of Locklenna Lane for measurements. Hence, the Iteris statement "the default speed limit of 25mph is assumed" is invalid. Action item for Nicole Jules: (1) conduct speed study on Lower Locklenna Lane points, and (2) redo Iteris study based on actual measured speeds. NOTE: "the default speed limit of 25 mph is assumed" on page 1 I see that you have now conducted a new speed study on Lower Locklenna Lane (see page 38 of Staff Report). Thank you for that portion of the open action item. However, to my knowledge you have not yet completed the second part: "(2) redo Iteris study ("to determine if there is adequate sight distance for vehicles traveling westbound on Locklenna Lane to see pedestrians crossing Locklenna Lane at the bottom of the stairway..." based on actual measured speeds." That original November 20, 2014 study assumed a speed of 25 mph. (see attached) Your new speed study (Staff Report, page 39) however found something different: "For the westbound direction, average speed is 26 MPH and 28 MPH in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, respectively, with an 85th percentile speed of 32 MPH and 34MPH in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, respectively." When are you going to complete your open action item and have Iteris conduct a new sight -line and stopping -distance study based upon actual (not 25 mph) speeds? With the expected increase in pedestrian usage at the blind curve on the steep street (Locklenna Lane) right at the stairway entrance to Lower Hesse Park, it is a dangerous access point ripe with safety concerns that must be mitigated. Thank you. John Freeman, President Pacific View Homeowners Association www. palosyerdes. corn/pacificview "Working Together for a Better Neighborhood" ITER1S'----,:— ��nlxltig Memorandum To: Nicole Jules From: Bernard Li, Eunise Reynon City of Rancho Palos Verdes Iteris, Inc. Public Works Department Date: November 20, 2014 Job Number: 17-114-17G1 Re: Line -of -Sight Analysis for Locklenna Lane Westbound The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has requested Iteris to conduct a line -of -sight analysis to determine if there is adequate sight distance for vehicles traveling westbound on Locklenna Lane to see pedestrians crossing Locklenna Lane at the bottom of the stairway just west of Faircove Drive. Figure 1 below provides an illustration of the area. Figure 1: Intersection k } b Ill. J . � 11.1 I ri[ OWL& This memorandum discusses the results of the analysis. Locklenna Lane is a 40 -feet wide residential street with one lane in each direction, and travels downhill in the westbound direction from Hawthorne Boulevard to Verde Ridge Road There are no posted speed limit signs along Locklenna Lane, therefore the default speed limit of 25mph is assumed. 1' } „e i`fY1le �,4i fIU� I SUI&100 j &3OLa ADa i q 927C5-55511 I it! 9a�j it r 9A',C i fax ti-. 270 194:i 1 1'fiVfN IR; S i7?I]: ITEPJSff.?.,a P+ ifa1r1atlit•n ll .� ir Iteris staff performed a field visit at the job site on November 18, 2014. The main purpose of the field visit is to take actual measurement and determine the sight distance when westbound vehicles can see pedestrians crossing Locklenna Lane at the bottom of the stairway. For this exercise, a 3 -feet tall object was placed approximately 2 feet from the curb face, simulating a pedestrian crossing the street. Figure 2 below illustrates the location of the stairway and where the object was placed. ti +R Figure 2: Locklenna Lane Stairway and Potential Ped Crossing With the object placed at the location indicated, Iteris staff drove their vehicle from the top of hill near Hawthorne Boulevard in the westbound direction and stopped when the object was first seen. A field measurement was then taken from the stopped vehicle to the object. Figure 3 shows the viewpoint from the driver's eyes when the object was first seen. The measured distance was 245'. Figure 3: Driver's Viewpoint of Object Page 12 ITERTS'fi,, I.a... faK•Br� un.3ufilU _Ao� According to the 2014 Highway Design Manual (HDM), the stopping sight distance for a design speed of 25mph is 150'. But for downhill streets, HDM also suggested that the stopping sight distance "should be increased by 20 percent on sustained downgrades steeper than 3 percent..". Hence, the adjusted stopping sight distance based on 25mph speed is 180'. Therefore, the actual measured sight distance of 245' is deemed adequate to bring a vehicle to a complete stop and yield to any pedestrians crossing Locklenna Lane at the bottom of the stairway. The following are additional recommendations to be considered by the City in order to further improve the sight distance for downhill traffic to see crossing pedestrians: 1. Trim the bushes along the bottom of hill side just east of the existing stairway 2. Paint red -curb markings or post no stopping signs from the bottom of the stairway to approximately 245' east along the north side of Locklenna Lane because any parked vehicles would impede the drivers' line -of -sight. 3. Post W11-2 pedestrian crossing warning sign at approximately 245' in advance of the stairway Page 13 From: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 6:51 PM To: CC Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Attachments: IMG_1895.JPG; ATT00002.txt Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse Park which will be discussed on 10/20 meeting next week Dear Mayor and Councilmen, I like to express my sincere appreciation for your service to our city, first. Without your dedicated service to the city, we wouldn't be enjoying and living in this beautiful neighborhood. The reason I am writing to you is regarding the improvement plan which will be discussed in the next Tuesday's council meeting. I like the option 2 plan, except: 1. The current Lower Hesse Park parkin,R is adequate andwell positioned in the center of the hark, but the %?{ an is to move it west and expand it. From my observation in the last 15 years, not many people have used the current small Lower Hesse Park parking lot, except a few times two cars parked together doing "whatever they were doing", and they left right away when jogged pass them. Now the plan is to expand the parking lot and move it close to Locklenna right above our (lower Locklenna) houses. The current parking lot is well designed with an appropriate size and situated in a good location, why do we need to spend these precious city funds unnecessarily, when we already have a good parking lot? Previous versions of plans did not call for moving and expanding the parking lot, why now? 2. The existiniz picnic area with 4 picnic benches are much better located. in the center of the park, than what the new plan calls for, Over the past 15 years, I have not seen many people used these picnic benches. I can only remember seeing one couple, and then in another case, a son and a father eating takeout there, that's it. But I have seen teenagers come in cars sitting there smoking "whatever they were smoking" at nights a few times. In another incident was a homeless lady who was drying her full load of clothes from her car (I remember the face of the lady because she looks like a very nice lady. I feel very sorry for her even up to now, 5 years later.) A month ago, I saw a man driving a BMW 5 series sedan, wandering around there, apparently homeless because he had a full car load of "stuff" and I bumped into him again sleeping at a parking lot at PV Drive south. My question is, do we need to move and expand the parking lot? 3.The Dark has deteriorated so much due to the lack of maintenance, not due to poor original planning. I think the first phase landscape designer did a very good job on the holistic design. The new plan is like doing a "remodeling" add-on. I heard from my neighbors when I served as a Neighborhood Watch role, we need more green, more plant on existing park, not to spend money moving things around. The money should be spent on future upkeep, getting rid of most gophers and incredibly many snails. Honestly, I have not seen so many gopher holes in any other area like Lower Hesse Park in my whole life. Please save some funds to keep the planted vegetation ALIVE. The park was beautiful with flowers back in 1999! Thank you! Regards, H. Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 0 tion 2 Legend. Hydroseedincg 1. Xerscapeldrought toleraot Parking Lot Native Plants/Landscape Ir Trails Rock Fill/Drainage Area F4011 Fitness Stations (open Air Resting Opportu icnic Nodes From: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:28 PM To: CC Cc: Frank Shen Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan I am submitting notes from people who agree with my suggestion to City Council regarding the parking lot and picnic area remodeling . Regards, Dean Huang Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 02:21:29 -0400 From: frankshenl@aol.com To: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Thanks Dean. Please add my name on your email too. I agree with you and hope others will be on board too, the more people the better. Thanks, Frank -----Original Message ----- From: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> To: John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net> Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 10:47 pm Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Hi, John, Thank you for working so hard for all of us at Pacific View, especially appreciate that you sent us the info regarding the upcoming City council meeting in which the city council members will vote for the decision of Lower Hesse Park. I know you and the other three gentlemen have worked very hard to communicate with City regarding the plan, and without doubt it is a much better plan than the previous version, due to your communication. I only have some concerns and I have sent an email to address my opinion in a hope to have them fine tune the option 2 plan. CC you my email to City Council, fyi. Regards, Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: h _dean_huangCaDhotmail.com To: cc(c-�.rpvca.yvu Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:50:42 -0700 Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse Park which will be discussed on 10/20 meeting next week Dear Mayor and Councilmen, I like to express my sincere appreciation for your service to our city, first. Without your dedicated service to the city, we wouldn't be enjoying and living in this beautiful neighborhood. The reason I am writing to you is regarding the improvement plan which will be discussed in the next Tuesday's council meeting. I like the option 2 plan, except: 1. The current Lower Hesse Park parking is adequate and well positioned in the center of the park. but the Ian is to move it west and expand it. From my observation in the last 15 years, not many people have used the current small Lower Hesse Park parking lot, except a few times two cars parked together doing "whatever they were doing", and they left right away when I jogged pass them. Now the plan is to expand the parking lot and move it close to Locklenna right above our (lower Locklenna) houses. The current parking lot is well designed with an appropriate size and situated in a good location, why do we need to spend these precious city funds unnecessarily, when we already have a good parking lot? Previous versions of plans did not call for moving and expanding the parking lot, why now? 2. The existing- picnic area with 4 picnic benches are much better located in the center of the park, than what the new plan calls for, Over the past 15 years, I have not seen many people used these picnic benches. I can only remember seeing one couple, and then in another case, a son and a father eating takeout there, that's it. But I have seen teenagers come in cars sitting there smoking "whatever they were smoking" at nights a few times. In another incident was a homeless lady who was drying her full load of clothes from her car (I remember the face of the lady because she looks like a very nice lady. I feel very sorry for her even up to now, 5 years later.) A month ago, I saw a man driving a BMW 5 series sedan, wandering around there, apparently homeless because he had a full car load of "stuff' and I bumped into him again sleeping at a parking lot at PV Drive south. My question is, do we need to move and expand the parking lot? 3.The park has deteriorated so much due to the lack of maintenance not due to poor original planning. I think the first phase landscape designer did a very good job on the holistic design. The new plan is like doing a "remodeling" add-on. I heard from my neighbors when I served as a Neighborhood Watch role, we need more green, more plant on existing park, not to spend money moving things around. The money should be spent on future upkeep, getting rid of most gophers and incredibly many snails. Honestly, I have not seen so many gopher holes in any other area like Lower Hesse Park in my whole life. Please save some funds to keep the planted vegetation ALIVE. The park was beautiful with flowers back in 1999! Thank you! Regards, H. Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dean Sent from my Phone From: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:30 PM To: CC Cc: sycmarine@verizon.net; John Freeman Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Again, I am submitting notes from people who agree with my suggestion to City Council regarding the parking lot and picnic area remodeling. Regards, Dean Huang Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:51:48 -0500 From: sycmarine@verizon.net To: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com Subject: Re: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Thanks for your letter to the city council. Agree with your concerns!! Y. C. On 10/18/15, Dean Huang<h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi, John, Thank you for working so hard for all of us at Pacific View, especially appreciate that you sent us the info regarding the upcoming City council meeting in which the city council members will vote for the decision of Lower Hesse Park. I know you and the other three gentlemen have worked very hard to communicate with City regarding the plan, and without doubt it is a much better plan than the previous version, due to your communication. I only have some concerns and I have sent an email to address my opinion in a hope to have them fine tune the option 2 plan. CC you my email to City Council, fyi. Regards, Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: h dean huang h0trnail.conI To: cc(@rpvca.-g v Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:50:42 -0700 Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse Park which will be discussed on 10/20 meeting next week Dear Mayor and Councilmen, like to express my sincere appreciation for your service to our city, first. Without your dedicated service to the city, we wouldn't be enjoying and living in this beautiful neighborhood. The reason I am writing to you is regarding the improvement plan which will be discussed in the next Tuesday's council meeting. I like the option 2 plan, except: 1. The current Lower Hesse Park parkinq is adequate and well positioned in the center of the park,but the elan is to move it west and expand it From my observation in the last 15 years, not many people have used the current small Lower Hesse Park parking lot, except a few times two cars parked together doing "whatever they were doing", and they left right away when I jogged pass them. Now the plan is to expand the parking lot and move it close to Locklenna right above our (lower Locklenna) houses. The current parking lot is well designed with an appropriate size and situated in a good location, why do we need to spend these precious city funds unnecessarily, when we already have a good parking lot? Previous versions of plans did not call for moving and expanding the parking lot, why now? 2. The existing picnic area with 4 picnic benches are much better located, in the center of the paLk, than what the new plan calls for, Over the past 15 years, I have not seen many people used these picnic benches. I can only remember seeing one couple, and then in another case, a son and a father eating takeout there, that's it. But I have seen teenagers come in cars sitting there smoking "whatever they were smoking" at nights a few times. In another incident was a homeless lady who was drying her full load of clothes from her car (I remember the face of the lady because she looks like a very nice lady. I feel very sorry for her even up to now, 5 years later.) A month ago, I saw a man driving a BMW 5 series sedan, wandering around there, apparently homeless because he had a full car load of "stuff" and I bumped into him again sleeping at a parking lot at PV Drive south. My question is, do we need to move and expand the parking lot? 33he park has deteriorated so much due to the lack of maintenance, not due to poor original planning. I think the first phase landscape designer did a very good job on the holistic design. The new plan is like doing a "remodeling" add-on. I heard from my neighbors when I served as a Neighborhood Watch role, we need more green, more plant on existing park, not to spend money moving things around. The money should be spent on future upkeep, getting rid of most gophers and incredibly many snails. Honestly, I have not seen so many gopher holes in any other area like Lower Hesse Park in my whole life. Please save some funds to keep the planted vegetation ALIVE. The park was beautiful with flowers back in 1999! Thank you! Regards, H. Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA DeanSent from my Phone 2 From: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:32 PM To: CC Cc: Brian Chang; John Freeman Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Again, I am submitting notes from people who agree with my suggestion to City Council regarding the parking lot and picnic area remodeling . Regards, Dean Huang Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:40:16 +0000 From: bpsun@yahoo.com To: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Hi Dean, 1100% agree your opinion. Thanks, Brian Sun Member of Pacificview HOA Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, October 19, 2015, 11:09 AM, mean Huang <h_-dean-huang@hotmail.com> wrote: Please send me a note if you agree. Thanks. Dean From: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com To: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:35 -0700 My dear Neighbors, I have received emails from several neighbors expressing that "they agree with me 100%". May I kindly ask those of you who agree with my suggestions to the city council send me a short note if you agree? I will then send the total number to the city council to let them know OUR opinion. We really don't want all the available fund spent on a unnecessary and unwanted I "remodeling" and then let the park go downhill AGAIN. We want them to maintain the beauty of replanted Lower Hesse Park! Regards, Dean Huang From: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com To: jrfree@cox.net Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:47:41-0700 Hi, John, Thank you for working so hard for all of us at Pacific View, especially appreciate that you sent us the info regarding the upcoming City council meeting in which the city council members will vote for the decision of Lower Hesse Park. I know you and the other three gentlemen have worked very hard to communicate with City regarding the plan, and without doubt it is a much better plan than the previous version, due to your communication. I only have some concerns and I have sent an email to address my opinion in a hope to have them fine tune the option 2 plan. CC you my email to City Council, fyi. Regards, Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: h_dean_huang@hotmail.com To: cc@rpvca.gov Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:50:42 -0700 Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse Park which will be discussed on 10/20 meeting next week Dear Mayor and Councilmen, like to express my sincere appreciation for your service to our city, first. Without your dedicated service to the city, we wouldn't be enjoying and living in this beautiful neighborhood. The reason I am writing to you is regarding the improvement plan which will be discussed in the next Tuesday's council meeting. I like the option 2 plan, except: 1. The current Lower Hesse Park parking is adequate and well positioned in the center of the park, but the plan is to move it west and expand it. From my observation in the last 15 years, not many people have used the current small Lower Hesse Park parking lot, except a few times two cars parked together doing "whatever they were doing", and they left right away when I jogged pass them. Now the pian is to expand the parking lot and move it close to Locklenna right above our (lower Locklenna) houses. The current parking lot is well designed with an appropriate size and situated in a good location, why do we need to spend these precious city funds unnecessarily, when we already have a good parking lot? Previous versions of plans did not call for moving and expanding the parking lot, why now? 2. The existing picnic area with 4 picnic benches are much better located, in the center of the park, than what the new plan calls for Over the past 15 years, I have not seen many people used these picnic benches. I can only remember seeing one couple, and then in another case, a son and a father eating takeout there, that's it. But I have seen teenagers come in cars sitting there smoking "whatever they were smoking" at nights a few times. In another incident was a homeless lady who was drying her full load of clothes from her car (I remember the face of the lady because she looks like a very nice lady. I feel very sorry for her even up to now, 5 years later.) A month ago, I saw a man driving a BMW 5 series sedan, wandering around there, apparently homeless because he had a full car load of "stuff` and I bumped into him again sleeping at a parking lot at PV Drive south. My question is, do we need to move and expand the parking lot? 3.The park has deteriorated so much due to the lack of maintenance not due to poor original planning. I think the first phase landscape designer did a very good job on the holistic design. The new plan is like doing a "remodeling" add-on. I heard from my neighbors when I served as a Neighborhood Watch role, we need more green, more plant on existing park, not to spend money moving things around. The money should be spent on future upkeep, getting rid of most gophers and incredibly many snails. Honestly, I have not seen so many gopher holes in any other area like Lower Hesse Park in my whole life. Please save some funds to keep the planted vegetation ALIVE. The park was beautiful with flowers back in 1999! Thank you! Regards, H. Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dean Sent from my iPhone Dean Sent from my iPhone Dean Sent from my iPhone From: Jaime Oaxaca <joaxacal@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:40 PM To: cc Cc: John Freeman; Dean Huang Subject: Fw: Option 2 of Lower Hesse park plan Dear City Council, Respectfully submitted. The Honorable Jaime Oaxaca ----- Original Message ----- From: John Freeman To: 'Jaime Oaxaca' Cc: 'Dean Huang' Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 8:24 AM Subject: RE: Option 2 of Lower Hesse park plan Thank you Jaime and Dean for your comments about improvements in Lower Hesse Park. The City Council will be discussing and considering resident feedback this Tuesday night (7 pm), so please consider attending and giving your opinion and/or sending your email to ccC@.rpvca..gov to the council members. I don't think we want to have Lower Hesse Park fall into further disrepair — all comments welcome at the meeting. Thanks, John Freeman From: Jaime Oaxaca [mailto:joaxacal@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 8:03 AM To: John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net> Cc: Dean Huang <h_dean_huang@hotmail.com> Subject: Fw: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Dear John, First of all I agree with Dean's view 100%. We, the Oaxaca's (1 st to buy a lot of the 1 st 25 homes on Locklenna Lane) live on the Corner of Locklenna Lane and Windport Drive. We live directly across from the " Quaint" Yellow Entrance with antique auto reflectors to Hess Park. Dean's home is the 3rd home of the of the 2nd set of homes built by Vernon Taylor (Newport Contractor) Historically vendors look at any new city planning as a business opportunity and the process is driven in such a way that the venders overrun the budget and either get more money or walk away. That has been the history of Lower Hess Park. So it is not surprising that the recommended upgrade will exceed the budget and we must live with something less. In austere times do not upgrade and then not finish! Do what Dean suggests leave it like it is, just beautify what you have and maintain it to the highest standards. When it rains it is a mess, at night people jump the curb to park and smoke, deal, party, make noise, get belligerent. etal. Make the trash cans Coyote proof, and fine the people that bring sacks of old bread, rolls, bones and hide their work. It all ends up as the raccoons, squirrels, bring it over to the homes. With crime attempts on the rise, parking in a cul-de-sac is a way for alert homeowners to call the Sheriff, get license nos etc. Thank you for listening, Jaime and Carolina Oaxaca ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Huang To: John Freeman Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 10:47 PM Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Hi, John, Thank you for working so hard for all of us at Pacific View, especially appreciate that you sent us the info regarding the upcoming City council meeting in which the city council members will vote for the decision of Lower Hesse Park. I know you and the other three gentlemen have worked very hard to communicate with City regarding the plan, and without doubt it is a much better plan than the previous version, due to your communication. I only have some concerns and I have sent an email to address my opinion in a hope to have them fine tune the option 2 plan. CC you my email to City Council, fyi. Regards, Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA From: h dean huang@hotmail.com To: cc@rpvca.gov Subject: FW: Option 2 of Lower Hasse park plan Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:50:42 -0700 Re: Option 2 of Lower Hasse Park which will be discussed on 10/20 meeting next week Dear Mayor and Councilmen, I like to express my sincere appreciation for your service to our city, first. Without your dedicated service to the city, we wouldn't be enjoying and living in this beautiful neighborhood. The reason I am writing to you is regarding the improvement plan which will be discussed in the next Tuesday's council meeting. I like the option 2 plan, except: 1. The current Lower Hesse Park parking is adequate and well positioned in the center of the park, but the plan is to move it west and expand it From my observation in the last 15 years, not many people have used the current small Lower Hesse Park parking lot, except a few times two cars parked together doing "whatever they were doing", and they left right away when I jogged pass them. Now the plan is to expand the parking lot and move it close to Locklenna right above our (lower Locklenna) houses. The current parking lot is well designed with an appropriate size and situated in a good location, why do we need to spend these precious city funds unnecessarily, when we already have a good parking lot? Previous versions of plans did not call for moving and expanding the parking lot, why now? 2. The existing picnic area with 4 picnic benches are much better located, in the center of the park, than what the new plan calls for, Over the past 15 years, I have not seen many people used these picnic benches. I can only remember seeing one couple, and then in another case, a son and a father eating takeout there, that's it. But I have seen teenagers come in cars sitting there smoking "whatever they were smoking" at nights a few times. In another incident was a homeless lady who was drying her full load of clothes from her car (I remember the face of the lady because she looks like a very nice lady. I feel very sorry for her even up to now, 5 years later.) A month ago, I saw a man driving a BMW 5 series sedan, wandering around there, apparently homeless because he had a full car load of "stuff' and bumped into him again sleeping at a parking lot at PV Drive south. My question is, do we need to move and expand the parking lot? 33he park has deteriorated so much due to the lack of maintenance, not due to poor original planning. I think the first phase landscape designer did a very good job on the holistic design. The new plan is like doing a "remodeling" add-on. I heard from my neighbors when I served as a Neighborhood Watch role, we need more green, more plant on existing park, not to spend money moving things around. The money should be spent on future upkeep, getting rid of most gophers and incredibly many snails. Honestly, I have not seen so many gopher holes in any other area like Lower Hesse Park in my whole life. Please save some funds to keep the planted vegetation ALIVE. The park was beautiful with flowers back in 1999! Thank you! Regards, H. Dean Huang 6710 Locklenna Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dean Sent from my iPhone From: John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:50 PM To: CC Cc: Les Chapin; Jim Moore; Noel Park Subject: Lower Hesse Park views Attachments: Lower Hesse Park with General Plan jpg Dear Mayor Knight and City Council members: Perhaps you've driven past Lower Hesse Park in the last few weeks in preparation for the council meeting tomorrow night. Yes, it needs some improvement. But I thought you might like to have a view of what Lower Hesse Park and the ocean looked like several years ago. Please see attached. I took this picture five years ago and it reminds me what we are trying to preserve and protect. P.S. I have larger higher resolution copy of this picture suitable for framing — at no cost. Let me know if you are interested! Thank you, John Freeman, President Pacific View Homeowners Association www.palosverdes.com/pacificview "Working Together for a Better Neighborhood" "" -W—Y,—_� -K"I . EJ "It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve, protect, and enhance its natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region. Future developments'hall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environment and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the -ptotection"of it."'T - - Is From: E Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 9:26 AM To: CC Cc: avona@pvplc.org Subject: Preserve Enforement Options Mayor Knight, Mayor ProTem Brooks, Councilmembers Campbell, Duhovic and Misetich, While I lean toward the in-house ranger option of the alternatives presented for Palos Verdes Nature Preserve options, I want to bring to your attention a few pieces of information and data that Staff may be able to confirm or clarify. Also, if you adopt an in-house ranger option, I think you are going to have to supplement with Sheriff back up. It is misleading to attribute the $189,000 expense associated with the MRCA contract to Preserve expenses. Another way to say this is that the Preserve has not received the full benefit of the MRCA contract. While MRCA was hired to patrol the Preserve, circumstances have re -directed much of the MRCA focus to the beaches. Take a look at the MRCA quarterly reports attached to the Staff Report. You will see that more than 50% of citations were issued for beach -related infractions. Here are the numbers that I came up with in my review: Beach -related citations: 47 total Area closed (Sacred Cove) 19 Animals on beach (RPV Beach, Ab Cove) 11 Fishing w/o license (Pelican Cove, Ab Cove) 7 Alcohol on beach (Abalone Cove) 3 Nudity (Sacred Cove) 3 Fires on beach (Abalone Cove) 2 Camping (Pelican Cove) 1 Unlawful take (Pelican Cove) 1 Preserve -related citations: 36 total Dogs off leash 20 Unauthorized trail use 9 Area closed 3 Unauthorized plant removal 2 Unauthorized vehicle 1 False info to peace officer 1 Neither beach nor preserve -related citation: 1 Reckless Driving 1 Thought should be given to the extent to which any of the enforcement options proffered by Staff will be similarly divided over Preserve and non -Preserve activity and how much ranger patrol time will provide a necessary presence in the Preserve vs.at City parks and beaches. MRCA has had very little real presence in the Preserve. This is borne out by my own experience and by the general public's observations that MRCA is rarely seen in the Preserve. There are several reasons for this and, if you look at the data you begin to see why. Although the Staff Report does not state how many hours MRCA actually patrolled the Preserve (vs. the beaches, for example), based on citations reported, only about 43% of MRCA's enforcement work has been Preserve related. When you factor in this data, as well as information provided in the Staff Report regarding time allocated for driving (1.5 hours per shift driving to and from the Peninsula), plus driving between Preserve, beach, and other City sites, interpretive services (5 hours per month), meetings, court appearances, etc., you begin to see why MRCA's presence in the Preserve has been very limited. While data regarding MRCA's actual hours on the ground has not been provided, it seems to me that it may be as little as 20 hours per week, whereas Preserve hours can be over 100 hours per week, depending upon the season. MRCA's effectiveness at protecting the Preserve has been limited. MRCA's limited effectiveness is borne out by the evidence of damage to the Preserve, by PVPLC hiring a full time staff member to close (and repeatedly re -close) illegal trails, by MRCA reports that show few citations related to such damage, and by the Volunteer Trail Watch (VTW) data. By far the largest data point from VTW reporting on Preserve activity is "Evidence of Vegetation Removal". This category captures after -the - fact observations (as opposed to actually seeing the activity as it is happening) of a range of activities, including trampling habitat, creation of illegal trails, use of illegal trails, breach of trail spur closures, and trail creep (trail use in the margin which over time widens the trail bed). The Preserve lands and habitat are damaged by use that does not adhere to City ordinances which require trail users to avoid damaging habitat, to stay on the legal trails, and to not engage in reckless behavior that puts other people and wildlife at risk. Many trails, particularly the steeper, often rocky trails on which it is apparently difficult for most bicyclists to maintain control, are considerably wider today than they were in 2009 when MRCA began serving the City. Wider trails mean habitat impacts have occurred (not to mention visual blight). We see evidence of those types of illegal activities, but we are not seeing MRCA citations for them. Take a look again at the table of Preserve -related citations, above. How many citations do you find for damaging habitat? For going off legal trails? For reckless riding that erodes and widens the trail bed (let alone puts other users at risk)? (Note that the reference in the table to "Unauthorized trail use" as I understand it is to bikes being ridden on non -bike trails, but even if the 9 citations here were attributed to going off legal trails that is a tiny number compared to how frequently this activity actually occurs.) There are several reasons for not seeing MRCA citations for this activity. No doubt it is partly due to MRCA's limited presence in the Preserve, as described above. Other factors are at play as well, however, and some of these will have to be addressed regardless of which enforcement option is selected. Some things to consider no matter which enforcement option is selected: Whoever is selected must appreciate the importance of protecting the Preserve from damage. They will need to focus greater attention on difficult -to -target violations, such as reckless riding that leads to erosion, trail creep, and other vegetation destruction --violations that result in damage that is much more difficult and costly to "repair" than simply painting over graffiti or removing litter. That type of activity is also the type of activity that puts other Preserve users at risk. Existing ordinances should be examined to determine whether they target the types of behavior that are causing much of the damage in the Preserve. Perhaps the ordinance addressing reckless riding that threatens other people and wildlife should be expanded to include threats to vegetation. There should be on -the -ground cooperation and coordination between whoever is selected as the enforcer and RPV staff, PVPLC staff, and VTW members who are out in the Preserve. With the City's recent plan for hiring staff to supplement VTW and PVPLC staffs eyes and ears on the Preserve, what is needed is someone who will not only cite for violations that the enforcer himself/herself observes, but who also can (and will) promptly respond to reports of rule violations by these other "team" members. Consideration should be given to coverage for all hours that the Preserve is open, perhaps having the in-house ranger on call and responsive to others reporting on the ground in the Preserve. Consideration should also be given to what factors are likely to increase success in getting judges to uphold citations, because MRCA has reported that this has been a problem in the past. The Staff Report indicates that an in-house ranger would not be armed, so consideration should be given to the potential for situations to escalate to a level that may require Sheriff (armed) intervention, although hopefully this will be infrequent. In sum, it is vital that the best information and data available be leveraged to facilitate finding the most effective and cost-efficient solutions for achieving the goal of protecting and restoring the Preserve lands while accommodating reasonable public access that is reasonably safe from other users' activities. Thank you for considering my input. Eva Cicoria From: Sharon Neale <sharineale@att.net> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 10:55 AM To: CC Subject: Enforcement issues for PVPLC As a member of the community and a Trailwatch volunteer I believe the most effective action, both financially and practically is to eliminate current MRCA service and initiate in-house City -operated Park Ranger Program. I believe we will be much more effective as an enforcement entity if we have local supervision and oversight. By having an in-house operation I feel we will gain an increased dedication and greater effort by the Rangers to meet the goals of the City and the PVPLC. Thank you for addressing this issue. Shari Neale VTW participant From: Andrea Vona <avona@pvplc.org> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:44 PM To: Cory Linder; Doug Willmore; CC Subject: Enforcement Options Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Attachments: EnforcementDiscussion_15.pdf Good afternoon, Please see the attached letter regarding the council agenda item on enforcement in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrea Andrea Vona Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 310-541-7613 X204 310-930-0583 (cell) "Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all." r'Q,01, VFAPa 1. 111NINMILA P,J-0" PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL October 16, 2015 Cory Linder, Director, Recreation and Parks City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Enforcement Options Dear Cory, We are grateful for the recommendation and consideration of different enforcement options to increase and improve enforcement in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and enthusiastically support additional resources being used for this purpose. Drawing from our Pilot Project Report of the Volunteer Trail Watch, we have previously noted a correlation gap between the MRCA Ranger quarterly citation reporting and VTW Program incident reports. This correlation gap continues today. There were 52* citations issued from July 2014- June 2015 for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. During that same timeframe, Volunteer Trail Watch participants observed 377 instances of people engaging in violations of the Preserve Rules. The amount of time that the Volunteer Trail Watch participants are in the field is less than that of the contracted patrol time of the MRCA. Given the sizable gap between the number of citations issued and the number of observed rules violations, as well as the long lead time required to mobilize additional people, it is difficult to conclude that additional MRCA time would be useful in addressing violations occurring on the Preserve. Having the MRCA and Sheriffs work in combination to address violations would likely be a more effective option. The use of Sheriffs might require training with the Sheriffs to review and highlight the sensitivity of natural areas in the Preserve, since nature preserve patrol and patrols primarily on foot is not a standard practice of the Sheriffs Department, and we would gladly participate in any such training. Since a City Ranger program would be entirely new to the City, it is difficult for us to assess its effectiveness. While the analysis provided shows it to be more cost effective, and it would also allow the City of RPV more direct control of the outcome of services being provided, there may be a significant lag time between the decision to initiate such a program and its implementation. If this solution was selected, it would be best to phase this approach, implementing it only after the program was completely ready to mobilize. 916 SILVER SPUR ROAD # 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7613 WWW.PVPLC.ORG For any budgets considered, we also suggest that provision should be made for occasional camera placement in areas where there are continuous violations of laws and Preserve rules, and/or where excessive habitat damage is occurring. * Of the 83 citations issued during FY 14-15 as referenced in the staff report, 31 of these citations were not in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, but rather were related to fishing, no dogs on beach, etc. These are of course really important matters, but in adhering to the focus the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, it seems best to look at the citations that occurred on the Preserve, which numbered 52. Sincerely, '0�' -- - - I - Andrea Vona, Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy cc: Doug Willmore, City Manager RPV City Council 916 SILVER SPUR ROAD # 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG From: Barbara Ailor <barbailor@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:26 PM To: CC Cc: Eva Cicoria; Andrea Vona Subject: Enforcement on the Preserve Attachments: Enforcement CC 20 October 2015.docx; Enforcement CC 20 October 2015.pdf 2 Mayor Knight, Mayor ProTem Brooks, and Councilmembers Campbell, Duhovic, and Misetich, Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Enforcement Options; 20 October 2015 Thank you for requesting the Recreation and Parks Department to investigate options for increasing and improving enforcement in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. I am strongly in favor of the third option which would eliminate current MRCA service and initiate in-house City -operated Park Ranger Program. In-house City -operated Park Rangers providing 80 hours per week on the Preserve in concert with the part-time Preserve staff is a good option. I spoke with The Nature Conservancy's Conservation Track Program Director. She commiserated that enforcement is an issue everywhere, and she recommended more "boots on the ground" that are highly visible. This has proven to be a helpful deterrent to undesirable behavior. In addition, it would be tremendously helpful to have occasional high visibility of Sheriffs on the Preserve. Barbara Ailor VTW Volunteer, Co -Coordinator Mayor Knight, Mayor ProTem Brooks, and Councilmembers Campbell, Duhovic, and Misetich, Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Enforcement Options; 20 October 2015 Thank you for requesting the Recreation and Parks Department to investigate options for increasing and improving enforcement in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. I am strongly in favor of the third option which would eliminate current MRCA service and initiate in-house City -operated Park Ranger Program. In-house City -operated Park Rangers providing 80 hours per week on the Preserve in concert with the part-time Preserve staff is a good option. I spoke with The Nature Conservancy's Conservation Track Program Director. She commiserated that enforcement is an issue everywhere, and she recommended more "boots on the ground" that are highly visible. This has proven to be a helpful deterrent to undesirable behavior. In addition, it would be tremendously helpful to have occasional high visibility of Sheriffs on the Preserve. Barbara Ailor VTW Volunteer, Co -Coordinator