20170307 Late CorrespondenceMarch 7, 2017
Mayor Campbell, Mayor ProTem Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda, and Misetich
I am in complete agreement with Eva Cicoria's letter on vehicle access in the Preserve. I want
to enlarge on a couple of points:
1. First, a little history that some are not familiar with. The acquisition of the PV Nature Pre-
serve was made possible through procurement of LA County and State bonds which were
specifically stated for the acquisition of 'critical natural lands and wildlife habitat.' We had to
prove that. Those funds covered more than 85% of the total cost. In addition, donations
from the local community mounted to 15% of the total cost. The voters and local donors
agreed to the commitment that the funds were for the purchase of critical open space and
should be managed as such; not as an urban park with 4 to 6 foot wide jeep roads that will
grow in width due to parking, passing, and the like. The property possesses wildlife and
habitat of great importance: the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat provides a high quality envi-
ronment for the CA Gnatcatcher, Coastal Cactus Wren, El Segundo BlueButterfly, and Pa-
los Verdes Blue Butterfly. Preserve visitors cherish the songs of birds, the solitude,
walking on winding narrow trails and the feeling of being close to nature.
2. Second, I agree to limiting vehicle access to essential needs and NOT for convenience &
ease of operation. I disagree that a roadway is required for public safety & to handle emer-
gencies. A problem could arise anywhere. For example, back in 2005 or thereabouts, a
woman on a PV Nature Walk badly sprained her ankle on Rim Trail. Bad spot and difficult
to retrieve her even on foot. So a helicopter was brought in, dropped down on one rail, the
woman & her basket stretcher were tied to the helicopter. She was flown up to Del Cerro,
downloaded to an ambulance and off to the hospital. Very efficient and very clean and no
vehicles were used on the trail. Also if the sheriffs were to chase after a recalcitrant biker in
a Polaris, good luck. The biker is more agile, can dart into a narrow trail or go cross country.
The Preserve would rather let the bike go than suffer more bruises and disturbed habitat.
I understand the importance of developing a plan to control utility truck access. I object to daily
use of a Polaris. They are 5 feet wide, have extremely heavy tread, gas driven, noisy, and po/-
luting which detracts from the purpose of the Preserve. Please read Eva's letter carefully, study
all the photos and consider how and why we acquired this very special gam. in our back yards.
Violating and not respecting commitments made to secure the funds could create conflict with
the resource agencies and local donors; something to avoid.
Barbara Ailor
PVPLC Volunteer Y.'~trl~~~~~~~~--,,.·-~,"ff,:;'::;;
RECEl\IEv FFloM-~.~~-
/.\NO MADE ft. PAFH OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF:_.21_1.)_l'l.~·~-
OFFICE OF lHE CITY CL.ERK
CITY CLERK
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 7, 2017
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
1
2
3
4
6
Description of Material
Email exchange between Deputy City Manager Yap and Eva
Cicoria; Emails from Cassie Jones, Jim Knight; Letter from Henry
Jurgens
Email exchange between Director Linder and Councilwoman
Brooks; Email from Fran Simon
Email from April Sandell
Email from April Sandell
Email exchange between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters and
Paul Kim
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 6, 2017**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170307 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
cicoriae@aol.com
Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:08 AM
Gabriella Yap; CC
Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Ara Mihranian; Daniel Trautner; Ron Dragoo;
avona@pvplc.org
Subject: Re: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road--THE TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM
Ms. Yap and other interested parties,
Thank you for your response, Ms. Yap. I'm sorry that you are caught in the middle of this, but I don't
believe that the trail segment at issue was 6 feet wide in 2007. I trust what I see with my eyes on the
aerial photographs and what I know to be the case on the ground (and have tried to show in photos),
over a memory of 10 years ago that conveniently supports staff's desire to have a road connecting
Forrestal and Portuguese Bend Reserves.
Are you aware that the trail segment at issue (or a large part of it) is in Portuguese Bend Reserve, not
in Forrestal as the Staff Report asserts? This is just one error of many that I've found over the course
of staffs reporting on this subject. And it matters. Until 2005, the parcels had different owners and
different road systems, each of which stopped short of the canyon crossing to the other owner's land.
Do you have some evidence that City staff came in and graded a road to connect the parcels
between 2005 and 2007? Do you think the aerial photos I provided support such a claim?
Apart from the negatives presented by a vehicle access throughway across Klondike Canyon, there is
this issue of transparency that is troubling across the entire series of communications and City staff
reports on the subject. I've seen this before, notably when the Annenberg project came up. As an
involved resident, it is exceedingly frustrating to feel that staff is either uninformed or has some
agenda about which they are not being forthright. When I have an interest in a topic involving the
City, I start out assuming accuracy in reporting, then when I find something wrong, I assume it was
lack of knowledge or an inadvertent error and try to correct it. At some point, though, it begins to look
like self-serving obfuscation. I believe that staff reports, whether in Weekly Administrative Reports,
public forums, or City Council meetings ought to be straightforward, consistent, and inform all
interested parties of underlying, relevant facts and motivations.
In the case of Conqueror Trail, each report that came out had inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate
information, failed to include relevant information, and I am left feeling like staff was hiding the ball.
It began when City staff failed to inform the public about what they were up to. I was in a meeting
with staff just a week before this work was started in December and not a word was said about this
plan. In the monthly meetings prior to this, we shared that volunteers had been raising concerns
about the "eyebrow" forming at one end of the trail segment in question and about a 20 foot-long
stretch at the end of the trail segment that was becoming denuded. We had discussed the possibility
of placing rocks along the trail to better designate the trail bed. Not one word was mentioned about
the plan to designate this for vehicle access, not to mention begin grading it.
City staff has been asserting that this connecting road is needed for law enforcement and public
safety, but in their Quarterly Public Forum presentation, they asserted that the Sheriff deputies are
not asking for this increased access.
1 I .
Then I came to learn that City staff has moved their offices to Ladera Linda and wants to be able to
drive across from Forrestal to Portuguese Bend Reserve for "ease of operations". Not a word about
that appears in the Staff Report though. I think the public would want to know about this because it
speaks to whether this road connection is necessary or just convenient. And it speaks to the likely
frequency of use--frequency of use being a piece of information that is also missing in the Staff
Report but very important to the public.
Last and perhaps most important, there is no mention in the Staff Report that the Conservation
Easement recorded against Portuguese Bend Reserve in favor of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy specifically prohibits the City or its agents from using off-road vehicles at all and any
other motorized vehicles except on vehicle access roads. Highlighting this might have raised the
question of whether the Polaris should be in the Preserve at all. Moreover, if the determination is
made that this trail segment is not and has not been a vehicle access road, then the City is prohibited
from using it as such. It's no wonder staff is asserting that the trail segment has been used
historically by motorized vehicles. But that doesn't make it true.
This process and my efforts to coax greater transparency from staff have been exhausting and
disheartening, to say the least. I guess we'll find out tonight whether public efforts to shed light on a
subject are worthwhile or futile.
Eva Cicoria
Addendum:
Here are some other errors and inconsistencies in the reporting related to the Conqueror Trail
segment:
Weekly Administrative Report of 12/14/16
On the one hand, City staff claims that they, along with PVPLC staff are in the process of developing
a vehicle access plan, including determining which trails are needed for vehicular access. On the
other hand, they assert that Conqueror Trail has been designated as one of these roads/vehicular
access trails.
Staff asserts that, "The entire [Conqueror] trail accommodated vehicle use in the 2004-2006
timeframe." Photographic evidence belies that. Now we are told that Public Works recalls driving
across the trail segment in 2007 to inspect the Klondike Cyn drain. More likely Public Works drove in
from Forrestal to inspect that drain.
In the Administrative Report, Staff indicates they plan to widen the Conqueror Trail segment 3-4 feet;
in the City Council Staff Report, they say 2-3 feet.
The Administrative Report states that the segment of Conqueror Tr. which the City staff seeks to
convert to a road is only .05 mi of a .57 mi. trail, in other words about 1/10th of the trail. Based on the
map provided (ignoring the highlighting errors), the segment is actually more like 1/5th of the actual
Conqueror Tr.
Speaking solely about the map provided in the Admin Report as it relates to the sub-issue of
Conqueror Tr. conversion to a road, it was inaccurate. The narrow segment that staff seeks to turn
into a road is at the end of Conqueror Tr. where it meets Klondike Cyn. Tr., rather than in the middle
of a single, longer trail as depicted in the map. The highlighted portion of the map depicts Conqueror
2
Tr. as being longer than it is, with the single-track segment that staff seeks to turn into a road being in
the middle of it.
Quarterly Public Forum presentation.
Peppertree Trail is listed on the list of vehicle access roads, but is not highlighted on the map of
Portuguese Bend Reserve. So is it in the road plan or not?
Prickly Pear Trail is listed on the list of vehicle access roads, but is not highlighted or listed on the
map of Alta Vicente Reserve. So is it in the road plan or not?
Barkentine Trail is listed on the list of vehicle access roads, but is not highlighted or listed on the map
of Three Sisters. So is it in the road plan or not?
The power point presentation represented that Conqueror Trail was widened 2-3 feet. It was widened
more than that in some areas.
The presentation represented that Forrestal is only accessible for maintenance operations via
Conqueror Trail, but it is and has been accessible via the asphalt road system.
Staff Report.
Right from the get go, the Staff Report is less than transparent. The agenda description is to
"continue improvements" to Conqueror Trail. Why not call it what it is--trail widening to facilitate
vehicle access?
Then, as mentioned above, it refers to the trail work being in Forrestal Reserve. The trail segment
staff seeks permission to work on is in Portuguese Bend Reserve.
Of course, there are repeated assertions that the work is simply "restoring" vehicle access.
There is no mention in the report of cactus wrens or California gnatcatcher sightings in the area.
There is no mention that the Sheriff is not asking for this access road, although that is implied in
repeated assertions that this work is being done for their benefit.
There is no mention of staff's relocation plan.
And then there is the failure to mention in the Staff Report or in any other report that the Conservation
Easement recorded against Portuguese Bend Reserve in favor of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy specifically prohibits the City or its agents from using off-road vehicles at all and
motorized vehicles of any kind except on existing roadways. (See Prohibited Uses, Section
3(b).)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Daniel
Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tue, Mar 7, 2017 2:46 am
Subject: RE: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Dear Ms. Cicoriae,
3
Public Works confirmed that they drove a City vehicle to cross over the canyon back in 2007 during an inspection of the
upper Klondike Canyon drain. They remember the road being about 6 feet wide then. They do not recall which month it
was.
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203 Office
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 3:59 PM
To: Gabriella Yap; CC
Cc: Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Ara Mihranian; Daniel Trautner
Subject: Re: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Thank you for this clarification Ms. Yap. Are you able to share with us information as to what month of what year (or even
just what year) Public Works (or anybody else) drove a vehicle on the trail segment in question (as opposed to the wider
segment of Conqueror Trail that is not in dispute and is to the right in the photos) and what size that vehicle was? There
are steep slopes on each side of the trail segment at issue, so it's hard to imagine even a standard-size vehicle straddling
the 2-3' wide trail bed of this particular segment successfully.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wed, Mar 1, 2017 11:14 pm
Subject: RE: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Dear Ms. Cicoriae,
The City Clerk's Office let me know your concerns earlier today and that you wanted your email included in the staff
report instead of late correspondence. Generally, comments are not included in a staff report unless it's a public hearing
where it's been noticed, or items like ordinances where they come up for two readings and the public could have
comments after the first reading of the ordinance. Comments that come in after the agenda has been produced are
always included as late correspondence. I can assure you that your letter was sent to the appropriate staff as well as
received by the City Council this past weekend when you sent it originally, but we will include it again in Late
Correspondence for the public.
In regards to your assertions that Staff is "Relying on false history to support a case for building a road wastes the
public's and City Council's time as we wade through what is fact and what is fiction", members of our Public Works
Department who have been here a number of years and worked on projects in the Preserve confirmed that there was
vehicle access previously. It was not frequent, but Conqueror Trail was used. I understand that Google maps shows a
narrower stretch on Conqueror Trail. However, aerials can be misleading because of brush that has grown over and
because, as mentioned above, the vehicles were not used frequently. The Conqueror Trail road was used when needed
and I anticipate that would be the case in the future if the access road is reestablished.
4
While there was vehicle access there, that is not the reason for recommending Polaris access through the Conqueror
Trail. Our recommendation is based on best management practices, safety needs, and maintenance of the preserve.
Reestablishing this valuable access corridor between the Portuguese Bend and Forrestal Reserves (the most popular
reserve) allows for better responsiveness by public safety, maintenance, and enforcement personnel. Currently, you
would have to drive all the way around on surface streets to reach the other side of the preserve -not very efficient,
especially if you have an emergency. I hope that you can see we are trying our best to balance these needs and
responsibilities while still protecting the native habitat.
Please let us know if we can be of any more assistance.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203
(310) 544-5291 (fax)
From: cicoriae@aol.com [mail to :cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 10:41 PM
To: CC
Subject: Re: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I was surprised and disappointed to see that the letter, below, which I submitted Saturday morning,
was not included in the Staff Report for the March 7 Council meeting so that the general public could
read and consider this research against the Parks and Recreation Department's representations. I
contacted the City Clerk to confirm that it was received. She confirmed that it should have been
included in Public Correspondence and that she would inquire of Parks and Recreation staff why it
wasn't.
Meanwhile, I want you all to know that I stand by my research and conclusions.
Eva Cicoria
-----Original Message-----
From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov>; citymanager <citymanager@rpv.com>; avona <avona@pvplc.org>
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 9:00 am
Subject: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Mayor and Councilmembers, City Manager, PVPLC Executive Director, and other interested parties,
This email is being sent in an effort to get all to stipulate, going into the March 7 City Council meeting,
that the segment of Conqueror Trail which the City staff wants to widen to accommodate vehicles is
not currently used by vehicles, possibly never has been, and certainly has not been for at least the
past 15 years.
5
Following is a screenshot of the part of a City-prepared map (shown at Quarterly Public Forum
1/18/17) which indicates, in red, the segment of Conqueror Trail that City staff wants to widen to
accommodate vehicle access. It is included here as a frame of reference for what follows.
The photos below are a sequence of screenshots from Google Earth of the same segment of
Conqueror Trail. After looking over these, do you think the photos support the City staff's claim,
referring to Conqueror Trail, that "The entire trail accommodated vehicle use in the 2004-2006
timeframe, prior to continued storm runoff damage" (from Administrative Report for 12114/16)
or that this segment of trail represents "6/100ths mi. washed out in 2008 by storm water runoff",
or that what Parks and Rec staff commenced doing to this trail segment in December 2016 and seeks
to complete was/is merely "maintaining vehicle access" (both statements from page 10 of Parks
and Rec power point slide presentation at Quarterly Public Forum 1/18/17)?
In each screenshot, note the narrow segment in question in the middle of the screenshot, compared
to the wider segments of Conqueror Trail to the right, and Klondike Trail, to the left. (Numbers to the
ri ht of each screenshot are the Goo le Earth dates assigned to that map.)
002.6
6
003.12
7
005.12
006.3
8
007.7
008.7
9
012.8
10
What appears to be some trail widening near the bend in the trail visible in the above 2016 map is
actually an "eyebrow" on the hillside adjacent to the trail, reported many times over the past year as it
has developed from bikers veering up the hillside as they speed around the bend.
Relying on false history to support a case for building a road wastes the public's and City Council's
time as we wade through what is fact and what is fiction, rather than focusing on what is in the best
interests of making the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve the best accessible nature preserve it can be.
Hopefully, you all agree that the photos show that neither the City, utility companies, nor anybody
else has used the segment of Conqueror Trail in question as a throughway for vehicles for many,
many years, if ever. It's not necessary and it's not wanted, but more on that after the City staff report
comes out.
Thank you for agendizing this matter for the March 7 City Council meeting and thank you for your
time.
Eva Cicoria
11
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cassie <cassiej@aol.com>
Monday, March 06, 2017 8:35 PM
cc
Conqueror Trail work.
March_2017.pdf; ATTOOOOl.txt
Dear council members and honorable mayor,
Attached please find a letter from the PVPLC regarding Tuesday night's subject at the council meeting with respect to
the Conqueror Trail work. I apologize for the lateness of it. We really appreciate everything that you along with the
sheriff are doing to help improve user experiences on the preserves. While the staff is very eager to get the work done, I
think we need to proceed in a stepwise fashion so that everything that needs to get done does get done, and that we
don't have to repeat work or redo work (or worse undo work) later on.
Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Cassie Jones,
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy board of directors
1 I~
PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL
March 6, 2017
The Honorable Brian Campbell, Mayor,
Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Jerry Duhovic, and
Honorable Councilmembers Susan Brooks, Ken
Dyda, and Anthony Misetich
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: March 7 Agenda Item "Improvements to Conqueror Trail"
Dear Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda and Misetich:
With respect to the agenda item regarding "Improvements to Conqueror Trail," the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) requests the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) to postpone
widening of the Conqueror Trail until a comprehensive vehicle access plan for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve can be formed.
First though, PVPLC acknowledges the intent and effort of the City to address safety and enforcement
matters raised by a substantial number of preserve visitors and applauds the willingness of the Los
Angeles Sheriff's Department (Lomita Division) to enforce protection of habitat, user experience and
safety. Enforcement was determined necessary due to trail use violations.
Before addressing our Directors' concerns with the proposed agenda item, it is helpful to recall PVPLC's
two important obligations with respect to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, as our comments arise from
these obligations. One comprises PVPLC's rights and obligations in its role as habitat manager under its
Management Agreement with the City. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, PVPLC carries out the
obligations of the City with respect to habitat restoration and habitat and species monitoring (as set forth
in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or NCCP), and also advises the City on best practices
management for activities in the Preserve and provides monitoring and oversight of the City and third
parties in connection with such activities. This role is PVPLC's most visible role and these obligations
are those that are most often the topic of discussion.
The other obligation, and equally important, is PVPLC's obligation to enforce the Conservation
Easements recorded on the Preserve properties. The Conservation Easements create restrictions on the
City's ability to undertake certain activities in the Preserve. While the City owns the Preserve properties,
the City does not retain all rights incident to ownership.
These two PVPLC roles correspond with the City's two primary obligations with respect to the Preserve:
to forever maintain it as natural open space, and to restore habitat with the goal of restoring and
encouraging endangered or threatened species. Under the controlling documents (the NCCP and the
Conservation Easements), to which the City agreed, all activities in the Preserve must be consistent with
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7613 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
conservation values expressed in the NCCP. In return for incurring these obligations and limitations, the
City received the right to grant environmental permits for development projects outside the Preserve and
for work inside the Preserve, rather than the City or developers having to wait years for federal and state
environmental agencies to issue permits, or for environmental lawsuits to work their way through the
courts.
Both sets of corresponding PVPLC and City obligations are called upon to govern in the City's Parks and
Recreation Department's (Department) recent widening of, and request to further widen, Conqueror Trail
in Portuguese Bend Reserve (not in the Forrestal Reserve as the Staff Report erroneously indicates) in the
vicinity of Klondike Canyon in order to make it accessible to motorized vehicles.
Although PVPLC Staff worked with City Staff through the project form for the work already performed
on Conqueror Trail, PVPLC Staff's review of the project was to consider only direct impacts and did not
include a review of the indirect impacts associated with the added vehicle travel. PVPLC's Board
believes there are broader, strategic impacts associated with the Conqueror Trail work and the increased
vehicle traffic and potential for increased trail widening that the work portends. Input provided by the
state and federal wildlife agencies with jurisdiction over the NCCP has shown their support for a review
of these impacts.
Specifically, the Department's completed work and proposed work raises three concerns.
1. Proliferation of Vehicles in the Preserve.
Maintenance, management, enforcement and other activities in the Preserve (including public utilities and
ACLAD access) are going to require some number of motorized vehicle trips in the Preserve. The
purpose of the Preserve Access Protocol and Trail Maintenance and Inspection Program (referred to in
this letter as the Access and Trail Maintenance plans) that are to be developed after adoption of the NCCP
is to identify and control those trips. The Department is requesting to increase access but is not
delineating its vision for how vehicle trips in the Preserve are to be managed. Rather, the Department
continues a piecemeal approach wherein the Department requests seemingly small items one at a time,
without providing the public (or PVPLC) a larger, comprehensive and forward-thinking plan that helps to
understand impacts on the Preserve. Even in its own public reports, the Department refers to the current
requested widening as being limited to smaller vehicles and not full-size trucks "at this time." Repeatedly
returning to this conversation can be eliminated by postponing the widening until a detailed plan for
future vehicular access can be formed.
The point of the Preserve habitat-and the very reason for the existence of the NCCP-is to encourage an
increase in currently endangered and threatened species, which become more threatened as lands outside
of the Preserve are developed and redeveloped. Motorized vehicles are prohibited in the Preserve, except
in certain limited circumstances, for a reason. Motorized vehicles are noisy (when powered by gas, which
are the type used by the Department and the Sheriff), produce significant exhaust, contribute to erosion
and raise considerable dust that coats adjacent habitat. All of these factors are known to adversely impact
animals and birds. This is why motorized vehicles are often restricted in areas where protected species
exist, particularly during breeding seasons. Introducing an uncontrolled, unlimited number of vehicles
into the Preserve by creating one or more access points for convenience will actually be
counterproductive to the reason for having enforcement to keep people on trails. The Department's
current proposal may seem small and innocuous, but it is synchronous with increasing vehicle access
throughout the Preserve and needs to be evaluated in that context.
Moreover, increasing motorized vehicles in the Preserve is detrimental to the Preserve user experience
and to the trail-adjacent habitat the motorized vehicle use is supposed to protect. More users, or more
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
vehicles, will veer off trail when users and vehicles meet. More trails will be proposed for widening to
allow for vehicular use or to allow users and vehicles to safely pass. The dust raised from heavy
motorized vehicle use thins and kills trail-adjacent vegetation.
In this case, the cure becomes worse than the disease. Greater enforcement and better management are
both laudable and attainable goals wanted by all concerned. But they have to be done with appropriate
consideration for the impacts and whether they achieve the objectives or actually exacerbate the problem.
2. Potential Violation of Conservation Easements.
The applicable Conservation Easement (the segment under consideration by Council is in the Portuguese
Bend Reserve, not Forrestal as stated by City Staff) prohibits motorized vehicles except on "existing
roadways." The term "existing roadways" is not defined, nor is there a map or other guidance as to what
constitutes an existing roadway. However, evidence exists in terms of historical use, historical aerial
photographs, and previous City statements (including in connection with the Public Use Master Plan
development) that show that existing roadways are and have consistently been very limited. Objective
evidence strongly indicates that the segment of Conqueror Trail between the Portuguese Bend and
Forrestal Reserves was not and has not been used as a roadway. The portion of Conqueror Trail that lies
within Forrestal Reserve has existed as a roadway providing access to the Klondike Canyon waterway,
and the portion of Klondike Canyon Trail from the so-called Sandbox to the junction with Conqueror
Trail has also existed as a roadway for utilities access. But the 250-300 foot segment of Conqueror Trail
between those trails shows no evidence of having been a roadway. In fact the substantial cut and fill
performed by or at the City's request on this segment of Conqueror Trail, if necessary to allow vehicle
use as contended by the Department, would show that the trail could not have previously been used by
vehicles. Thus, the use of the roadway in question by motorized vehicles constitutes a potential violation
of the Conservation Easement.
The relevant Conservation Easement also prohibits grading and other earthworks in the Preserve (which
includes the building ofroads) except to the extent such grading is "allowed by the NCCP." Grading
permitted under the NCCP is found under the covered projects section, which identifies work for which
damage to habitat and covered species is deemed mitigated by the NCCP. Grading for roadways is not
specifically provided in the NCCP, except in a few instances where existing well access or utility access
may be cleared so long as there is no habitat or covered species lost.
3. Rush to implementation.
PVPLC's Board of Directors believes the approval of new vehicular access at this time is premature and
not in line with the expectations of the NCCP. Consideration of any new vehicular access should be
required to go through the agreed-upon process of developing the Access and Trail Maintenance plans,
which could conceivably be completed this year. As part of this process, new vehicular access should go
through the associated public process. It should not be rushed to implementation, with public input
sought only because community reaction demanded transparency from our local government. The state
and federal wildlife agencies have also advised that the project pending before Council should be
included in a Preserve Access Protocol.
A rush to implementation is not supported by the facts and circumstances in light of the near adoption of
the NCCP.
No emergency situation exists that has been identified to the public. Despite the Department's statements
that they are simply maintaining a previously existing roadway, no evidence has been provided in support
of that claim and substantial evidence has been provided to the contrary. Even assuming Department's
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
actions are maintaining an existing roadway, Conqueror Trail existed in its pre-widened condition for
many years with no detrimental effect.
With no immediate emergency, and with the development of a comprehensive plan to address the very
access issues the City is concerned about being just on the horizon, why the rush to push this through?
Enforcement is the most commonly cited concern but, again, it can wait another few months for a
comprehensive vehicular access enforcement plan. Even if enforcement is a key driver, we believe-and
the NCCP demands-that enforcement be executed in balance with resources to ensure public safety
while treading lightly on the land.
Although it gets infrequent mention, the Department has or will be placing its own staff in Ladera Linda,
leading to the conclusion that the Department is keenly interested in this access for convenience, but that
does not require urgency, as evidenced by the fact that since PVPLC and its volunteers have maintained
the Preserve for years without the necessity of this particular access point. Moreover, convenience alone
is not sufficient justification to override the conservation principles governing the Preserve.
Given all the foregoing concerns, the Board of Directors of PVPLC urges City Council to direct City
Staff to delay widening of Conqueror Trail until such widening can be considered in the broader context
of the NCCP and Conservation Easements and addressed in the comprehensive, transparent and publicly
available roadway and vehicle access plan for the Preserve.
Again, we acknowledge the City's intent and effort to address safety and enforcement matters raised and
applaud the enthusiasm and willingness of the sheriffs to enforce protection of habitat, user experience
and safety.
Sincerely,
Cassie Jones
President, Board of Directors, Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 07, 2017 11:30 AM
cc
Andrea Vona (avona@pvplc.org)
Agenda item 1 3-7-2017
To: the Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Knight
Date: 3/7/2017
RE: Agenda Item # 1
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
The staff report to widen Conqueror Trail is missing some very important information.
1) The "2015 Comprehensive Management and Monitoring Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Draft
Natural Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan" clearly shows several
Gnatcatchers observed very near, if not next to, Conqueror Trail. The report goes on to state that the
Gnatcatcher count was down from a previous survey done in 2012.
The (coastal) California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica is listed as a Federally
Threatened species and is one of the prime reasons the NCCP and the Nature Preserve were created. The NCCP
document, and State funding conditions, clearly state that protection of habitat and sensitive species are the
primary goal of the Preserve and that the Public Use Management Plan is secondary and must not impact this
primary goal.
I do not see this issue discussed in the staff report given to you. I was unaware that Kurt Loheit is the
official habitat manager for the PVPLC as stated in the staff report but, if he has not made the city staff aware of
this, then I am sure someone in the PVPLC can verify the information.
1 I
2) The staff report states that the project area consists of an improved multi-use trail that has been historically
used for vehicular access. This statement is misleading. First, if you look at historic aerial photos from Google
Earth (as Eva Cicoriae has sent to you), you can clearly see that this is a narrow trail, not a road.
The staff report is mixing apples and oranges. Historically it is true that emergency and utility vehicles
have had access to the Preserve for public safety and maintenance. The NCCP does allow for emergency access
knowing that it is only on an occasional basis. But to open this trail for ATV vehicles to regularly travel this
segment has an entirely different ongoing impact that could have serious effects on a Federally Threatened
Species.
The enforcement of Preserve rules seems to be operating well with the existing conditions. I have not seen a
report that the Sheriff, the Volunteer Patrol or any other enforcement entity has indicated this trail access needs
to be widened for public safety.
3) The Staff report states that the City does not believe in widening trails to accommodate particular user
groups, nor does the City believe that all the Preserve trails should be widened to accommodate
vehicles. Despite what the city believes, if you build it they will come.
Please do not widen this trail segment as it could cause serious impacts to the primary purpose of the Preserve.
Thank you,
Jim Knight
2
Honorable Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda, and Misitich
Re; regular business item #1, Conqueror Trail, Vehicular access on the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve,
March 7, 2017
My name is Henry Jurgens, I have been a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for 34 years. I am a Docent
and current Treasurer of Los Serenos de Point Vicente and past president of the Palos Verdes Land
Conservancy.
I strongly object to turning trails into access roads for vehicles.
When trail usage was developed for the Preserves many outreach community workshops were held. I
find it incredible that Council will consider roads being built without a single event involving the
community.
Additionally, the Land Conservancy holds a Conservation Easement over the Preserve and Federal and
State monies that were given to purchase the land under the NCCP indicate that the terms of these
agreements are in conflict with what Council proposes.
RECEIVED
CITY Of-RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MAR 0 7 2011
-CITY ClERK'S OFFf"cE-
( .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Matt Waters
Tuesday, March 07, 2017 2:03 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Bubbles Design-
Late correspondence for Civic Center item tonight
From: Cory Linder
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:43 PM
To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Bubbles Design-
Hi Councilwoman Brooks:
I got your voice mail message and as you recall, the preliminary rendering we shared in the staff report was more to give
people an idea as to the location and whether Bubbles should be vertical or horizontal. It was merely something to get
the creativity flowing and was by no means our proposed design. I will clarify that as well at the meeting tonight.
One of the recommendations tonight is to seek a professional who can take a rendering to the next level with the
elements desired by the community and the Council.
If you have any other questions, just let me know. THANKS, CORY
CORY A. LINDER, Director
Department of Recreation and Parks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: Susan Brooks
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:33 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CorvL@rpvca.gov>; Ron Dragoo <RonD@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Bubbles Design-
Hi.
I just checked the website for The Workshop-LA, and the designer who was working with us on the
Recognition Wall was Scott Martin, Not Alex Ocampo. Anyway, that wall WILL be built eventually, and the
design is upscale with curves that mimick the ocean. It is beautiful.
I'd like to see if we can incorporate that style into this design. Who knows, they could eventually be in the
same general location.
Check this out:
http://www.theworkshop-la.com/
1 2.
Best,
Susan
Susan Brooks
Councilwoman
Rancho Palos Verdes
(Home) 310/ 541-2971
(City Hall) 310/544-5207
~/mvca.gov/
Sent from my iPhone
~
EJ1
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello,
Fran Simon <fransimonrpv@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:31 PM
CC; Matt Waters
Tonight's council meeting discussion of Bubbles -letter attached
Letter to Mayor & City Council re-Bubbles March 2017.docx
Attached you will find my letter to the Mayor and the members of City Council regarding tonights council
meeting issue discussing "Bubbles".
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Fran Simon
1 2.
March 7, 2017
Dear Mayor Campbell and members of City Council,
My name is Fran Simon and I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and the President of Los
Serenes de Point Vicente. Today I am writing to you as a resident.
I am in favor of Bubbles being displayed on the Point Vicente Interpretive Center's property at
the entry marquee #3.
I would like to see the 2 white sided dolphins on display with Bubbles, after all they are a team.
One of the white sided dolphins is completely refurbished and looks beautiful and is currently
on display inside the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. From what I understand the other one
is in storage.
I appreciate the city staff's rendering of what the backdrop and container for Bubbles might
look like, but the lettering fonts that were used look a little too cartoonish for an Interpretive
Centers entrance. The sign to The Point Vicente Interpretive Center should be as large and as
consistent as all the other park signage throughout RPV.
It is also important to have a sign explaining the history of Bubbles.
I also think that a container with flowers around the border is not a good idea. As we all know,
flowers die during drought season, additionally Bubbles is a sea creature. Maybe something
like a cement enclosure with waves carved into it and the waves painted blue (or not} would be
more appropriate for the exhibit.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Sincerely,
Fran Simon
17 Packet Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:24 AM
cc
3 AND 4 ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Just stop it.
Yours truly,
April L. Sandell
1 3. f-Lf.
From: Matt Waters
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:59 PM
Paul Kim
Cc:
Subject:
Gabriella Yap; Kit Fox; Nathan Zweizig; Teresa Takaoka
RE: Civic Center Survey Results are In!
Dear Mr. Kim,
Thank you for your email. I will make sure it is added as late correspondence for tonight's Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p -(310) 544-5291 f
From: Paul Kim [mailto:scpaulkim@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:47 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Civic Center Survey Results are In!
Hi Matt,
Thanks to you and the city for doing the survey and actually gathering the opinions of the residents. If you can
forward this email to the City Council at tonight's meeting, I would appreciate it.
I would like to address question 2t: "Establishing more formal trailheads (with parking) to allow for access to
the Preserve and to relieve pressure on neighborhoods located near other trailheads"
I am very pleased to see that this proposal received the 2nd highest level of support and that most of the
residents in Rancho Palos Verdes agree with my and my neighborhood's sentiments that there needs to be a
separate entrance to the trails AWAY from residential neighborhoods.
I live in the Del Cerro neighborhood near the Portuguese Bend Preserve trails, and what used to be a quiet
(typical RPV) neighborhood has now become a complete fiasco and a very noisy commercial atmostphere,
1 G&
with 500 to 1000 visitors and cars coming in and out of our residential neighborhood, all times of the day and
night, 7 days of week. With the recent increase in crime and home invasion burgleries in RPV, and with the
city allowing night time hikes, it has become extremely difficult to distinquish between hikers and would be
home invasion burglers, especially at night.
I implore the city council to listen to the voices of the RPV residents (via the survey results} and 1} establish a
formal entrance to the Portuguese Bend Preserve trails at the bottom of the hill on the south side, within the
preserve, AWAY from neighborhood homes and 2} close off the trail entrance in the residential neighborhood
area of Del Cerro. This would not only be beneficial to the residents of RPV but also to the many hikers who
use the trails. (Hikers have always complained that the Portuguese Bend trails are backwards -that they start
at the top and go down and have to climb back up.}
Thank you,
SC Paul Kim
RPV resident
From: Civic Center Master Plan <listserv@civicplus.com>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 4:05 PM
To: scpaulkim@hotmail.com
Subject: Civic Center Survey Results are In!
View this in your browser
This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being sent to subscribers of this list who might be interested
in its content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is a non-monitored email address. If
there is contact information it will be included in the body of the message.
This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. If you do not wish to continue
receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx
2
Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without
your explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Civic Center Master Plan on www.rpvca.gov. To
unsubscribe, click the following link:
the link doesn't the link into your browser.
3
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: MARCH 6, 2017
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, March 7, 2017 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email exchange between Deputy City Manager Yap and Eva
Cicoria; Email exchanges between Administrative Analyst II Lozano
and: Noel Park; Jorg and Anke Raue; Virginia Cicoria; Emails from:
Eva Cicoria; Joan Kelly; Kurt Loheit
2 Email exchanges between Senior Administrative Analyst Waters
and: Yvetta Williams; Ann Zellers and Paul Port; Emails from: Betty
Riedman; Natalie Massey
4 Emails from: Rod Uyeda; Sandra Valeri
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Emily Colborn
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170307 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: Gabriella Yap
Sent:
To:
Thursday, March 02, 2017 4:06 PM
cicoriae@aol.com; Gabriella Yap; CC
Cc:
Subject:
Cory Linder; Katie Lozano; Ara Mihranian; Daniel Trautner
RE: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Dear Ms. Ciccoriae,
Yes, I'll forward your email and have Staff respond. Sony this is so brief-in meeting now.
Gabriella
Sent from my Samsun g device
--------Original message --------
From: cicoriae@aol.com
Date : 3/2/2017 3:59 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Gabriella Yap <gyap @rpvca.gov>, CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <C oryL@rpvca.gov>, Katie Lozano <KatieL @rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <AraM @rpvca .g ov>,
Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Thank you for this clarification Ms. Yap. Are you able to share with us information as to what month of what year (or even just
what year) Public Works (or anybody else) drove a vehicle on the trail segment in question (as opposed to the wider segment of
Conqueror Trail that is not in dispute and is to the right in the photos) and what size that vehicle was? There are steep slopes
on each side of the trail segment at issue, so it's hard to imagine even a standard-size vehicle straddling the 2-3' wide trail bed of
this particular segment successfully.
Eva
-----Original Message-----
From : Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca .gov>
To: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca .gov>; Daniel Trautner
<DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wed, Mar 1, 2017 11 :14 pm
Subject: RE : Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Dear Ms. Cicoriae,
The City Clerk's Office let me know your concerns earlier today and that you wanted your email included in the staff report
instead of late correspondence . Generally, comments are not included in a staff report unless it's a public hearing where it's
been noticed, o r items like ordinances where they come up for two readings and the pub lic could have comments after the
first reading of the ordinance . Comments that come in after the agenda has been produced are always included as late
correspondence. I can assure you that your letter was sent to the appropriate staff as well as received by the City Counci l this
past weekend when you sent it originally, but we w i ll i nclude it again in Late Correspondence for the public.
1 /.
In regards to your assertions that Staff is "Relying on false h istory to support a case for building a road wastes the public 's and
City Council's time as we wade through what is fact and what is fiction", members of our Public Works Department who have
been here a number of years and worked on projects in the Preserve confirmed that there was vehicle access previously. It was
not frequent, but Conqueror Trail was used . I understand that Google maps shows a narrower stretch on Conqueror Trail.
However, aeria ls can be misleading because of brush that has grown over and because, as mentioned above, the vehicles were
not used frequently. The Conqueror Trail road was used when needed and I anticipate that would be the case in the future if
the access road is reestablished.
While there was vehicle access there, that is not the reason for recommending Polaris access through the Conqueror Trail. Our
recommendation is based on best management practices, safety needs, and maintenance of the preserve. Reestablishing this
valuable access corridor between the Portuguese Bend and Forrestal Reserves (the most popu lar reserve) allows for better
responsiveness by public safety, maintenance, and enforcement personnel. Currently, you would have to drive all the way
around on surface streets to reach the other side of the preserve -not very efficient, especially if you have an emergency. I
hope that you can see we are trying our best to balance these needs and responsibilities while still protecting the native
habitat.
Please let us know if we can be of any more assistance .
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203
(310) 544-5291 (fax )
From: cicor iae@aol.com [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 10:41 PM
To: CC
Subject: Re: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I was surprised and disappointed to see that the letter, below, which I submitted Saturday morning, was not
included in the Staff Report for the March 7 Council meeting so that the general public could read and
consider this research against the Parks and Recreation Department's representations. I contacted the
City Clerk to confirm that it was received. She confirmed that it should have been included in Public
Correspondence and that she would inquire of Parks and Recreation staff why it wasn't.
Meanwhile, I want you all to know that I stand by my research and conclusions .
Eva Cicoria
-----Original Message-----
From : cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com >
To: cc <cc@rpvca.gov >; citymanager <c itymanager@rpv .com >; avona <avona@pvplc.org >
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 9 :00 am
Subject: Proof that Conqueror Trail segment is not a road
Mayor and Councilmembers, City Manager, PVPLC Executive Director, and other interested parties,
This email is being sent in an effort to get all to stipulate, going into the March 7 City Council meeting, that
the segment of Conqueror Trail which the City staff wants to widen to accommodate vehicles is not
2
currently used by vehicles, possibly never has been, and certainly has not been for at least the past 15
years.
Following is a screenshot of the part of a City-prepared map (shown at Quarterly Public Forum 1/18/17)
which indicates, in red , the segment of Conqueror Trail that City staff wants to widen to accommodate
vehicle acc~ss. It is included here as a frame of reference for what follows.
The photos below are a sequence of screenshots from Google Earth of the same segment of Conqueror
Trail. After looking over these, do you think the photos support the City staff's claim, referring to Conqueror
Trail, that "The entire trail accommodated vehicle use in the 2004-2006 timeframe, prior to continued
storm runoff damage" (from Administrative Report for 12/14/16) or that this segment of trail represents
"61100ths mi. washed out in 2008 by storm water runoff", or that what Parks and Rec staff commenced
doing to this trail segment in December 2016 and seeks to complete was/is merely "maintaining vehicle
access" (both statements from page 10 of Parks and Rec power point slide presentation at
Quarterly Public Forum 1/18/17)?
In each screenshot, note the narrow segment in question in the middle of the screenshot, compared to the
wider segments of Conqueror Trail to the right, and Klondike Trail, to the left. (Numbers to the right of each
screenshot are the Google Earth dates assigned to that map.)
3
2004.4
2005.1
4
5
6
013.4
7
016.2
What appears to be some trail widening near the bend in the trail visible in the above 2016 map is actually
an "eyebrow" on the hillside adjacent to the trail, reported many times over the past year as it
has developed from bikers veering up the hillside as they speed around the bend .
Relying on false history to support a case for building a road wastes the public's and City Council's time as
we wade through what is fact and what is fiction, rather than focusing on what is in the best interests
of making the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve the best accessible nature preserve it can be.
Hopefully, you all agree that the photos show that neither the City, utility companies, nor anybody else has
used the segment of Conqueror Trail in question as a throughway for vehicles for many, many years, if
ever. It's not necessary and it's not wanted, but more on that after the City staff report comes out.
Thank you for agendizing this matter for the March 7 City Council meeting and thank you for your time.
Eva Cicoria
8
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Mr. Park,
Thank you for your email.
Katie Lozano
Thursday, March 02, 2017 4:19 PM
noelparkone@gmail.com
cc
FW: Agenda Item 1, 3/7 /17 Council Meeting
The contributions to Rancho Palos Verdes residents' quality of life by both the PVPLC organization,
donors, and volunteers (including yourself) are immeasurable. They are a critical reason why the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve exists, and the Preserve is cherished by residents, and not initially anticipated, the
larger LA County area. The City values their opinions and understands-and is grateful for-their desire to
be active participants in the protection and operation of the Preserve.
Regarding the procedure that City and PVPLC staff put together to improve transparency on Preserve
projects and maintenance, it was unfortunate that not many attended the January 18th Preserve Public
Forum Meeting to see the presentation on vehicle access and the Conqueror Project. Three individuals
spoke on the item. However, we have had some phone calls since then, and staff was able to email the
interested individuals the presentation and discuss the topic with them.
One piece of misinformation that has been circulating, that the City is trying hard to correct, is that City
Staff is interested in widening all trails, and creating a new network of roads to increase vehicle use in the
Preserve. However, we are not looking to create new roads or increase traffic, rather to create better
connectivity by improving this 240-foot long stretch.
Regarding Ms. Cicoria's maps, it can be difficult to use aerials to determine trail use, as less frequent use
results in less scarring on a trail. However, senior Staff who have been with the City many years confirmed
vehicle use (on a lesser scale) on this section of Conqueror. But it is important that the purpose of
restoring the connection isn't that it has had historic vehicle use, but rather that is a valuable public safety
and maintenance corridor between two of the City's most popular nature reserves, and the
recommendation for vehicle access on it would be made regardless of the historic use.
While the purpose of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is habitat conservation, the City, with strong public
support, chose to open the Preserve to the public for passive recreational use. With public use, and
especially use at the level the Preserve gets, and the fact that our most popular reserve areas are located
in active landslides, effective management becomes necessary to protect both the resource and the
public. Management includes enforcement, public safety, habitat/species conservation, maintenance, risk
management, public education ... and much more. Per the Preserve planning documents, the City and
PVPLC both have management roles. While PVPLC's role is habitat manager, the City's responsibilities
include enforcement, public safety, and maintenance. In fact, the City is the agency ultimately responsible
for the success or failure of the Preserve, including its natural resources.
Staffs' goals are to protect this valuable and community cherished resource, and also the people using
it. You are absolutely correct that its success requires harmonious management between the managing
partners.
1 /. Please feel free to contact me directly.
Thank you,
Open Space Manager/Administrative Analyst II
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 11:42 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 1, 3/7 /17 Council Meeting
I am strongly opposed to this Agenda Item.
The staff report states that a "more transparent process" has been established to enable Preserve access issues to be
addressed. That this is not true is illustrated by what happened after staff presented its proposed access plan at the
January 18 Preserve Public Forum meeting.
At the very next Council meeting a large number of stakeholders spoke out against the plan, a clear indication that
there had NOT been effective public outreach or input.
While they would be too modest to say so, I would remind you that those stakeholders represent families who, in
aggregate, have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands of volunteer hours to the
Nature Preserve. They are stakeholders in the strongest sense of the word. To rudely ignore their concerns is insulting,
and clearly not the way we want to run our City.
As the staff report correctly points out, the NCCP requires that an access plan be jointly established by the Land
Conservancy, the City, the cognizant wildlife agencies, and other government entities and/or utility companies
requiring access. This has not been done. To begin road development on a piecemeal basis in the absence of a plan
would be improper and premature.
The Nature Preserve is not an urban park. While Land Conservancy members and the City contributed substantial
funding for its acquisition, State bond financing played a major role as well. The purpose of the State grants was
habitat restoration and protection, and hopefully recovery, of threatened and endangered species. This is also clearly
the mission of the NCCP. These goals are not advanced by introducing more motorized vehicles into the Preserve.
I spoke out loudly in favor of contracting with the Sherrif for policing the Preserve. Now the law of unintended
consequences has taken a hand. If I had known that it would result in this push to widen trails to let them ride around
more in their Polaris, I might have kept my mouth shut. The idea of City staff riding around in their "Gator" is even
more troubling.
I direct your attention to the maps submitted by Ms. Eva Cicoriae documenting the untruth of the claim that the
Conqueror Trail was previously a road.
This proposal gives the strong impression of a tone deaf attempt by staff to go forward with its unilateral, unvetted,
unapproved access plan on a piecemeal basis. By this means, it would outflank, and hopefully silence, the deeply
concerned stakeholders. I devoutly hope that you will not allow this to happen.
2
Finally, I am bound to say that the whole tone of this staff report, and the events leading up to it, give a me a strong
feeling of an impending power struggle between City staff and the Land Conservancy over control of the Preserve.
The report characterises the role of the Land Conservancy as "habitat management". Well, the whole of the Preserve
is habitat, including the road(s) and trails. Any change to the them, particularly increased use of motor vehicles, is a
change to the habitat.
There is no one more qualified to manage the Preserve than the Land Conservancy. The Preserve must be managed in
a truly harmonious way by the Land Conservancy, the City, and the stakeholders, who have so much of their own
money and sweat equity invested. For the City staff to try to shove its agenda down the throats of the others involved
is a great mistake. It would only lead to greater problems and less than optimum results in the future.
Thank you for your patience and consideration.
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
RPV 90275
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Friday, March 03, 2017 11:45 AM
Katie Lozano; CC
Agenda Item 1, 3/717 Council Meeting
This is in response to your email of 2/2/17.
While presented in courteous language, the underlying message of your email is that the City intends to widen the
trail, whether these critical stakeholders like it or not. This is unacceptable.
The preliminary access plan presented at the sparsely attended routine meeting you referenced is supposed to be
finalized by consensus of all of the partners. It provoked an immediate large response at the subsequent City Council
meeting. Now a piecemeal implementation is proposed, with no prior notice to, much less consultation with, those
partners. To call this a public and transparent process is, to put it in the most charitable possible terms, incorrect.
If there is any sincerity in your closing statement. "You are absolutely correct that its success requires harmonious
management between the managing partners", this is not the way to achieve it.
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
RPV 90275
1 /.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Raue,
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 06, 2017 3:11 PM
Anke Raue (ankeraue@verizon.net)
cc
FW: agenda item for Tuesday
Thank you for your email. Staff actually believes that restoring this vehicle access corridor will help deputies catch and correct
motorized vehicle misuse in the Preserve. Our misuse patterns are that dirt bikes tend to come in illegally from the Forrestal
entry points. Larger vehicles do not access this area likely because of the post placed in the center of the entry point (however
this type of vehicle diversion device can be removed with a key by authorized personnel). Just a few months ago, Deputies
encountered dirt bikes on Forrestal Drive (likely leaving Forrestal Reserve). If small vehicle access were restored to this trail,
deputies would also be able to pursue dirt bikers entering Forrestal (this can't be done successfully on foot).
Other vehicle use patterns we are seeing are dirt bikes entering from Palos Verdes Drive South into Lower Portuguese Bend,
and recreational vehicles (like ATVs and golf carts ... and occasionally 4x4 trucks) entering from the private Portuguese Bend
Community and Rolling Hills entry points afterhours. However, these recreational vehicles tend to enter the Preserve from
private communities to off road or "play" a bit and then return. We don't anticipate them driving all the way over to
Forrestal. We are working hard to correct this vehicle misuse, as it is very damaging to habitat and trails. One important way
we are working to combat it is to analyze and address our numerous entry points (authorized and unauthorized) into
Portuguese Bend Reserve. There are currently over 15 in Portuguese Bend alone.
Thank you,
Open Space Manager/Administrative Analyst II
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: Anke Raue <ankeraue@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 5:02:33 PM
To: CC
Subject: agenda item for Tuesday
Regarding staff report on widening of Conqueror Trail: most of the Reserves are getting more intensive usage every
year, generating costly maintenance problems and destruction of habitat!
At first reading it makes sense to allow ways for sheriff patrols a faster response opportunity, but on the flip side
it surely will also invite an increase in "scofflaws" with motorized vehicles using the PVDrive/ Forrestal/ Del Cero drive
through!
We implore you to think about this very carefully!
1 /. Sincerely.
Jorg and Anke Raue
28813 Rothrock Dr
RPV
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Cicoria,
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 06, 2017 3:21 PM
ginnymayc@gmail.com
CC; 'Andrea Vona' (avona@pvplc.org)
FW: Conqueror Trail in the PV Nature Preserve
Thank you for your email and your long-time support of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Staff agrees that it would be
ineffective to rely solely on law enforcement to correct environmental degradation caused by public use in the
Preserve. Effective management includes enforcement and so much more-and management tools become even more
necessary in open space areas that are governed by Natural Community Conservation Permits, because the City will be held to
more stringent standards for habitat and species conservation by the state and federal governments. However, we are finding
right now, that our Preserve Deputies are providing a high level of service that is very effective.
While the goal is to govern the Preserve consistent with its founding principles, we're finding that a higher level of
management is necessary than what was originally anticipated largely because of the unexpected popularity of the Preserve
and increasing level of use (mostly by visitors from the larger LA County area-who are unaware of the Preserve's founding
principles). This is resulting in repercussions on Preserve natural resources, safety, and neighbors, such as the noise and
parking impacts to Del Cerro neighbors, cliff jumping deaths at Abalone Cove, trail damage because our trails are not designed
or engineered to withstand the level of use they are getting, and more. In fact, the City currently spends more than three
times its originally projected budget on Preserve management. However, we are not alone in that exhaustion of natural open
space areas is a top trending concern California land managers are working to address, because communities love and want
these areas. The City and PVPLC will need to review and implement adaptive management strategies to protect this resource
moving forward.
Regarding the specific Conqueror Trail Project, repairing this road would not result in a net increase of vehicle activity in the
Preserve, rather it would create connectivity for enforcement where it is specifically needed between 2 of our 3 most heavily
used Reserves: Portuguese Bend and Forrestal. The last substantial increase in vehicle use in the Preserve was in 2009, when
the City chose to provide dedicated enforcement in the Preserve.
City Staff is dedicated to working with our management partners to look at effective management practices that will best
protect the Preserve, its visitors, and the principles on which it was founded.
Please feel free to contact me directly.
Thank you,
Open Space Manager/Administrative Analyst II
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
Js.atifil@mvca ._ggy
From: Virginia Cicoria <ginnymayc@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 12:03:23 PM
To: CC
1 /.
Cc: Andrea Vona
Subject: Fwd: Conqueror Trail in the PV Nature Preserve
Honorable Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda, and
Misetich,
The founding vision for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve was a place for quiet retreat in natural open
space. That vision began to be realized with the establishment of a nature preserve that offers retreat to
not only people but to rare and threatened birds and butterflies.
While there will be threats to that vision from time to time, we--RPV, PVPLC, law enforcement, and
volunteer caretakers of the Preserve--should keep our eye on the vision and implement practices to
facilitate that vision, erring on the side of less urban intrusion, rather than responding by building
infrastructure and introducing vehicles to control Preserve visitors and their behavior.
If you approve the proposal to build a throughway down Purple Sage Trail and Conqueror Trail to Klondike
Canyon Trail, you will set the Preserve on a course that we don't believe we will be able to recover
from. This is not hyperbole. You will be saying, in effect, that the only way to protect the Preserve and the
people in it is to have vehicles driving around in it. I don't believe that is true. The Volunteer Trail Watch
boots-on-the ground method supports maintenance, public safety, enforcement, and education while
having minimal impact on the ground or on the nature of the Preserve. And the program has grown to 75
members at present.
It is within your power to help chart a course for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve that is consistent with
the vision of those who founded the Land Conservancy and the Preserve and those who continue to
support it.
Please leave this trail segment to be a trail and not a road.
Very truly yours,
Virginia Cicoria
cc: Andrea Vona, Executive Director of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
cicoriae@aol.com
Saturday, March 04, 2017 8:13 PM
cc
avona@pvplc.org
Conqueror Trail
Appendices A and B.pdf
Mayor Campbell, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda, and Misetich,
City Staff commenced a project to widen a segment of Conqueror Trail (the "Trail Segment") for vehicle
access in early December 2016, with the justification that they were simply maintaining an existing
roadway. City staff insists that "the entire trail accommodated vehicle use in the 2004-2006 timeframe,
prior to continued storm runoff damage." Evidence I submitted by letter dated January 25, 2017 shows that
the Trail Segment was too narrow to accommodate vehicle use before, during and after that time frame,
and that what staff is actually asking you to approve is conversion of the Trail Segment to a roadway for
motorized vehicles. Appendix A, attached, provides further evidence of that.
I believe, and terms of the Conservation Easement agree, that vehicle use in the Preserve should be
severely limited. I'm aware of cactus wrens and California gnatcatchers just off Conqueror Trail in the area
we're discussing and I don't believe vehicles should be frequenting that area on a regular basis. Moreover,
I will show you some photographic evidence of the damage vehicles have done to the Preserve's habitat,
topography and scenic landscape, undermining our preservation and protection efforts. City staff asserts
that a road throughway is needed for public safety. I'm going to show you that assertion is suspect. I hope
that in the end you agree that not only is a vehicle access road across the Trail Segment not needed, it is
counterproductive to our preservation efforts.
VEHICLE USE IN THE PRESERVE SHOULD BE SEVERELY LIMITED.
Every vehicle trip through the Preserve has impacts--impacts on the trails, habitat, and trail users'
enjoyment and sense of tranquility. Vehicles bring dust, noise and an increased sense of urbanization of
the Preserve. Vehicle trips may also represent stressors that have impacts on threatened species.
Vehicles, authorized and unauthorized, routinely widen trails, even when the trails are already 10 feet wide,
by going off trail to get out of the way of trail users or to park. Unauthorized vehicles have entered the
Preserve at vehicle access points, then continued onto narrower trails and done considerable damage.
Errors have also been made by personnel authorized to enter the Preserve with their vehicles. These
errors have had an enormous impact, creating visual blight, trashing habitat, shutting down trails at times,
and adding a large maintenance and repair burden. Habitat restoration is slow and topography
rehabilitation simply doesn't happen, so the public feels the impacts of these vehicle assaults for many
years. These impacts are many multiples of the impact of a hiker, horse, or bike off trail.
There is considerable photographic evidence of this over the years. I refer you to Appendix B, attached.
There is no dispute that some vehicular access into the Preserve is necessary, but vehicular access in the
Preserve is extensive and growing, much of it simply because in the moment it is easier and City staff is
accustomed to it in managing parks. There is a heavy cost, though, both on the ground and to the quality
of the trail user experience.
THE STAFF CLAIM THAT A ROAD THROUGHWAY FROM FORRESTAL TO PORTUGUESE BEND/
RESERVE IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IS SUSPECT.
1 •
1) In a true emergency, fire and law enforcement personnel will go where they need to be whether
the area is accessible by road, trail or otherwise. There are many areas of the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve that are not accessible by dirt road; there are areas that are not even accessible by trail. We
don't know where a particular emergency may occur in the future and to plan vehicle access roads in
anticipation of emergencies that may or may not occur makes no sense in a nature preserve.
2) Sheriff deputies are not seeing a lot of activity in the Preserve that raises public safety concerns.
I refer you to the RPV/LASD Deputy Activity Reports. Sheriff deputies have issued citations to very few
Preserve visitors over their first six months of patrolling in the Preserve. The RPV/LASD Deputy Activity
Reports indicate that over the six months from July-December 2016, in 1,568 hours of active patrol, Sheriff
deputies issued 41 citations. Citations were issued for dogs off leash or on the beach, people off trail or in
closed areas, and bikers on non-bike trails. It's reasonable to infer that the deputies are not seeing a lot of
crime in the Preserve. The reports mention assist events, but don't elaborate, except that on one occasion
they indicate that the deputies assisted LACF with a rescue at Abalone Cove. I don't believe there is any
dispute regarding the necessity for the Beach School and Olmstead vehicle access roads in Abalone Cove.
Moreover, the City staff presentation at the Quarterly Public Forum (page 14 of the power point) indicated
that the Sheriff is not asking for more vehicle access.
3) Sheriff deputies' use of an off-road vehicle to patrol the Preserve may be as much (or more) of a
hindrance to improving public safety and rules compliance as it is an aide. I do see quite a bit more
activity in the Preserve that I believe would be subject to citation under RPV ordinances beyond what the
Sheriff citations suggest exists.
Why is that? The Sheriff relies primarily on visibility as a deterrent effect, rather than on citations. The
Sheriff's presence (visibility and noise from their Polaris) deters rule-breaking activity while the Sheriff is
present--no rule-breaking translates to no citation. But visibility is only a temporary deterrent; people revert
to rule-breaking when the Sheriff is out of sight. That's when I and others see people violating rules, and
often on the more narrow trails. I believe the Sheriff would be more effective wandering the trails on foot,
equine, or bike, issuing more citations that are likely to have a more lingering effect than the sighting of a
Sheriff vehicle.
Here's an example: The October-December Deputy Activity Report states that "Fossil Trail and Exultant
Trail are being monitored at random times, from the intersection of Forrestal Drive and Main Sail Drive ....
Cyclists have been observed riding in the reserve, but none have been seen on Exultant Trail." Most
sightings I've had of cyclists on Exultant Trail (a narrow, non-bike trail) have been when I'm on the trail
itself, not from the road. It is unlikely that a cyclist would be so bold as to ride on a non-bike trail when they
see the Sheriff watching the trail.
4) In those few instances when use of a vehicle might seem to be desirable to chase down
somebody travelling faster than the Sheriff deputies can on foot, one has to ask whether that
improves or threatens public safety. Do we want the Sheriff speeding through the Preserve on their
Polaris in order to catch a rule-breaking mountain biker? That would escalate the public safety concern it
seems to me.
Enforcement issues should be identified and discussed before the Preserve is permanently altered to
accommodate law enforcement vehicles (and very likely other vehicles in the future). I want to continue to
support our deputies and there are enforcement issues, such as the tendency of Preserve visitors to not
carry ID, which should be addressed. Providing another road for the Sheriff is not going to solve them.
As for maintenance, each of the Reserves in the Preserve has access from one or more adjacent roads.
Forrestal has access from Forrestal and Main Sail Drives; Portuguese Bend has access from Crenshaw
2
and Palos Verdes Drive South; Filiorum has access from Crenshaw and Pacifica, Three Sisters has access
from Ocean Terrace Drive and Barkentine Road, Abalone Cove has access from Palos Verdes Drive
South, etc. The downsides to having a shortcut for vehicles across the Reserves from one to another far
outweigh the benefits.
Last, City Council asked for civic involvement. The community of people who want to take care of and
improve the Preserve has delivered its involvement, but our support is for a nature preserve, not an urban
park. Please join us in our endeavor to make the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve the best it can be and do
not approve an escalation in vehicle use of any kind in the Preserve, including this requested roadway
development. Ultimately, these efforts will accrue to the benefit of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Eva Cicoria
3
Appendix A
Trail Segment is not a Roadway
City staff claims that the aerial photos I submitted on February
25, 2017 “can be misleading because of brush that has grown
over and because . . . the vehicles were not used frequently.”
If you look at the many years of aerial photos I provided, there
isn’t much change in the width of the Trail Segment over the
years, regardless of season—certainly not enough to
accommodate a Public Works vehicle.
Following are some from-the-ground photos showing the width
of the Trail Segment in 2015 and 2016 (prior to staff
commencing work), illustrative of the width of the Trail
Segment over the previous decade.
Photo of part of the Trail Segment, taken 3/13/15
For perspective on how wide the Trail Segment was before
widening commenced in December 2016, we measured the
gabion width. It is just under 3’ wide.
This photo, taken on 3/13/15, shows part of the Trail Segment at issue (part
that City Staff widened in December 2016). Because the photo was taken to
show litter off the trail, it isn’t a direct shot of the trail. It does clearly show
the gabion. The gabion is just under 3’ wide, so the trail along here was
something less than that in width. Not counting the gabion, this canyon
crossing is now about 7-8’ wide, so the trail was widened by at least 4’ and
probably 5’. The aerials do show that this short stretch at the gabion was
widened in the 2008-2009 timeframe, but that widening did not extend
beyond the gabion into the remainder of the Trail Segment.
This 7/22/15 photo shows the same segment of Conqueror Tr.,
shows how narrow the Trail Segment was (“single track”) beyond
the gabion, and shows that the hillside was being denuded by bikers
riding up the slope as they rounded the bend, creating what they
call an “eyebrow”.
Trail Segment 7/22/15
Trail Segment 6/10/16, showing the original trail bed and
erosive effects caused by natural erosion and bikes riding up
hillside.
The Trail Segment 12/10/16 after grading.
Trail Segment 1/30/17
The remainder of the Trail Segment City staff seeks to
widen (photo 3/3/17). Leave it a trail, not a road.
Appendix B
Vehicle Impacts in the Preserve
More vehicle use is not going to protect the
Preserve. Case in point, Burma Road. Burma Road
didn’t always look like this.
One impact related to vehicle use is road grading. This photo (from
6/10/16) shows how Burma Road has been graded from time to time to
eliminate ruts and accommodate vehicles. That grading scrapes away soil,
leaving the trail lower than the landscape.
When vehicle access roads are graded to lower than the adjacent landscape,
the trail users‘ view is impacted, so they tend to migrate off trail to higher
ground, creating parallel trails as shown in this photo of upper Burma Road.
Another impact of vehicles is when they routinely pull off trail to
allow trail users to pass. This pulverizes trailside habitat, which
then begins to look like part of the road and is used by others as
such. No matter how wide a trail already is, it is not immune
from trailside impacts of vehicles.
No matter whether the trail is already 7, 10, or 20 feet
wide, trucks and other vehicles routinely pull off trail
to park and to turn around.
Water Tank Trail and Peppertree Trail, showing signs of vehicles
pulling off trail or turning around.
The landscape is eventually denuded and vegetation cannot thrive, as
seen here with this buckwheat struggling under vehicle impact off
Peppertree Trail.
Most frequently, the damage is done by authorized
vehicles, such as by this truck pulling off trail in
Abalone Cove Reserve, damaging a restoration area.
October 2011 June 2016
More vehicle use is likely to increase these incidents. You may recall an
incident several years ago, when a contractor reportedly drove up the
wrong trail, widening it and doing enormous damage to a segment of
Peppertree Trail and much of Toyon Trail, neither of which were vehicle
access roads. After years, Toyon Trail was “fixed”, but it will be many
years before the native vegetation is restored. Peppertree Trail remains
altered by that incident and subsequent use.
An incident on Panorama Trail, (photo late March 2016) is
suspected to be an authorized vehicle on the wrong trail.
In June 2016, Public Works reportedly erroneously
conducted work on a different section of Conqueror
Trail.
•On a Wednesday, there was evidence of a large
tractor and another vehicle on Klondike Canyon Trail
impacting the trailside.
•On Friday of the same week, the same tractor tread
was found on Conqueror Trail and Purple Sage Trail.
•We later learned this was Public Works at work.
•The damage remains today.
Conqueror Trail Incident (photo 6/10/16): Public Works dug
into the hillside apparently to get soil to fill a rut.
Off of Conqueror Trail 6/10/16
Do you recognize this? It is Conqueror Trail 6/10/16, with the Trail Segment in
the background of the Public Works debacle. Imagine what might have
happened had the Trail Segment been wider at this time and this worker had
decided to try that route.
Purple Sage Trail 6/10/16: Public Works apparently
sought to collect dirt from here, too. None of this has
been repaired or restored.
Unauthorized users have also caused damage after
entering the Preserve on vehicle access roads. A
January 2016 incident on Garden Trail damaged the
trail and the adjacent landscape and crushed cactus
plantings.
January 2016 Incident on Garden Trail
January 2016 Incident on Garden Trail
January 2016 Incident on Garden Trail
In an April 2016 incident, an unknown vehicle decimated
trailside habitat on lovely Landslide Scarp Trail (photos 4/7/16)
after coming up wider Peppertree Trail.
April 2016 Incident on Landslide Scarp Trail
April 2016 Incident on Landslide Scarp Trail
(
This is Purple Sage Trail,
which runs between
Conqueror Trail and
Main Sail Drive in
Forrestal Reserve.
Routine vehicle use of
this trail would be a
threat to this trail, the
adjacent habitat, the
cactus wrens and
California gnatcatchers
that inhabit the area, as
well as a threat to the
trail user experience.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
March 4th 201 7
Members of City Council
Joan Kelly < katelinkelly649@gmail.com >
Monday, March 06, 2017 1:40 PM
cc
Conqueror Trail Widening
I am very concerned about the widening of the section of Conqueror trail and any further widening of trails in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Preserve. I feel that we are sending a mixed message to the public and
setting a precedent I am a trail Watch Volunteer and I have been asking and educating hikers and bikers to stay on
trail. This is especially vexing during the dry spells as the trails are more difficult to define. It is our purpose to
encourage the public to stay in the bed of these trails and not encroach on the delicate vegetation at the trail
margins. This may all seem trivial but it isn't. Wild life depends on our vigilance and support.
A widened trail becomes wider and wider over time and there is no going back. Look at what has happened to the
Burma trail going down from Del Cerro. It has become so wide now that it has actually become two trails side by
side. Overkill to coin a good phrase
I have donated a lot of my time to the Volunteer Trail Watch and I am embarrassed to see a sudden widened trail that
I was not notified of and to have a member of the public asked me about the widening Oops I did not even know and
what could I say!!. Members of the public are becoming confused, unsettled and upset. Afamily living near me has
cut their funding to the Conservancy altogether because she is petrified to ride her horse up there any more. On top
of bikes now motorized vehicles and extra widened trails. Where is our peace and tranquility gone? Little by little
this precious resource is being peeled away. I fear that this will affect the ongoing funding to the Land Conservancy
if this trail widening is for access for maintenance I feel much can be done using a small motorized cart accessed
from a truck that can be parked at an access point nearby.
Trail widening is a big deal and it should be done through the same due process as any road widening and allow for
public input. The parks are our parks and we all should have a say
We have worked SO hard over the years and this is a slap in the face. Our object is to protect all the wild life and
maintain a peaceful environment for all. This is the last remaining open space between the Santa Monica mountains
and Laguna Beach.
So here are my questions
Is a trail widening absolutely necessary for safety issues? if so why?
For maintenance issues? On record how often have they required this kind of access?
What guarantee do we have to averting this happening in the future on other trails?
Thank you
Joan Kelly
katelinkelly649@gmail.com
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Katie Lozano
Monday, March 06, 2017 3:51 PM
CityClerk
FW: Letter for Conqueror agenda item
3_7 _2017 Conqueror Agenda Item.docx
Late correspondence from Mr. Lo he it for the Conqueror Trail agenda item.
1
/
Councilwoman Brooks,
I am writing this letter in support of the Staff recommendation to complete work on the Conqueror Trail,
and taking the opportunity to add input on the link between this single task and my view on creating a
comprehensive management plan. The Conqueror work supports a vital connection between
Portuguese Bend and Forrestal as it relates to best management practices. It also represents an
incremental step in expanding management practices to include the whole as opposed to individual
pieces.
In order to protect the resource in its entirety, it is necessary to manage the resource. In order to
manage the resource, it is necessary to have the management tools. For consistency and the ability of
the public to see how public land is being managed tools are documented in the form of policies,
procedures and processes. As the local public entity charged with oversite of public land within it's
boundaries the City has the responsibility to provide the necessary leadership so that management tools
are developed and implemented consistent with protection and public use.
From a management perspective the work on Conqueror Trail has roots in the ability to effectively
traverse between Portuguese Bend and Forrestal with a minimum of response time. This can be critical
when public safety is involved. Transport or access time during an emergency may literally be the
difference between a life or death situation. In a realistic situation First Responders present in
Portuguese Bend must exit via Crest Road or Palos Verdes Drive South in order to access Forrestal if they
use any transportation mode other than by foot. Several minutes of response time can be saved by the
simple inclusion of improving Conqueror to allow for the Sheriff's quad or other First Responder
personnel access between the sites.
As mentioned earlier the work on Conqueror is only a piece of a comprehensive management plan that
needs to address all elements of public land. Current management practices have ample room for
improvement and the City should be looking at improving existing tools, and defining and developing
the additional tools essential for management best practices. I would recommend and encourage that
City Council support Recreation, Parks and Open Space as the lead to define, develop and document a
comprehensive management plan. The Recreation, Parks and Open Space staff under Cory Linder's
leadership and open space experience is well positioned to take the task on.
As you may be aware I actively support the City and PVPLC with guidance, direction and labor not only
for trail maintenance but management advice as well. With the recent rains several people have
contacted me with questions on what do we do? This includes questions from City staff, PVPLC, and
individuals who know me. There also seems to be a desire to fix things with an underlying urgency. I
recognize the desire, however I'm reminded of the current statements both the City and PVPLC refer to
in the PUMP document: there is "no obligation" to maintain trails. Now that the rain has exposed
multiple maintenance issues, it has also exposed the issues with the "no obligation" philosophy.
Trail maintenance is a required effort in public land management. An unmaintained trail can become a
safety issue and an increased risk to the public if left unaddressed. Trail maintenance is preventative and
addresses issues before they become safety concerns. Maintenance is a crucial part of risk management
and another tool in the management box.
To clarify my position, I will continue to support trail maintenance and management as described above
through my volunteer efforts. My rationale to continue is not primarily based on interaction with the
City or PVPLC, it is because after 30 years of National, State and local engagement clearly the public
expects its managing agencies to embrace, support and maintain the trails they use. The "no obligation"
and public expectations are an intersection that should not be reliant on volunteer efforts to address.
The desire to effectively manage public land and trails should be driven by the City Council. I would
argue that the City does have an obligation no different than any other public services offered. Recent
steps put in place by Recreation, Parks and Open Space are aligned with public services infrastructure. In
particular, the Open Space Management is a tangible tool that is already showing a positive return. Like
other plan elements OSM is one tool of many however my opinion is we still have opportunities to add
to the toolbox. From an outside perspective OSM has all the criteria of an obligation (funded staff whose
duties have included trail maintenance). With the maintenance role OSM is playing it would be a
positive step for the City Council to revisit the need for such a statement of "no obligation".
Developing a comprehensive management plan will take focus and time. It does not have to be a burden
as there are multiple resources, experience and documentation to draw from. California has been
managing public lands of every type for over 100 years. The key is pulling the applicable resources,
information, facts and data together and tailoring to the local needs. This is not an unknown process, it
just needs the proper advocacy and support, and that starts at the City Council level.
Public land has to be managed for all the public. Based on my experience I contend the open space is
arguably a regional public resource despite some local viewpoints to minimize public access. Acceptance
of the fact that a plan has to manage to the broader public presents a challenge, but does not diminish
the task at hand. Part of the challenge includes integration of the NCCP. The NCCP is a conservation
plan, not a management plan, and is yet another tool in the toolbox. Like any tool, it can be misused.
Our collective objective is a plan to maximize all the tools for the public benefit and resource protection.
This includes looking at how to balance competing interests and occasionally making the hard decisions
that meet the primary goals and objectives for the public at large while remaining in compliance with
existing policies.
I also recognize the potential funding and resource implications of developing a comprehensive plan.
This is where drawing upon existing information plays a significant role. Leveraging work already done
goes a long way in establishing a working draft plan. Networking with other agencies experiences,
lessons learned, and established documentation requires only research and contact. Once compiled the
tailoring step can begin and lead the way to an established plan. Networking and material gathering can
be accomplished through a collective effort where my experience may be of benefit.
There is no short-term solution. This is a constantly evolving effort. What is necessary is to start with a
baseline to guide the way for future management and define the expectations for a clear, consistent,
pro-active management philosophy to assure future generations will enjoy their public lands. I will
continue to offer my support to help provide advice or guidance towards a management plan.
Thank you for your time,
Kurt Loheit
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 10:08 AM
To: Yvettawill@cox.net
Cc: Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Bubbles and white sided dolphins
Hi Yvetta,
Thanks for your comments. The conceptual designs shown in the Staff Report and Attachment Bare not final designs or even
designs were necessarily considering. They are essentially visual aids for the Council and public to get a better sense of the
location and scale of the potential sites. If approved, we would be seeking the services of a professional designer to come up
with a design. Happy to include Paul in the mix when and if we get to that stage in this project.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -{310) 544-5218 p -(310) 544-5291 f
-----Original Message-----
From: Yvettawill@cox.net [mailto:yvettawill@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 7:20 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Bubbles and white sided dolphins
BUBBLES
Page 4 drawing is UGLY. Throw that concept away. Also Bubbles is much longer than what is shown. This location is good. if
Bubbles is laying down people would be much more likely to want to get on top of it. It would be nice to use Bubbles and the
two white sided dolphins which we have. One of our docents Paul is a designer and he would like to work on a concept.
Please give him time to see what he comes up with. It would show off the best the way Marineland showed it. Bl It is a lot
taller than any of the design concepts showed. B7 is ugly and would be a mistake.Don't like the heart shaped base. See what
Paul comes up with . He is a very good artist and designer. An idea, but let us do it right!!!! Yvetta Williams
1 {l.
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 1:35 PM
To: Ann Zellers <AnnZ@rpvca .gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca .gov >; Emily Rodin <Emi lyR@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Paul Port <paul@rubjoemeat .com >; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca .gov >; Yvettawill@cox .net ; Matt Waters
<MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: bubbles option
Hi An n,
Thanks for forwarding me this email. Pau l's ideas will definitely be considered if Council approves moving forward with this
project. I did receive an emai l from Yvetta already. Both emails will be added as late cor respondence for the March 7 Council
meeti ng next week.
Sincerely,
Matt
From: Ann Zellers
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 12:52 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov >; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca .gov >; Em ily Rodin <EmilyR@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Paul Port <paul@rubjoemeat.com >
Subject: FW: bubbles option
Hi Matt, Some of my docents looked at the draft of ideas for where to place Bubbles that Dan sent to all of us . I know you
heard from Yvetta on this. Regarding Paul Port's ideas, some of them are below . Please note that he thought there were 3
whitesided dolphins when there are actually 2. He also said, that if the figure was cemented in the ground correctly it might
weather any freak storm we sometimes get. Just some thoughts, please consider. And, please let me know you got
this. Thankyou,
Ann Zellers
From: Paul Port [mailto :paul@rubjoemeat .com ]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 10:47 PM
To: Ann Zellers <AnnZ@rpvca.gov >
Subject: bubbles option
Ann,
Per our conversation, I think the attached( first picture below) is the best location for Bubbles.
I see the need to be "understated" in locating of the sculptures (i.e., NO big bases, fountains, walls, waves, etc). the
only thing that might be needed is a 4-6 foot high fence around the "land island".
I feel that Bubbles should not be located in the front or entrance area of PVIC , it would be better if it were a little
surprise as you walk the grounds around the center. The other location would between the 4 palms to the left of the
center, it is also surrounded by picnic tables. Note that the scale might not be exact.
Regards,
Paul
1
4 Palms to the left of the center
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Matt Waters
Monday, March 06, 2017 3:32 PM
BW Riedman
Subject:
Nathan Zweizig; Teresa Takaoka
RE: Placement of Bubbles
Hi Betty,
Thanks for your feedback. Your email will be included as late correspondence.
Thanks,
Matt
From: BW Riedman [mailto:rabbit943@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 1:21 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Placement of Bubbles
Hi Matt
I am writing pertaining to the proposed placement of the Bubbles statue at Lower Point Vicente. As you know, I am a
Volunteer with the Los Serenos docents and, as such, am at PVIC a lot. I do know that the Marineland Exhibit inside
PVIC is a major attraction to the visitors to the Center and the Bubbles statue would be a nice enhancement.
However, I do NOT want the City to pay for this! Unless someone is willing to step up to the plate and totally absorb
the cost of refurbishing and placing the statue (once a site has been determined), the City should not be spending
money on this when there are other more pressing enhancements that can be made to the Interpretive Center.
That being said, I think that locations 2 or 4 would be the best choices to place the statue. They do not present a
driving hazard and people could easily take pictures with and of Bubbles without causing any disruption.
Re Location 2 - I do not understand the Con of it being "accessible by public" - I would think that is what you
would want. And as for the location being "incongruous" because of the palm trees, I would think it would
depend on which direction from which you are looking. Certainly in the front of Marineland, there wasn't an
ocean view and here there would be.
Re Location 4 -I do not comprehend the Cons on this site either. How is it visually distracting -visually
distracting from what? From the amphitheater? Mostly when at the amphitheater, one is looking towards the
ocean, not towards the homes. Actually, looking at the proposed location, the existing trees would block the
view of the statue from the amphitheater and I don't know what the scale has to do with it. Plus, because it's to
the SIDE of the amphitheater, it's not all that visible or distracting and it does NOT take away from the
coastline view as it's not between the walkway and the ocean view.
Locations 1 and 6 --I agree -these would present big driving hazards.
Location 3 --The cons have merit and it would create a driving hazard if people (particularly children) were
running across the road to see it.
1
i
Location 5 --I think this is a BIG NO NO. In addition to the weddings and other functions that take place at
PVIC and the thousands of photos taken from that side of PVIC of the ocean, sunsets, the lighthouse and
Catalina Island, that statue would not be a good addition to those photos. I, for one, would not want that statue
in my photo if I'm trying to take a photo of any of the above stated objects.
Unfortunately, I cannot attend the City Council meeting to voice my concerns and it's my understanding that you will
put my email in late correspondence for the Councilmembers to consider.
Thank you.
Betty Riedman
3668 Cliffsite, RPV
2
From: Matt Waters
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 06, 2017 3:35 PM
Natalie
Cc:
Subject:
Cory Linder; Nathan Zweizig; Teresa Takaoka
RE: Bubbles
Dear Ms. Massey,
Thank you for your email and comments regarding the potential placement of the Bubbles statue. Your email will be added as
late correspondence for tomorrow night's meeting.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov -(310) 544-5218 p -(310) 544-5291 f
From: Natalie [mailto:2natalie@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2017 7:42 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Bubbles
Dear Mr. Waters,
I am a volunteer for the Los Serenos organization and also a volunteer for the American Cetacean Society
(ACS) Gray Whale Census and Behavior Project. I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes.
As a member of the Los Serenos organization, I was provided a copy of the staff report for the
refurbishment and installation of Bubbles and we were asked to submit any comments to you. First, I want
to say I am thrilled that RPV is considering this project. As a child growing up in PV, our family often went
to Marineland. The Bubbles and dolphin statues at the entrance were always a delight to see. In recent
years I worked on the PVIC Marineland exhibit as it was constructed.
The ACS gray whale census project is conducted from the back patio of PVIC. We not only count the
whales, we also interact with the guests who are visiting the center. There is no question that our
project is an important element of the visitor experience. We help the visitors spot the whales and
also provide valuable information about the whales as well as answer their many questions.
1
I reviewed the 6 locations identified as possible sites for Bubbles and agree that option 3 is the best
location. But I would like to add some concerns about options 4 and 5. Especially location 5, the
overlook.
It is imperative that we have visibility of as much ocean as possible as we track, identify and record each
whale sighting. Location 5 would severely block some of the most important and critical viewing area of
our project.
But equally important, that area is used by most visitors to view the spectacular ocean. To block or
obstruct that particular viewing area would be very unpopular.
Location 4 by the amphitheater might (depending on the final location) obstruct a portion of our viewing
area to the north.
I propose that location 5 be completely removed as an option. It should not be considered as a
location for Bubbles.
I agree that location 3 is the best option, but I would like to see an alternate design in that location with
Bubbles erected in a vertical position as she was at the Marineland entrance. That is how we will always
remember her.
I wish I could attend the upcoming city council meeting on 3/7/17 but I have another commitment that
evening.
Thank you for your time.
Very truly yours,
Natalie Massey
310-377-1734
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rod Uyeda < relaxinrod@gmail.com >
Monday, March 06, 2017 7:57 AM
cc
Social Host Ordinance
I will probably not be able to make Tuesday's meeting, however, I do really like the "revised" ordinance as put forth
in the Staff report for Tuesday.
I also strongly agree with both of Mr. Siegel's points.
Thank you for showing strong leadership and leading the way on the Peninsula!
Rod Uyeda
Chief of Police Manhattan Beach (retired)
Resident of RPV
1
-----Original Message-----
From: Kit Fox
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 8:42 AM
To: Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Social Host Liability Ordinance
Late Correspondence on Item 4
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Valeri [mailto:smhvaleri@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 6:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Social Host Liability Ordinance
Dear Council Members,
I want to thank you all for your avid support last night in support of enacting a social host liability ordinance. The speed
in which you responded to this request from the community is phenomenal. Though not said at the meting, it is our ardent
wish to have ordinances in place before the Prom and Graduation season begins. I don't know if that is possible or not, but
your quick reaction gives us hope.
Also I want to assure you that the PVP Council of PTA's is addressing all the other cities on the peninsula to enact
similar laws. We have already contacted council members at all the other 3 cities. We are actually on the agenda for an
upcoming PVE meeting to explain the facts and reasoning behind the request of implement these ordinances. We
wholeheartedly agree that for this to work, it needs to be a united front.
The following comments reflect my own personal opinion; I'm not speaking officially for the Council or any group. I
think RPV staff did an outstanding job drafting this ordinance. And I appreciated the scrutiny that you and members of the
public gave the draft ordinance. I really like the idea of including a "good Samaritan" clause. I think it's important that everyone
knows that they should never pause in calling for life saving assistance. Removing "loud and disorderly" is also a good call.
Even though most of the drinking parties tend to be huge loud affairs, a smaller gathering should not be exempt if it is
reported.
I don't think the "cultural" exemption to the rule is a problem as Council member thought it might be, because it ONLY
applies to parents or guardians and their own children. To use last night's example: an Irish parent may feel it is culturally
appropriate for their child to toast St Patrick and the removal of the snakes with an alcoholic beverage. That would be
protected under the "cultural" clause. However inviting all the neighborhood children to join in this toast and drink is NOT
covered under the current cultural wording. Personal confession: My parents found it "culturally appropriate" to give me 1/2 a
glass of champagne on important occasions (about 3-4 times a year) when I was growing up. While not "religious", this type of
personal parenting choice should still be excluded from the ordinance. I personally think the wording as it stands is good.
Please reread it, and see if staff or city attorney think I am interpreting it correctly.
1 l/
I also appreciated the comment from the community member who was concerned that the ordinance be tailored
narrowly enough to prevent an innocent homeowner from being charged. With these parties spreading by social media, kids
could show up at the wrong address, purposely send kids to the wrong address as a prank or with malice, a mob could crash a
small private party, or break into a vacant home to party. If a homeowner or resident "self-reports" a mob of underage
drinkers invading their property, maybe they should also be exempt?
I do believe that we should amend this ordinance in the near future to also apply to marijuana, but I'm glad that you
decided not to delay the initial implementation for those changes. The opioid issue is also very important. I'm not so sure that
it belongs in the social host ordinance, because it's not usually a drug which adults are providing at parties. It is a very
important topic to address, but I think it will need some more study to better understand how opioids are being used in our
community, by who, when, where, and how are they getting them.We certainly can't stand idly by while this epidemic claims
our children.
I also think a couple very good points were made last night about holding the kids personally responsible for their own
choices and actions too. Ticketing the parents at a party may not be enough. Besides breaking up parties, maybe our deputies
should set up sobriety check points as the kids are leaving? Most of our kids are "good", and they want to get into top
colleges. They really don't want a stain on their record. The possibility of getting a DUI or drinking underage ticket, might be
enough to get a lot of these kids to make other choices. Besides, when a party is broken up, do we really want to just send a lot
of impaired teenage drivers onto the streets? Something to think about.
Thank you again for all your hard work on behalf of our community. Sandy Valeri
2