20180731 Late CorrespondenceYour Honor the Mayor and City Council Members:
My wife and I attended the meeting last night to hear the details on th e so called "safety" project on
PVDE. We are very interested because our property is the most developed a nd will be the most
directly affected by the project. Some of those that were there on both sides agreed th a t our
landscaping was exceptional and it would be a shame to see it decimated by the 8 ff. encroachment.
It took us 47 years and a bit of expense to get it where i t is. That being said, allow me to point out a
few reasons why this project is a total waste of taxpayer money.
We traverse PVOE almo st every day, sometim es more than once and rarely see a horse, perhaps 2 or
3 a month if that. This has been going on for years . On PVON you might see 2 or 3 at the corner
facility for horses at PVOE and PVON but rarely do you see them riding up or down PVON. Rolling
Hills Country Club has built a beautiful trail for horses all along their property and since it was built we
have never. .. never seen a horse and rider utilize it. Thousands of dollars going to waste. And they
are in Rolling Hills Es tates, a horse town. or have we see more than 2 or 3 walkers.
We may be in the Q district but we have noticed that most new homeowners in our area and those
that redo their properties are opting to not have horses along with the flies and manure. They are
creating back yards with BBQs and outdoor kitchens and fireplaces along with the greenery. We know
of only 2 properties with horses, one on Headland and one on PVOE across from us and down a few
properties. They use to be everywhere, not now.
Attempting to placate us the City reps stated that this would improve property values. It will not
improve our property value it will do just the opposite by pushing PVDE 8 ff. closer to our home and
taking out several mature trees that provided a block to the heavy traffic now increased by SP
residents trying to avoid Western Ave. Not to mention the beauty of the lost landscape.
We were told by the City people that our two driveways and the brick pilasters would NOT be affected
by the project should it be passed by you folks. Just want to make sure that you are aware of that
fact.
We were told numerous times that the City had the right to do this project as proposed but as I stated
to them that does not make it right! Frankly, if you want to improve safety place a crosswalk at both
upper and lower Headland with Stop Signs . That will slow it up and won't cost the taxpayers over
$300,000 to accomplish. Don't waste it on horses that are not there and walkers who can find many
places in our area to walk without worrying about traffic.
I realize that you guys are busy and have a lot more important things to deal with than the problems of
one resident. However, are you prepared to spend this kind of money on a project simply because
you want to sell RPV as a horse community under the so-called Master Plan, when so few folks are
into that activity anymore? If Safety is the issue there are many low cost solutions but if horses are
the real issue than take a survey of how many locals will actually use the new trail.
Sincerely,
Douglas & Gail Allen
28345 Palos Verdes Or. E.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
AGENDA ITEM:-~--=~;;...;..... ____ _
RECEIVED FROM :~ .'
:J>DQ6 lA:S At«~
AND MADE PART OF THE RECOR[) AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF: 1['31/Je:
OFFICE OF THE CITY Cblil\K •
~f~
RPV Mayor and Council Persons.
Hopeful/y,you recall my first report to you regarding the proposed PVDE Project of adding a horse trail
from Bronco to lower Headland Drive. My wife and I, residents since 1971, attended the second
meeting last night and were told that changes had been made since the first meeting that would affect
our property. First of all, they would now remove two pilasters on the front drive and also demo part of
our custom driveway causing an awkward method of leaving and returning to our garages. This was
contrary to what we had been told at the first meeting.
Secondly, it was revealed that they might go another 10 to 12 feet into our landscaping, including the
removal of numerous mature trees. Actually, we were only told about it because one of the attendees
asked about it. We are unsure what they intend to do on our side used brick driveway.. Removing
most of the trees will leave us with two exposed telephone polls and a lot of drooping power,
telephone and cable lines draped all across the front of our property.
Our next door neighbor could lose all of her trees and her front lawn along with part of an expensive
driveway and also have the drooping lines to look at.
As I have stated in my first e-mail there is virtually no horse traffic on PVDE anymore. Part of the
reason is the heavy traffic going back and forth often at higher speed than necessary. One only has to
look at the new RHCC horse trail and the total lack of use by either horses or walkers. We are up and
down PVDE a lot and belong to the Club and have never seen a horse on that trail nor a walker!
Another reason is that new residents seem to prefer a move conventional yard with patios, kitchens,
bbqs, landscaping, etc.
One has to ask why the City would authorize the spending of over $500, 000 on a very limited horse
trail that only 2 or 3 horse owners in our area would have practical access to.
What about the rest of PVDE? Does the City have the millions in funds to recklessly spend on more
horse trails so that more folks can gain safe access to the new trail? It boggles ones mind that this
boondoggle would be even considered.
For me, it is important to note that the engineers seem more interested in the horses than they do with
safety. When an attendee suggested more safety railings and other safety ideas they were told that
there was not money in the kitty for that sort of thing. Why not?
Have the residents of PVDE been surveyed on whether or not they have or want horses and would
utilize the trail? Has there been a traffic survey on the numbers of vehicles and the speeds they
drive? Or is it being proposed because you have the money so why not just spend it!
At the first meeting we were told that this project would increase our property values. Nothing could
be further from the truth. And not only will our property be the worse for it the drive will become even
less attractive.
Sincerely,
Doug & Gail Allen
28345 Palos Verdes Dr. E.,
Rancho Palos Verdes,
(310)831-6285
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
April Sandell < hvybags@cox.net>
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 4:27 PM
John Cruikshank <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>; eric@ericalegria.com
CC; Doug Willmore; Emily Colborn; Teresa Takaoka; Ken Delong; Robert Nelson
<nelsongang@aol.com>; ROLLING HILLS RIVIERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Fwd: Rancho Palos Verdes City Nov. 2018 proposed ballot initiative/ on the cc agenda .
Dear Mayor, and all Council Members,
Please see Mr. Bittle's (Director of Legal Affairs at Howard Jarvis Tax Payers Association
)responding email sent to me on July 24th. I respectfully share his opinion.
I understand the "reasonably germane" as far as metro free passes bonus like to the wages earned
and as timely increased. However, I fail to see any relationship between these things and panic
buttons.
Furthermore, the initiative, if passed, may impose greater duties/expenses upon the city staff for
various reasons .... all of which further burdens tax payers. Frankly, as a citizen I am not happy to
have hospitality hotels that generate vast amounts of taxes into the city only to have taxpayers, pay
more for city staff management of hospitality businesses and compliance to city ordinances etc.
You may or maybe not be aware, the hispanic dishwasher employed at Terranea was included in
the "ME TOO" Silence Breakers article December 18, 2017 TIMES Person of the Year
Magazine. Terranea, involved in the suit, declined to provide any comment in the article. Noting
further, no meaningful details of that matter were spoke about during the last cc meeting.
The voters of RPV deserve to the fair opportunity to learn the facts and consider the unintended
consequences prior to a vote. I hope you agree.
Now turning to a separate agenda item; the city's prior resolution to investigate Brian
Campbell now intends to serve subpoenas upon Ms. Lovey and Mr. Weiss is somewhat chilling as
far as the protection of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and I worry if you vote this evening
to essentially to shakedown private citizens private emails in such a discovery process
involving two non-RPV citizens, I have to ask ...... who is next?
The "Requested Documents" on Exhibit "I" pg C-7 are numbered 1-7. (I.e. a broad order 'order
and command " ) This seems contrary to the media narrative that the city wants to somehow
protect consumer tax payers.
Finally, this correspondence also includes my comments regarding the agenda item I first phase
process of placing ALPR's in the Eastview portion ofRPV on Western Ave. I am strongly
opposed to information data collection cameras.
Thank you for your time and consideration as well as this opportunity to provide some input.
1 fv8t-IC. COMM~'T"S
ltb-f. B.
17C-r1 . c,.
April L. Sandell
P .S .Attention City Clerk: Please see to it the city council members receive this correspondence
prior to the beginning of this evenings meeting.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Tim Bittle" <tim@hjta.org>
Subject: RE: Rancho Palos Verdes City Nov. 2018 proposed ballot initiative I on
the cc agenda .
Date: July 24, 2018 at 2:45:43 PM PDT
To: <hvybags@cox.net>
Cc: '"Laura Murray"' <laura@hjta.org>, <jon@hjta.org>, <debra@hjta.org>,
<jsuttie@verizon.net>, <susan@hjta.org>, <David@hjta.org>
Dear Ms. Sandell,
I apologize for this tardy response. I had shoulder surgery and am behind in answering
correspondence. You asked whether the "single subject" rule is still the law in California as to
voter initiatives.
The answer to your question is yes. The single subject rule is part of our state constitution and
appears in the same section as the right of initiative, Article II, section 8. Subsection ( d)
provides, "An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the
electors or have any effect."
As interpreted by our Supreme Court, the '"single subject' rule is satisfied so long as challenged
provisions meet the test of being reasonably germane to a common theme, purpose, or
subject." (Brown v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 335, 350.)
The Court liberally applies this "reasonably germane" test in deference to the people's initiative
power. Proposition 13, for example, involved local property tax collection, the property tax rate,
the reappraisal of property values, the vote required for other local taxes, and the Legislative vote
required for State taxes. These were all held to be "reasonably germane" and functionally related
to the subject of property taxation. (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of
Equalization (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 208, 231-32.)
I hope you can apply this information to your local initiative.
Timothy A. Bittle
Director of Legal Affairs
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-----Original Message-----
From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
2
To: info <info@hjta.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 11 :08 am
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Nov. 2018 proposed ballot initiative I on the cc agenda .
Hello,
As a member of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers, I hope to hear your feedback regarding a so-called proposed
Hospitality Initiative. Simply put, the initiative includes 3 separate subjects. It is my understanding a
proposed initiative cannot propose more than one subject.
I am opposed to this initiative for various reasons but need to know now if
the "one subject" per proposal is current CA law.
Thank you in advance for your response.
April Sandell RPV /CA resident tax payer
D Virus-free. ww\A{.avg.com
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 31, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
2
3
4
Description of Material
Emails from: Debbie McCarthy; Mark Zoeckler; Carole Campbell;
Sandra Sandoval
Emails from: Randall Thomas; Ray Seager; Dottie Hashizumi; John
Hextall; Sarah Kim; P Kay; Ingrid Hextall; Mickey Radich; Bill
Schurmer; Randy Harwood
Letter from Julianna Rossi
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 30, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180731 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:50 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Trail Closure
From: D McCarthy [mailto:dmccarthy7711@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:48 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Trail Closure
Good Morning!
This email is to request that the city reconsider the closure of the connector trail between Bronco and Headland. As a
long time equestrian, one of the reasons I moved to the hill was to enjoy the vast number of trails. Once you
compromise the number of trails or safe passage of horses, to continue in this fashion will become easy, look what has
happened to other equestrian communities. Please consider other options that will leave our equestrian community
safe and whole.
Respectfully,
Debbie McCarthy
Sent from my iPhone
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:10 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: RPV City Council -July 31, 2018 -Item #2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
From: Mark Zoeckler [mailto:mark.zoeckler@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV City Council -July 31, 2018 -Item #2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
Dear RPV City Council -
I am contacting you to indicate my strong support for Item #2, the PVDE Safety Project. PVDE is historically an
unsafe environment without adequate traffic controls and pedestrian/equestrian safety priorities. This project, already
almost fully funded and ready to go, provides a much safer alternative to the current environment, which is extremely
dangerous. It will benefit the overall community, property values and resident enjoyment, safety. I am happy to
support this important initiative.
Kind Regards,
Mark Zoeckler
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:02 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Proposed Closure of Equestrian Connector Trail
From: Carole Campbell [mailto:carolecampbellOl@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:53 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Closure of Equestrian Connector Trail
We understand that City Council will address the topic of closure of the equestrian connector trail between Bronco and
Headland at your meeting July 31st.
As long time residents of Palos Verdes and horse owners, we urge you not to allow closure of that community trail, a safe
passageway for equestrians.
Thank you for your consideration.
Carole Campbell
2300 Via Pina le
Palos Verdes Estates
Sent from my iPhone
1 :1.
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 3:46 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Meeting Agenda Item For Tuesday, July 31, 2018
From: Sandy Sandoval [mailto:sandy.sandoval7@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 3:45 PM
To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Meeting Agenda Item For Tuesday, July 31, 2018
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 3 :36 PM Sandy Sandoval <sandy.sandoval7@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jerry,
Hope this finds you well.
I am in favor to salvage current
(1-9)road safety project, that includes equestrian using the connection from Bronco to Headland. Also keeping
current version plan for Deadmans Curve Project. Supported by 90% Federal funds.
Item 2: PVDE -Bronco to Headland Dr.
This is a community trail that includes equestrains.
This. Prevent Equestrian like me from being "Land Locked".
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandra Sandoval
3107294717
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:14 AM
CityClerk
FW: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
From: Randall Thomas [mailto:randallthomas360@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:36 PM
To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
To: Mayor Brooks and Council Members
I am a Del Cerro Resident. The problems is not only about traffic and parking, but also about the sheer number of
people and cyclists that congregate around our neighborhoods and homes which are adjacent to the entrances to the
preserve. We do support and believe that some of the measures that address parking will mitigate the problem.
However, we need to get to the root of the problem which is that 1) the main entrances to the trails are smack in the
middle our neighborhoods, right next to our homes and back yards, and 2) there are way too many visitors to the trails
than we can handle. (13,892 visitors per month including 938 cyclists) This creates an unacceptable environmental
and neighborhood impact and has transformed our neighborhoods into a de facto COMMERCIAL ZONE. Hordes of
people coming in naturally create a noisy ruckus and commotion all day and all night even when they're trying to be
quiet. This doesn't include the drunken screams and people shouting at each other. There is trash everywhere near
our homes, including beer bottles, condoms, and bongs, and vomit. People are urinating and sometimes defecating
near our homes. Visitors are breaking our fences and retaining walls and having potentially volatile confrontations
with home owners. Every Thursday night there are about two dozen cyclists who go into to the preserve at night and
when they come out, they have a tailgate party and cookout with an open flame. OSM has exacerbated the situation
by setting up commercial canopies and tables right next to our homes and giving out free goodies on holidays. This
needs to stop. At least four cars have crashed into the corner house on Seacrest/Crenshaw (at the Burma Rd. entrance
near the Del Cerro sign) within the last couple of years.
1. The only real solution is to open a main entrance to the trails that is completely away from people's homes. The
obvious solution is to open a main entrance with parking and facilities along PV Drive South in the area AW A Y from
homes. This will solve MOST of the issues we're facing.
-This is an area that is NOT in the middle of neighborhood homes.
-It would provide for facilities INSIDE the preserve such as: parking, information center, portable toilets, water, etc.
-Hikers would start "low" and hike "up". When they get too hot or run out of water, they hike downhill (rather than
uphill) to finish their hike.
-This P.V. Drive South area should be where ALL Land Conservancy events would be held (unlike now where they
are held between the homes on Amber Sky and Burrell Lane).
2. The only other corollary solution would be to restrict the sheer number of visitors to the trails and preserve. We
agree a reservation system would be a way to control the number of people from the greater Los Angeles area, trying
to get in through the Burma Road entrance at Crenshaw, HOWEVER ONLY IF DEL CERRO RESIDENTS HA VE A
1 3
'
PERMIT PASS ENABLING FREE ENTRY, after all it is our neighborhood and we shouldn't have to pay to walk
around our neighborhood.
3. We STRONGLY support a gate and turnstile at the Burma Road entrance to minimize preserve hours! Night time
hiking is a legal liability for the city if someone gets injured while in the preserve at night.
4. We STRONGLY recommend restricting night time parking on Crenshaw (between Crest and Park Place) except
for nearby neighborhood permit parking. We support putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park Place)
that restrict parking to match the hours the preserve is open AND ticketing violators. Night time hiking is a legal
liability for the city if someone gets injured while in the preserve at night.
5. We support parking "pay and display" stations on Crenshaw EXCEPT for nearby neighborhood permit parking. If
ambience is an issue, we can limit the number of pay stations to 3 (1 at each end and 1 in the middle). We already
have "COMMERCIAL" atmosphere with 8,534 visitors per month just at the Burma Rd entrance and hordes of cars
looking for parking. Having pay parking will only bring back the country ambience by decreasing foot traffic and car
traffic.
6. We STRONGLY OPPOSE unilateral closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance. We would support closure of
Rattlesnake Canyon entrance ONLY ifthe Burma Rd entrance is also closed and IF we open a main entrance along
PV Drive South.
7. We STRONGY OPPOSE a shuttle system that brings hikers to the Burma Road entrance. The last thing Del Cerro
needs is bus-loads of hikers being brought in through our neighborhood. This may mitigate parking issues but
significantly worsens foot traffic and all of the negative impact it has.
Sincerely,
Randy
Del Cerro Resident
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:00 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
From: Randall Thomas [mailto:randallthomas360@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:47 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
To: Mayor Brooks and Council Members
I am a Del Cerro Resident. The problems is not only about traffic and parking, but also about the sheer number of
people and cyclists that congregate around our neighborhoods and homes which are adjacent to the entrances to the
preserve. We do support and believe that some of the measures that address parking will mitigate the problem.
However, we need to get to the root of the problem which is that 1) the main entrances to the trails are smack in the
middle our neighborhoods, right next to our homes and back yards, and 2) there are way too many visitors to the trails
than we can handle. (13,892 visitors per month including 938 cyclists) This creates an unacceptable environmental
and neighborhood impact and has transformed our neighborhoods into a de facto COMMERCIAL ZONE. Hordes of
people coming in naturally create a noisy ruckus and commotion all day and all night even when they're trying to be
quiet. This doesn't include the drunken screams and people shouting at each other. There is trash everywhere near
our homes, including beer bottles, condoms, and bongs, and vomit. People are urinating and sometimes defecating
near our homes. Visitors are breaking our fences and retaining walls and having potentially volatile confrontations
with home owners. Every Thursday night there are about two dozen cyclists who go into to the preserve at night and
when they come out, they have a tailgate party and cookout with an open flame. OSM has exacerbated the situation
by setting up commercial canopies and tables right next to our homes and giving out free goodies on holidays. This
needs to stop. At least four cars have crashed into the corner house on Seacrest/Crenshaw (at the Burma Rd. entrance
near the Del Cerro sign) within the last couple of years.
1. The only real solution is to open a main entrance to the trails that is completely away from people's homes. The
obvious solution is to open a main entrance with parking and facilities along PV Drive South in the area AW A Y from
homes. This will solve MOST of the issues we're facing.
-This is an area that is NOT in the middle of neighborhood homes.
-It would provide for facilities INSIDE the preserve such as: parking, information center, portable toilets, water, etc.
-Hikers would start "low" and hike "up". When they get too hot or run out of water, they hike downhill (rather than
uphill) to finish their hike.
-This P.V. Drive South area should be where ALL Land Conservancy events would be held (unlike now where they
are held between the homes on Amber Sky and Burrell Lane).
2. The only other corollary solution would be to restrict the sheer number of visitors to the trails and preserve. We
agree a reservation system would be a way to control the number of people from the greater Los Angeles area, trying
to get in through the Burma Road entrance at Crenshaw, H~WEVER ONLY IF DEL CERRO RESIDENTS HA 3~
PERMIT PASS ENABLING FREE ENTRY, after all it is our neighborhood and we shouldn't have to pay to walk
around our neighborhood.
3. We STRONGLY support a gate and turnstile at the Burma Road entrance to minimize preserve hours! Night time
hiking is a legal liability for the city if someone gets injured while in the preserve at night.
4. We STRONGLY recommend restricting night time parking on Crenshaw (between Crest and Park Place) except
for nearby neighborhood permit parking. We support putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park Place)
that restrict parking to match the hours the preserve is open AND ticketing violators. Night time hiking is a legal
liability for the city if someone gets injured while in the preserve at night.
5. We support parking "pay and display" stations on Crenshaw EXCEPT for nearby neighborhood permit parking. If
ambience is an issue, we can limit the number of pay stations to 3 (1 at each end and 1 in the middle). We already
have "COMMERCIAL" atmosphere with 8,534 visitors per month just at the Burma Rd entrance and hordes of cars
looking for parking. Having pay parking will only bring back the country ambience by decreasing foot traffic and car
traffic.
6. We STRONGLY OPPOSE unilateral closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance. We would support closure of
Rattlesnake Canyon entrance ONLY ifthe Burma Rd entrance is also closed and IF we open a main entrance along
PV Drive South.
7. We STRONGY OPPOSE a shuttle system that brings hikers to the Burma Road entrance. The last thing Del Cerro
needs is bus-loads of hikers being brought in through our neighborhood. This may mitigate parking issues but
significantly worsens foot traffic and all of the negative impact it has.
Sincerely,
Randy
Del Cerro Resident
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:15 AM
CityClerk
FW: Urgent City Council Matter Re: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
Follow up
Completed
From: Ray Seager [mailto:raysea2@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 11:39 PM
To: Del Cerro HOA <DelCerro_HOA@hotmail.com>; Al & Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>; Andrew So
<drewso@gmail.com>; Brandon Lee <Brandon@denali7.com>; Craig Adrian <adrainc@cox.net>; Dave Schnitt
<capitalist@cox.net>; David & Sandy Yang <sandyyang1688@gmail.com>; Della & Bill Marshall <dellamarshall@gmail.com>;
Diane Ringer <dianedringer@gmail.com>; Fatima Wu <fatimawu65@gmail.com>; Gary & Laurie Fujii/Hirokane
<gary_fujii@msn.com>; George Ringer <gdringerSS@gmail.com>; Irene Lee <irenelee7@hotmail.com>; Jaime Garnica
<garnicajaime4040@yahoo.com>; Jean Powell <jeanpwl@verizon.net>; Jenny Kernen <jenny@partneresi.com>; Laurie
Hirokane Fujii <lhirokane@yahoo.com>; Laurie lzumo <lyizumo@yahoo.com>; Lily Chen <tofuinla@gmail.com>; Lou & Barbara
Whallon <lfwhallon@yahoo.com>; Lynda & Paul Heran <lyndaheran@hotmail.com>; Mark Kermen
<MarkKernen@hotmail.com>; Marketta & Eric Barnett <ebnettS@yahoo.com>; Melanie Schnitt <gyntlmd@cox.net>; Miriam
Va rend <Mir3var@icloud.com>; Pam Adrian <pvmomdad@cox.net>; Peter Va rend <Pete.varend@gmail.com>; Ray Seager
<raysea2@gmail.com>; Ruben & Joanne Baeza <rbaeza6@cox.net>; Susan Seager <suesea2@gmail.com>; Ken Dyda
<cprotem73@verizon.net>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Urgent City Council Matter Re: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
Dear Kathy, Al, Del Cerro Board and RPV City Council
Thanks Al and Kathy for your effort in presenting the RPV open space
information.
I absolutely oppose making the Del Cerro entry a concession for the City
ofRPV.
T
The cover has come off the baseball!!!!
Expensive turnstiles and parking meters are not the right approach. This only
highlights Del Cerro as the place to go.
This Nature Open Space was acquired with significant private funding,
including large contributions by many Del Cerro residents and some well
known Los Angeles Foundations. Let's stop this silliness!
1 3
This approach will result in the Del Cerro entrance becoming a an elite poster
child for the ACLU, newspapers, TV and also provide some good business for
suit happy attorneys.
We now have the private permit parking in the neighborhood and limited
parking on Crenshaw.
Things are pretty good.
Let's cool it!
No turnstiles and parking meters!
Ray Seager
2 Oceanaire Dr
310-435-5277
Ray
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Del Cerro HOA <DelCerro HOA@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Neighbor,
As you may already know, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will be meeting this Tuesday July 31, 2018 at 7pm
at Hesse Park. On the agenda is an extremely urgent and important topic, and decisions will be made that may
immediately impact our neighborhood. They will be discussing how to mitigate the alarmingly increasing negative
impact by the thousands of visitors per month we have going through our neighborhood to access the preserve and
trails.
The fact is that the most used entrance to the preserve and trails is right in the middle of our Del Cerro
neighborhood adjacent to our homes. The city reported 11,576 visitors per month in June (Burma Rd &
Rattlesnake) and 13,892 total visitors per month, and this has created an unacceptable commercial environmental
impact on our once quiet residential neighborhood with all of the foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic. There is
trash everywhere near our homes, including beer bottles and human waste. Visitors are breaking our fences and
retaining walls and having potentially volatile confrontations with home owners. There are weekly tailgating
parties and cookouts with an open flame by dozens of night time bikers. We have seen explosions and fires caused
by visitors. The corner house near the trail entrance has experienced 4 car crashes into their home in the last
couple of years. We have also seen a definite increase in crime in our neighborhood in recent years. We feel that
the safety and security of our neighborhood has been threatened.
Earlier in the week Kathy Edgerton sent out an email summarizing some of the proposals. We as the Del Cerro HOA
Board wanted to let you know of our positions on some of these proposals.
2
1. We STRONGLY support a gate and turnstile at the Burma Road entrance to minimize preserve hours! This will
enable the city to enforce existing preserve hours which prohibit entry at night and after rain. Night time and after
rain hiking/biking is a legal liability for the city in case of injuries.
2. We support parking "pay and display" stations on Crenshaw except for nearby neighborhood permit parking. In
order to maintain a rural ambience to our neighborhood, we do not support parking meters but feel that having a
few pay stations to support pay parking on Crenshaw would improve an already commercial ambience.
3. We are ambivalent regarding closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance.
4. We agree a reservation system would be a way to control the number of people from the greater Los Angeles
area, trying to get in through the Burma Road entrance at Crenshaw, HOWEVER ONLY IF DEL CERRO RESIDENTS
HAVE A PERMIT PASS ENABLING FREE ENTRY, after all it is our neighborhood and we shouldn't have to pay to walk
around our neighborhood.
5. We STRONGLY OPPOSE a shuttle system that brings hikers to the Burma Road entrance. The last thing Del Cerro
needs is bus-loads of hikers being brought in through our neighborhood.
6. We STRONGLY recommend putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park Place) that restrict parking to
match the hours the preserve is open. We specifically recommend prohibiting night time parking on Crenshaw
except for nearby neighborhood permit parking. This will eliminate tailgating parties at night on Crenshaw with
open flame stoves which is a fire hazard.
7. We STRONGLY recommend that Council and Staff look into establishing a "Main Entrance" off P.V. Drive
South. We need to get to the root of the problem which is that we currently have the major entrance to the
preserve and trails in a residential neighborhood in the middle of homes. The only real solution is to open a main
entrance to the trails that is completely away from people's homes with parking and facilities inside of the
preserve.
-This is an area that is NOT in the middle of neighborhood homes.
-It would provide for facilities INSIDE the preserve such as: parking, information center, portable toilets, water,
etc.
-Hikers would start "low" and hike "up". When they get too hot or run out of water, they hike downhill (rather
than uphill) to finish their hike.
-This P.V. Drive South area should be where ALL Land Conservancy events would be held (unlike now where they
are held between the homes on Amber Sky and Burrell Lane).
Please Jet us know of your thoughts. If you can, please attend the RPV City Council meeting this Tuesday at 7pm
at Hesse Park and sign up to speak. There is strength in numbers.
If you cannot attend in person, please email us back stating that you agree with our positions, and we will
represent you at the meeting. You can just reply to this email and write: "I agree," Your Name and Address.
Also, you may email your opinions directly to City Council to be included in the Agenda Comments section. You
can email: Cory Linder (Recreation and Parks Director) at CoryL@rpvca.gov and CC: Gabriella Yap (Deputy City
Manager) at qyap@rpvca.gov. Feel free to cut and paste any portion of our position when writing. Since any
email to City Council will be public record, you do not have to include last name or address or any personal
information if you don't want to. Deadline for correspondences to City Council is Monday 4pm.
Thank you for your support on this very urgent and impactful matter.
3
Sincerely,
Del Cerro HOA Board
Rick Daniels, President
Kirk Hyde, Treasurer
Ingrid Hextall, Secretary
Bonnie Luthie, Social Chair
Sarah Kim, Member
Melanie Schnitt, Member
Andrew So, Member
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:15 AM
CityClerk
FW: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
Follow up
Completed
From: DOTIIE HASHIZUMI [mailto:dottiehash@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 8:08 AM
To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Al and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com>; Del Cerro HOA <delcerro_hoa@hotmail.com>
Subject: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING STATED IN THE EMAIL I RECEIVED
(ATTACHED BELOW). Been here since the beginning of 1973 (before it was even Rancho
Palos Verdes) and am very saddened at what has become of our DEL CERRO neighborhood &
what the City is doing about
it.
I RECALL BEING TOLD "YOU WILL REGRET BEING SO SUPPORTIVE OF THE
PRESERVE" and I thought that was crazy. BUT HE WAS CORRECT. UNFORTUNATELY,
TODAY'S SOCIETY IS TOTALLY INTO "ENTITLEMENT" with little regard to anything
else. LITTLE DID ANYONE REALIZE HOW SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD IMPACT OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE, PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT US RESIDENTS
OF DEL CERRO & TAX PAYERS OF THE City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES. AS YOU
COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS, PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF
13,000 PEOPLE A MONTH WERE WALKING NEAR YOUR HOME !
Dottie Lancaster Hashizumi
22 Coveview Drive
On July 29, 2018 at 10:05 PM Del Cerro HOA <De1Cerro HOArq)hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Neighbor,
3.
1
As you may already know, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will be meeting this Tuesday July 31, 2018 at 7pm at
Hesse Park. On the agenda is an extremely urgent and important topic, and decisions will be made that may
immediately impact our neighborhood. They will be discussing how to mitigate the alarmingly increasing negative
impact by the thousands of visitors per month we have going through our neighborhood to access the preserve and
trails.
The fact is that the most used entrance to the preserve and trails is right in the middle of our Del Cerro
neighborhood adjacent to our homes. The city reported 11,576 visitors per month in June (Burma Rd & Rattlesnake}
and 13,892 total visitors per month, and this has created an unacceptable commercial environmental impact on our
once quiet residential neighborhood with all of the foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic. There is trash
everywhere near our homes, including beer bottles and human waste. Visitors are breaking our fences and retaining
walls and having potentially volatile confrontations with home owners. There are weekly tailgating parties and
cookouts with an open flame by dozens of night time bikers. We have seen explosions and fires caused by
visitors. The corner house near the trail entrance has experienced 4 car crashes into their home in the last couple of
years. We have also seen a definite increase in crime in our neighborhood in recent years. We feel that the safety
and security of our neighborhood has been threatened.
Earlier in the week Kathy Edgerton sent out an email summarizing some of the proposals. We as the Del Cerro HOA
Board wanted to let you know of our positions on some of these proposals.
1. We STRONGLY support a gate and turnstile at the Burma Road entrance to minimize preserve hours! This will
enable the city to enforce existing preserve hours which prohibit entry at night and after rain. Night time and after
rain hiking/biking is a legal liability for the city in case of injuries.
2. We support parking "pay and display" stations on Crenshaw except for nearby neighborhood permit parking. In
order to maintain a rural ambience to our neighborhood, we do not support parking meters but feel that having a
few pay stations to support pay parking on Crenshaw would improve an already commercial ambience.
3. We are ambivalent regarding closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance.
4. We agree a reservation system would be a way to control the number of people from the greater Los Angeles
area, trying to get in through the Burma Road entrance at Crenshaw, HOWEVER ONLY IF DEL CERRO RESIDENTS
HAVE A PERMIT PASS ENABLING FREE ENTRY, after all it is our neighborhood and we shouldn't have to pay to walk
around our neighborhood.
5. We STRONGLY OPPOSE a shuttle system that brings hikers to the Burma Road entrance. The last thing Del Cerro
needs is bus-loads of hikers being brought in through our neighborhood.
6. We STRONGLY recommend putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park Place} that restrict parking to
match the hours the preserve is open. We specifically recommend prohibiting night time parking on Crenshaw
except for nearby neighborhood permit parking. This will eliminate tailgating parties at night on Crenshaw with
open flame stoves which is a fire hazard.
7. We STRONGLY recommend that Council and Staff look into establishing a "Main Entrance" off P.V. Drive
South. We need to get to the root of the problem which is that we currently have the major entrance to the
preserve and trails in a residential neighborhood in the middle of homes. The only real solution is to open a main
entrance to the trails that is completely away from people's homes with parking and facilities inside of the
preserve.
2
-This is an area that is NOT in the middle of neighborhood homes.
-It would provide for facilities INSIDE the preserve such as: parking, information center, portable toilets, water, etc.
-Hikers would start "low" and hike "up". When they get too hot or run out of water, they hike downhill (rather than
uphill) to finish their hike.
-This P.V. Drive South area should be where ALL Land Conservancy events would be held (unlike now where they
are held between the homes on Amber Sky and Burrell Lane).
Please Jet us know of your thoughts. If you can, please attend the RPV City Council meeting this Tuesday at 7pm
at Hesse Park and sign up to speak. There is strength in numbers.
If you cannot attend in person, please email us back stating that you agree with our positions, and we will
represent you at the meeting. You can just reply to this email and write: "I agree," Your Name and Address.
Also, you may email your opinions directly to City Council to be included in the Agenda Comments section. You
can email: Cory Linder (Recreation and Parks Director) at Coryl@rpvca.gov and CC: Gabriella Yap (Deputy City
Manager) at gyap@rpvca.gov. Feel free to cut and paste any portion of our position when writing. Since any
email to City Council will be public record, you do not have to include last name or address or any personal
information if you don't want to. Deadline for correspondences to City Council is Monday 4pm.
Thank you for your support on this very urgent and impactful matter.
Sincerely,
Del Cerro HOA Board
Rick Daniels, President
Kirk Hyde, Treasurer
Ingrid Hextall, Secretary
Bonnie Luthie, Social Chair
Sarah Kim, Member
Melanie Schnitt, Member
Andrew So, Member
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:14 AM
CityClerk
FW: Urgent City Council Matter Re: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Completed Flag Status:
From: John Hextall [mailto:john.hextall@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 11:29 AM
To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; delcerro_HOA@hotmail.com
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Ingrid Hextall <lngrid.hextall@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Urgent City Council Matter Re: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
Dear RPV Council and Del Cerro HOA Board:
I agree with the Del Cerro HOA Board recommendations contained in the email herein.
Regards,
John Hextall
7 Amber Sky Drive,
RPV
CA 90275
From: Del Cerro HOA <DelCerro HOA@hotmail.com>
Date: July 29, 2018 at 10:05:45 PM PDT
To: Del Cerro HOA <DelCerro HOA@hotmail.com>
Subject: Urgent City Council Matter Re: Del Cerro/Preserve Visitors and Parking
Dear Neighbor,
As you may already know, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will be meeting this
Tuesday July 31, 2018 at 7pm at Hesse Park. On the agenda is an extremely urgent and
important topic, and decisions will be made that may immediately impact our
neighborhood. They will be discussing how to mitigate the alarmingly increasing
negative impact by the thousands of visitors per month we have going through our
neighborhood to access the preserve and trails.
The fact is that the most used entrance to the preserve and trails is right in the middle
of our Del Cerro neighborhood adjacent to our homes. The city reported 11,576
visitors per month in June (Burma Rd & Rattlesnake) and 13,892 total visitors per
month, and this has created an unacceptable commercial environmental impact on our
once quiet residential neighborhood with all of the foot traffic, bike traffic, and car
traffic. There is trash everywhere near our homes, including beer bottles and human
waste. Visitors are breaking our fences and retaining walls and having potentially
1 3_
volatile confrontations with home owners. There are weekly tailgating parties and
cookouts with an open flame by dozens of night time bikers. We have seen explosions
and fires caused by visitors. The corner house near the trail entrance has experienced
4 car crashes into their home in the last couple of years. We have also seen a definite
increase in crime in our neighborhood in recent years. We feel that the safety and
security of our neighborhood has been threatened.
Earlier in the week Kathy Edgerton sent out an email summarizing some of the
proposals. We as the Del Cerro HOA Board wanted to let you know of our positions on
some of these proposals.
1. We STRONGLY support a gate and turnstile at the Burma Road entrance to minimize
preserve hours! This will enable the city to enforce existing preserve hours which
prohibit entry at night and after rain. Night time and after rain hiking/biking is a legal
liability for the city in case of injuries.
2. We support parking "pay and display" stations on Crenshaw except for nearby
neighborhood permit parking. In order to maintain a rural ambience to our
neighborhood, we do not support parking meters but feel that having a few pay
stations to support pay parking on Crenshaw would improve an already commercial
ambience.
3. We are ambivalent regarding closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance.
4. We agree a reservation system would be a way to control the number of people
from the greater Los Angeles area, trying to get in through the Burma Road entrance
at Crenshaw, HOWEVER ONLY IF DEL CERRO RESIDENTS HAVE A PERMIT PASS
ENABLING FREE ENTRY, after all it is our neighborhood and we shouldn't have to pay
to walk around our neighborhood.
5. We STRONGLY OPPOSE a shuttle system that brings hikers to the Burma Road
entrance. The last thing Del Cerro needs is bus-loads of hikers being brought in
through our neighborhood.
6. We STRONGLY recommend putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park
Place) that restrict parking to match the hours the preserve is open. We specifically
recommend prohibiting night time parking on Crenshaw except for nearby
neighborhood permit parking. This will eliminate tailgating parties at night on
Crenshaw with open flame stoves which is a fire hazard.
7. We STRONGLY recommend that Council and Staff look into establishing a "Main
Entrance" off P.V. Drive South. We need to get to the root of the problem which is
that we currently have the major entrance to the preserve and trails in a residential
neighborhood in the middle of homes. The only real solution is to open a main
entrance to the trails that is completely away from people's homes with parking and
facilities inside of the preserve.
-This is an area that is NOT in the middle of neighborhood homes.
-It would provide for facilities INSIDE the preserve such as: parking, information
center, portable toilets, water, etc.
2
-Hikers would start "low" and hike "up". When they get too hot or run out of water,
they hike downhill (rather than uphill) to finish their hike.
-This P.V. Drive South area should be where ALL Land Conservancy events would be
held (unlike now where they are held between the homes on Amber Sky and Burrell
Lane).
Please let us know of your thoughts. If you can, please attend the RPV City Council
meeting this Tuesday at lpm at Hesse Park and sign up to speak. There is strength in
numbers.
If you cannot attend in person, please email us back stating that you agree with our
positions, and we will represent you at the meeting. You can just reply to this email
and write: "I agree," Your Name and Address.
Also, you may email your opinions directly to City Council to be included in the
Agenda Comments section. You can email: Cory Linder (Recreation and Parks
Director) at CoryL@rpvca.gov and CC: Gabriella Yap {Deputy City Manager) at
gyap@rpvca.gov. Feel free to cut and paste any portion of our position when
writing. Since any email to City Council will be public record, you do not have to
include last name or address or any personal information if you don't want
to. Deadline for correspondences to City Council is Monday 4pm.
Thank you for your support on this very urgent and impactful matter.
Sincerely,
Del Cerro HOA Board
Rick Daniels, President
Kirk Hyde, Treasurer
Ingrid Hextall, Secretary
Bonnie Luthie, Social Chair
Sarah Kim, Member
Melanie Schnitt, Member
Andrew So, Member
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:14 AM
CityClerk
FW: Del Cerro neighborhood concern
From: Sarah Kim [mailto:sskies@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:55 PM
To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Del Cerro neighborhood concern
Hello Parks and Recreation Director and Deputy City Manager1
My name is Sarah Kim a resident at Del Cerro neighborhood. "I agree" with the HOA board members regarding
the negative impact the hikers are having on our neighborhood. I would like to express to the city council
members that having almost 141 000 people per month1 trample trough the middle of my neighborhood is
completely outrageous and unacceptable. Please close down Burma Road entrance at the end of Crenshaw. I
want a/1141 000 people gone1 no where near my home and my neighbors home.
Sarah Kim
Resident
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:13 AM
CityClerk
FW: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
From: P Kay [mailto:scpkay2000@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:59 PM
To: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
I am a long time RPV Resident and Del Cerro Resident.
We have a crisis in Rancho Palos Verdes. We are being besieged by 13,000 visitors monthly. Whoever decided to
put the main entrances to the preserve and trails did not do their homework. Where is the environmental impact study
projecting 13,000 visitors. Why are we allowing 13,000 monthly visitors to invade our neighborhoods to go to the
entrances to the preserve which is smack next to our homes.
The fact is that the most used entrance to the preserve and trails is right in the middle of our Del Cerro neighborhood
adjacent to our homes. The city reported 11,576 visitors per month in June (Burma Rd & Rattlesnake) and 13,892
total visitors per month, and this has created an unacceptable commercial environmental impact on our once quiet
residential neighborhood with all of the foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic. There is trash everywhere near our
homes, including beer bottles and human waste. Visitors are breaking our fences and retaining walls and having
potentially volatile confrontations with home owners. There are weekly tailgating parties and cookouts with an open
flame by dozens of night time bikers. We have seen explosions and fires caused by visitors. The corner house near
the trail entrance has experienced 4 car crashes into their home in the last couple of years. We have also seen a
definite increase in crime in our neighborhood in recent years. We feel that the safety and security of our
neighborhood has been threatened.
1. We must CLOSE DOWN THE BURMA RD ENTRANCE AND RATTLESNAKE ENTRANCE to the
preserves. The only way is to OPEN A MAIN ENTRANCE WHERE THERE ARE NO HOMES!!!! PV Dr.
SOUTH in an area where there are no home. I know we looked at this option before. BUT WE NEED TO LOOK
AT IT AGAIN. IT'S COME TO A BREAKING POINT!!!
2. We STRONGLY OPPOSE unilateral closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance. We would support closure of
Rattlesnake Canyon entrance ONLY ifthe Burma Rd entrance is also closed and OR we open a main entrance along
PV Drive South. Rattlesnake Trail: Del Cerro/Burma Rd gets 8,534 visitors per month. Rattlesnake Trail (next to
Island View) gets 3,042 and Pirate Trail (near Forrestal Dr. near Ladera Linda) gets 2,316. Blocking off Rattlesnake
Trail would mean most of those 3042 visitors will enter through Burma Rd. That's 3000 more visitors through Burma
Rd than we have now! That is no small number. It's a 36% increase! This may be a solution for Island View, but it's
not a solution to the overall problem to shift Island View's foot traffic and add to ours. This is truly not being a team
player. I would love to say "we should shut down the Burma Rd entrance, and they can all go through the Rattlesnake
entrance," but that's obviously not a fair solution. The city council must come up with solution that looks at the whole
picture, not just Island View.
Sincerely,
Del Cerro Resident 3.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:47 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
From: P Kay [mailto:scpkay2000@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 12:31 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
I am a long time RPV Resident and Del Cerro Resident.
We have a crisis in Rancho Palos Verdes. We are being besieged by 14,000 visitors monthly. Whoever decided to
put the main entrances to the preserve and trails did not do their homework. Where is the environmental impact study
projecting 14,000 visitors. Why are we allowing 14,000 monthly visitors to invade our neighborhoods to go to the
entrances to the preserve which is smack next to our homes.
The fact is that the most used entrance to the preserve and trails is right in the middle of our Del Cerro neighborhood
adjacent to our homes. The city reported 11,576 visitors per month in June (Burma Rd & Rattlesnake) and 13,892
total visitors per month, and this has created an unacceptable commercial environmental impact on our once quiet
residential neighborhood with all of the foot traffic, bike traffic, and car traffic. There is trash everywhere near our
homes, including beer bottles and human waste. Visitors are breaking our fences and retaining walls and having
potentially volatile confrontations with home owners. There are weekly tailgating parties and cookouts with an open
flame by dozens of night time bikers. We have seen explosions and fires caused by visitors. The corner house near
the trail entrance has experienced 4 car crashes into their home in the last couple of years. We have also seen a
definite increase in crime in our neighborhood in recent years. We feel that the safety and security of our
neighborhood has been threatened.
1. We must CLOSE DOWN THE BURMA RD ENTRANCE AND RATTLESNAKE ENTRANCE to the
preserves. The only way is to OPEN A MAIN ENTRANCE WHERE THERE ARE NO HOMES!!!! PV Dr.
SOUTH in an area where there are no home. I know we looked at this option before. BUT WE NEED TO LOOK
AT IT AGAIN. IT'S COME TO A BREAKING POINT!!!
2. We STRONGLY OPPOSE unilateral closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance. We would support closure of
Rattlesnake Canyon entrance ONLY ifthe Burma Rd entrance is also closed and OR we open a main entrance along
PV Drive South. Rattlesnake Trail: Del Cerro/Burma Rd gets 8,534 visitors per month. Rattlesnake Trail (next to
Island View) gets 3,042 and Pirate Trail (near Forrestal Dr. near Ladera Linda) gets 2,316. Blocking off Rattlesnake
Trail would mean most of those 3042 visitors will enter through Burma Rd. That's 3000 more visitors through Burma
Rd than we have now! That is no small number. It's a 36% increase! This may be a solution for Island View, but it's
not a solution to the overall problem to shift Island View's foot traffic and add to ours. This is truly not being a team
player. I would love to say "we should shut down the Burma Rd entrance, and they can all go through the Rattlesnake
entrance," but that's obviously not a fair solution. The city council must come up with solution that looks at the whole
picture, not just Island View.
3. We STRONGLY recommend restricting night time parking on Crenshaw (between Crest and Park Place) except
for nearby neighborhood permit parking. We support putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park Place)
that restrict parking to match the hours the preserve is ope~ AND ticketing violators. Night time hiking is a leg:.3
liability for the city if someone gets injured while in the preserve at night. This will also prohibit weekly night time
tail gating parties with an open flame.
4. We must eliminate CITY PERMITTED NIGHT HIKES. Why is the city allowing 20 night hikes per month with
30 participants per hike? Night time hiking is a legal liability for the city if someone gets injured while in the
preserve at night. And what about the poor neighbors who are trying to sleep? Even if you're trying to be quiet, 30
hikers in front of our back yards can get quite noisy. The 30 voices travel up, and people can't sleep.
5. Pay parking and turnstiles are ugly and detract from the rural ambience we're trying to maintain. But that ship has
sailed. We've lost that battle. I would much rather have pay parking and turnstiles if that would decrease the number
of visitors and regulate the number of visitors.
6. A shuttle service is the LAST thing we want. It's not just about car traffic. It's about the sheer ridiculous number
of people coming in. We don't want our neighborhood turning into a Disneyland.
Sincerely,
Del Cerro Resident
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cory Linder
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:13 AM
CityClerk
FW: RPV City Council meeting
From: Ingrid Hextall [mailto:ingrid.hextall@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 5:49 PM
To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV City Council meeting
I agree to the following and support The Del Cerro HOA:
1. We STRONGLY support a gate and turnstile at the Burma Road entrance to minimize preserve hours! This will
enable the city to enforce existing preserve hours which prohibit entry at night and after rain. Night time and after
rain hiking/biking is a legal liability for the city in case of injuries.
2. We support parking "pay and display" stations on Crenshaw except for nearby neighborhood permit parking. In
order to maintain a rural ambience to our neighborhood, we do not support parking meters but feel that having a
few pay stations to support pay parking on Crenshaw would improve an already commercial ambience.
3. We are ambivalent regarding closure of Rattlesnake Canyon entrance.
4. We agree a reservation system would be a way to control the number of people from the greater Los Angeles
area, trying to get in through the Burma Road entrance at Crenshaw, HOWEVER ONLY IF DEL CERRO RESIDENTS
HAVE A PERMIT PASS ENABLING FREE ENTRY, after all it is our neighborhood and we shouldn't have to pay to walk
around our neighborhood.
5. We STRONGLY OPPOSE a shuttle system that brings hikers to the Burma Road entrance. The last thing Del Cerro
needs is bus-loads of hikers being brought in through our neighborhood.
6. We STRONGLY recommend putting signs on Crenshaw (between Crest and the Park Place) that restrict parking to
match the hours the preserve is open. We specifically recommend prohibiting night time parking on Crenshaw
except for nearby neighborhood permit parking. This will eliminate tailgating parties at night on Crenshaw with
open flame stoves which is a fire hazard.
7. We STRONGLY recommend that Council and Staff look into establishing a "Main Entrance" off P.V. Drive
South. We need to get to the root of the problem which is that we currently have the major entrance to the
preserve and trails in a residential neighborhood in the middle of homes. The only real solution is to open a main
entrance to the trails that is completely away from people's homes with parking and facilities inside of the
preserve.
-This is an area that is NOT in the middle of neighborhood homes.
-It would provide for facilities INSIDE the preserve such as: parking, information center, portable toilets, water, etc.
-Hikers would start "low" and hike "up". When they get too hot or run out of water, they hike downhill (rather than
uphill) to finish their hike.
1 3 •
-This P.V. Drive South area should be where ALL Land Conservancy events would be held (unlike now where they
are held between the homes on Amber Sky and Burrell Lane).
Ingrid Hextall
7 Amber Sky Drive
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:04 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Ladera Linda park Committee Comments To Agenda Item# 3: CC Meeting on 7 /31/18
From: Mickey Radich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:34 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda park Committee Comments To Agenda Item# 3: CC Meeting on 7 /31/18
Mayor Brooks and Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
At the last annual meeting of the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association, the board established a Park
Committee to represent the homeowners and to interface with city staff to resolve all outstanding issues
relating to the Ladera Linda Neighborhood Park and related traffic, parking, and safety issues.
Unfortunately the committee was unable to meet with city staff, in any meaningful way before the release of
this staff report for the 7/31/18 CC meeting, on the current parking and access situation throughout the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve and Open Space areas and especially for the Ladera Linda preserve area. As a
result several of the issues that have been brought up to the city in past discussions have not been resolved.
Of particular conflict is staff's desire to provide expanded parking for visitors to the preserve to the detriment
of the habitat and species in the preserve and the quality of life for the residents at the trailheads. This will
be like a dog chasing its tail as the expanded parking will attract more visitors requiring additional parking
with no end in sight.
Staff needs to recognize that the priority for the preserve is first "conservation of habitat and species" and
secondly "passive recreational use", as spelled out in the Mission Statement of the PV Land Conservancy,
not the other way around.
The only solution is to restrict access to the preserve to a level that will not damage the habitat and be
tolerated by the residents. As pointed out in the staff report there are a wide range of access points to the
preserve, making it impractical to station staff at each point. Therefore control has to be within the preserve.
The committee supports the online reservation system described in the report. This is the most cost effective
system as the city already has a reservation system on its webpage. The main issue is how can this be
implemented. Staff proposed adding additional staff for enforcement. The committee believes that present
staff is adequate to police the system. The staff and the Sheriff deputies would spot check visitors for
reservation slips and give citations to those who do not have one. Further, residents would only be required
to show proof of residency. It would not take long before the message would get out that you need a
reservation to enter the preserve. This simple system will control the entry of individuals and groups into the
preserve.
As for the recommendations proposed by staff, our committee opposes the installation of a second gate at
the intersection of Forrestal Drive and Intrepid, also known as Mainsail. We don't know if this is intentional
1 3.
or a typo, but placing gate #2 at Intrepid will add around 100 additional preserve parking places (parallel
parking) and eliminate those same 100 spaces from AYSO parking. This is not a good idea and does nothing
to help the traffic issues on Forrestal and at the intersection with PVDS.
The staff report states that the AYSO has agreed to reduce the games played at Ladera Linda by 50%. That
is not true. In our meeting with them they talked of reducing their games at Ladera Linda by 20% to 25%.
That includes reducing other programs (they have 7) that they promote besides the normal AYSO program.
This reduction is not reducing the fields being used at any specific time, but it is accomplished by reducing
the hours played per day, ie, from 9 AM to 6 PM reduced to 9 AM to 4 PM. That does not change the number
of cars on Forrestal trying to make a left turn toward San Pedro at any given time.
We also oppose the present Forrestal gate being open daily. This would open up parking to over 100 parking
spaces and increase the traffic on Forrestal. It would also open up the preserve to trash dumping which was
one of the reasons for the gate in the first place. This gate should only be opened for A YSO games or special
city events such as the Easter egg roll.
The committee recommends that all present trailhead parking be directed into the Ladera Linda Park parking
lots as the most cost effective approach. While staff rejects this solution in their report as being temporary,
we believe it is nonetheless viable at this time, as LL Park usage is currently very low and there is ample
parking for trailhead users in the park parking lots. When the detailed plans for the new park are developed,
we can revisit the need for creating 28 additional spaces above the current gate for preserve parking.
The committee agrees with staff that both sides of Forrestal should be no parking but only down to the park
property, as previously discussed. Extending it down to PV Drive South should only be done with the consent
of the three residents on Forrestal, because they would not be able to have friends visit them and park near
their home.
The committee also agrees with staff that Pirate and Searaven should have restricted parking, although we
recommend initially, with signs only at the entrance to and along Pirate and for Searaven. Pirate is the only
street with a parkway that will allow for easy sign placement. It is important that these signs be installed at
the same time as no parking on Forrestal is implemented. A visit of Sea View shows that their only permit
parking signs are located right at the Schooner and Conquerer intersections and they do not experience
parking violations.
2
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:29 PM
Nathan Zweizig To:
Subject: FW: 7 /30/18 Traffic Issues At Pirate and Forrestal 7 /30/18
From: Mickey Radich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:18 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 7/30/18 Traffic Issues At Pirate and Forrestal 7/30/18
Come Sept. I st, when the new A YSO season begins, our neighborhood, Ladera Linda, will once again be inundated
with A YSO traffic which will create a nightmare for us on Pirate/Forrestal. We already have Preserve parking issues
when 100 people and their 100 cars show up from the Meet Up hiking group, as they did again last week. We have
tried to meet with Staff to discuss and resolve these issues before their Report is prepared for the July 31st City
Council meeting Agenda, but that did not happen. We only got surprises when their Report was released as part of the
Agenda for the City Council meeting on July 31st. We have suggested, a number of times, what our Ladera Linda
HOA and Park Committee feels will be a low cost and effective solution to control traffic and parking in our area
until the new Ladera Linda Park is built. We need these improvements completed before the Sept. I st A YSO season
begins.
What we have asked for is very simple and would be very cost effective.
1. Red stripe the curbs from the Forrestal gate down to the Park property line.
2. Only open the Forrestal gate for A YSO and other large pre-planned City events.
3. Create additional parking in the fenced in park area at Ladera Linda Park and with that improvement, the Park
can easily provide 55 to 60 spaces for Park and Preserve parking right now.
4. Restricted and/or permit parking on Pirate and Searaven, in our development.
5. Relocate the Pirate Trail head 200 feet north to give homes on Pirate some privacy.
What we got in return in this Staff Report is:
1. Red stripe the curbs from the Forrestal gate all the way down to PVDS. This will mean that the 3 homes on
Forrestal will never be able to have visitors parking near their homes.
2. Keep the Forrestal gate open every day. The gate will be open and unsupervised which will allow
uncontrolled access to the soccer fields and open to dumping furniture, construction waste and other
trash. The nightime activity was even worse. This is the problem that we had in the past until the
Forrestal gate was installed.
3. Create a 2nd gate at Forrestal and Intrepid. This will provide 100+ additional parking spaces for the
Preserve and at the same time remove 100+ parking spaces from A YSO. Also, if unsupervised, will
allow the dumping of trash in that area. If our inexpensive plan is implemented there would be 55 to 60
parking spaces available at Ladera Linda Park for hiker and/or use.
4. We are in agreement with Staff on this issue. However we should be asked for input on sign locations and
information in advance.
5. Shut down the Pirate trail head and relocate it to the far end of Forrestal. We don't think the PV Land
Conservancy and the Sierra Club would want that to happen, We see a long drawn battle ahead.
1 ~
6. Staff has talked about implementing an on line registration system, but said that implementing such a plan
would require additional employees and would be expensive. We don't agree with that statement. We
would be willing to review with Staff a system, that they already have, that can be used for this
purpose.
Along with the above comments, the City Council should decide on the Preserve operating hours. A reasonable
choice could be from 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset and it should be posted and strictly enforced. At the
present time the Sierra Club advertises, on their local web site, sunset and night hikes in the Preserve. They remind
their followers to bring along red flashlights. Presently there are groups, origin unknown, that do night hikes in the
Preserve that go on well past 10 PM and they are almost a weekly occurrence. Along with them there are people who
go into the preserve after dark to drink, party and make noise.
One final thought, I feel that the City could save a lot of time and money if they would have Staff meet with the
most affected residents, for any given project, in the early stages before they have their minds made up and already
submitted their reports and recommendations to the City Council. After all, who knows a problem better than those
that experience it every day and you would be surprised at the solutions they can offer.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:29 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: This evenings public hearing comments
Parking issues July 31.docx
From: Bill Schurmer [mailto:sbschurm@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:16 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: This evenings public hearing comments
Dear Council Members,
The attached are my written public hearing comments for the Community Center parking agenda item.
I realize that when I speak, you will have already read this transcript, but I figured that it would be advantageous for you to have
an advance copy. If there are shorter time constraints, I can easily paraphrase. We'll see when the time comes this evening.
Thanks for your service to our community.
Bill Schurmer
32468 Searaven Dr.
3.
1
As a long time resident of Ladera Linda I wish to thank the special
committee for their commitment in bringing forth their
recommendations to you this evening. I have not been involved in
this current process as it has moved forward, and only recently had
the opportunity to review their work. In doing so, three
consistencies struck me that not only reflect on the issue( s) at hand
but also on our concern for the broader community in general. I
am not talking from a technical standpoint, but about an attitude.
You will hear more of the details from those who been directly
involved, plus I'm sure you have read correspondence from its
members. I do not wish to be repetitive. I am not long winded, I'll
hit my points and move on.
First, with regard to several key points, the committee's
recommendation of employing of an incremental approach, simply
dictates sound business practices. The recommendations ask not to
start with the most far reaching solutions, but the least invasive,
and in some cases the least expensive options. This makes good
sense. The F orrestal Gate, red curb to PVS and restricted
neighborhood parking come to mind.
I note a great concern for the city's overall expense and not only
for the needs of our own residents. This applies to the previously
mentioned incremental approach. The considerable cost of a
second Ladera Linda gate as a good example. This shows an
awareness of the city's fiscal responsibility to control unnecessary
spending, for the good of all citizens. This goes beyond the
addressing of our own issues.
And lastly, a caring for the environment that extends well outside
the limits of our neighborhood, but to the vacant land that
surrounds us. This goes with the suggestion to begin an online
visitor registration system, administered with the current staff. This
not only helps to address the parking and traffic issues but the
limiting of the damage that some uncaring visitors bring to our
fragile overall area. Plus, you go forward sooner with less cost. As
one committee member wrote, "I believe it is time for key players
to address the negative impact visitors to the Preserve are having
on parts of Rancho Palos Verdes". This seems fairly obvious to
me.
I do not talk in any depth on the specific issues, I leave that to our
well researched committee. I just refer to these issues as examples
of why our neighborhood is so special. I have been here 4 7 years
and to my recollection, it has always been this way. When we
become involved, especially to this extent, our thinking extends
well beyond the immediate problem.
I would say that I am painting a broad view of how we do things in
our community as they relate to the specifics of what we are
involved in tonight. I am now and always have been impressed
with our approach.
Bill Schurmer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:29 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Parking proposals for Del Cerro and Forrestal
From: Randy Harwood [mailto:randykharwood@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Parking proposals for Del Cerro and Forrestal
As the co-director of the Volunteer Trail Watch Program, I believe reducing the access to Del Cerro and
Forrestal Reserves and/ or charging as much as $5/hour for the same access will likely result in a loss of
volunteer support for the VTW program. Additionally, the many other volunteer activities would also likely
be negatively impacted.
Regarding recommended council action B. 2 Per the conservation framework as presented in the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan and specifically articulated in the Land Conservancy's
Management Agreement with the City of RPV, we are required to provide a minimum of $50,000 of
volunteer service to support the Land Conservancy and City's obligations in the Nature Preserve. We urge
City Council and staff to incorporate measures and accommodations for volunteers who dedicate their time
to aid in the restoration of the Preserve's habitat, trail maintenance as well as the volunteer trail watch
program which supports educational programming for responsible trail use.
Regarding recommended council action A. 4. Land Conservancy staff has taken a preliminary look at
the Pirate Trail and trailhead locations in response to the option to possibly close the trail or relocate the
trailhead. We find this problematic for the following reasons:
1. There is high-quality habitat within the area of the trailhead's potential relocation. This area is also
situated on steep slopes, which make the trail's relocation unsustainable. The City and Conservancy have
already rerouted the trail in response to an unsafe alignment of the trailhead into the street, and a further
rework of this area is an inefficient use of resources.
2. Moving the trailhead or closing Pirate Trail in response to a specific resident complaint sets a precedent
for the fate of many other long-standing trails and trailheads.
3. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a long history of community engagement and input seeking. It is
recommended that the existing infrastructure of the quarterly public forum is used to garner input on trail
closure or relocation projects. This would be consistent with the manner in which the trails network plan
was developed.
Regarding the item for future consideration action A. 4.
As already noted in the preceding comment, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a long history of
community engagement and input seeking. It is recommended that the existing infrastructure of the
quarterly public forum is used to garner input on trail closure or relocation projects. This would be
consistent with the manner in which the trails network plan was developed. 3. 1
Personally, I think the majority of the neighbors' complaints revolve around infractions of existing laws.
Perhaps adding more enforcement in these areas would be a first step to reduce these complaints.
Randy Harwood
2
Received
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
JUL 3 0 2018
Dear City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Pubtic Works Department
I write to you today to urge you to keep Del Cerro Park available to all
residents and non-residents who wish to enjoy it.
My name is Julianna Rossi, and I am a resident of Palos Verdes Estates. My
family and I enjoy hiking at Del Cerro and the Portugese Bend Nature Reserve, but
we always have difficulty finding a place to park. With the addition of permit-only
parking and now the elimination of the parking lot, it will only be more difficult to
enjoy this beautiful space.
Parks are a public resource that should be open to all. Del Cerro Park is an
especially beautiful place-with its amazing views and gorgeous foliage, I
understand why it must be protected. However, parks are also meant to be enjoyed.
They are meant to be a place where the community can enjoy open space and
activity, hikes and runs, or even just a beautiful vista, as my family and myself often
do.
I urge you to reconsider your decision and consider the hundreds-or even
thousands-of people who visit and love Del Cerro Park and Portugese Bend
Reserve.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The nation behaves well if it treats its
natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased,
and not impaired, in value."
Please treat this asset as the valuable treasure it is, and do not impair its
immeasurable value by unfairly restricting access.
Thank you,
Julianna Rossi
Palos Verdes Estates Resident
310-546-4603
CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 30, 2018
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, July 31, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
Public Comments Email from Ken Delong and Bill Patton
F Emails from: Andrea Vona; SUNSHINE; Donald Bell; Edmundo
Hummel
G Pages inadvertently excluded from Attachment C
2 Emails from: Jean Longacre; Eva Cicoria; Madeline Ryan; Morgan
Hess; Anna Chu; SUNSHINE; Evie Hunter
3 Emails from: Andrea Vona; Eva Cicoria; Marty Foster; Hans Kuehl;
Gary Randall; Kathy and Al Edgerton; Donald Bell; Barbara Fujita;
Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Herb Stark
4 Emails from: Melanie Streitfeld; Heather Fattahi; The Bennetts; Ian
Bisco; Praveen Gattu; Marcia Watanabe; Patrick Rayner; Steven
Barryte; Kathy Christie; Eva Cicoria; Jerry Haber; John Gil-Gomez;
Email exchange between Staff and Jenny Hong
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180731 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:30 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: "Hospitality" Initiative Election Date.
From: Ken Delong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:10 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'William Patton' <billpatton21@icloud.com>
Subject: "Hospitality" Initiative Election Date.
To: Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, Councilmen Alegria, Cruikshank, Dyda
Thursday July 26th the Daily Breeze published on page Al that Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant had ordered a hearing on
August 7th in response to labor union Unite Here Local 11 petition for a change in date for putting the "Initiative" on an RPV
ballot. As many are aware, Unite Here Local 11 is the instigator of the Initiative seeking voter approval of a new RPV:
Hospitality" workers Ordinance. At its July 17th meeting the RPV Council had decided on November 2019 date as the next
scheduled RPV election date. Unite Here Local 11 is contesting that date thus the petition to Judge Chalfant.
We noted on Friday July 27th that the Council had amended its closed session_agenda (item 5) for July 31st that has a vague but
in all probability a discussion on the pending action with Judge Chalfant. We suggest that RPV be prepared for a decision by
Judge Chalfant for an election date in in November 2018 rather than November 2019
PVP Watch is opposed to the "Hospitality" Ordinance as it is a devious effort to solve a problem that does not exist. The Unite
Here Local 11 has not attempted any efforts at "organizing" Terranea or any other RPV employer. It appears that few, if any;
Terranea employees have any interest in any union representation. In fact we question the Constitutionality of a "City" being
able to dictate that employees of any business enterprise within that City MUST join a specific union.
While we can appreciate the Councils desire to control costs, it is in the best interests of Terranea and the residents of RPV
that the "Initiative" measure be voted on a soon as possible. The Unite Here Local 11 effort for voter approval is focused on
harassment. The Union has harassed Terranea guests and has sent fallacious letters to prospective groups who had conference
reservations at Terranea causing cancellation of bookings. We are aware that some notifications have been forwarded to the
Council but rather that pass on hearsay, we suggest the Council contact Ms. Haack for the accurate data. We do understand
that the cancellations are significant and will negatively impact RPV TOT revenues likely being greater than the $200,000
estimated special election costs.
PVP Watch plans to use its resources should the "initiative" matter go to the RPV voters. We believe RPV voters, once
informed of the truth, will vote against the Union initiated measure. A caveat, it does take time for preparation and obtaining
election materials.
Ken Delong
Bill Patton
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 4:37 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: consent item #F
From: Andrea Vona [mailto:avona@pvplc.org]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 4:04 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: consent item #F
Greetings,
It has come to my attention that you may have received correspondence encouraging that the Annual Report as
prepared by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve should be broader
to include the neighborhoods surrounding the Preserve. The portions of the Annual Report that the Land
Conservancy prepares is a specific requirement under the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/ Habitat
Conservation Plan and is intended to discuss the adequacy of the overall progress being made toward reaching the
conservation goals of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. This report is a submittal to the California State
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife Service and is also presented to the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes. The Land Conservancy has no authority to change the requirements of this submittal.
To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council meeting on Tuesday night, I recommend that any
comments or suggestions related to City neighborhoods be discussed and addressed under agenda item #3, which
you have specifically established for such subject matter.
Please give me a call if you would like to discuss further or if there are any questions or comments you have
received that you would like to talk about.
Thank you,
Andrea Vona
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
310-541-7613 X204
310-930-0583 (cell)
"Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of
all."
1 f
From: Andrea Vona Lr.D.£itt9.~0._\l-9na..@J2Y.P.L~Qrg]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 3:46 PM
To: Donald Bell <itV1LJ2rny_@.gm9JJJ:QXD>; CC <_~_h_@.JQY.gt_,gQ_\I>; Ln.fQ@pvpl~-'-Qrg; Doug Willmore <.DWl!Lrnor~ .. rnY~.?.!.:KQY.>; Parks
<E0x~.?@rnyi:; __ c.i_,g9y>
Subject: RE: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items
Dear Don,
It was a pleasure to converse with you today to discuss your recent email regarding the upcoming Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council meeting. I am pleased to have been able to provide additional context about the necessary
specificity of the scope of the Annual Report for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve as prepared by the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy. This report is a submittal to the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service and is also presented to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The primary intention of
the report is to provide information on the monitoring of habitat restoration and invasive plant removal efforts
within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
Given that your comments and concerns are largely relevant to parking, public roads, noise, etc. we agreed that they
are best suited under agenda item #3 which is intended to review parking and access.
We too agree that the Preserve is a treasure!
Warm regards,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
310-541-7613 X204
310-541-7623 (Fax)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 10:32 AM
To: 5=C@rpvca.gov; info@pvplc.org; Doug Willmore <dwi!lmore@rpvca.gov>; parks@rpvca.gov
Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items
1 f,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:45 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: July 31, 2018 Consent Calendar Item F. PVPLC Plans for 21019 v. TNP Update
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:38 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; Paul Funk <PFunky@dslextreme.com>; Elias Sassoon
<esa ssoo n@rpvca.gov>
Subject: July 31, 2018 Consent Calendar Item F. PVPLC Plans for 21019 v. TNP Update
Once burned, twice shy
F. Consideration and possible action to receive the 2017 Annual Report for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. (Lozano)
Recommendation: Receive and file the 2017 Annual Report submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Land Conservancy regarding its management activities for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
MEMO
FROM: SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
DATE: July 25, 2018
RE: July 31, 2018 Consent Calendar Item F. PVPLC Plans for 21019 v. TNP Update
Once burned. Twice shy. Please notice that this Item is not just to receive the 2017 Report. By approving
the Staff Recommendation, you are also approving the PVP Land Conservancy's Work Plan for 2019
without benefit of discussion or coordination with other City Plans, Goals and objectives.
Abalone Cove Park, Nature Reserve and Shoreline Preserve is not an isolated island. All it takes is a
Motion to separate the two documents and direct Staff to come back with a comprehensive plan which
includes all of the "works in progress" particularly the Trails Network Plan Update. The California Coastal
Trail presents many options which should not be precluded by the planting of native plants.
1 F
The "receive and file" of the PVPLC 2016 Report precluded the City's opportunity to reconsider
establishing a Living History Museum, hands on, dry farming activity. Seems to me it was a Council
comment that Staff should learn from past mistakes.
Council Members only have a voice when making a Motion and when voting. Please speak up and vote
"NO" a lot more frequently.
Subject: Completing the "fix" on the Chapel View Trail
Date: 7/24/2018 1 :52:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: davidp@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the details. I might as well impose on you to pull together the "RPV Trails Team" so that this
incident results in an accurate description in the pending update for the Trails Network Plan (TNP). It is a
"recreation thing". If you are not in a position to do this, please see if you can find out who is.
Documenting the Chapel View Trail under the new format for the TNP is a great example because it
represents pretty much every Policy overlap in what Elias Sassoon calls "our records". I am happy to write
the draft TNP/CTP Update for the Chapel View Trail except that I can't find anyone at City Hall who is
willing/authorized to balance the Policy conflicts particularly while the draft General Plan Update is in
flux. My draft certainly had no impact on resolving the issues on Trump's Tract 50666.
For starters, it is in the California Coastal Zone. It meets the State's "ideal" for the California Coastal Trail
(CCT) except for one thing, the "three strings in a yarn" concept. The California Coastal Commission has
pretty much left it up to each city to plan for how they will meet this directive "as time goes by". Continuity,
all across the city, for pedestrians, equestrians and bicyclists, in separate corridors, coming together at
shared trailhead amenities is perfect. Notice that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the "equestrian
poster child" in the California Coastal Conservancy's report to the California Legislature.
2
That leads to the RPV General Plan as in the City of RPV intends to preserve and enhance the State and
local trails networks. Next is the RPV Trails Network Plan as in how the City of RPV's Staff has the
tools/funding to do this. And, more specifically, the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) and RPV
Conceptual Bikeways Plan (CBP) which, specifically, identifies what exists, what needs enhancing and the
"missing links" for which legal, public access needs to be acquired. And, which Department is supposed to
take the lead in which effort/opportunity.
So far, so good. Except for the Chapel View Trail. It has never been added to the CTP section of the
TNP. Now is the time to do that.
Who gets to decide which trail TYPE in the CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 it should be maintained as or,
improved to? As in, what was The Los Angeles County Sanitation District personnel told would be an
acceptable "clean-up"? What is the procedure for making sure that a future "back-up" from this source will
not impact the trail? (Water flow control designs are in the TNP. Who implements them?)
As the equestrian corridor in the California Coastal Trail (a "D" trail in the CTP), who gets to propose the
continuity? As in, how/where should equestrians, eventually, get across Altamira Canyon?
Since the Chapel View Trail is now in the Abalone Cove Reserve and the RDA has gone away, the
Abalone Cove Reserve Trail Map (latest update on the City's website is 11/17/2014) reflects the PVP Land
Conservancy's efforts to limit public access to the Reserves by not showing where trails continue on
outside of the Reserve. From a trail user point of view, CTP "C" and "D" trails which are Category I or Ill
should be shown where they continue on beyond this Reserve. As in, the Reserve Trail Maps should be
integrated into whatever is to be the City's Trail User Guide.
The City's Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) Committee started with the CTP and eliminated some
trails. They did not assign trail names from a trail user "wayfinding" point of view. The Chapel View Trail
needs to have physically recognizable "start" and "destination" points as should all trails. Kurt Loheit
recommended to the Pump Committee that they look at the area as something of a "blank slate" and
design a real conceptual network. This "naming" situation and the trail continuity issue should be remedied
as a part of the PB Landslide RFP.
As a Facilities Designer and a trails advocate, I just can't stand to let the citizens of the State of California
and the citizens of the City of RPV get robbed of our expectations. Anything you can do to point me in the
right direction will be most appreciated .... S 310-377-8761
3
Subject: RE: Team for the fix. Re: Chapel View Trail is closed due to a leaking pipe
Date: 7/17/2018 5:12:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: trails@rpvca.gov, esassoon@rpvca.gov, AraM@rpvca.gov, ianaya@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Sunshine. I managed to follow-up with Public Works about the "leaking pipe" on Chapel View Trail. What
happened is that a power failure caused the lift pump station for the sewer line running along PV Drive South in that
area to back up water that spilled over a very small area. It was not aging infrastructure or land movement in this
case, but a power failure. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District personnel were on scene dealing with the
incident. The trail will remain closed until the clean-up is complete. I hope this answers your questions. Thank you
and take care. ---Dave
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:36 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items
LLHOAPVPLC20180731.pdf
From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 10:32 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; info@pvplc.org; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Parks <Parks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items
1 f
In Reference to the July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Consent Item F
Good Evening Council Members,
My name is Donald Bell and I live at 3571 Vigilance Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I wish to object to the proposed Receipt and Filing of the 2017 Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
Annual Report.
I believe it is incomplete and fails to address the impacts of existence of the Preserve on the
"habitat" of the neighborhoods that adjoin the Preserve.
I was on the PUMP Committee as the Preserve was in its greatest growth mode and worked to
equitably allocate trails location and use. I also volunteered for several years as the Forrestal
Reserve Keeper. No doubt the patchwork of properties makes overall management a
challenge. However, the Annual Report only looks inward when it should also be looking
outward. The Report fully addresses issues of visitor negative impacts within the Preserve in
sections 9.2 Trail Management, 9.3 Unauthorized Trail Closures, 9.4 Trail Repair, 9.5 Trail
Monitoring, and 11.0 Ability to Accomplish Resource Management Goals. Please just view
Appendix G to get a visual indication of the extent of the internal damage visitors are
generating within the Preserve.
The Preserve is cause of major issues of parking, noise, and personal stress that externally
impacts its neighbors. The report fails to take responsibility for issues outside its boundaries
triggered by Preserve visitors. Increasing visitation and inconsiderate behavior is associated
with negatively affecting the lives of city residents, voters, and tax payers. Can it affect the
resale value of a home? There may be a litigation risk associated with no action.
My recollection is that PUMP Committee discussions often touched on the reality of adjacent
neighborhoods and we knew that issues of parking, increasing popularity, and negative visitor
habits were surfacing years ago. Rolling Hills made clear that they wanted nothing to do with
growing Preserve visitation and firmly closed its borders. Some voiced need for enforcement
of Preserve rules and feared that it was being "loved to death". Unfortunately, as the years
passed, all of these issues plus more have allowed the Preserve at several entrances to
become the toxic "neighbor from hell".
I believe it is time for key players to address the negative impact the Preserve is having on
parts of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Preserve is unquestionably a treasure and it must be
protected. How that happens has to be a priority discussion topic. Just addressing parking
later this evening is simply applying a band aid rather than identifying the problem and seeking
its solution.
I may be the bearer of an unwanted message. I have financially supported the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (including inclusion in the Mariposa Circle at one time), my
granddaughter has a donation made in her name, Dr Jones is a friend and our family
veterinarian. However, when adjacent neighborhoods are left to fend for themselves or
become subject to draconian invasions of visitors (Del Cerro and I fear soon Ladera Linda) we
have to call on the PVPLC to also step up to help solve the issues.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:26 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: PVP Land Conservancy
From: edmundo hummel [mailto:ecarloshum@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 4:02 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: PVP Land Conservancy
Regarding July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Consent Item F
Dear Council Members,
I'm a resident of the Ladera Linda nieghborhood in Rancho Palos Verdes and I'd like to point out my concerns about the 2017
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Annual Report. The report does not address the impact the Preserve has on surrounding
neighborhoods, which has become more evident in recent years.
My concern is that the Conservancy is encouraging more visitation despite the fact that increasing numbers of hikers, bikers
and vandals are impacting not only the preserve, but surrounding neighborhoods with trash, vandalism, parking problems and
noise.
As you all know, this problem isn't new. For years, it's been occurring in the Del Cerro neighborhood, requiring numerous
mitigation measures (which have been only partially successful). In the five years I've lived in Ladera Linda, I've seen increased
parking problems, increased trash, vandalism, noise and burglaries, which is likely the result of more people coming into the
neighborhood.
Plans for the new Ladera Linda Community Center, include the ill-advised idea of removing vegetation along the southern edge
of the property to "improve views" (think Del Cerro) and a significant increase in parking. This, together with the existing
traffic of both AYSO soccer and Preserve visitors, seem to be forming a "perfect storm" that will make Ladera Linda a
"destination" for all of Los Angeles County and significantly impact the neighborhood, the City and could affect property
values.
The WORST thing the City could do to deal with this growing problem is increase capacity. The concept of "induced demand" is
well known in several fields and holds that if you increase capacity, demand increases. Add a lane to the 405 freeway and
traffic will soon be as bad or worse. Make it easier for more people to visit and more people will come. The National Parks are
dealing with this now, as are several cities and vacation destinations. They have ALL decided limiting visitation is the only
answer.
The solution is NOT to build additional parking or even a new park on an active landslide, as was suggested a couple of years
ago by City staff. The solution will require the City to work with the Conservancy in limiting visitation to the Preserve. By
requiring permits, limiting hours or charging a nominal administrative fee. By doing this, the Conservancy would show
residents they aren't only concerned with what's inside the Preserve boundaries. The City must also implement measures in
neighborhoods surrounding the Preserve that restore the quality of life that has deteriorated in recent years such as restricting
parking and increased Sheriff's Department enforcement in neighborhoods adjacent to and within the Preserve.
I'll end with a Ladera Linda Park Yelp review:
1 f
"Beautiful view of the Pacific Ocean. But don't plan to have a nice, contemplative quiet time. There is a sports
field in the park. When I went on a beautiful Sunday morning about 8am, cars were zooming in, parking along the
street, yelling at their friends, playing loud music. Totally killed my buzz. The stars are only for the view. I won't
be back."
Residents living near the Preserve don't have the option of not returning. Please, help keep the Preserve and this amazing
community the special places they are.
Thank you all for your service and you time.
Edmundo Hummel
Rancho Palos Verdes
2
William W. Wynder (SBN 84753)
Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
2361 Rosecrans Boulevard, Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
Date Issued: July __ , 2018
City of Rancho Palos Verdesif
BY:
Susan Brooks
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
APPROVE AS TO FORM
William W. Wynder
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn
City Clerk
rtem Gr.
C-6
EXHIBIT "1"
DEFINITIONS
"DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" means all writings, originals and duplicates
as defined in California Evidence Code§§ 250, 255, and 260;
"COMMUNICATIONS" as used herein means the transfer of information from
one person or entity to another person or entity by any means, including, but not limited to,
letter, electronic mail, or facsimile.
"RELATE TO" shall mean and refer to constituting, containing, embodying,
reflecting, identifying, stating, referencing to, evidencing in any way or being relevant to the
subject referenced therein.
REQUESTED DOCUMENTS
1. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Short Term Rentals or Party Houses in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
2. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Mr. Eric Mark.
3. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Green Hills Memorial Park.
4. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or relate to Vista Verde Condominiums, located at 2110 Palos
Verdes Drive, Lomita, CA.
5. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Mr. Michael Huang.
6. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Mr. Dave Tomblin.
C-7
EXHIBIT "2"
C-8
INRE:
NOEL WEISS
SUBPOENA FOR
PERSONAL APPEARANCE &
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS & THINGS
TO: Mr. Noel Weiss
LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENA
(Government Code§§ 37104 et seq)
Date: August 10,2018
Time: 2:00 p.m., PDST
Address: City of Rancho
Palos Verdes City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne
Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California
90275
FROM: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CALIFORNIA
1. On July 31, 2018, the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted Resolution No.
2018-__ authorizing and directing the issuance of this subpoena. A true and copy of such
Resolution No. 2018-__ is attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and incorporated by this reference.
2. YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED & COMMANDED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes to appear in person to testify in response to this subpoena. Your
testimony will be recorded stenographically.
3. YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED & COMMANDED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes and deliver true, complete, legible, and durable copies of the document
and things described in Exhibit "1" hereto.
4. The personal attendance of the custodian or other qualified witness and the production of
the original records are required by this subpoena. The procedure authorized by Evidence Code
§§ 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.
5. All documents and other things produced to the City shall be accompanied by a
declaration or affidavit warranting to their authenticity and completeness sufficient to meet the
requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2020.430. The City will pay all
reasonable documented costs associated with photocopying the requested documents. If costs
exceed $500.00 please contact William W. Wynder, Esq., at (310) 527-6667 before copying.
6. This subpoena is issued pursuant to California Government Code§§ 37104 et seq. and
was authorized at a duly noticed meeting of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
7. Disobedience of this subpoena will be referred to the Superior Court for enforcement and
is punishable as contempt pursuant to California Government Code §§ 37104 et seq. and as
otherwise provided by law. Should you have any questions regarding this subpoena please
contact:
C-9
William W. Wynder (SBN 84753)
Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
2361 Rosecrans Boulevard, Suite 475
El Segundo, CA 90245
Date Issued: July __ , 2018
City of Rancho Palos Verdes~
BY:
Susan Brooks
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
APPROVE AS TO FORM
William W. Wynder
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn
City Clerk
C-10
EXHIBIT "1"
DEFINITIONS
"DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" means all writings, originals and duplicates
as defined in California Evidence Code §§ 250, 255, and 260;
"COMMUNICATIONS" as used herein means the transfer of information from
one person or entity to another person or entity by any means, including, but not limited to,
letter, electronic mail, or facsimile.
"RELATE TO" shall mean and refer to constituting, containing, embodying,
reflecting, identifying, stating, referencing to, evidencing in any way or being relevant to the
subject referenced therein.
REQUESTED DOCUMENTS
1. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Short Term Rentals or Party Houses in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
2. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Mr. Eric Mark.
3. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Green Hills Memorial Park.
4. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or relate to Vista Verde Condominiums, located at 2110 Palos
Verdes Drive, Lomita, CA.
5. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Mr. Michael Huang.
6. Produce all DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS between yourself and Mr.
Brian Campbell which refer or RELATE TO Mr. Dave Tomblin.
C-11
EXHIBIT "2"
C-12
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:46 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
From: jeanlongacre@aol.com [mailto:jeanlongacre@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:15 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
-----Original Message-----
From: jeanlongacre <i~_gmlongacre@_e_oLcom>
To: imac <lrrlac@mvca..;.fLov>
Sent: Wed, Jun 13, 2018 2:04 pm
Subject: PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
Dear Infrastructure Committee
Thank you to Elias Sassoon for holding a second meeting to further discuss this project. I know there were difficult decisions to
be made. The project as currently designed will be safer for equestrians and walkers.
I did not see what plans were designed for the inside of the Bronco curve at 28500 Bronco. There is a chain link fence in the
PROW that is covered with Ivy. The previous plans designed a few years ago, showed the fence being removed. Staff has
stated that the fence will remain but the ivy will be removed where it interferes with the line of sight around the curve. I realize
that not a lot will be gained but every little bit helps. This is probably one of the most dangerous places on the Hill to make a left
hand turn.
I would like to encourage the Committee to look at all roadside and grading projects to determine if pathways can be included.
For many of us, having neighborhood pathways is a main way of getting exercise and also staying in communication with our
immediate neighbors.
Again, thanks to Elias, Nadia and the staff for obtaining the grant and for all the work they have put into this project. I look
forward to it going to City Council in July.
Sincerely,
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-0105
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
jeanlongacre@aol.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:30 AM
cc
PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project from Bronco Dr. to Headland Dr.
Please support this project as presented by staff at the May 16, 2018 public meeting. This $500,000 grant is a fantastic
opportunity. Thank you to the Public Works staff for obtaining this grant for much needed traffic and equestrian
safety improvements on Palos Verdes Drive East.
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-0105
jeanlongacre@aol.com
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:44 AM
cc
PV Drive East equestrian passage
Good morning Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Alegria, Cruikshank
and Dyda,
Regarding the item on the July 31 City Council Agenda to improve equestrian passage along PV
Drive East, I support the plan in concept. As is often the case, though, the devil may be in the details.
The Staff Report mentions removal of many trees. Please be aware of the unintended consequences
of such actions, loss of the sound buffer afforded by trees being a significant concern. Sound
carries considerably more lately along PVDE, after numerous trees were removed along the drive,
including around the Miraleste Intermediate School.
Thank you for your consideration,
Eva Cicoria
1 d.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Madeline Ryan < pvpasofino@yahoo.com >
Thursday, July 26, 2018 10:47 AM
cc
Nadia Carrasco; Elias Sassoon
Subject: Regular Business -Item #2 Consideration and possible action ........... for equestrian trail
along Palos Verdes Drive East from Bronco Drive to Lower Headland Drive. (Carrasco)
(45 mins.)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Although this project is presented as 'traffic and equestrian safety', it will take dog
walkers, joggers and others away from the traffic lane, gives everyone a flashing signal
allowing for safer crossing and is long overdue along this arterial highway that has seen
increased traffic and raceway speeds.
Please support the City Staff's recommendations and provide this much needed trail
route.
Madeline Ryan
28328 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
1 c9.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:50 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
From: Morgan Hess [mailto:morgan.hess99@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 1:15 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project
Dear City Council,
It is my understanding that there is a project in the works to create a more equestrian friendly street crossing, and a trail from
Bronco to Headland. The $500,000 grant, obtained by the Public Works staff, is an amazing opportunity, and I hope you will
support this project.
As a horse owner in the neighborhood, I can assure you these safety improvements are much needed and would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you,
Morgan Hess
12 Martingale Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-344-9847
morgan.hess99@gmail.com
1 J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:31 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: RPV City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 31, 2018. Item 2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
From: Anna -Yahoo [mailto:amcdougalll@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 8:04 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Mark Zoeckler <mark.zoeckler@gmail.com>; Joslyn BabyGirl <joslynchu8@gmail.com>; Ashley Zoeckler
<zgirl47@gmail.com>
Subject: RPV City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 31, 2018. Item 2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
Greetings All,
I am writing in support of Item 2, PVDrEast Safety Project. I am hoping that the momentum carries and continues to set the
tone that the City cares about the residents and those that access that area. PV Dr East has been often known as a neglected
area that can be used to test one's ability to be a race car driver or evade the race car drivers. I would be most grateful if the
City would continue to pursue this project as it could only prove to increase the property values, enjoyment of the area,
aesthetics, as well as safety. Please let me know how I can continue to support this project.
Warmly,
Anna Chu
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:31 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: RPV City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 31, 2018. Item2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 10:27 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: RPV City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 31, 2018. ltem2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
Thought you should see this. I have removed the "non-local" person's identity. .. .S
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To:
Sent: 7 /28/2018 10: 13:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: RPV City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 31, 2018. ltem2, PVDE Bronco to Headland
This is one of 9 roadway safety projects along PVDE with Federal grant monies paying for 90
percent. It is not just for equestrians. It even includes K-rails in the centerline in the curve. I don't
know yet why they don't call it a Class 2 Bike lane but, it creates space for bicycles outside the fog
line. This work is good for everybody, actually, even the people whose driveway aprons will be
impacted. (Improves line of sight when exiting.)
Staff has screwed up a few things and appear to be claiming to be "neutral" while emphasizing the
equestrian element in an effort to kill this version, politically, and get a "do-over". I think it is
salvageable. It is important that we get the details corrected before they mess up the Deadmans'
Curve Project.
Please encourage Council to get Staff back to work and fix their errors and omissions rather than
starting from scratch. .. . S 310-377-8761
In a message dated 7/27/2018 7:26:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, writes:
I am not particularly supportive of this project. It is such a small strip and very costly for whatever
benefit it provides. Why do you find it important?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: SUNSHINE
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:18 PM
To: j eanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougall l@yahoo.com; cmoneil@aol.com;
1
momofyago@gmail.com; robert.gonzalez@ladwp.com; radlsmith@cox.net; primadonis@aol.com
Subject: Alert. Fwd: RPV City Council Agenda for Tuesday, July 31, 2018. Item2, PVDE Bronco to
Headland
Hello People,
Staff is asking Council whether or not to go forward with this Project. Get everyone you can
think of to send a note to Madam Mayor and City Council at cc@rpvca.gov asking them to
direct Staff to keep working on this piece of the PVDE safety project. It is a good thing for
more than just equestrians.
Staff is not asking for approval of the current design to go to bid. We will have time to keep
working on getting the details worked out. Council needs to make the move to direct Staff
to proceed with the whole thing (projects 1 through 9) to keep moving forward or it dies,
now. Phone calls to Council Members are appropriate, too .... S 310-377-8761
REGULAR BUSINESS:
2. Consideration and possible action to receive an update regarding the project status for the
equestrian trail along Palos Verdes Drive East from Bronco Drive to Lower Headland Drive.
(Carrasco) (45 mins.)
Recommendation: Provide direction to Staff regarding how (or if) to proceed with the project.
From: listserv@civicplus.com
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent: 7/26/2018 3:45:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council AMENDED Agenda for Tuesday, July
31, 2018 Adjourned Regular Meeting
View this in your browser
The City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting Agenda for Tuesday, July 31,
2018 has been Amended to include Closed Session Item No. 5.
The City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 31,
2018 at 6 p.m. (Closed Session) and 7 p.m. (Open Session) at Fred Hesse
Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Click on this link to access the
agenda and staff reports on the city website. http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-
Video-and-Agendas
If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk's office at 310-544-
2
5217 or at CityClerk@rpvca.gov
*************************************************
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserv
category you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it
is an unmonitored email address. You can make changes to your subscription by
visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council, Successor
Agency and Improvement Authority Agendas on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the
following link:
U nsubscribe
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:29 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: 07 /31/2018 Agenda Item 2 Project Scope of Work
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 5:11 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; momofyago@gmail.com;
pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; cmoneil@aol.com
Subject: 07 /31/2018 Agenda Item 2 Project Scope of Work
MEMO
FROM: SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
DATE: July 28, 2018
RE: 07/31/2018 Agenda Item 2 Project Scope of Work
I may have to show up at this Council Meeting just to find out exactly what the $502,095.00 of budgeted
money is supposed to get us. 34 pages of Agenda Report and a Power Point presentation from 5/16/2018
and I can't figure it out.
The Agenda Item Description says it is for an equestrian trail. In the Agenda Report page C-2 It appears to
be #6 on the PVDE Priority List. On page C-4, it appears to be Area B and includes the PCDE/Bronco
intersection which is #1 on the Priority List.
In the Power Point Presentation, it is called the PVDE at Bronco Intersection Improvements and also, the
PVDE Traffic & Equestrian safety Improvements.
The April 15, 2014 Memo page D-1 calls it THE PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST BRONCO DRIVE TO
HEADLAND DRIVE SAFETY PROJECT -which will include rumble strips, a median barrier, guardrails
and high visibility warning devices.
1 J.
I am ever so sorry that the Project Development Summary pages A-1 and A-2 is not dated. That appears
to be when the Project "went fuzzy".
I agree with Sharon Yarber that $502,095.00 is a bit much to spend on clearing some private
improvements out of the public ROW and improving pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle access. Whatever
happened to the signage, rumble strips, delineators, a median barrier, guardrails and high visibility warning
devices?
What is with the City having to pay extra to mitigate removing foliage from the ROW?
This is a high priority traffic safety project. Most of the little details about the trail have been worked
out. Please direct Staff to bring the complete set of updated conceptual drawings back to you when they
know everything that is to be included.
PS: Nadia, the white vinyl fence is in the Power Point Presentation.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/31/2018 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA
HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to receive an
update regarding the project status for the equestrian trail along Palos Verdes Drive East from Bronco
Drive to Lower Headland Drive RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Provide direction to Staff
regarding how (or if) to proceed with the project. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: $502,095
Additional Appropriation: NIA Account Number(s): 331-400-8807-8005 >>$452,800 330-400-8807-8005
>>$49,295 ORIGINATED BY: Nadia Carrasco, Assistant Engineer REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE,
Director of Public Works APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ln1provernents
This project mainly consist of constructing a horse trail, split mil fonce.masomy retaining waH, upgraded signage and
roadway striping, and measures to improvetrnffic along Palos Verdes Drive East from Bronco Dr. to Headland Dr.
Public Outreach Meeting -4/5/2018
Public Outreach Meeting -5/16/2018
Power Point Presentation -5/16/2018
2
Subject: PVDE Traffic & Equestrian Safety Project
Date: 6/5/2018 6:17:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: NadiaC@rpvca.gov
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good Afternoon,
The power point presentation that was imparted during the Public Meeting on May 16, 2018 for
the above mentioned project, has been uploaded to our City website. I am including a link
below for your convenience:
Furthermore, this item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on July 31, 2018
where the Public Works Directors will be giving a presentation regarding the project history and
the proposed improvements.
Regards,
Nadia Carrasco
Assistant Engineer
3
From: SUNSHINE [millJto:sun2J:Jj_IJ.£:...[QY.@_£ol.co1}l]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 10:56 AM
To: Deborah Cullen <DCullen@~>
Cc: CC <CC@r.Rvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <Nadia~ .. @.IJ?.vca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; momof'{£g_Q@gmai!,s;.om;
P.Y.Qaspfi..flo@yahoo.com; jeanlong!lcr~9.L.f91ll
Subject: Where is the grant money? PV Drive East safety projects
Hello Deborah,
The Agenda Item 2 on the July 31, 2018 City Council Meeting is described as:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/31/2018 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA
HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to receive an
update regarding the project status for the equestrian trail along Palos Verdes Drive East from Bronco
Drive to Lower Headland Drive RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Provide direction to Staff
regarding how (or if) to proceed with the project. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: $502,095
Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): 331-400-8807-8005 >>$452,800 330-400-8807-8005
>>$49,295 ORIGINATED BY: Nadia Carrasco, Assistant Engineer REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE,
Director of Public Works APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
I have already sent an email to Council requesting clarification of the Scope of Work. The above implies
that the $502,095 is for the equestrian trail along Palos Verdes Drive East from Bronco Drive to Lower
Headland Drive.
Elsewhere in the 34 page Agenda Report are some conflicting statements about the grant monies. If the
City is supposed to be reimbursed after the construction is completed, then, why would the City need to
reimburse the Feds anything if Council directs that Staff NOT proceed with this project?
Council really should know this before they discuss what direction to provide. I would like to know before I
come speak to this item. TNX .... Sunshine 310-377-8761
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 2:18 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: FYI Fwd: More questions about the PVDE Safety Projects. Answers helpful before Tuesday
evening
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 2:14 PM
To: jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FYI Fwd: More questions about the PVDE Safety Projects. Answers helpful before Tuesday evening
Hello ladies,
I am using these projects to teach the new Public Works Dept. people to use the Trails Network Plan (TNP)
and at the same time help facilitate getting the TNP update completed.
Has Charlene o'Neil said anything about any of this to anybody? The PVPHA Board elections were in
June. Does anyone know if Sharon Yarber is still their VP of Civic Affairs?
Comments please.
That do you think of this as a definition of a "trail" in the TNP. (Believe it or not, there isn't one in the
current TNP's Definitions, Appendix A.)
TRAIL:
a continuous, three dimensional tunnel through the air, vegetation and other obstructions which provides a
specified TYPE of CRITERIA (height, width and steepness limitations), between two destinations.
DESTINATION:
a place to access a trail and/or participate in some activity.
PINCH-POINT:
a place in the trail corridor where a narrower condition is permitted which meets the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) California standards for a wheelchair path of travel.
(no narrower than 36 inches and extends no more than 24 linear inches.)
Consider the Bronco to Headland situation. In general, trails on arterial highways are to be avoided, if
possible. PVDE is special since it was designed to be a residential collector street with the
Narbonne ROW as the local, arterial highway. The TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE
CRITERIA of July 4, 2018 (which the RPV City Council adopted in December, 2012), recommends at least
TYPE 6 on Equestrian zoned residential streets. That is a 5 foot wide clear prism between landscaping
and the roadway paving with nothing higher than 6 inches in between. (No fence on the road edge.) If
Staff had referenced the current TNP to the Engineer of Record at the beginning of these Projects, there
would have had to have been some documented direction allowing the reduction of the 8 foot wide prism
which is what we now have on the PVDE roadside so:th of Bronco. ~.
The big question is... What should the CRITERIA be for the remaining PVDE, Q Zone projects? If, in fact,
the construction drawings for Bronco to lower Headland create a clear 6 foot prism between the inside face
of the fences and the inside face of the walls (the 05/17 preliminary drawing indicates 6'-2" centerline to
centerline), this would just meet a TYPE 5.
Given the frequency of the driveways for passing, I am OK with TYPE 5 as a precedent. Pinch-points need
to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. What say you?
All we can hope for now is that a majority of our Council "sees the light" on the advisability of keeping the
"safe" pedestrian/equestrian amenity in this portion of the bigger PVDE roadway safety projects .... S 310-
377-8761
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: nadiac@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, esassoon@rpvca.gov, ianaya@rpvca.gov
Sent: 7/29/2018 6:37:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: More questions about the PVDE Safety Projects. Answers helpful before Tuesday evening
Hi Nadia,
Where the heck is horseshoe Lane? I'm looking at your Item 2 Agenda report for July 31, 2018
pages C-2 (PVDE Priority List) and C-4 (Key Areas of Interest Exhibit 16).
I wrote to you earlier asking for the City's written design input as provided to the Engineer of Record
on three of the PVDE Projects. (Scroll down to see a copy.) I have not received them. It will help
us both if you would provide more specific start and end points than what is provided on pages C-2
and C-4.
Priority #6 reads: PVDE from w/o Horseshoe Ln to Headland Dr & Miraleste Dr to s/o
Miraleste Dr. and is budgeted for $500 K to 1.2M. I am totally guessing that this is what you are
now calling something like the PVDE, Bronco to lower Headland, Roadway and Equestrian Safety
Project. Although my old PVP Association of Realtors map of The Peninsula indicates that
Horseshoe Ln is near Hawthorne and Highridge, I am remembering a little street which goes north
off of PVDE just west of Deadman's Curve. That may be the Horseshoe Ln being referenced but, it
is not shown on the map on page C-4.
In relation to the Bronco to Headland Project, the map on C-4, shows the Area of Interest to include
the Bronco/PVDE intersection. Page C-2 indicates that the intersection is a separate project,
Priority #1. Your recent concept drawings for the Bronco to Headland trail stop short of the
intersection. The C-4 map also shows the Area of Interest extending beyond lower Headland but,
the plan drawing in your Power Point shows just an unidentified symbol at the south end of the
proposed PVDE crossing. Some local non-equestrians would like the trail improved on the south
2
side going east. I know, it is not in the budget. These "equestrian trail" improvements are great for
taking children walking on low-impact surfaces.
In relation to Priority #8 and CTP Trail A9, Deadman's Curve, this is the same as what is in the CIP
as the Conestoga Trail. Elias Sassoon has told me that he will facilitate a correction in the
CIP. Are you the Staff Person on this project? If not, who is? Anything you can do to nix the label
Conestoga Trail wherever you come across it will be most appreciated. I would like to see that the
scope of this project extends from the border with Rolling Hills Estates to at least across from
Horseshoe Lane which appears to be the extent of the exclusion in #6. Some version of this project
is in the CIP as being next budgeted for the Construction Drawings.
Who can send me the concept drawings (are they Council approved, yet?) and the City's written
design input as provided to the Engineer of Record for the Deadman's Curve (Conestoga Trail)
Project?
In relation to the third project, Priority #1, have the improvements to the PVDE/Bronco intersection
been done? Has the $20 to $40K been spent and reimbursed by the Feds? It is still a very
dangerous intersection. That is why I want to see what Staff gave to the Engineer of Record.
I am looking forward to seeing a clear and factual presentation to Council on Tuesday
evening. Thank you for doing the necessary research. PVDE is a very peculiar arterial roadway. It
deserves very special attention. And, all this feeds into the draft Trails Network Plan
Update .... S 310-377-8761
Subject: I am still looking for what produces project plans and specs
Date: 7 /16/2018 1:30:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: NadiaC@rpvca.gov
Cc: esassoon@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Nadia,
Such "chatter" is very unprofessional. I want to see, in writing, what direction you have given the
Engineer of Record. Without that documentation, I cannot advise the City Council on whether or
not said directions are per City Policy. And, without said documentation, I cannot comment about
whether or not the Engineer has complied with said directions.
3
The RPV Trails Network Plan contains some direction about water flow/erosion control. This is
particularly important when introducing decomposed granite. Is this in your directions?
I am waiting in relation to the Bronco/PVDE Intersection, the PVDE roadside from Bronco to "lower"
Headland and beyond on the south side, Deadman's Curve to at least the western side of the
Narbonne ROW and any other roadside equestrian safety projects you have "in the hopper". (Is
anything happening with Crest Road East, yet? (A 18)
Regards,
Sunshine
Subject: RE: Looking for what produces project specs
Date: 7 /16/2018 10:33:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: NadiaC@rpvca.gov
To: sunshinerpv@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good Morning Sunshine,
The main modification to the preliminary design is to install decomposed granite
throughout the trail and the wooden fence (if the budget allows it) as well. Penco will be
updating the plans to reflect these changes.
Regards,
Nadia Carrasco
4
Assistant Engineer
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 10:00 AM
To: Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Looking for what produces project specs
Recommendation: (1) Approve the project specifications on file in the Public Works
Department for the ...
Hi Nadia,
I am looking for the written version of what the Engineer of Record was given in the way of a list of
what problems to solve and what sort of physical improvements were to be provided for in his Plans
and Specifications for each of the PV Drive East "safety" projects within the Bronco Area Equestrian
Overlay District.
I see in the July 11, 2018 Weekly Administrative Report that there is to be a "discussion" with the
Engineer of Record about changes to what is still erroneously, called the Conestoga Trail
Project. You will produce a written record of these modifications to his original Agreement, right?
I have already written to Elias Sassoon about the errors in the Report. Please let me know what is
going on. . .. S 310-377-8761
May 15, 2018
Subject: More than just the 2nd Public Meeting for the PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project from Bronco Dr. to Headland Dr.
Date: 5/15/2018 5:52:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: nadiac@rpvca.gov
5
Cc: esassoon@rpvca.gov, aram@rpvca.gov
Bee: pvpasofino@yahoo.com, randallrealty@sbcglobal.net, robert.gonzolez@ladwp.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hello Nadia,
Thank you for the invitation. Will you be presenting revised drawings based on the public input you
received at and after the first meeting and at and after the Site Visit?
Thank you for sharing Nicole Jules' Grant Application. What I want to see is the criteria which she
provided to the Design Consultants as the basis of the contracts for both the PVDE/Bronco
Intersection Project and the PVDE from Bronco to Headland Project. If she did not mention a trail
TYPE (from the Council's action in 2012), I want to see the long version relating to grade,
obstructions, prism width and height, trail tread width and anti-skid surfaces on paved driveways
which cross the trail corridor. Erosion control should come from the latest State Standards.
I understand that the City's Trails Network Plan is in something of a flux. I am simply promoting the
notion that we, the citizens of RPV, get the most "bang for our bucks". The Sunnyside Debacle
must not be repeated.
PV Drive East, all across the Eastern Q Zone, is in the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) as trail C18
and partially duplicated as trail A29. The objective is to improve these trail corridors from Category
Ill to Category I. This is in the RPV General Plan as the responsibility of the Public Works
Department. In order to become Category I, trail C18 needs to be improved to an "Intermediate"
Standard which now translates to at least a TYPE 5 trail prism. Trail A29 needs to be improved to
an "Easy" Standard which now translates to an at least TYPE 3 trail prism. If this is confusing, all I
can say is that I am ever so sorry that new Staff Members are not schooled in the City's Primary
Documents.
CTP A29 is a special case. The California Coastal Trail's three corridors, "D" trails and the PV
Loop Trail "ideal route", "A" trails, are meant to avoid exposure to motor vehicles. Deadman's
Curve is a "pinch point" and it earned its name decades ago. There is no other connection without
using the public right of way. Not that many years ago, without the City Council's blessing, CTP
A29 was renamed the Conestoga Trail and changed to a "challenging" Standard. This is totally
bogus input to the IMAC.
Please get some help from your Superiors.
6
SUNSHINE
Subject: 2nd Public Meeting for the PVDE Traffic and Equestrian Safety Project from Bronco Dr. to Headland Dr.
Date: 5/7/2018 4:56:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: NadiaC@rpvca.gov
To: Undisclosed recipients:;
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Good Afternoon,
The City invites you to attend a second meeting to discuss the proposed traffic and equestrian improvements
along PVDE from Bronco Dr. to Headland Dr. Some of the improvements include: construction of a horse trail,
split rail fence, masonry retaining wall, upgraded signage and roadway striping, and measures to improve
traffic. The meeting will be held on:
Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.
City Hall -Community Room
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Regards,
Nadia Carrasco
Assistant Engineer
7
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:28 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: PVE and Bronco improvement and equestrian trail
From: ehunter2@aol.com [mailto:ehunter2@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 10:33 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: PVE and Bronco improvement and equestrian trail
Dear members of the RPV City Council,
I am so glad to see this project being developed along Palos Verdes Dr. East between Bronco Dr. and Headland. I completely
support the plan as it was presented by Public Works staff at the meeting in May. Reclaiming the public right of way to make
PVE safe for our children and the residents who walk and ride their horses along the drive is an imperative.
Thank you.
Evie Hunter
18 Martingale Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 30, 2018 3:41 PM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting Agenda Item #3
PVN P _Parking_.pdf
From: Andrea Vona [mailto:avona@pvplc.org]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:37 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting Agenda Item #3
Good afternoon,
Please find the attached letter, thank you.
Warm regards,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
310-541-7613 X204
310-930-0583 (cell)
"Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of
all."
1 3
PRESERVING LAND AND RESTORING HABITAT FOR THE EDUCATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL
July 30, 2018
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting Agenda Item #3
Dear Honorable Mayor Brooks and City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the staff report for Agenda Item
#3 for the July 31 City Council meeting. We understand from conversations with staff
that the goal for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is a no-net loss for parking
accommodations. Adherence to this overall objective would help to accommodate
those dedicated to service of the Preserve as well as visitors.
Regarding recommended council action B. 2 Per the conservation framework as
presented in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and specifically articulated in
the Land Conservancy's Management Agreement with the City of RPV, the Land
Conservancy is required to provide a minimum of $50,000 of volunteer service to
support the Land Conservancy and City's obligations in the Nature Preserve. We urge
City Council and staff to incorporate measures and accommodations for volunteers who
dedicate their time to volunteer to aid in the restoration of the Preserve's habitat, trail
maintenance as well as the volunteer trail watch program which supports educational
programming for responsible trail use.
Regarding recommended council action A. 4. Land Conservancy staff has taken a
preliminary look at the Pirate Trail and trail head locations in response to the option to
possibly close the trail or relocate the trailhead. This problematic for the following
reasons:
1. There is high quality habitat within the area of the trail head's potential relocation. This
area is also situated on steep slopes, which make the trail's relocation
unsustainable. The City and Conservancy have already rerouted the trail in response to
an unsafe alignment of the trail head into the street, and a further rework of this area is
an inefficient use of resources.
2. People will continue to use the existing Pirate Trail which has been in place for
decades along a visible promontory. It will be an ineffective use of resources to attempt
to close this trail and will not result in protection of habitat.
3. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a long history of community engagement and
input seeking. It is recommended that the existing infrastructure of the quarterly public
forum is used to garner input on trail closure or relocation projects. This would be
consistent with the manner in which the trails network plan was developed.
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7613 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
Regarding the item for future consideration action A. 4.
As with the preceding issue, it is recommended that the existing infrastructure of the
quarterly public forum is used to garner input on trail closure or relocation projects. This
would be consistent with the manner in which the trails network plan was developed
Thank you for your consideration of the comments provided.
Sincerely,
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Cc: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation & Parks
Katie Lozano, Open Space Manager/Administrative Analyst II Recreation & Parks
916 SILVER SPUR ROAD# 207. ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. CA 90274-3826 T 310.541.7623 WWW.PVPLC.ORG
From: Andrea Vona [mai.lto:avona@_p_y:pjs;,.org]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 3:46 PM
To: Donald Bell <dw~'L@gm£!1L<::.9JD..>; CC <~J;;.@r12_vca,ggy>; info@P...YI?If..c.Qffi; Doug Willmore <RY\{illmgre_@rpyi;:;£,gQY>; Parks
<.e.£1L~i.@rnv c0_~gQY..>
Subject: RE: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items
Dear Don,
It was a pleasure to converse with you today to discuss your recent email regarding the upcoming Rancho Palos
Verdes City Council meeting. I am pleased to have been able to provide additional context about the necessary
specificity of the scope of the Annual Report for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve as prepared by the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy. This report is a submittal to the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service and is also presented to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The primary intention of
the report is to provide information on the monitoring of habitat restoration and invasive plant removal efforts
within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
Given that your comments and concerns are largely relevant to parking, public roads, noise, etc. we agreed that they
are best suited under agenda item #3 which is intended to review parking and access.
We too agree that the Preserve is a treasure!
Warm regards,
Andrea
Andrea Vona
Executive Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, #207
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
www.pvplc.org
310-541-7613 X204
310-541-7623 (Fax)
Preserving land and restoring habitat for the education and enjoyment of all.
From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@grnail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 10:32 AM
To: cc@rpvca.gov; info@pvplc.org; Doug Willmore <dwillmore@rpvca.gov>; parks@rpvca.gov
Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items
1
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:42 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Measures to control PV Nature Preserve access and limit neighborhood impacts
From: Eva Cicoria [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 8:03 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Measures to control PV Nature Preserve access and limit neighborhood impacts
Good morning Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Alegria, Cruikshank and
Dyda,
There is a lot to unpack in the Staff Report recommending measures to control access to the Preserve and
to lessen the impacts of Preserve visitors on the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Preserve. I see
many challenges that RPV staff, City Council, PVPLC--really all of us--face with the high visitation levels of
the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Over time, I hope we'll improve how we address those challenges.
Indeed, we already have improved thanks to City Council decisions to establish the Volunteer Trail Watch,
engage Sheriff deputies, and assign staff to the Preserve to help with maintenance. A few of the staff
recommendations seem appropriate and reasonable to me; others not so much.
Forrestal Reserve area measures recommended by staff:
"Designate" 28 parking spaces beyond the Forrestal Dr gate for Preserve parking and open that gate
daily. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but how would these spaces be "designated" for Preserve
parking (vs. A YSO or other parking) and how would that be enforced? Recall that much of the traffic in this
area (and street parking) is related to AYSO and other use of the fields. Also, will staff be assigned to
open the gate an hour before sunrise each day and to close it an hour after sunset each day?
Red-stripe the curb along the entire length of Forrestal Dr from PV Dr South to the gate. This seems
unwarranted. Are there complaints along this entire stretch of Forrestal Dr? Is the recommendation to red-
stripe both sides of the roadway? How big of a problem is parking on this public roadway? Is the problem
primarily directly in front of the home on Pirate Dr at the corner of Forrestal Dr and adjacent to the
Reserve?
3
1
If that homeowner is experiencing routinely high noise levels due to people getting in and out of their cars
there on a regular bas, it seems reasonable to me to red-stripe the curb on the side of that house up to the
exiting red-striping (the area in the photo), but beyond that, red-striping Forrestal Drive on the north side
seems entirely unwarranted.
Remove the Pirate Trail trailhead or relocate it. This seems unwarranted. There's quite some distance
between the trailhead and the nearest home and the home has large trees and shrubbery along its
perimeter that provide screening. It's hard to imagine that Preserve visitors' entry at the Pirate Trail
trailhead would create unduly loud noise or nuisance issues for homes adjacent to the Reserve. Of
course, if there is Preserve entry after hours or large groups disrupting the peace, that should be reported
and cited.
Remove brush in the area beyond Forrestal Drive to accommodate the parking spaces. It's not at all clear
what brush would have to be removed.
Install a second gate at the intersection of Forrestal Drive and Intrepid Drive. It's not at all clear why this
would be necessary.
Establish permit-only parking area in the Ladera Linda neighborhood on Pirate Drive. Sea Raven Drive.
and Phantom Drive. Good idea.
Portuguese Bend and Filiorum Reserve area measures recommended by staff:
Install a gate and turnstile at the Burma Rd and Rattlesnake Tr trailheads. I'm not opposed to this, but it's
easy to imagine people finding a way around or over.
Alternative to the latter. remove Rattlesnake Tr. We have already lost the use of quite a few approved
trails in the Preserve in the 10 years since the Public Use Master Plan and related Preserve Trails Plan
were adopted and I can't think of any justification for removing this one, so I would strongly object to that.
2
Install parking meter stations along Crenshaw Blvd and charge $5/hr. I believe the downsides to this are
greater than the upsides. First, charging by the vehicle encourages carpooling. Generally, that's a very
good thing. However, groups of people (even small groups) generate more noise and commotion getting
out of their cars and setting out than do singles or doubles, so it may exacerbate any noise
problems. Second, as visitors linger and mess with the pay stations, the commotion in the vicinity of
residences is likely to increase. Third, I don't believe we'll find volunteers willing to pay $5/hr. for parking at
the Preserve. Consequently, the value which Volunteer Trail Watch members contribute in deterring bad
behavior such as smoking, educating Preserve visitors, picking up litter, and monitoring and reporting on
activity and conditions in the Preserve will be lost (and I believe that value is far greater than the amount of
revenue the parking fee would generate).
Nobody wants to pay a parking fee of $5/hr. to hike in the Preserve, least of all Rancho Palos Verdes
residents who already contribute in tax dollars. And many residents don't want their friends in neighboring
communities to have to pay. True, it is likely that the fee will be a deterrent to some hikers and reduce their
numbers, but those most deterred are likely to be singles and law-abiding. Others will find a way to avoid
paying. In addition, I suspect that the fee will not deter mountain bikers. Indeed, we may find them willing
to pay the parking fee to have fewer hikers on the trails slowing them down. Mountain bike parks charge
considerably more than $5/hr.
Point Vicente Park/Civic Center recommendations:
Establish Point Vicente Park as the parking location for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve: At some point
in the future, this may make sense paired with a system of visitor orientation and permitting, shuttling to
Preserve entry points, etc., but that would require considerable planning and allocation of resources.
I hope we will find a reasonable balance between honoring the promise of public access to the Preserve
and keeping noise and nuisance impacts in the vicinity of homes adjacent to the Preserve at tolerable
levels. The fact is that many of us tolerate noise and nuisance impacts in our neighborhoods without the
upside of living within footsteps of our beautiful Preserve. I know I do-donkeys braying under our
bedroom window at all hours of the day and night; a neighbor's drone buzzing overhead; delivery vehicles
using our driveway to turn around and knocking over our rain barrels; the list goes on. I don't mean to be
dismissive of legitimate complaints; there may be impacts that people living near the Preserve endure of
which I'm unaware and perhaps if those complaints were shared with the public other solutions would
come to mind. Of course, I wish people in general would be considerate of others, but many are oblivious
to their impacts. Sometimes noise and nuisance rises to a level at which calling law enforcement is
warranted. That's just an unfortunate fact.
3
Thank you for your consideration,
Eva Cicoria
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:29 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Forrestal Parking and Access to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
From: Marty Foster [mailto:martycrna@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:58 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Forrestal Parking and Access to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: martha foster <martycrna@gmail.com>
Date: July 26, 2018 at 3:13:43 PM PDT
To: Marty Foster <martycrna@cox.net>
Subject: Forrestal Parking and Access to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
Mayor Brooks and Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
The Ladera Linda Homeowners Board selected a Committee to address concerns related to the LL
Community Center including survey identified priorities such as lack of neighborhood security, road
safety worries and parking issues.
As a member of this committee, I read with interest the lengthy, comprehensive staff report prepared
for your 7 /31/18 meeting.
At the CC meeting, March 2018, Council directed staff to red stripe F orrestal Drive from the current
gate to the end of the community center boundary. Staff now recommends the entire length of Forrestal
to be red-stripped. Affected homeowners may not be pleased with this more drastic step. We request
that the original painting directive be accomplished now.
Ample parking is available within the confines of the LL community center. Please have staff direct
trail parking there.
It should be clearly posted that no one should be in the preserve before sunrise or after sunset.
Environmental damage to the trails must be mitigated by a more closely controlled access. Online
reservation, a system that our city already utilizes for class sign ups, could allow for a finite number of
non resident trail users, protecting the unique Palos Verdes Peninsula flora and fauna.
The Forrestal gate should be closed at all times except for A YSO games. The committee disagrees
with staff re the need for a second gate on Forrestal. At the very least, allow the incremental step of
utilization of LL Community Center parking to be assessed before undertaking the costly idea of a
1 3
second gate.
Resident parking only should be posted on Pirate and Searaven Drive.
The measures mentioned above should be accomplished before the beginning of the soccer season.
These measures can be 'piloted' and evaluated over a period of time.
With these concerns addressed we look forward to working with the Council, Staff and homeowners in
building a wonderful new Community Center.
Respectfully.
Marty Faster
Sent from my iPad
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:28 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Access & Parking at Reserve
From: Hans H. Kuehl [mailto:kuehl@usc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 9:57 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Access & Parking at Reserve
Dear City Council,
I am a 50+ year resident of the Ladera Linda area. I am in accord with many of the members of the Ladera Linda Homeowners
Association in that the problems with the parking and access to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve can be alleviated by the
following:
1. Limit access to the Preserve by using the city's existing online registration system to require registration in order to
enter the Preserve. RPV residents would not be required to register but would need to show proof of residency. The currently
assigned sheriff's deputies and Preserve volunteers would spot check people in the Preserve to enforce registration. Non-
registrants would be given either warnings or citations.
2. Signs should be posted indicating that no one is allowed in the Preserve before sunrise or after sunset.
With regard to the Forrestal Drive entrance to the Preserve:
1.The Forrestal gate should be closed between sunset and sunrise.
2. Signs should be posted indicating no Preserve or AYSO parking on nearby residential streets, such as Pirate and
Sea raven. These signs have already been placed near the intersection of Forrestal and Pirate on weekends. Parking for
the Preserve would be available in the Ladera Linda parking lots.
3. There is no need for a second gate on Forrestal, as recommended in the staff report.
Sincerely,
Hans Kuehl
1 3.
From: fil9~CO ri@.<;QX. n ttt [ rn a i Ito ...:.gr;:i12e c;_QD.@_<::.925:.. net]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 4:55 PM
To: CC <.~~@illY:~.9..,£.Q.Y:>; Doug Willmore <J2.Wi.U.mg_rs:@J:pvca.ggy>; Parks <Park?.@ . ..rnvca,ggy>
Subject: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items #3 (attachment is the same as the text, just in case of formatting issues in the
email)
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
I am writing to you today in regards to the July 31, 2018 City Council meeting Regular Business Agenda Item 3 regarding staff
recommendations for preserve parking areas, specifically as they pertain to the Forrestal Reserve. In the interest offull
disclosure, I am a member of a committee authorized by the Ladera Linda HOA to work with the staff and city on the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park project, and associated traffic, safety, and parking concerns. However, the contents of this
letter do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the LLHOA -I am writing here as a private resident.
I do appreciate the work that staff has done to summarize the preserve areas, and various concerns and issues not only within
each area, but also with parking and traffic issues around these areas. That being said, I believe staff's recommendations for
the Forrestal area would benefit with some adjustment, in line with their alternative #2 on page 17 of the report. Below I
would like to state staff's recommendation, my proposed recommendation for your consideration, and justification for the
change.
Staff Recommendation (2)A.1: Red-stripe the curb along the entire length of Forrestal Drive before the Forrestal Drive gate
Proposed Recommendation (2)A.1: Red-stripe the curb on both sides of Forrestal Drive before the Forrestal Drive gate, down
to the Ladera Linda Park Boundary, implemented immediately. Continue red-stripping down to the bottom of Forrestal only
after discussions with the three residents on lower Forrestal Drive, and if they agree this is beneficial to them.
Justification (2)A.1: Red-striping all the way to the bottom, on both sides of the street, may have impacts on the 3 residents
living in the lower portion. Consult with them before striping in front of their properties. They may prefer permit parking, or
possibly no action in front of their homes, at this time. This discussion should not halt red-striping down to the park boundary
as an immediate action as previously recommended by the LLHOA and approved by the City Council in March.
Staff Recommendation (2)A.2: (a) Designate 28 parking spaces beyond the Forrestal Drive gate for Reserve Parking. (b)
Remove brush in the area beyond Forrestal Drive to accommodate the parking spaces. (c) Install a second gate on Forrestal
Drive (which staff proposes in the body of the report to place at Intrepid/ Main Sail Drive). (d) Open the Forrestal Drive gate
daily for Preserve parking.
Proposed Recommendation (2)A.2: Do none of the above. Instead, direct staff to immediately keep the current gate on
Forrestal Drive closed at all times except during active AYSO usage. Immediately begin directing trail users to park in the
Ladera Linda Community Center parking areas.
Justification (2)A.2: Staff has recommended adding a second gate at Intrepid/Mainsail drive, which would create an additional
100+ parallel parking spaces, and further propose the lower gate be open every day of the week. While they do not indicate a
cost for this second gate alone (it is grouped with other items), I believe it would be fair to say the gate would be a significant
portion of the $85,000 identified for several items. Currently, the Ladera Linda Community Center parking areas are very
underutilized, which is well documented by area residents. In their report, Staff has indicated they are not in favor of directing
traffic into the community center, as would be a temporary solution and would not be appropriate trail head parking after the
new park and community center are developed. While it may be true that after the construction of new park I community
center facilities, additional parking on Forrestal beyond the current gate may be needed, I propose there is no pressing need to
1 3
spend a large sum of money for a second gate at this present time. There is nothing wrong with utilizing a temporary, low
cost, available alternative while details of the park/ community center are still being hashed out.
Staff Recommendation (2)A.3: Establish permit-only parking area in the Ladera Linda neighborhood on Pirate Drive, Sea Raven
Drive, and Phantom Drive.
Proposed Recommendation (2)A.3: Establish permit-only parking area in the Ladera Linda neighborhood by posting signs at
the entrance to Pirate and Searaven.
Justification (2)A.3: There is likely not a need, at least at this time, to post permit-only signs along the entire stretch of
Sea raven and Phantom. Moreover, there is a lack of parkway strip between sidewalk and curb on these streets, making sign
placement problematic and perhaps objectional to residents living on those streets. I propose starting with signs at the
entrance to Pirate and Sea raven only, which saves cost and can be implemented immediately. If this is not effective, then
more signs further in could be added as needed and desired by the most directly affected residents on those streets.
Staff Recommendation (2)A.4: Direct Staff to take steps to work with PVPLC to remove the existing Pirate Trail head or
relocate it to the north, away from existing residential area.
Proposed Recommendation (2)A.4: Agree with staff recommendation.
Justification (2)A.4: N/ A (although it seems likely this may take a little longer to implement, as coordination with PVPLC will be
needed).
In addition to the above, I have the following comments regarding overall usage of the preserve areas. On page 2 of the staff
report, there is a statement that "the Preserve is comprised of 11 individual reserves totaling 1,400 acres of open space that
was purchased for the primary purpose of habitat and species conservation, as well as passive recreational use." It is
noteworthy that conservation is listed ahead of passive recreational use, and that active recreational use is not provided for at
all. Based on the recently published PVPLC Annual Report, it appears there is significant time and energy devoted to
identifying and closing "unauthorized" trails that visitors to the park are creating as they attempt to get off the "beaten path"
and away from other users.
I believe, in trying to solve some of the parking issues, staff is addressing the symptom and not the cause of the problem. The
real problem is that too many visitors are coming to the preserves and causing a variety of problems (creating authorized trails,
trash, graffiti, illegal fire rings, unauthorized night usage, etc.) that are not consistent with the primary goal of conservation.
To truly start solving these problems, the city should go to the root of the problem and start limiting usage of the preserves by
utilizing an on on line reservation system, which would require all users to get a pass valid for a designated day and/or block of
time (except that RPV residents would only need to show ID). Staff does discuss this option in their report, but indicate
implementation would have the following issues:
1. Staff indicates an effective system would require tight control of the perimeter, which is not practical in this
circumstance. I disagree that the perimeter needs tight control. Instead of trying to control the perimeter, just post
signs indicating an RPV ordinance number and fine if users are caught without a permit and not an RPV resident, then
use existing resources to spot check and issue citations to violators. Set the fine high enough to discourage
scofflaws. Numerous locations throughout the country operate in this fashion.
2. Staff cites "equal access concerns" if residents don't need to purchase a pass. I disagree. Right now, RPV residents are
paying huge costs to maintain the preserves, solve parking issues, provide enforcement, etc. It is certainly unfair under
the current situation for RPV residents to be bearing that entire burden. The online reservation system (with nominal
2
fee to offset costs of the system, enforcement, etc.), and allowance for residents to enter without a fee, levels the cost
and should not be construed as "preferential treatment" to residents.
3. Staff indicates that such a system could expose the City to liability in case of confrontations. If this is true, then that
says a lot about the type of people visiting our areas and, if this is really a significant issue, then all enforcement could
(and probably should) be handled by the trained law enforcement personnel already patrolling the preserves. If more
law enforcement personnel is required, then increase the cost of permit fees and fines to cover that cost. It is sad to
have to go in this direction, but if the concern staff raises is valid, then it cannot be simply used as a reason to not
implement rules and enforcement.
As a final comment, I believe an online reservation system would be a better solution citywide, and be much more effective
than costly and unsightly turnstile entrances and parking meter stations. If the residents of Del Cerro are strongly in favor of
the turnstiles and parking meters in their area, I would not oppose their wishes .... I just am not convinced that these "solutions"
address the cause of the problem and that, no matter what the cost of parking, there will always be plenty of people in the Los
Angeles area willing to come and pay very high rates.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of some of these recommendations and ideas.
Respectfully
Gary Randall
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:27 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
Comments for 7-31-18 CC Meeting Agenda Item #3.pdf
From: Al and Kathy Edgerton [mailto:alnkathye@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 5:09 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
Mayor Brooks and City Council Members,
Please see attached comments from the Del Cerro community regarding Agenda Item #3, PV Preserve Parking, for
the July 31, 2018, City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Kathy & Al Edgerton
Del Cerro
1 3.
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #3: PV Nature Preserve Parking
Honorable Mayor Brooks and Council Members,
Del Cerro residents are very grateful for your assistance in reducing the impacts of the
large number of visitors to the nature preserve over the last several years and your
continuing efforts to work with city residents to help maintain our quality of life.
We asked Del Cerro residents to provide their feedback to the recommendations and
other options discussed in the staff report for Agenda Item #3 for the City Council's
meeting next Tuesday. The comments below summarize the common themes in the
responses we received from the residents.
• Gate and Turnstile at Burma Rd. Preserve Entrance
We strongly support securing the Burma Rd. preserve entrance with a gate that
is locked at night to prevent access to the preserve after closing time. Our
residents who live adjacent to the preserve continue to be disturbed during late
night hours by the noise created by visitors. While residents often call the
Sheriff's Lomita Station when they hear the noise, it is understandably difficult for
deputies to catch intruders in a timely manner in such a large area of open
space. Preventing access after closing time would greatly improve the
neighborhood's peace and quiet as well as safety by restricting entrance of
possible intruders into residential backyards and visitors who might light a
campfire in the preserve.
The gate could also be used to restrict access when the preserve is closed after
rain occurs. Most visitors currently ignore the banners that are placed at the
entrance to indicate when the preserve is closed to prevent damage to the
preserve.
A turnstile to allow a means for visitors to exit after the gate is closed is a
reasonable adjunct to the gate. However, the approach would need to
accommodate cyclists' bikes, baby strollers, and possibly an occasional horse
rider -at this gate or at a nearby exit.
• Online Reservation System
We also strongly support establishing an online reservation system to control
access and limit usage levels. Currently, the number of visitors who want to enter
the preserve at the Burma Rd. trail head far exceeds the number of available
parking spaces. As a result, visitors wait in the street until a parking space
becomes available, impeding traffic. Establishing the number of reservations for
the Burma Rd. entrance that is consistent with the available parking in the area
1
would greatly reduce this problem. We feel this approach is, by far, the one that
is most likely to enable the city to adequately control the number of visitors.
Limiting the number of entrants throughout the preserve would also reduce the
damage to the natural habitat that the Land Conservancy works diligently to
restore and maintain.
A reservation system could probably be limited to weekends and holidays at this
time. Charging for entrance passes is reasonable to help cover enforcement
costs but we would hope that Palos Verdes residents would be able to obtain
reservations at no charge.
• Prohibit Parking on Crenshaw Blvd. after Park/Preserve Hours
We also request that parking on Crenshaw Blvd. between Seacrest and Crest
Rd. be restricted to the hours when Del Cerro Park and the nature preserve are
open.
The city might consider allowing guest parking at night by permit for Park Place
residents' use.
• Open Entrances on PV Drive South and at City Hall
Del Cerro asks that the council re-consider establishing a main entrance to the
preserve off PV Drive South. There is ample space to provide parking and other
amenities that are not immediately adjacent to residents.
In addition, a significant entrance with parking and amenities should be
established at City Hall.
• Shuttle System
Del Cerro residents do not support using a shuttle system to bring people to the
Burma Rd. entrance. It is not likely that doing so would reduce the number of
people who would park up here. The demand for parking is infinitely greater than
the supply of parking spaces, so the available parking spaces will continue to be
filled. We cannot support bringing in more visitors by shuttle before the current
level of visitors is under control. In addition, the people who gather in the area
while awaiting a shuttle's arrival would undoubtedly increase noise levels and
they would not have access to needed amenities.
2
• Parking Pay Stations
We do not support parking pay stations as they detract from the semi-rural
ambience of the area and make the area appear more like a commercial zone. In
addition, they are not likely to be as effective as a reservation system in
controlling the number of people who visit the preserve.
• Land Conservancy Events
Lastly, when the Land Conservancy holds trail work, weed-pulling, or planting
events or sets up information booths to provide information to visitors, volunteers
often gather just inside the gate at Burma Rd. We would ask that the City
encourage the Land Conservancy volunteers to gather in Del Cerro Park rather
than at the trail head which abuts residents' back yards.
We sincerely thank the Council for your continued efforts on our behalf.
Kathy & Al Edgerton
Del Cerro
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 11:15 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items 3
LLHOAParking20180731.pdf
From: Donald Bell [mailto:dwbrpv@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 11:14 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; info@pvplc.org; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Parks <Parks@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Donald Bell <dwbrpv@gmail.com>
Subject: July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Items 3
1 3.
In Reference to the July 31, 2018 Council Agenda Regular Business Item 3
Good Evening Council Members,
My name is Donald Bell and I live at 3571 Vigilance Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I wish to personally reflect on the Staff report conclusions and recommendations.
First, at the March 20 Council Meeting staff was directed to take action based on repeated
Neighborhood complaints concerning parking and traffic issues at the Forrestal/Pirate
intersection. Staff took no apparent action aside from several signs that finally appeared in
June which are basically ignored and are placed too late in the day to do any good. Staff also
began to open the Forrestal gate which was not requested. The request to red line to no
parking a portion of Forrestal below the existing gate was ignored. How does a request for
action get turned into a wide ranging report?
Second, I believe the Staff report is incomplete and fails to directly address the impacts of
existence of the Preserve on the "habitat" of the neighborhoods that adjoin the Preserve.
The Preserve visitors are cause of major issues of parking, noise, and personal stress that
externally impacts the neighboring community. Unfortunately, all of these issues with no staff
solution have allowed the Preserve at several entrances to become the toxic "neighbor from
hell".
The City and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy have recognized the need to control
visitor behavior within the Preserve and there are enforcement patrols within the Preserve
boundaries. PVPLC staff have been active in working toward solutions to mitigate visitor
behaviors within the Preserve.
More needs to be done to control behavior of visitors outside the Preserve boundaries. At the
Pirate Trailhead and other Preserve access points along Forrestal we need immediate action
before September 1 when major AYSO use will commence.
Again, I plead, please have both sides of Forrestal red lined from below the Forrestal Gate
to a point at the Southeast corner of the Ladera Linda Park. Why is this so hard?
Direct all parking into the Ladera Linda Community Lots. There is plenty of immediately
available parking. Adding signs at Pirate and Searaven advising permit parking is enforced
will alleviate a potential problem.
The Forrestal gate should be closed 24x7 except for AYSO activities. The gate is there
because of risky behaviors by past visitors involving smoking, trash dumping, drug and
alcohol consumption and overnight camping.
There should be no visitors in the preserve before sunrise or after sunset. Early arrival and
late departure at Forrestal (and Del Cerro?) is a noise disturbance of residents.
These simple steps are easy to accomplish, have minimal financial impact or planning
requirements, and directives could be completed in a day if Staff would act.
I believe it is time for key players to address the negative impact visitors to the Preserve are
having on parts of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Preserve is unquestionably a treasure and it
must be protected. How that happens has to be a priority. Just addressing parking this
evening is simply applying a band aid rather than identifying the problem and seeking its
solution.
I recommend as a first step toward a solution that the existing Parks and Recreation software
program (that is used for classes registration) be modified to generate a controlled visitor
advance entry reservation system for Preserve access. This would initially be for a few specific
entry locations. Decisions have to be made as to how many visitors can be allowed into each
major entry based upon the carrying capacity of parking in each neighborhood (Burma Road,
Rattlesnake, Pirate, and Fossil) per hour, per day of the week, etc. A visitor permit enforcement
concept will have to be created.
A reservation system for access into the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve cannot be an
impossible task for National, State, and Local Parks across the country make it work. Yes,
everyone who wants access will not be satisfied immediately. The Preserve will remain open
and a source of enjoyment for those who plan in advance. The free-for-all has to end.
I believe City Council must issue a directive to have a visitor reservation process immediately
implemented. The directive must also require PVPLC, impacted neighborhood HOA's
(included but not limited to Del Cerro, Island View, Abalone Cove, Seaview, Ladera Linda,
Mediterranea, Ocean Terrace, Oceanfront Estates), and staff to jointly participate in the process
and report progress in three months (November 1, 2018).
Respectfully,
Don Bell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:27 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Palos Verdes Nature Reserve
From: Barbara Fujita [mailto:hotputtin@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 6:50 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Palos Verdes Nature Reserve
To whom it may concern:
I am a resident in the Ladera Linda area.
I wish to express my support for the recommendations of the Ladera Linda Home Owners Association regarding the
improvements planned for the Palos Verdes Nature Reserve and open spaces.
Regards,
Barbara Fujita
3440 Gulfcrest Drive
RPV, CA 90275
Sent from my iPhone
3
'
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
From: Doug Willmore
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:33 AM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: July 31 City Council Meeting Item 3 Regular Business
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 3:59 PM
To: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: July 31 City Council Meeting Item 3 Regular Business
Herb,
As always, thank you for your thoughts and ideas. Question: did you read page 6 and 7 in the staff report wherein we
recommend a reservation system (assuming it can be legally implemented)?
Doug
From: Herb Stark [mailto:pt17stearman@grnail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 3:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <Q!ynfil.@J::pvca:EQ.Y.>
Subject: July 31 City Council Meeting Item 3 Regular Business
I am writing this in response to the agenda item 3 under Regular Business for the July 31st city council
meeting and requesting that the City Council direct staff to modify staff's report and recommendations
regarding items listed below.
I believe it in some cases the recommendations exacerbates the negative impacts on the neighborhoods
that adjoin the Preserve. Further the City Council should direct staff to work with the adjacent HOA's to
reach an agreement before coming to the City Council for approval.
My comments are as follows:
A. Forrestal Reserve: Implement the following measures identified at the March 20, 2018 City
Council Meeting:
1. Red-stripe the curb along the entire length of Forrestal Drive before the Forrestal Drive gate;
I agree with staff that Forrestal should be no parking from the Forrestal gate the end of the park
property but not as staff proposes all the way down to PV Drive South (unless the three residents on
Forrestal Drive in the lower portion agree).
2. Establish the following beyond the Forrestal Drive gate for Forrestal Reserve parking:
1 3 a. Designate 28 parking spaces beyond the Forrestal Drive gate for Reserve Parking.
.
I have no problem with creating the 28 parking spaces provided there is a locked gate just above the
spaces. A more appropriate approach to trailhead parking would be to direct parking into the Community
Center parking lot.
b. Remove brush in the area beyond Forrestal Drive to accommodate the parking spaces.
See response to item a
c. Install a second gate at the intersection of Forrestal Drive and Intrepid Drive.
This will only increase the use of the Forrestal trailhead into the preserve and should be rejected. A
second gate at Forrestal Drive and Intrepid Drive (Main Sail Dr.) will open up close to 100 preserve parking
places (parallel parking) with the related traffic issues on Forrestal and at the intersection with PV Drive
South.
d. Open the Forrestal Drive gate daily for Preserve parking.
This recommendation should be rejected outright. As pointed out in the answer to item c, this would open
up a minimum of 100 parking spaces and create a traffic nightmare on Forrestal Drive. It would also open
up the preserve to trash dumping which was one of the reasons for the gate in the first place. This would
only work if a second gate is placed just above the 28 parking places and only opened for A YSO games.
If the second gate is in place then the original gate can be opened from sunrise to sunset for trailhead
parking.
3. Establish permit-only parking area in the Ladera Linda neighborhood on Pirate Drive, Sea Raven
Drive, and Phantom Drive.
I agree with staff but that only parking on Pirate and Searaven should be restricted with signs posted at the
entrance of Pirate and Searaven. This should be done at the same time that Forrestal is made no parking.
4. Direct Staff to take steps to work with PVPLC to remove the existing Pirate Trail head or relocate
it to the north, away from existing residential area.
I agree with this recommendation as it has been a nuisance to the residents next to the trailhead.
Finally in the report there is a fundamental philosophical problem. Although the report states that the
priority of the preserve is conservation of habitat and species as well as passive recreational use it puts
recreational use ahead of habitat and species conservation. It tries to solve the symptom (parking) rather
than the over use of the preserve. If we are really trying preserve the habitat we need to control the
number of visitors in the preserve.
This could be accomplished using the already existing city online reservation system by requiring visitors to
obtain a visitors day pass to enter the preserve. I strongly disagree with staff that it would require
additional staffing to inforce the registration. Existing staff could spot check visitors and issue citations for
those without registration slips. Resident would only have to show proof of residency. This system would
be independent of the number of preserve entry points.
As it stands now the city does not have any idea who is entering the preserve. Groups appear at all hours
and times. Just this last week a group of 81 was at the Forrestal gate for a night hike. I thought the
preserve was closed one hour after sundown? So much for control. The reservation system would put an
end to this.
2
Herb Stark
Ladera Linda Resident
31 0-5416646
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melanie Streitfeld <brmstreitfeld@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 8:25 AM
PublicWorks; CC
Closure of Del Cerro Parking Lot
Please don't close off the Del Cerro parking lot. I have been an RPV resident for 35+ years and I love going to the park and walking on
the trail below. I cannot walk there from my house. Parking has become difficult already as I have family who like to come and visit the
park but cannot walk far. Parking on Crenshaw or Crest Rd. isn't ideal since finding a spot has become difficult. As a resident I pay
taxes to be able to use the park and Del Cerro is the closest park to my home.
Melanie Streitfeld
5330 Middlecrest Rd.
1 4.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Heather Fattahi < heatherfattahi@gmail.com >
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 8:29 AM
cc
Please keep the Del Cerro Parking Lot
I am writing the City Council to express my opposition to closing the parking lot at Del Cerro park. This
decision most negatively affects park visitors who are elderly, and disabled and those who are unable to walk or
hike long distances to enter the public park grounds.
Eliminating the parking lot and nearby street parking will essentially turn a public park into a private one. I find
the decision abhorrent.
Please reconsider this decision, and keep the parking lot at Del Cerro park, so that the park can continue to be
enjoyed by the residents you represent.
Thank you.
Heather Fattahi
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
the bennetts <llijbennett@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:00 AM
cc
Del Cerro Parking
As a landlord in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I feel that the parking should NOT be eliminated!
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ian Bisco <ianbisco@cox.net>
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 8:55 AM
cc
PublicWorks
Closing of Parking at Del Cerro
Closing of Parking at Del Cerro
This is an absolutely ridiculous proposal and obviously suggested by some influential
person living near the park there.
Del Cerro park is a wonderful opportunity for all to enjoy a brief walk and fantastic
view over the ocean to Catalina. Its a popular spot for family pictures and wedding
groups now too.
There are often families with young children sitting and playing, picnicking on the
grass park up there, why would you want to take this away?
I agree parking is limited and at weekends in big demand but why take this away,
don't most parks suffer similar problems. No I would vote to add a few more parking
spots not close them.
In addition I would like to thank you for providing a concrete walking path around the
top of the park too. It allows people with wheel chairs or walking issues to have an
easier time. Only a while ago before this improvement I had to assist a gent in a wheel
chair who had got one of his wheels stuck in a rain rut on the old path.
PLEASE KEEP DEL CERRO PARKING
OPEN!
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Praveen Gattu <pgattu@gmail.com>
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:29 AM
PublicWorks; CC
Parking spaces at Del Cerro park
To the officials of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
I am writing to express my opposition to the closing of parking spaces at Del Cerro park. Parks should be
public and not exclusive to a neighborhood. Del Cerro park is a landmark of Rancho Palos Verdes, and
showcases the beautiful views the city has to offer. When visitors can experience such beautiful views, they
desire this area, which appreciates our home prices. Please keep the parking spaces open and keep the parks
accessible to the public.
--Praveen Gattu
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marcia Watanabe <marcialwatanabe@gmail.com>
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:43 AM
cc
Del Cerro park
I understand RPV plans to close the parking lot at Del Cerro Park.
I am opposed to this plan. Please do not close it.
Marcia Watanabe
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
patrick rayner < patrickrayner@hotmail.com >
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 1:09 PM
PublicWorks; CC
DelCerro Parking
I'm opposed to the reduction in parking spots at Del cerro park. I'm an RPV resident/home owner for
three years and I feel inconvenienced by the reduced parking spaces and the sticker requirement to
park near our outdoor space.
The sticker is bad enough. As a resident/homeowner I was denied a sticker even though I showed a
mortgage statement and utility bill. Reason I was denied is because my COL still reflects Redondo
beach address. I'll pass on waiting at OMV to renew a COL to get a sticker!!! (Even though I frequent
Del cerro)
Please don't further reduce parking spots!
Thanks
Patrick
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steven Barryte <sebarryte@cox.net>
Thursday, July 26, 2018 12:54 AM
PublicWorks; CC
Please do not reduce parking at Del Cerro Park
Please do not reduce parking at Del Cerro Park. The park almost certainly was there before the residents who want the
change. This is a public park. The public deserves reasonable access.
-Steven Barryte
7010 Starstone Dr
RPV 90275
1 J-1 .
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kathy Christie < kmariechristie@gmail.com >
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:10 PM
PublicWorks; CC
Parking lot at Del Cerro Park
Dear RPV City Council & Public Works Department,
I'm writing you about Del Cerro Park as a concerned citizen of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I'm sad to hear that you plan to close the parking lot at Del Cerro Park. Our beautiful parks are public resources
that should be open to all. Closing the parking lot at this park will make it either difficult or impossible for
many people to enjoy this great park while getting exercise and enjoying each other's company. In particular, it
will make it tougher for seniors and families with young children if they have to park far from the park.
I live at the bottom of Hesse Park. It often gets crowded, especially on weekends. I rejoice when I see this. I'm
thrilled that people of all ages are able to enjoy the park for exercise, outdoor movie nights, meetings and so
much more. The park existed long before I moved into my house, so I knew what I was getting into when I
moved here. I am grateful to live near such a great space.
It sounds like some of the people who live near Del Cerro Park don't share my enthusiasm for having a park
nearby that so many people enjoy. I hope that you consider the pleas of people who don't live right next to Del
Cerro Park when you decide on the parking situation.
I will be out of state during the next City Council meeting, so I won't be able to stand up and state these views
at the meeting. Thank you in advance for taking my email into account as you make your decision.
-Kathy
Kathy Christie
6851 Faircove Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
url: www.katlwchristie.com
cell: 818.383.9283
1
1-f .
From:
Sent:
To:
Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com>
Thursday, July 26, 2018 7:27 AM
cc
Subject: Removal of Del Cerro Park parking
Good morning Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic, and Councilmembers Alegria, Cruikshank
and Dyda,
Regarding the item on the July 31 City Council Agenda to consider the award of a construction
contract for the removal of parking at Del Cerro Park, please reject this proposal to spend $68, 193 on
removal of the Park's parking.
I grew up near Del Cerro Park. I recall that RPV went to great lengths to minimize the use of the park
in order to ensure that Park Place residents were not impacted by high noise levels and activity
associated with a high-use park. No restrooms were installed; no children's play apparatus; just
grass and some trees. As a result, the Park has been lightly used as such, but it is still used. Among
other things, the Park is a donor recognition site for PV Nature Preserve supporters, with paths to a
wonderful overlook. As recently as Oct 2015, the Parks Master Plan recommended the addition of
picnic tables and bench amenities to the Park. The parking should be retained as a necessary
component of the Park.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that we should endeavor to lessen high noise impacts in the vicinity of
homes; we should especially endeavor to ensure quiet enjoyment after hours as many of our
ordinances are designed to do. As is so often the case, enforcement is the big issue.
I note that the staff report from May 16, 2017 regarding Park Place residents' complaints indicates
that the issues are primarily illegal activity. Here is a pertinent excerpt from that staff report:
With the ever ii\creasing den1and to access the Proscrve, lraffic c'1culatltn and parking
continues. lo 00 a challerigo for the residents w110 live in tt1e aret~ ThfJ Issues include:
• tMJ" \our cuse& lhat lron;port woups of people to the Preser;e and illegally
park on Crenshaw Boulevard or Pat\ Pla<;e
' Vuhidns i!legalty parking ln the red zone, on s~Jewalks <>r in fa.mt of r~sidentia1
dnvtways
• Nigh!-t:1ni.1 use of Del Cena Park and the Preserve
1
Note that each of those issues is a matter of enforcement. We have ordinances (or in the case of
large groups are working on one) to address those issues, if only we had enforcement. Taking away
the parking spaces for the Park is not going to prevent people from parking illegally or from nighttime
use of the Park and the Preserve.
Please reconsider your decision to remove the parking for Del Cerro Park.
Eva Cicoria
2
From: Jerry Haber < honesthabe@gmail.com >
Thursday, July 26, 2018 8:07 AM
PublicWorks; CC
Sent:
To:
Subject: Parking forr Del Cerro Park
We appreciate your efforts to ensure public safety and protect the interests of the residents in the immediate
vicinity of Del Cerro Park.
We are, however, extremely concerned about the impact on the rest of the community.
1. Del Cerro Park and the adjacent reserves is a public resource. Access to this is the right of the
community. At a minimum this must include the residents of our city. I suspect the legal requirement
also extends to legal visitors to our community.
2. Access to this resource became challenging as these trails became widely known.
3. Limitation of on-street parking made access even more difficult; as a long time resident, my wife and I
have found that our ability to enjoy the trails as gone from being able to arrive and hike to finding about
40% of the time we arrive only to find no parking.
4. Closure of the parking will further restrict our ability to hike here.
5. We encourage the you to consider the needs of the citizens ofRPV and not just the immediate
neighborhood by considering a broad spectrum of solutions.
1. Possibilities include:
• Arrangements with St. John's Church to use their parking at designated times
• Arrangements with the School District to use parking at Rancho Del Mar School
• Remote parking (Peninsula Shopping Center?) with a low fee shuttle between the remote
site and Del Cerro
• I am sure that there are numerous other creative, no or low-cost solutions that can be
implemented to address the needs of the RPV community at large in addition to the
specialized needs of the residents adjacent to Del Cerro Park. Please explore these
alternatives and maintain community access to this wonderful resource.
Thank you for your consideration of alternative that will support the whole community.
Jerry Haber
1
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:27 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW: Del Cerro parking
-----Original Message-----
From: john gil-gomez [mailto:john.gilgomez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 6:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Del Cerro parking
Dear RPV City Council,
I am a RPV home owner.
I've been told there is a plan to further restrict parking at Del Cerro Park. Possibly by removing the parking spaces in the Park.
I've been a weekend visitor to the park for decades. I've seen how the parking situation has changed in recent years.
I am not pleased with the changes. If I were a neighboring home owner I would almost certainly be very displeased.
I'm not sure there is a solution to the problem. I do not see further restricting the parking as a viable solution to the problem.
In fact it is more likely to cause more people to circle around the neighborhood or find interesting places to park thus causing
more problems.
On a related topic, I live near what is called Grand View Park off Montemalaga Dr. I've occasionally heard of proposals to
improve the park.
Del Cerro shows what happens where a area becomes popular. The local neighborhood is even less well suited for a mass of
visitors.
Improving the park is just ask for a new problem.
As I walk through the park I see the lot at the end of Via La Cuesta (in PVE I think) is for sale. Will access be maintained from
the part to the road?
Thank you for your consideration.
John Gil-Gomez
26303 Grayslake Rd.
RPV
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jenny Hong <jxhuang@gmail.com>
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 5:21 PM
Gabriella Yap
Elias Sassoon; CC
Re: Closing of Del Cerro parking lot
This is a situation where there is uneven interest. There are three homeowners who stand to gain millions from
the closure of this parking lot, compared to the over 8,000 people who visit Del Cerro and the trailhead
(numbers based on your own report), the vast majority of whom are only able to visit occasionally. It should be
obvious to the city council that the loss of these parking spots would impact the thousands that visit this area,
but that any one of those individuals is not going to actively read city council agendas to stay on top of this
issue. Of course, for the three homeowners, they have every incentive to participate in all these meetings. A
simple survey by the city, which could be sent out in minutes electronically, would show you where public
opinion lies on this issue, but of course the city didn't do that.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Dear Ms. Hong,
I want to make clear that the City is extremely transparent and that City Council meetings are public meetings and the
public is welcome to speak. The agenda is published a week in advance and posted on our website, as well as sent to
our listserv, and posted in public locations. The fact that only residents of Del Cerro spoke just means that they were
the only ones interested enough to come out and speak, not that the City didn't solicit the views of others. Everyone
has an equal opportunity to speak and be heard if they're willing to take the time.
Sincerely,
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544°5203 (office)
(310) 544-5291 (fax)
1 4.
From: Jenny Hong [mailto:jxhuang@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 1:16 PM
To: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Closing of Del Cerro parking lot
Thank you. On the website, there is no link to the minutes for April 3: http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-
Meeting-Video-and-Agendas.
It appears that only residents of Del Cerro appeared to speak. Not surprisingly, they all spoke in favor of
keeping Del Cerro Park to themselves. No evidence that the city solicited views of people who were not
residents of Del Cerro.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1 :05 PM, Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Dear Ms. Hong,
In response to your question about the minutes, the item is covered on page 8 at the following link:
http:// d ocu me nts. rpvca .gov /Web Lin k/DocView .a spx? id =64 781&sea rch id=e09c8f25-6fdc-4a 56-8b8d-
82c5196e5781&d bid=O
There were many meetings regarding Del Cerro and it appears you may be referring to the minutes from a prior May
16, 2017, meeting.
Thank you.
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
2
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5203 (office)
(310) 544-5291 (fax)
From: Elias Sassoon
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 12:55 PM
To: 'Jenny Hong' <jxhuang@gmail.com>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Closing of Del Cerro parking lot
Hi:
What this means is that the City Council will receive a copy of your email prior to taking any action. The City Council
considered this item on April 3rc1, 2018 mtg previously.
Pis call me if you have any further question.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Tel: 310-544-5335
3
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: Jenny Hong [mailto:jxhuang@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 12:41 PM
To: Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Closing of Del Cerro parking lot
What does that mean? And do you have a response? Where is the approval for the removal of these parking
spots documented in the city records?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi:
Thanks for your email.
Please note that this email will be included as part of "Late Correspondence" for this item.
Regards,
Elias K. Sassoon, Director
Department of Public Works
Ci):y of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
4
Tel: 310-544-5335
Fax: 310-544-5292
From: Jenny Hong [mailto:jxhuang@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 11:24 AM
To: PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Closing of Del Cerro parking lot
To whom it may concern:
I am deeply concerned about the closing of the Del Cerro parking lot. Why was this decision made with so
little public input, at the request of 3 homeowners who knowingly bought homes across from parking
spaces?
You have stated in more recent city documents that this action was approved at the April 3
meeting. However, a review of the April 3 meeting minutes gives no indication to the public that this option
was selected:
http://rpv.granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view id=5&event id=1254&meta id=53666
The minutes merely state that "Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Dyda to receive and
file the Del Cerro Park parking issues update."
Based on these minutes, a concerned public citizen would have no idea that on April 3, you approved
removing 16 public parking spaces for the benefit of 3 homeowners. This lack of transparency is very
troubling.
Sincerely,
5
Jenny Hong
6